Nuclear cruise ships.

[isujim]

Wraithe

 

Appreciate the facts!

[madforcruising]

1) There have been two US nukes lost at sea, Thresher and Scorpion, neither due to the nuclear power plant, I'm not quibbling here, Thresher probably had an engine room problem, but it wasn't the nuke plant that caused her loss. That said, they are both regularly checked for radiation or fission product leakage, and nothing has ever been recorded about either ship leaking anything nuclear.

 

2) Power plants are designed for the life they are going to see. Older naval nuke plants were designed to be refueled since the plants couldn't last that long. Now, due to technological progress, the power plants last longer and the ships useful life isn't as long, so the plant is designed to go for the life of the ship, and never be refueled. It wouldn't be hard to design a power plant that would only last for 12 years with an expected useful life of 10 if that's what the customer wanted. Advantage: the reactor would be smaller.

 

3) Kennedy was an oil fired carrier, not nuclear, and wasn't a Nimitz class ship, we have not decommed a nuclear aircraft carrier, Enterprise is the first and is still steaming. We have decommed many submarines, cruisers, and prototypes. If we weren't so silly about one use fuel process, we could do like the French (and Germans) and reclaim good fuel from spent fuel rods and make the remaining waste much smaller by volumer and radioactive for a much shorter time. Thanks to Jimmy Carter, our only nuclear trained president, we don't have breeder reactors or fuel reclamation, or the SST, or a lot of other things, and he still won't shut up. Oops, sorry for the rant.

 

4) FWIW, the radiation dose that I received while operating power plants is probably significantly less than what the average person receives from natural objects. Cigarettes for instance, smoking a pack a day gives 5 Rem alpha radiation directly to the lungs over the couse of a year. Many rocks are natural radiation emitters, so living on a rocky mountain top may be beautiful, but fill your basement with radon, and leave traces of radioactive materials and gas in that spring you drink out of on the mountain trail. Would that stop me from living on a mountain, or drinking from the stream, not a chance, but I'd check for radon and mitigate it if I found it, I wouldn't make the steam my only source of water until I tested it. Don't let a little knowledge be dangerous, learn as much as you can and nuke power isn't scary at all.

 

Not arguing anything you said and I know about the natural radiation, however I´d like to ad one point and that is received radiation adds up during ones lifetime and yes we all are exposed from radiation. An transatlantic flight exposes you to higher radiation then a lung X-Ray.

As Radiation adds up during lifetime the Radiation you received might be less than what we all receive but you receive the same natural radiation as all of us and the radiation you receive from nuclear power plant adds up to this. It´s the same for me working with X-Rays on a daily basis.

 

While nuklear power doesn´t scare me, I still think it´s dangerous. While not close to Tschernobyl the radioactive fallout was all over Europe and I remember quite well the amount of radiation we got here.

 

It´s fine as long nothing happens and major failures and accidents are few, however it´s still dangerous and there´s still no real concept on safely get rid of the waste.

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

Adam Goldstein, brand president of Royal Caribbean told us this week during the "Common Grounds" meeting on Liberty of the Seas that RCI is making advances in fuel use. The new Freedom class of ships uses no more fuel than the Radiance class uses. That is pretty remarkable.

 

Goldstein said RCI is always seeking out the latest fuel-efficiency technology because fuel costs are a major concern to the cruise industry.

 

I'm thinking if the Genesis could somehow hold the line at the same level as Freedom class ships, that would be a major achievement. Not saying that can happen. What I am saying is if improvements continue, maybe nuclear powered cruise ships would not be a necessity.

 

The OP's question does bring up other questions. What about solar and wind? A solar panel array on a ship (would mean a major design change) could power at least some of the needs of the ship. And wind turbines could help although they might be much harder to build into a ship.

 

And even simple changes could help. Why is RCI still using old fashioned light bulbs, for example? The initial investment is larger, but if RCI would replace every light bulb that burns out with a newer energy efficient and longer lasting bulb, that would have to make at least a small dent in power consumption. Just think how many light bulbs are on a Freedom class ship!

 

Anyway, this entire thread has been very enlightening and informative. We have so many knowledgeable people here at CC.

[madforcruising]

Adam Goldstein, brand president of Royal Caribbean told us this week during the "Common Grounds" meeting on Liberty of the Seas that RCI is making advances in fuel use. The new Freedom class of ships uses no more fuel than the Radiance class uses. That is pretty remarkable.

 

Goldstein said RCI is always seeking out the latest fuel-efficiency technology because fuel costs are a major concern to the cruise industry.

 

I'm thinking if the Genesis could somehow hold the line at the same level as Freedom class ships, that would be a major achievement. Not saying that can happen. What I am saying is if improvements continue, maybe nuclear powered cruise ships would not be a necessity.

 

The OP's question does bring up other questions. What about solar and wind? A solar panel array on a ship (would mean a major design change) could power at least some of the needs of the ship. And wind turbines could help although they might be much harder to build into a ship.

 

And even simple changes could help. Why is RCI still using old fashioned light bulbs, for example? The initial investment is larger, but if RCI would replace every light bulb that burns out with a newer energy efficient and longer lasting bulb, that would have to make at least a small dent in power consumption. Just think how many light bulbs are on a Freedom class ship!

 

Anyway, this entire thread has been very enlightening and informative. We have so many knowledgeable people here at CC.

 

 

Well I guess solar might be difficult because of lack of space to put those solar panels up.

But wind is possible already, there have been studies already using skyrails (big Kites) to "sail" a ship.

 

 

Here´s a website on this

http://skysails.info/index.php?L=1

[vaccardi]

Wraithe,

 

Wow, your comments are some of the most intelligent I have heard for a long time relating to nuclear power recently, and not just for shipboard power plants.

 

While I agree with you that they probably not viable right now for commercial propulsion, if the technology does advance over the next 5-10 years because the of the need to develop alternate fuels, then a viable alternative could develop.

 

It is not talked about, but burning carbon based fuels produces much greater pollution than a nuclear vessel would ever produce. It is just not as concentrated.

 

Finally, if in the Captains Corner you might hear some snickers, but watch the chief engineers face. They probably have the best understanding of the situation and would be foolish to totally discount the idea. And the response of the hotel manager is probably a nervous snicker, as he probably has the same fear as most (although misinformed.)

 

I am enjoying this conversation immensely. Thanks to all.

[Joedog]

In answer to the Op's original question, yes I would sail on a nuclear powered cruise ship.

 

Of course, I have already spent 5 years sailing on two different nuclear powered US Navy air craft carriers and another 10 plus years repairing various US Navy nuclear powered surface ships and submarines so I don't have any fear of nuclear power.

 

As far as other topics brought up on this thread goes....... yes I would assume that any nuclear powered cruise ship would have an increased risk for a terrorist attack, but not for the idea that the terrorists could in any way shape or form get access to any nuclear material to be used to make nuclear bombs. There is absolutely no way they could do that without taking the ship to a shipyard specialized for that kind of work. You cant just walk into a nuclear reactor and grab a handful of radioactive material. The increased risk for attack would be because of the increased publicity they would receive for attacking something so controversial.

 

....and I dont think that any cruise line will ever build a nuclear powered ship because of a lot of factors including cost, manning issues, lack of ports that allow access to nuclear powered ships and most importantly public bias against and fear of nuclear power in general.

 

Better to just concentrate on alternative energy sources and better fuel economy.

[wraithe]

Thinking back and reviewing what you said -- you are absolutely 100% right -- and I stand corrected.

 

Given a West Point "upbringing", I guess I should keep my mouth shut when it comes to Navy stuff, ya think?

 

Do I get a "rim shot" at least re: the Thresher? :)

 

LOL, I'd say it was a swish, still got the basket. The experimental reactor in Idaho that johnjen was talking about in an early post was an Army experimental plant. SL1, and FWIW, if they'd bound and gagged the operators at TMI and Chernobyl, neither would have melted the fuel. Both fuel melt accidents were primarily due to the operators. The accidents that have happened have taught us a great deal about how to design operator prood plants, new technology and designs are melt resistant, with nitrogen gas cooled cores, ceramic coatings, and other such improvements. Most things in life are lessons if you'll look for the what ifs, and why something occurred. It's all good, and so far an interesting conversation. There will come a day when people will realize that nuclear power is our best source of "clean" energy, once the facts are laid on the table, and fear is set aside. You get much more radiation released to the environment from the smoke stack of a coal fired plant than is ever released from a nuke plant. Before you start screaming about the waste, the waste is never released, that's the key word, whereas what comes out of a coal fired plant in China with no Kyoto Protocol required scrubbers, winds up in California. Chew on that for a while. The waste from a nuclear power plant will eventually end up in Yucca Mountain where the chances that it could ever reach the environment in thousands of years are so remote that you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery.

[wraithe]

Not arguing anything you said and I know about the natural radiation, however I´d like to ad one point and that is received radiation adds up during ones lifetime and yes we all are exposed from radiation. An transatlantic flight exposes you to higher radiation then a lung X-Ray.

As Radiation adds up during lifetime the Radiation you received might be less than what we all receive but you receive the same natural radiation as all of us and the radiation you receive from nuclear power plant adds up to this. It´s the same for me working with X-Rays on a daily basis.

 

While nuklear power doesn´t scare me, I still think it´s dangerous. While not close to Tschernobyl the radioactive fallout was all over Europe and I remember quite well the amount of radiation we got here.

 

It´s fine as long nothing happens and major failures and accidents are few, however it´s still dangerous and there´s still no real concept on safely get rid of the waste.

 

Agreed, however, I didn't get the point across that I wasn't receiving the natural radiation while I was out to sea, therefore, even though I was monitorring the dose that I received from the power plant, my overall dose received was most likely smaller than that my family received from living in a brick house and being exposed to South Carolina sunshine while I was out to sea shielded by many inches of steel (and many feet of water) from the sun.

 

Chernobyl was a terrible accident and released enormous amounts of fission products, but was a terrible design to begin with, ancient technology even for nuclear power, and still wouldn't have happened if the operators hadn't deliberately disabled protection systems to perform a test for heaven's sake. Once again, operator error, compounded by poor design, but still would have been protected by function of the protection system if the operators hadn't disabled it.

[bubbadog]

wow its nice to have a great intelligent conversation,its been a long long time lol,but im sure they will come up with something in the near future,and will be interesting to see what they do come up with,thanks for the breath of intelligent fresh air lol:));)

[hobie33]

wow its nice to have a great intelligent conversation,its been a long long time lol,but im sure they will come up with something in the near future,and will be interesting to see what they do come up with,thanks for the breath of intelligent fresh air lol:));)

 

Well, I am the guy that ask the Q at the captain meeting on our Brilliance transatlantic cruise, after the Chief told us the the cost off fuel per pax and that it's coasting them 350k extra to rush to ponta delgada for an emergency.

the captain gave the Q to the chief engineer that ask me if I would sail on one? I said yes and they to the next Q (does he misses his Wife).

On this board it look like the navy guy's that have been on nuclear powered vessels say yes (all thing being the same. ports, price etc.) To me its a Q off time only, when oil goes to $100 per barrel and more, the cruise line will face a choice ,cut service or raise the price and they will do both. will then the public say yes to nuclear? It will be a Q that will put to you soon by the utilities company's.

Don't let the words terrorism, nuclear, or safety handicap your thinking, there are answer to all.

We are loosing on Lot's off technology front, nuclear power plants we know best.

Thanks for coming,

Alex.

[madforcruising]

Agreed, however, I didn't get the point across that I wasn't receiving the natural radiation while I was out to sea, therefore, even though I was monitorring the dose that I received from the power plant, my overall dose received was most likely smaller than that my family received from living in a brick house and being exposed to South Carolina sunshine while I was out to sea shielded by many inches of steel (and many feet of water) from the sun.

 

OK, I actually misunderstood you here. Got it now

Chernobyl was a terrible accident and released enormous amounts of fission products, but was a terrible design to begin with, ancient technology even for nuclear power, and still wouldn't have happened if the operators hadn't deliberately disabled protection systems to perform a test for heaven's sake. Once again, operator error, compounded by poor design, but still would have been protected by function of the protection system if the operators hadn't disabled it.

 

Agree with all what you said about Tschernobyl, but exactly that proves my point. Whatever the security measures will be - there´s always the chance of human errors causing fatal accidents. You will never be able to eliminate the human factor in any system. There have been recently a couple of "almost" incidents in a swedish nuklear power plant.

 

There´s just not any absolutely safe technology be it conventional or nuklear. The difference is the effect a nuklear failure has to the environment in comparison to an accident that any other machinery would create.

[wraithe]

OK, I actually misunderstood you here. Got it now

 

 

Agree with all what you said about Tschernobyl, but exactly that proves my point. Whatever the security measures will be - there´s always the chance of human errors causing fatal accidents. You will never be able to eliminate the human factor in any system. There have been recently a couple of "almost" incidents in a swedish nuklear power plant.

 

There´s just not any absolutely safe technology be it conventional or nuklear. The difference is the effect a nuklear failure has to the environment in comparison to an accident that any other machinery would create.

 

I think we agree completely, there is no "human proof" technology, hopefully one day we'll have safe fusion power and room temp superconductors, and energy concerns will be a thing of the past, you could power a city with the equivalent of a ten horsepower engine. Couple solar panels on each house would power everthing in the house. Until then, we have to keep striving toward that future and use all of our resources, not discount any source. Nice chatting with you.

 

Just as an aside, what really frightens me is the Iranians are buying nuclear technology from the Russians.

[hobie33]

Driving , flying and marriage are all subject to human error, we do all three.

Alex.

[Tanker4]

Wraithe,

 

Really enjoyed your comments and info on this thread. Brought back some old memories. Most good but the Thresher was a bummer. Lost a good friend when she went down.

 

See you on the beach............

 

Tanker 4

 

USS Shark SSN 591

[wraithe]

Wraithe,

 

Really enjoyed your comments and info on this thread. Brought back some old memories. Most good but the Thresher was a bummer. Lost a good friend when she went down.

 

See you on the beach............

 

Tanker 4

 

USS Shark SSN 591

 

Of course you will shipmate, holiday routine, holiday forward, routine aft:D! ROTFL. Nukes were always first on, last off the ship.

[Tanker4]

Of course you will shipmate, holiday routine, holiday forward, routine aft:D! ROTFL. Nukes were always first on, last off the ship.

Been there done that Bro... Of course you "boomer" guys had a lot more space to keep up with than those of us on the old Skipjack class.

 

Tanker 4

[wieslaw]

Greetings to all the participants of this thread.

 

I have 'nothing really useful' to add to this very interesting for me thread....

but I just want to thank you all and especially 'wraithe' for this very educational and at the same time interesting for me thread / subject.

 

At the same time I want to thank those of you that spent many years in the subs - being 'unseen' and elsewhere for protecting 'all of us'......my three year service in the Army, important to me seemes to me to be shadowed completely by your service- although we do need each other.

 

yes - I would go and sail on a nuclear powered cruise ship - but I am sure that I will not....do not have enough 'life years left' - not a youngster anymore.....and perhaps there is some risk.....but there is a risk every day from the moment I wake up.....

 

Thanks again - I am enjoying this thread.

 

Wes

[Tanker4]

Greetings to all the participants of this thread.

 

I have 'nothing really useful' to add to this very interesting for me thread....

but I just want to thank you all and especially 'wraithe' for this very educational and at the same time interesting for me thread / subject.

 

At the same time I want to thank those of you that spent many years in the subs - being 'unseen' and elsewhere for protecting 'all of us'......my three year service in the Army, important to me seemes to me to be shadowed completely by your service- although we do need each other.

 

yes - I would go and sail on a nuclear powered cruise ship - but I am sure that I will not....do not have enough 'life years left' - not a youngster anymore.....and perhaps there is some risk.....but there is a risk every day from the moment I wake up.....

 

Thanks again - I am enjoying this thread.

 

Wes

Hi Wes,

 

From and old "bubble head" to and Army "grunt" let me thank you and all the other guys and gals who were on the front lines being the spearhead in most hostilities. Staying unseen (and quiet) was easy compared to that.

 

Happy Cruising

 

Tanker 4

[StknCPA]

Now that ships are getting so big and consume 4 tons of fuel per pax on a seven day cruise, would you sail on a nuclear power cruise ship?

Pros :cheap energy, on pollution, no need to stop for fuel, 200.000 American sailors do it every day.

cons : none.

Alex.

 

Yes, I would.

 

Thanks to all the previous posters for the great information in this thread.

[CGTNORMANDIE]

THE PROBLEM WITH A NUKE CRUISE SHIP...would be that no European port would want it there. The expense of building a nuke cruise ship would also prohibit it.

 

I would, however, be very comfortable on a hydrogen powered cruise ship!!!

[mikedw]

I was a yeoman in the navy, served on both the USS Ulysses S. Grant and USS Alabama, which were Ballistic Missile Submarines. Always use to get a kick out of seeing the anti nuclear protestors a couple times a year at Bremerton and Groton:)LOL Wish we just could have given them a quick class so they would have there facts right.

[wraithe]

THE PROBLEM WITH A NUKE CRUISE SHIP...would be that no European port would want it there. The expense of building a nuke cruise ship would also prohibit it.

 

Which is hilarious since the English operate nuclear powered ships and power plants, the French operate nuclear powered ships and get 80-ish% of their electricity from nuke power, the Germans operate nuke power plants, and quite a few other European nations operate nuke electric power plants.

 

I would, however, be very comfortable on a hydrogen powered cruise ship!!!

 

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, I'm not, but have studied propulsion and energy systems a lot, I enjoy it, find it fascinating, and therefore have an opinion, whether informed, intelligent or neither of the above.

 

The problem with hydrogen is that it takes a trainful of hydrogen to equal the same amount of energy in a tractor trailer full of heavy fuel oil, much less gasoline. So the storage system has to be enormous. That doesn't even get into the fact that the storage system is yet to be engineered that can store and withstand hydrogen for a long period of time. Since hydrogen is the smallest atom, it tends to squeeze into the space between metal molecules and cause them to embrittle, over time, they simply break, like a glass that has too much pressure inside. That's if the hydrogen doesn't simply leak all the way through and simply disappear into the atmosphere. It's another good thought, but is simply one more to add to the pile of good thoughts that we're working on. Thanks for bringing it up.

[CGTNORMANDIE]

HI WRAITHE!!! I was thinking about liquid hydrogen.

[Steamboatin]

There is another major problem area in having a nuclear cruise ship that has not yet been mentioned.

 

Insurance

 

Who will underwrite it and at what cost?

 

P.S.

Yes I would sail on one.

[la_croisiere_s'amuse]

The new Freedom class of ships uses no more fuel than the Radiance class uses. That is pretty remarkable.

 

Wow, that is pretty impressive. Nice to hear some good news! :)