I Heard that the 10 largest cargoships produce that Same amount of pollution then all cars combined.
Why are there no nuclear powered cargo ships?
In: 35
The international Maritime Organisation (IMO) is working on it. It is waaaay better than fossil fuel based ships. Just to highlight a little bit:
The United States built two similarly sized aircraft carriers a few years apart, the USS John F. Kenned and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Ike is nuclear powered and the Kennedy burned oil.
When steaming all-ahead-flank on all four screws, launching aircraft off all three steam catapults, cooking 4,500 meals for lunch, and desalinating sea water into fresh, the Kennedy got 13 inches to the gallon of marine distillate fuel oil.
That meant 1000 gallons were burned for the Kennedy just to travel its own length. Or over 125 million gallons to circumnavigate the Pacific Ocean once.
The Ike uses almost no fuel to carry out the same mission. The Ike steamed for 20 years on a chunk of uranium the size of a grapefruit, travels 50% faster, and is still active today. The Kennedy is mothballed.
But. Some reasons that are holding it back:
* The ships would become even bigger targets for terrorists and nations wanting nuclear technology.
* Some countries have bans on nuclear powered ships entering their ports.
* Large scale production would see an increase of nuclear powered vessels sinking / polluting the waters. About 40 merchant ships go down per year on average.
* They can and do leak while in operation. There have been 4 such ships built. The NS Savannah being the famous American one. All leaked. It killed the vision.
* Operating cost savings from lowered fuel costs are offset by massive upfronts and a huge increase in manpower costs, requiring nuclear technicians to sail a ship. This is somewhat manageable for the military, but less so with a large private fleet.
But people are still weighing it out.
Latest Answers