PS Terrorism is not synonymous with Islam, just anti governance and greed in general!

PS Terrorism is not synonymous with Islam, just anti governance and greed in general!

Sails also work best if the ship is very light – there is a reason why competitive sailors ride on boats with very Spartan interiors and massive sails.

Sails also require skilled, experienced operators who do not want to take frequent showers since there is little excess power capacity for making fresh water.

Sails also work best if the ship is very light – there is a reason why competitive sailors ride on boats with very Spartan interiors and massive sails.

Sails also require skilled, experienced operators who do not want to take frequent showers since there is little excess power capacity for making fresh water.

I wrote an article a long time ago about what the experience of the one of a kind NS Savannah should have really taught us. You can find it here:

http://www.atomicinsights.com/jul95/failure.html

Here is a key quote from that article:

“n the words of Robert J. Bosnak, a former officer in charge of the Marine Inspection team that regulated the Savannah, “The Savannah performed well from an operational point of view, but in my opinion her designers condemned her to a short life by her hybrid design as a passenger-cargo vessel. Neither function of the ship proved to be economically viable, and MARAD (Maritime Administration) chose not to spend additional monies to convert her to an all cargo, or an all passenger vessel, but instead removed her from service. I regret that this happened.”

As a result of her design handicaps, Savannah consumed approximately $2 million more per year in operating subsidies during her four year career in international trade than a similarly sized Mariner class ship with an oil heated steam plant. This extra subsidy became a target for economy-minded legislators.

In 1972, when Savannah was laid up, the cost of a ton of oil was about $20.00. A ship with a 20,000 horsepower engine using 1970s technology would have burned about 120 tons per day for a daily fuel cost of about $2,400. By early 1974, following the Arab Oil Embargo, a ton of bunker fuel cost about $80.00. That same ship’s daily fuel bill would have suddenly increased to more than $9,000. Savannah’s fuel cost would not have changed as a result of the Oil Embargo. If the oil-burning ship operated for 330 days per year (which is common in the world of merchant shipping), the increase in its annual fuel expenditure would have more than eliminated the difference in Savannah’s operating costs, even with all of her inherent disadvantages.”

BTW – diesel fuel for ships currently costs about $500 per ton while the cost of fuel for nuclear power plants has actually decreased in price since 1972 and currently is roughly equivalent to buying oil priced at about $2.00 per barrel – or $15 per ton.

It is this fuel price savings that frees up plenty of money to pay for crew members and the protective layers that would prevent collisions and impacts from damaging the nuclear power plant.

Here is another by the way – In January 2005 the USS San Francisco ran into an underwater mountain at high speed – reportedly in excess of 25 knots. Though there were 20 people injured (one killed) and more than 100 million dollars in damage to the ship, the reactor plant was not damaged. It supplied the power to get the ship back to port safely. That is an example of how resilient you can make a nuclear propulsion plant because it has extremely compact and low cost fuel that does not require massive storage tanks.

I wrote an article a long time ago about what the experience of the one of a kind NS Savannah should have really taught us. You can find it here:

http://www.atomicinsights.com/jul95/failure.html

Here is a key quote from that article:

“n the words of Robert J. Bosnak, a former officer in charge of the Marine Inspection team that regulated the Savannah, “The Savannah performed well from an operational point of view, but in my opinion her designers condemned her to a short life by her hybrid design as a passenger-cargo vessel. Neither function of the ship proved to be economically viable, and MARAD (Maritime Administration) chose not to spend additional monies to convert her to an all cargo, or an all passenger vessel, but instead removed her from service. I regret that this happened.”

As a result of her design handicaps, Savannah consumed approximately $2 million more per year in operating subsidies during her four year career in international trade than a similarly sized Mariner class ship with an oil heated steam plant. This extra subsidy became a target for economy-minded legislators.

In 1972, when Savannah was laid up, the cost of a ton of oil was about $20.00. A ship with a 20,000 horsepower engine using 1970s technology would have burned about 120 tons per day for a daily fuel cost of about $2,400. By early 1974, following the Arab Oil Embargo, a ton of bunker fuel cost about $80.00. That same ship’s daily fuel bill would have suddenly increased to more than $9,000. Savannah’s fuel cost would not have changed as a result of the Oil Embargo. If the oil-burning ship operated for 330 days per year (which is common in the world of merchant shipping), the increase in its annual fuel expenditure would have more than eliminated the difference in Savannah’s operating costs, even with all of her inherent disadvantages.”

BTW – diesel fuel for ships currently costs about $500 per ton while the cost of fuel for nuclear power plants has actually decreased in price since 1972 and currently is roughly equivalent to buying oil priced at about $2.00 per barrel – or $15 per ton.

It is this fuel price savings that frees up plenty of money to pay for crew members and the protective layers that would prevent collisions and impacts from damaging the nuclear power plant.

Here is another by the way – In January 2005 the USS San Francisco ran into an underwater mountain at high speed – reportedly in excess of 25 knots. Though there were 20 people injured (one killed) and more than 100 million dollars in damage to the ship, the reactor plant was not damaged. It supplied the power to get the ship back to port safely. That is an example of how resilient you can make a nuclear propulsion plant because it has extremely compact and low cost fuel that does not require massive storage tanks.

Try using wikipedia, it helps.

Do you know how much Uranium is in the oceans already, the amount is staggering, even though its only 3 parts per billion. The R/D has even been done to extract it, its not as cheap as direct mining yet. If the entire electric power industry went nuclear, the fuel would come first from uranium mines, thereafter by reprocessing the stockpiles of so called high level waste, and finally from the oceans, enough to last for millenia. We could also use mined Thorium. So I guess the oceans have been devastated ever since they came to be.

Also 8 nuclear vessels have already gone to the bottom of the oceans, 4 Soviet, 2 Russian and 2 US resting on an already radioactive seabed.

Also biofuels are only going to help a teeny little. There simply isn’t the land to grow all the biostock needed to process into the biofuels to replace the fossil fuels we use now. Think in terms of millions of years of plant vegetation getting cooked into fossil fuels and then being consumed in about 200 years or so. Doing the same thing with technology would require many earth surfaces to produce the same energy content as fossil fuels we are using up. We cannot conceivably duplicate what the earth has done for eons at the much faster rate we consume it. It is easy to see why, solar radiation is incredibly diffuse and plant or algae processes are very inefficient at converting solar energy into any usable form. Just the transport and processing often uses as much energy as was in the original stock.

In other words one of these is going to happen.

We go nuclear power or drastic lifestyle reductions or population cuts.

Try using wikipedia, it helps.

Do you know how much Uranium is in the oceans already, the amount is staggering, even though its only 3 parts per billion. The R/D has even been done to extract it, its not as cheap as direct mining yet. If the entire electric power industry went nuclear, the fuel would come first from uranium mines, thereafter by reprocessing the stockpiles of so called high level waste, and finally from the oceans, enough to last for millenia. We could also use mined Thorium. So I guess the oceans have been devastated ever since they came to be.

Also 8 nuclear vessels have already gone to the bottom of the oceans, 4 Soviet, 2 Russian and 2 US resting on an already radioactive seabed.

Also biofuels are only going to help a teeny little. There simply isn’t the land to grow all the biostock needed to process into the biofuels to replace the fossil fuels we use now. Think in terms of millions of years of plant vegetation getting cooked into fossil fuels and then being consumed in about 200 years or so. Doing the same thing with technology would require many earth surfaces to produce the same energy content as fossil fuels we are using up. We cannot conceivably duplicate what the earth has done for eons at the much faster rate we consume it. It is easy to see why, solar radiation is incredibly diffuse and plant or algae processes are very inefficient at converting solar energy into any usable form. Just the transport and processing often uses as much energy as was in the original stock.

In other words one of these is going to happen.

We go nuclear power or drastic lifestyle reductions or population cuts.

This is not a new idea. What it is is a good idea. Imagine if all shipping was shipped through US guaranteed SAFE nuclear powered super shippers?

My fear is that China won’t build these vessels as safely as they should. Look at some of the construction problems they’ve had in the last few years.

The only problem is that the US would never do it because of lack of leadership and the obsolete slow and costly design and construction processes.

But if it can be done safely we will all benefit. The only problem is that it is another case where the US gives up more of their position as a world leader.

But this is what happens when we haven’t had far seeing leaders for a long time.

Sorry about being negative here.

This is not a new idea. What it is is a good idea. Imagine if all shipping was shipped through US guaranteed SAFE nuclear powered super shippers?

My fear is that China won’t build these vessels as safely as they should. Look at some of the construction problems they’ve had in the last few years.

The only problem is that the US would never do it because of lack of leadership and the obsolete slow and costly design and construction processes.

But if it can be done safely we will all benefit. The only problem is that it is another case where the US gives up more of their position as a world leader.

But this is what happens when we haven’t had far seeing leaders for a long time.

Sorry about being negative here.

It’s unlikely that the chinese could find a ==truly profitable== operating niche for their version. The chinese aren’t stupid, they will discover during their preliminary research that going nuke entails greater labor, wharfage, etc costs. They might choose to eat those by putting quasi-military labor onboard and running the ship only domestically, as a prestige item. US MARAD did something quite similar; eventually got tired of paying for it. The Chinese will eventually also quietly drop it. History usually does repeat itself.

It’s unlikely that the chinese could find a ==truly profitable== operating niche for their version. The chinese aren’t stupid, they will discover during their preliminary research that going nuke entails greater labor, wharfage, etc costs. They might choose to eat those by putting quasi-military labor onboard and running the ship only domestically, as a prestige item. US MARAD did something quite similar; eventually got tired of paying for it. The Chinese will eventually also quietly drop it. History usually does repeat itself.