Ardubal

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

@Emil Funny thing, the onboard reactor probably produces more power than the gas it carries could.

But anyway, yes, again, nuclear propulsion for ships is quite obviously a very good match.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

@Emil The reactor wouldn't be filled, right? And not under pressure? It would just be a big lump of metal?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

@KnitWit @Emil Oh wait, you mean transporting reactor parts per ship? If they are new, they're not even hazardous.

And nuclear fuel gets shipped all the time. If it's new, it's not a problem—very low activity, and water is a good shield—and spent fuel is just kept on site for decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

@Emil Great, but the AP1000 isn't the only Generation III+ reactor currently in operation, there is also at least the EPR.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

@KnitWit @Emil I guess you're not alone, sadly.

However…

A nuclear powered ship probably wouldn't be under ship regulation and supervision, but under nuclear regulation and supervision. Nuclear supervision is much easier to do and harder to circumvent than that of oil. Compliance would be enforced at ports. A ship that cannot dock is useless.

Also, the worst case with a nuclear powered ship is less bad than normal operation of an oil powered ship, and sufficiently improbable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

@tomtrottel @Emil @Tylerdurdon

Well, there we are at the divide between facts and opinion, and that between a civil discussion and ad hominem attacks.

Fact: nobody was ever harmed by spent nuclear fuel. Really. Look it up wherever you like.

Fact: that is not by chance, but by engineering.

Fact: the total amount of all the world's spent nuclear fuel ever, in the shape of a cube, would have a side length of about 35 m (before recycling).

Fact: I have no money invested in nuclear energy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

@tomtrottel @Emil @Tylerdurdon No, it is a classification.

It's like saying »human feces is a huge problem« — well, yes, but that's why we have toilets and sewage plants and so on — it's solved.

As is nuclear waste.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@planet @clojure I am a bit miffed that #CommonLisp is not mentioned at all. It would fit into the article on the measure of both market share and support for functional programming.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

@Brownboy13 @Emil Not perfect, but definitely better in every way than oil.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

@Emil You know, in a sane world, moving a handful of effectively harmless concrete blocks around wouldn't be newsworthy.

But even in our world, I think that the message should focus more on how little that actually is, how it is all there is, and how obviously it can be successfully done.

Leave some burns on fear-mongers while you're at it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

@Emil OK, it's a start. Once regulatory and economic processes are in place, there will be an option to become much more ambitious here, depending on how other plans turn out. Good.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

@Emil This sounds like a sensible, level-headed approach. #Australia, take note!

#auspol #nuclear

view more: next ›