News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We can do better than “same, but electric” by Shared404 on Monday March 28, 2022 @11:38PM (#30838486)
To my layperson self, it seems like that would be a bad idea.

We know how to secure a reactor on land, but the sea is a big, dangerous place - and it's only a matter of time before some cost cutting idiot blows up a ship because they wanted a bigger bonus.

Re:We can do better than “same, but electric” by yellowapple on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @12:18AM (#30838722)
Nuclear reactors are arguably a lot safer (in terms of meltdown risk) on the ocean than they already are on land, seeing as how they're in ships that float on a giant planet-wide heatsink that also happens to be exceptionally good at confining radiation.

The more pertinent risk would be piracy and the like; if thorium ever catches on, it'd probably help make that less of an issue.

Re:We can do better than “same, but electric” by Swizec on Monday March 28, 2022 @11:41PM (#30838506)
We already have nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. The popular joke is that all military/navy/etc equipment is built by the lowest bidder.

On the bright side: if a nuclear reactor melts down in the middle of the ocean, there’s basically nothing around to be inconvenienced by that event.

Re:We can do better than “same, but electric” by l33t2328 on Monday March 28, 2022 @11:47PM (#30838530)
Those nuclear aircraft carriers have a bit more military protection than an arbitrary nuclear cargo ship will.
Re:We can do better than “same, but electric” by bronson on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @12:05AM (#30838651)
And a sliiightly bigger budget, both construction and maintenance.