Nuclear marine propulsion is mainly used in naval warships, and it looks like there are some serious issues for their use in another context:
Nuclear-powered merchant ships’ collisions, severe machinery damage, fires, explosions, or nuclear leakage may cause serious harm to the marine environment. Current research on nuclear propulsion for merchant ships has shed light on the technical, economic, and sociopolitical challenges to widespread adoption. However, despite the valuable multidisciplinary insights, there remains a deficit in thorough and in-depth research from an international law perspective. [source]
Nuclear powered ships cost an astronomical amount of money. At least $4B more than a diesel version. If you need to stay at sea for 6 months in strategic position, there is no other solution. But that is only purpose to spend that much.
Civilian control means nuclear proliferation/black market risks.
The serious issues in the articles you linked are essentially red tape and public perception, which have to be surmountable if we’re taking global warming seriously.
I’m getting really fucking tired of seeing the fossil fuel industries’ cockpropaganda in that person’s mouth.
That’s where most of the anti-nuclear sentiment comes from: because they don’t like competition from a technology that is better than them in every way including cost of life per gigawatt hour…
Nuclear energy is only advocated by fossil fuel shills. It is perfect non-competitive solution to drill baby drill, because status quo for 15 years of development, followed by overpriced competition to fossil fuels after commissioning.
Nuclear marine propulsion is mainly used in naval warships, and it looks like there are some serious issues for their use in another context:
See also: Why nuclear-powered commercial ships are a bad idea | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Nuclear powered ships cost an astronomical amount of money. At least $4B more than a diesel version. If you need to stay at sea for 6 months in strategic position, there is no other solution. But that is only purpose to spend that much.
Civilian control means nuclear proliferation/black market risks.
The serious issues in the articles you linked are essentially red tape and public perception, which have to be surmountable if we’re taking global warming seriously.
I’m getting really fucking tired of seeing the fossil fuel industries’
cockpropaganda in that person’s mouth.That’s where most of the anti-nuclear sentiment comes from: because they don’t like competition from a technology that is better than them in every way including cost of life per gigawatt hour…
Nuclear energy is only advocated by fossil fuel shills. It is perfect non-competitive solution to drill baby drill, because status quo for 15 years of development, followed by overpriced competition to fossil fuels after commissioning.