[psunavy03]

The fact that we as a world economy are not significantly relying on nuclear power at this point is one of the biggest failures of climate change policy, if not the biggest failure ever. Yes, waste is a concern which needs to be managed responsibly. But at worst, the waste would only contaminate a finite area where it is stored. Climate change will affect literally everywhere on Earth. The US Navy has operated reactors for 70 years with a perfect safety record, yet people still fall victim to FUD insinuating that using nuclear is automatically asking for another Chernobyl or Fukushima. If you aren't serious about nuclear, you aren't serious about climate change.

[eszed]

I entirely agree with your big-picture analysis. However, that

> the US Navy has operated reactors for 70 years with a perfect safety record,

in no way implies that the notoriously fly-by-night shipping industry would achieve similar performance!

Also the largest historical concern about nuclear cargo ships has been proliferation: if a significant quantity of fissionable material is floating about (literally and metaphorically) in private hands, then it would become orders of magnitude easier for malicious non-state actors to get ahold of, with potentially disastrous consequences, on a world-historical scale. Given the instability, corruption, and hostility of various nuclear-armed states in the last couple of decades, that cat may already be out of the bag, and that concern could (and perhaps should) be disregarded. I don't know, and I doubt anyone does. Institutional conservatism in this area is, however, understandable.

[itishappy]

> The US Navy has operated reactors for 70 years with a perfect safety record

Loss of the vessel is a unique concern for naval equipment. The reactors on the Scorpion and Thresher have been slowly diffusing into the environment for the past 50 years. I'd be interested to know how contamination from these compares to Fukushima.

[psunavy03]

The Navy periodically takes radioactivity measurements near the wrecks, and has never found anything out of the ordinary that I can find online.

[itishappy]

This report from 2019 agrees:

> The conclusions of this report confirm the results of previous environmental monitoring expeditions and demonstrate that the THRESHER and SCORPION have had no discernible effect on the radioactivity in the environment

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/09/f66/NT-19-1....

[RetroTechie]

> Yes, waste is a concern which needs to be managed responsibly.

More than that: if I understand correctly, there are some newer designs which can take the waste of older plants, 'burn' it while extracting more energy, leaving a smaller amount of less-problematic waste at the end.

For that reason alone we should be building some of those newer plants. If (beyond burning through older plants' waste) they are safer, more efficient and/or have a 'nicer' fuel cycle of their own: bonus.

But for cost / climate etc: probably too little, too late. Renewables + storage will do the job. And later on, bring in fusion.

[psunavy03]

Fusion power is perpetually 50 years away. I'll believe it when I see it before I die.

[belorn]

I will say the same for replacing natural gas in the power grid with green hydrogen.

[more_corn]

Green hydrogen is a myth invented by the petroleum industry.

[maxhille]

Nuclear is just not economical enough. Compare eg. to solar, where we installed the equivalent of 413 nuclear power plants just this year:

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/11/28/solar-surging-58-in-2...

[goodSteveramos]

Does that include the cost of energy storage? Solar only works because fossil fuels can pick up the slack at night

[megaman821]

With the current trajectory of batteries, it is not looking like the cost of overnight storage is going to break the economics of solar.

Seasonal storage is another issue all together. Also, very northern latitudes may be better served by nuclear power.

[goodSteveramos]

Grid battery storage would have to fall in cost far more than expected to be practical. Goldman Sachs analysts don’t see costs falling by more than a factor of 2 for the foreseeable future.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/electric-veh...

[Turskarama]

This analysis only looks at vehicle batteries, but there are a ton of technologies that aren't suitable for vehicles that _are_ suitable for the grid due to weight concerns and a lot of them have room to become significantly cheaper than lithium.

[megaman821]

I just don't think the grid storage market is going to be leftover vehicle batteries. The demand will be big enough that battery technology will be tailored toward grid storage; cheaper batteries that are less dense, super-high lifecycle numbers that cars don't need, less need for high charge and discharge rates.

[eszed]

This thread is about power plants for cargo ships. Your response (while germane in other contexts) is a non-sequitur.