|
|
|
|
|
|
by jfengel
477 days ago
|
|
|
You'll have more luck building a regular fission reactor on a commercial freighter than verify a fusion reactor for any ocean capable ship. That part, I'm not so sure about. Enriched uranium is potentially dangerous stuff, and has to be guarded closely. In a world with literal pirates, getting one on a commercial ship sounds very, very unlikely. As you say, fusion seems equally unlikely, albeit from a physics standpoint rather than a regulatory standpoint. It's hard to tell whether the immovable object of physics would dominate the unstoppable force of regulation, or vice versa. |
|
|
Submarines for electrolysis of water into breathable oxygen and electrical power for propulsion and aircraft carriers for its massive power density.
On the other hand, we have 0 years of operational experience with fusion reactors. We have 0 energy positive land based designs, 0 marine adaptations. We have discovered exactly 0 benefits of fusion reactor designs over fission. and I'm certain that we'll have more than 100 years of experience in commercial fission operation before we even have a single decade of net positive fusion energy.
Highly dangerous? Absolutely, but the giant weapons attached to these nuclear marine reactors have killed far more people than those reactors. Hell, those aircraft carriers experience more radiation from coal power plants than their own reactor. And I'm not kidding.