why not nuclear?

Is it possible?

Yes. But why? And why ask this question on YachtForums??? Here's an idea... make a hard left turn and head for shipspotting dot com.

Yacht relativity

Boat: that which will fit on the deck of a yacht

Yacht: that which will fit on the deck of a US aircraft carrier

Look up the US merchant vessel "Savannah". I believe she was built in the early '60's, maiden voyage in 1962, the worlds first nuclear merchant ship. She was not in service very long and then decomissioned as not viable. Babbcock and Wilcox built the boilers, an elderly friend of mine was an engineer with B&W and told me about the seatrials. With improved technology there is no reason (other than cost and countries that don't allow nuc vessels into ports and tourists that are afraid of "glowing") that a cruise ship couldn't be built with reactor power

Dave

Why not nuclear?

Did you even think before asking that question?

Have you ever seen or met the people that these large private ship companies hire to run these vessels below decks? Now imagine putting them in charge of Nuclear power plants. The UN or any goverement body who is important would go ballistic. Not to mention who is going to sell you that P-38 Urainum that the terrorist are praying to Alla for everyday.

Actually, deuterium is used in FUSION reactions, not fission. As far as I know, there has not ever been a controlled fusion reaction on this planet. All nuclear power plants typically use isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium for fuel, depending on reactor type.

On the issue of placing reactors in private and commercial ships, why not? I think Kim Jong Il and few of Osama's buddies would like to buy one. I wouldn't be a bit worried that a few nutjob crazies would have more than enough nuclear fuel to lob a few bombs our way. They could cruise the Med, have fun in the Carribbean, all while brewing some bomb fuel in the engine room. Lot's of other reasons come to mind too, on why nukes have no business in private hands. Do you think the Aussies would be happy to have a reactor meltdown right in the middle of Sydney harbor, or the Great Barrier Reef? Think before you speak next time.

Besides the terrorism and political issues, there are other issues about private nuclear yachts.

Who gets in charge of the nuclear yacht if the owner gets in bankruptcy, or finds it too expensive for proper maintnance, or any other scenario of improper care.

How to assure that skilled people would be permanently checking and keeping the plant.

A nuclear power plant is too dangerous to be used in toys, even if they are multimilion toys.

Even for commercial use its a high risk of catastrophe.
Remember Exxon Valdez.

I'm shure that better and safer alternatives can be found.

if we talk about cruise ships and large charter yachts together to stay on topic, one of the reasons why nuclear would be not recommended is that people are afraid of it. in the competitive market of cruise ships and charter yachts, why limit your potential market by excluding people who are afraid of nuclear.

regarding the technical aspects of running a nuclear power plant well i am sure it would be possible to find suitable ex navy personnel to technically manage and crew the vessel. we are already seeing unconventional power plants in yachts like diesel electric or combined diesel and gas turbine. therefore those yachts had to source and train suitable crew.

as mentioned earlier, the vessel would definitely be restricted from entering certain ports and certainly it would require huge effort to convince the authorities at each port the vessel wished to call that the vessel is safe. Certainly even if the vessel was permitted to arrive, it would get big publicity and of course the nuclear protesters would attend.

but one major aspect would be that it would be prohibitively expensive to insure the vessel. This is not for the hull insurance which is of course limited to the value of the vessel but for the P&I insurance which would cover the costs of compensating third parties in the case of a casualty, antipollution works, wreck removal etc.

nevertheless it is important to look at alternative sources of power for the yachts as we are faced with constantly increasing fuel cost which at some point will damage the motor yacht charter industry. Perhaps LNG will power the yachts of the future or perhaps did we already discover the perfect power many years ago.......of course....Sail

C4ENG wrote:

"Have you ever met the people that these large private ship companies hire to run these vessels below decks? Now imagine putting them in charge of Nuclear power plants. The UN or any goverement body who is important would go ballistic. Not to mention who is going to sell you that P-38 Urainum that the terrorist are praying to Alla for everyday."


While cruising the forum and reading mostly informative and well written information and advice I was brought to a halt by this one. I realize this might be bordering on inappropriate but I just couldn’t let the sentiments expressed in this post stand so long without comment. It is a shame to see something like this posted by a "senior member" claiming knowledge of marine engineering subjects.

“Have you ever seen or met the people that these large private ship companies hire to run these vessels below decks?”

Yes, I have met and worked with hundreds of them over the years. I am one of them. One of my associates, a friend and fellow chief engineer, really was put in charge of a nuclear power plant. He was chief engineer on N.S. Savannah for many years. We taught marine engineering together at one this country’s major maritime schools and I have a great deal of respect for his degrees, qualifications, and certifications in addition to his long and highly esteemed career in the maritime industry. That ship was operated by people like us for 10 years without anyone “who is important” going ballistic.

I don’t know what experience you have with “the people” who run “these vessels below decks” (whatever that means) but I suspect it is minimal at best. Your profile claims “yacht engineer” as your occupation and “reading and learning” as interests. I don’t know what qualifications you have to support your occupation, if any, but it is obvious you haven’t read or learned much about marine engineering or marine engineers., and even less about nuclear propulsion.

If you are going to look down your nose at the people who “run these vessels below decks” I suspect you will need to stand on your head.

And by the way, Savannah was powered by enriched uranium (U-235), not by fighter planes, pistols, military can openers, or the obscure proteins you believe terrorists are praying to obtain.

"If you are going to look down your nose at the people who “run these vessels below decks” I suspect you will need to stand on your head."

That's very good, Marmot.

By the way, when I was kid in grade school in the early '60s, the class was taken on a field trip from FLL down to MIA to tour the NS (Nuclear Ship) Savannah.
It was a real treat for somebody into "boats" at that age. I'm sure we were shown the 'engine' room and so I am pleased to tell you that I have suffered no apparent ill affects from the stewardship the belowdecks crew bestowed on this vessel.

You would see more shipyards in interesting places if they were allowed to be nuclear.

After reading something I written almost two years ago now, I do have to say, that was a rather prejudice statement I had made there.

Written maybe a little better,

There are many of large shipping and cruise companies out there that seem to exploit the labor of some very poor third world nations and possibly other political bodies may feel slightly uncomfortable in seeing these individuals in charge of nuclear machinery.

“Written maybe a little better, …”

Digging maybe a little deeper, I would say.

Regardless of their national origin or ethnic background “these individuals” in charge of the propulsion machinery on vessels operated by large shipping and cruise companies generally hold a degree in marine engineering and have met the international standards required to perform the duties of an officer holding an unlimited certificate of competence in marine engineering. Do you?

Is there some reason a “very poor third world nation” cannot produce an individual capable of being trained to the standards required to operate a nuclear propulsion plant? I have filled out a ton of documents related to training and licensing, and muddled through a wretchedly large volume of maritime regulations in the course of my career but have yet to find one that requires a specific genetic heritage.

As a matter of fact, the IMO addresses the dangers of cultural bias, prejudice, and intolerance as among the factors which reduce crew safety and operational efficiency. Part of the training of a ship’s officer includes making him or her aware of the dangers of such thinking. Knowing better is what separates the professionals from those who really do make the “political bodies feel slightly uncomfortable …”