Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by stevenjohns on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @11:13PM
(#19438585)
Forgive my ignorance, but couldn't nuclear power be used to generate electricity on these tankers in the same way its used to power submarines?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by Someone1234 on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @11:17PM
(#19438603)
Nobody sane would give civilians in a poorly regulated sector nuclear fuel and expect them to operate a generator safely.
It is even debatable if the US using nuclear power on their subs/warships is wise. It is great for natural disasters relief (mobile power plant) but terrifying if the US ever loses one.
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by mikeash on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @11:18PM
(#19438610)
The US has lost several, as have the Soviets and Russians.
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by arcticbull on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @11:35PM
(#19438685)
92 lost nuclear warheads including one near Seattle/Vancouver, one near New York and one near Miami (https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bom...)
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by mikeash on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @11:38AM
(#19443263)
It's worth noting that, as long as they don't explode (or get stolen), a lost nuclear warhead is pretty benign. They contain a relatively small amount (a few dozen pounds) of low-activity nuclear material and it all tends to stay together.
A reactor contains way more material, probably several tons at least. If it's been operating, it contains lots of nasty, highly-radioactive fission and decay products. Reactors also like to go all melty and sometimes (non-nuclear) explodey when they fail, although I suspect that's less of a factor when it's underwater.
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by austincheney on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @12:42AM
(#19439060)
Just for clarification its not anywhere near Miami (that is a small map graphic). It is right off the coast of Savannah, GA. There have been numerous books written about it and there is a wikipedia page about it.
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by arcticbull on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @01:46AM
(#19439362)
Yep, you're absolutely right. I'd heard about the other two, I just assumed the third even though it’s listed in my link X_x
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by Someone1234 on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @11:25PM
(#19438641)
You're right[0]. Terrifying.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#Accidents_involvi...
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by mikeash on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @11:30AM
(#19443172)
If you must dump an operating nuclear reactor somewhere with no supervision, at least the deep ocean is a pretty good place to do it. I mean, far better not to do it at all, but it could be worse....
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by bitxbitxbitcoin on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @12:06AM
(#19438871)
Yes it can. Check out the Russian Sevmorput.[1] It is the only active nuclear powered merchant ship in the world.
Re:China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do
by nradov on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @11:22PM
(#19438626)
Nuclear power plants on land could be used to generate power for producing synthetic hydrocarbons, which would in turn be used for powering ships. But putting nuclear reactors on merchant ships is totally impractical for security reasons.