Re: The joy of actual numbers, was Democracy

On Sun, 3 Nov 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/11/2024 21:01, D wrote:

  On Sat, 2 Nov 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

On 02/11/2024 10:40, D wrote:

I'd like the experience of crossing the ocean to be more like a cruise ship. It might take 1 to 3 days or so, but you could walk around, and enjoy a Michelin star restaurant on board.

 Not in an airship. What you want is a nuclear powered passenger liner.
 Weight no problem. Massive horsepower no problem. Should be able to cruise over 50mph.
 So probably 2 days to make the trip.

 If you have the money, let's do it! ;) How does the economics of nuclear powered vs diesel powered look?

>
Oh, its competitive. Once the reactor is built, fuel costs are trivial., Its all cost of capital and maintenance. Its possible that the reactor might have a 'lifetimes supply' of fuel from the get go.
>
The real problem is international anti-nuclear outcries . US built a ship - the NS (nuclear ship) Savannah - but many people would let it dock. It wasn't cost competitive then, due mainly to its novelty and the need for specialist crew that needed training, but with today's oil prices it would be.
>
One of the advantages of nuclear is that fuel costs are so small as to be irrelevant that the highest feasible speed is also the most profitable, allowing more passenger miles per year, which means  a better return on investment the faster it goes.
>
Russia has a lot (7 IIRC)  of nuclear powered icebreakers. So the technology exists.
And nuclear submarines account for around 400 estimated nuclear vessels, and the US has aircraft carriers and other craft powered that way.
>
The UK is also interested...
>
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/british-navy-considers-nuclear-powered-surface-ships
>
>
...This is a neat report on the economics of nuclear powered bulk carriers.
>
https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/new-study-considers-nuclear-powered-bulk-carriers
>
Like nuclear reactors for big data. the interest in nuclear ships is coming from people with deep enough pockets to buy political support.
>
That offsets the political support for green tech bought by equally deep pocketed renewable interests.
>
I put some thoughts down on paper on this some years back.
>
Nuclear powered electric trains doing 200mph+ would be faster than aircraft inside the USA because of the lower time spent in the ground access the aircraft - driving parking security etc etc.
>
Nuclear powered ships wont break any speed records, but with fuel prices likely to escalate, a more likely outcome is that if you really need a face to face with someone the other side of the world, use whatsapp, but if you want to physically get there, have a leisurely 3-4 day trip. In comfort.
>
Using physical packet switched technology on railways (every parcel or box has a barcoded 'packet protocol' address) and packets and parcels are automatically sorted by routers onto next hop railway destinations, with the final 10 miles being done by electric vehicles..
>
These are the 'we've run out of cheap  diesel, gas  and AvJet' technologies that could all work.
>
I suspect this will all come to pass because it is inevitably the best way to do stuff in a post fuel world.
>
Bit by bit as the market dictates.
>
Nuclear ships are absolutely on the cards right now. Bean counters are counting, and coming up full of  beans.
>
Ditto for small reactors powering data centres, especially in colder parts of the world where  the waste heat would be valued and the thermal efficiency slightly higher.
>
It is pointless to wait for governments. But it is fortunate that serious money needs serious power and has determined that renewables are as much use as a wet fart in a desert when it comes to reliable 24x7 power.

It is as I always say... when politics and reality collide, reality always wins in the end. The chinese communist party accepted the market, because they had to.
I wonder if ships would be a good fit for a smallr SMR-reactor, that is welded shut with all the fuel for its lifetime? I also wonder what the environmental effects would be if such a ship would sink and the outer layer would slowly corrode and break down. On the other hand, the ocean is big, so any potential leakes would probably be absorbed without any effect at all. Add to that the fact that sunk cargo/cruise ships in todays world seems to be pretty rare.
When it comes to trains, just imagine a global vacuum tunnel system with trains reaching every country on the planet without any sonic boom! Completely unfeasible economically at present I guess, but a fun idea I read in some science fiction book from the goldenera of science fiction.