While in college (USMMA), I was assigned as one of three engineering cadets to N.S. Savannah. Unfortunately, shortly after reporting aboard in Hoboken, NJ in July 1970, the Master announced a change in the ship's destination. Instead of going to Japan as expected, we would be sailing to Galveston TX for decommissioning. It was a disappointing but not unexpected announcement. By 1971 it was obvious that container ships were the future of dry cargo and planes had attracted all the passengers. Even conventionally powered passenger/cargo ships like Santa Rosa and Santa Paula were being laid up. One interesting note is the color scheme of the engineering room. The non-nuclear machinery space had a visitor's gallery. To help the passengers identify the different pieces of machinery a framed copy of the color-coded 'centerfold' of the engine room from an article of Popular Science magazine was installed on the bulkhead. However, the ship had been delivered with a standard white paint job, so the passengers still had a hard time telling what they were looking at. So fairly quickly it was decided to repaint the engine room to match the Popular Science color scheme. Fifty years later it is still the most unique engine room I have ever been in.

I think it's about time we revisited this concept.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors, small modular reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to dissipate the residual energy associated with the possible 12.5 megaWatt power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible? Would there have been sufficient heat energy contained in the power system to facilitate a hydro thermal explosion? In a casualty ships may capsize, like the ‘Karin Hoej’ off of Bornholm in the Baltic early December 2021, in which situation any safety system reliant on gravity might not work. It might also be worth bearing in mind that part of the TMI near miss was the fault of the US navy trained operators focusing on not letting the primary cooling system 'go solid'; due to their training overwhelming their education and the particularity of the situation. The actions of the captain of the 'Costa Concordia', Francesco Schettini, may also be relevant; the consequences of his actions, whether due to ineptitude, an isolated act of incompetence or driven by a corrupt corporate culture, illustrates well one of the dangers of releasing nuclear energy into commercial shipping. As a second point if you fit 'walk away safe' reactors on ships you will need duplicate drive trains as there are seldom salvage tugs around when you really, really need one. A nuclear ‘dead ship’ drifting around NUC (not under command) would be a disaster waiting to happen and duplicate systems increase expense. Land based nuclear power plants have a few issues but are immobile, stable and usually well regulated. Reactors on ships by their very nature are able to move between regulators, bump into each other and roll over. Regulation of ships by both / either flag state or port state has problems and adding any nuclear regulatory obligations on to those already overstretched facilities would be very taxing for all involved. This is not about 'can it be safe' it is all about 'will it be safe'. Furthermore while merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade', as the RN would say, or may be captured or impressed by non state quasi military entities by way of piracy, cargo ships are not military vessels. They therefore do not have the same inherent level of self protection and internal discipline. Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety.

@clifftonicstudios7469

Жыл бұрын

I live it everyday

About 20 years ago I met the last Chief Engineer of the NS Savannah. He was a very intelligent man and I was honored to have met him.

@edwardmeade

2 жыл бұрын

As I noted in another post, I was one of the trio of engineering cadets on her last 'cruise' from Hoboken to Galveston. The trip took almost a week and after we arrived in Galveston, we had a week while the school figured out where to send us next. The Chief and First Assistant Engineers had us shadow them while they operated the ship and then went through the process of shutting the plant down. At the end of each day, they gave us reading assignments or tasks to physically trace circuits, piping etc. through the plant. On the last day before we flew out, we even got down into the containment vessel. It was two solid weeks of 16-hour classes. They were determined to stuff as much of what they knew in the short time available. Our biggest regret was not being able to do a full cruise with these two gentlemen. They were excellent, dedicated teachers and engineers.

A nuclear merchant ship sounds more like a mega project than a side one ;)

I wonder how well a nuclear container super carrier could do now days with a modern closed loop nuclear reactor, especially with concerns around climate change and rising cost of fuel.

@brucebaxter6923

2 жыл бұрын

Extremely well, especially if it’s multiple small mass produced electric generator type instead of a steam turbine drive type.

@oldmech619

2 жыл бұрын

Ships run aground and they sink. Some ships even get hijacked. Not good places for nuclear power plants.

@brucebaxter6923

2 жыл бұрын

@@oldmech619 not good places for oil tanks Reactors are solid and easily recovered

@brucebaxter6923

2 жыл бұрын

@@oldmech619 You do know the bottom of the ocean is already covered with nuclear waste in 44gallon drums?

@oldmech619

2 жыл бұрын

@@brucebaxter6923 All it takes is one ship accident in someone’s marine environment. Even if it didn’t leak radiation, there would be the publics fear factor. The world is heavily against stable land based nuclear power plants because of their failures. Allowing no direct government controlled mobile ships to be nuclear powered is a hard sale. When I was young, that was how the world be. Even cars. Small power plants have proved problematic at best. There are marine are small scale power plant being built at $Bs. It can be done, but at what cost to security for the life of that power plant. The fuel savings wouldn’t match the cost of the power plant. I wish we could, but reality kicks in.

I've been stationed on a couple of nuclear subs, and we absolutely needed our nukes in order to do anything. They have to be on the sub first and are the last crew to leave after we return to port. They get compensated very well ($100K bonuses) but the work is very complex, redundant, and boring, but they cant mess up at all.

@lordgarion514

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like a job that the mental stress would just burn you out before too long.

@raul0ca

2 жыл бұрын

Plus on a power reactor the enrichment is low, around 4%. On subs it should be a lot higher maybe bomb grade. Makes it much more exciting to get critical

@keirangrant1607

2 жыл бұрын

@@raul0ca Hahahaha....I'm not sure if that's the type of excitement I like but do your thing buddy

@charlesf.5414

2 жыл бұрын

Subs? No way man. All correct information about the nukes, even for the ones on the carrier’s! Respect for you being on a sub. I had carrier life, I could hide for days on that thing

@fhuber7507

2 жыл бұрын

@@raul0ca 100% not bomb grade. That, I am allowed to tell you.

The Savanna is/was an absolutely gorgeous ship with beautiful lines 😍

@thegrays3303

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, she is, I toured her when I was young when she was a museum ship at Patriots Point Naval Museum in Charleston SC.

i've visited it on a private tour, and it's really cool that you can actually look through a porthole and see the reactor containment vessel!

@fredblonder7850

2 жыл бұрын

There’s a large section of the containment vessel cut-away, and you can now go inside.

@898792

2 жыл бұрын

@@fredblonder7850 no joke? that's amazing. when I went on board. it was just the reactor vessel its self you could see. i watched your most recent video. that's so cool, a lot more awareness needs to be done this ship can be saved.

@fredblonder7850

Жыл бұрын

@@898792 In two weeks, on Sunday the 21st of May, Savannah will be open to the public, if you’re anywhere near Baltimore.

I've been lucky enough to go board her in Baltimore. The passenger accommodation area is still made up like it was in the 1960s. The bright orange and yellow colors are something else.

@fredblonder7850

2 жыл бұрын

And rehupolstered in original Naugahyde.

Savannah is only 20 minutes from me and I went down to see her a few days ago. She is a beautiful ship!

This is so cool, my father worked at Babcock and Wilcox, as an engineer, and was part of the team that designed the reactor. He was invited to the christening, and presented 2 tie clips in the shape of the ship. I got the second one.

Simon you are helping me get through the darkest point of my life and for that I will be forever grateful to you. I love you're content and I appreciate all the work you do. Been watching your channel since the beginning. Thank you.

@februarywhiskeys

2 жыл бұрын

Your*

@robbowman8770

2 жыл бұрын

Hope things improve for you 🖐️

@brianpayne4549

2 жыл бұрын

You’re=a contraction between you and are.

@robbowman8770

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianpayne4549 Clever little man. Very appropriate

@brianpayne4549

2 жыл бұрын

@@robbowman8770 cute. You think calling me “little man” pisses me off. Sorry to disappoint you, it doesn’t. I’ve been cursed out by people I hold in much higher esteem, than you.

Ive been aboard her. Beautiful ship. The peak of mid-century modern design. So many design details of the ship reflect her nuclear heart, including the lighting fixtures and the back-bar in one of the lounges. Lots of googie-patterns as well.

Did a tour of the Savannah when she came to Southampton as part of her world tour. I'd have been ten or eleven at the time but, other than she didn't have a funnel, I wasn't greatly impressed, having done already two voyages to Hong Kong in comparably sized ships. I do dimly remember the guide reeling off a lot of stats regarding how comparatively cheap nuclear ships were going to prove compared to other ships in the future. Do not think the experience had any influence on me signing aboard a sailing ship in 1970. It was interesting to learn what happened to Savannah down the years.

Nuclear powered ships are the future. Think of how much progress the oil and coal companies are hindering because it interferes with their profits.

@andrasbiro3007

2 жыл бұрын

@Cancer McAids Actually nuclear would be much cheaper overall, with current oil prices. The upfront cost is a bit hard to swallow though, and most companies thin in quarters, not decades. Wind or solar won't help, due to the square-cube law. The bigger the ship the harder it is to power with renewable energy. Battery electric could work, and could be economical, but currently the upfront cost would be far higher than nuclear. And a big advantage of nuclear is that you don't have to worry about efficiency and fuel cost.

@TecSanento

2 жыл бұрын

I would rather consider powering these conventional ships with synthetic fuel or fuels cells then making them nuclear - one accident could render an entire port unusable for centuries - and the melt down in Tschernobyl is yet unknown amounts of sunk costs to contain! I am talking multiple billion dollar every century! Never ever again!

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors, small modular reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to dissipate the residual energy associated with the possible 12.5 megaWatt power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible? Would there have been sufficient heat energy contained in the power system to facilitate a hydro thermal explosion? In a casualty ships may capsize, like the ‘Karin Hoej’ off of Bornholm in the Baltic early December 2021, in which situation any safety system reliant on gravity might not work. It might also be worth bearing in mind that part of the TMI near miss was the fault of the US navy trained operators focusing on not letting the primary cooling system 'go solid'; due to their training overwhelming their education and the particularity of the situation. The actions of the captain of the 'Costa Concordia', Francesco Schettini, may also be relevant; the consequences of his actions, whether due to ineptitude, an isolated act of incompetence or driven by a corrupt corporate culture, illustrates well one of the dangers of releasing nuclear energy into commercial shipping. As a second point if you fit 'walk away safe' reactors on ships you will need duplicate drive trains as there are seldom salvage tugs around when you really, really need one. A nuclear ‘dead ship’ drifting around NUC (not under command) would be a disaster waiting to happen and duplicate systems increase expense. Land based nuclear power plants have a few issues but are immobile, stable and usually well regulated. Reactors on ships by their very nature are able to move between regulators, bump into each other and roll over. Regulation of ships by both / either flag state or port state has problems and adding any nuclear regulatory obligations on to those already overstretched facilities would be very taxing for all involved. This is not about 'can it be safe' it is all about 'will it be safe'. Furthermore while merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade', as the RN would say, or may be captured or impressed by non state quasi military entities by way of piracy, cargo ships are not military vessels. They therefore do not have the same inherent level of self protection and internal discipline. Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety.

1:55 - Chapter 1 - Specifications 4:35 - Chapter 2 - Reactor 6:15 - Chapter 3 - Service 8:55 - Chapter 4 - Economics 10:20 - Chapter 5 - Nuclear waste - Chapter 6 -

@Gravas93

2 жыл бұрын

Chaptter 1*

My father, Constantine F. Gradilone was one of the Chief Engineers on the George G. Sharp design team. He had to return to M.I.T. to study nuclear physics, as his job was to facilitate the design of the propulsion system. He took me on board when I was a kid. A memorable experience. I'm going to try and see if I can arrange a visiting tour in the near future. Perhaps a bit of name dropping will help!

The whole of Operation Plowshare would make an awesome Megaprojects.

I had to go back to see if I had seen it right, but yeah, at 1:13 is a beautiful photo of my home town of Rotterdam! Me Simpleton, made my day!

Thank you for this video, I feel like this ship doesn’t get enough attention!

The third nuklear powered civil ship the German „Otto Hahn“ was commanded by Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock a German WW2 U-boat ace. His 8th tour with U 96 was the basis for the plot in the movie „Das Boot“ and HLW portrayed as „Der Alte“ as in the book trilogy by Lothar-Günther Buchheim „Das Boot“, „Die Festung“ and „Der Abschied“ - the latter is entirely set on the „Otto Hahn“.

@dcpack

2 жыл бұрын

Very interesting.

@rcolorado2364

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your information and I look forward to doing research on this.

While in the US Navy, the NS Savannah was docked near the Charleston shipping terminal. She was dark, without power or a crew. This was in the mid-1970s. I have always wondered what became of her. I was attached to Subron16. Our Nuclear Engineer (US Navy Commander) explained that Savannah used only 190psi main steam, whereas our boats were 600psi with GE and Westinghouse reactors. Museums, when comparing a ship like the Savannah to Warships, it's like watching your MeeMaw eat cake.

Still a beautiful looking ship! And really cool.

As a child, i liked a lot to build paper models of ships. I've build a tugboat, the luxury ship "Christina", a lot of others, and the - you guessed it - the "NS Savannah". (They were all between 10 and 30 cm / 3 to 10 inches long). But i never understand, why there names all starting with "MS" - except that one with the slim body and the green color at the top. No one was able to told me anything special about the NS Savannah, what was different in comparison to the others. And now i can watch the explanation - and get an answer to my questions, which i've asked 45 years ago. Thanks for that!

@alexf2705

2 жыл бұрын

Where did you buy paper models like that?

@markus.kaufmann

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexf2705 In a stationery store, they had all kinds of models. Google for "handicraft sheet" or for the german word "Bastelbogen". Unfortunately, that hardly exists today, and if it does, then only in a very simple form. In my childhood they were much more complex.

Compared to your voice, the adds are much louder.. maybe up your video volume so I don't have to crank my volume all the way up. Great video tho! Awesome subject

Fantastic video! This is a excellent subject for side projects a real highlight of what I imagined this channel to be when you first announced it. I love finding out about the experimental craft and projects that helped to build the future. Matthew nailed this script!

The pictures shown while discussing the reactor dimensions were of the main engine reduction gearing

I have worked at many different power houses inside older papermills around the south and have seen some of the old control rooms. It is amazing what it actually took to operate these things 40-50 years ago..

Let's see more atoms for peace projects! This was great 👍🏻

Good video 👍

NS Savannah was one of the most beautiful ships ever built.

A ship of peace powered by nuclear fission, could have been a trendsetter, but nah, oil's cheaper, of course... :\

That control room! Dang!

Good video. I covered the story of the NS Savannah in my 2001 book, Super Cargo Ships.

“Modern nuclear technologies are increasingly suggested as a potential solution to shipping’s decarbonization challenge. The technology certainly has potential both in terms of its contribution to emissions reduction and for U.S. shipyards and their supply chains to leverage national investment in terrestrial nuclear energy development. Nevertheless, many questions need to be answered and it is critical the industry is able to evaluate these technologies with a laser focus on safety. ABS is up to the challenge to support the DOE in these efforts,” said Patrick Ryan, ABS senior vice president, Global Engineering and Technology.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors, small modular reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to dissipate the residual energy associated with the possible 12.5 megaWatt power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible? Would there have been sufficient heat energy contained in the power system to facilitate a hydro thermal explosion? In a casualty ships may capsize, like the ‘Karin Hoej’ off of Bornholm in the Baltic early December 2021, in which situation any safety system reliant on gravity might not work. It might also be worth bearing in mind that part of the TMI near miss was the fault of the US navy trained operators focusing on not letting the primary cooling system 'go solid'; due to their training overwhelming their education and the particularity of the situation. The actions of the captain of the 'Costa Concordia', Francesco Schettini, may also be relevant; the consequences of his actions, whether due to ineptitude, an isolated act of incompetence or driven by a corrupt corporate culture, illustrates well one of the dangers of releasing nuclear energy into commercial shipping. As a second point if you fit 'walk away safe' reactors on ships you will need duplicate drive trains as there are seldom salvage tugs around when you really, really need one. A nuclear ‘dead ship’ drifting around NUC (not under command) would be a disaster waiting to happen and duplicate systems increase expense. Land based nuclear power plants have a few issues but are immobile, stable and usually well regulated. Reactors on ships by their very nature are able to move between regulators, bump into each other and roll over. Regulation of ships by both / either flag state or port state has problems and adding any nuclear regulatory obligations on to those already overstretched facilities would be very taxing for all involved. This is not about 'can it be safe' it is all about 'will it be safe'. Furthermore while merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade', as the RN would say, or may be captured or impressed by non state quasi military entities by way of piracy, cargo ships are not military vessels. They therefore do not have the same inherent level of self protection and internal discipline. Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety.

Peter Theil should buy up some of these and use them for the first module of a seastead.

I took visited the ship at the Charleston museum, so cool to walk the ship my dad helped design!

I did the tour of the ship years ago at Patriot's Point. I don't remember much though, but I do remember the engine room.

Simmooooooo mate

I was with my father when I was around 9 and we took a tour of it when it was in Virgina in the mid 60's.

That sad we couldn't figure how use nuclear energy and waste better. It cost to much to fix problems or create a better solutions.

"new fangled microwave ovens.." 😂😂😂

She was quite an innovative ship

Funny story. I have proof of this, too. While she sat in Galveston immediately after her service, one of the “investors” considering turning it into a hotel was actually my great grandfather. He owned a shipyard at Quintana, a little ways down the coast. He actually agreed to purchase the Savannah for somewhere in the ballpark of only $70,000. While the agreement was initially accepted, he was able to inspect the ship. He actually planned to turn it into a floating condo building, not a hotel. The sale was never finalized. That being said, I have several great pieces, plans, and other paperwork he was allowed to keep.

Can we get a video on the other three nuclear ships?

9:04 - Did they paint the letters to look mostly upright from this particular angle?

Streamlined hull - why did it not have a bulbous below water bow which would’ve enhanced seaworthiness, stability and speed? Beautiful ship.

It's kinda funny that while he says "with the development of nuclear weapons more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagisaki" they literally show a nuke going off that was identical to Fat Man's warhead. That Crossroads footage sells though, as it's amazing still.

Shame this idea didn't take off, I'd love a nuclear powered train.

@RockitFX1

2 жыл бұрын

You wouldn't need to house the reactor on the train, you could use over head wires or electrify the rails. The beauty of electric trains is they can run on any type of electric power source, including nuclear.

@admiraltiberius1989

2 жыл бұрын

@@RockitFX1 well I think more for using the nuclear power directly to haul huge cargo at high speeds without refueling for years. Either cargo or passenger. Without having to rely on a complex electrical network.

@TecSanento

2 жыл бұрын

@@admiraltiberius1989 and a single train crash can render a whole state inhabitable for centuries - great concept (not!) make them stationery if you realy want them at all

@Ccyawn123

10 ай бұрын

​@@TecSanentoI would not want to ride on a stationary train

@TecSanento

10 ай бұрын

@@Ccyawn123 the reactor not the train 🚉 😄

Simon: You still don't have enough channels so may I humbly suggest one more A debunking channel, I feel like this could very well be the jewel in your crown

Nuclear energy should be brought back…. We simply don’t have anything better

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

Not in this application just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors, small modular reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non-power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to dissipate the residual energy associated with the possible 12.5 megaWatt power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible? Would there have been sufficient heat energy contained in the power system to facilitate a hydrothermal explosion? In a casualty ships may capsize, like the ‘Karin Hoej’ off of Bornholm in the Baltic early December 2021, in which situation any safety system reliant on gravity might not work. It might also be worth bearing in mind that part of the TMI near miss was the fault of the US navy trained operators focusing on not letting the primary cooling system 'go solid'; due to their training overwhelming their education and the particularity of the situation. The actions of the captain of the 'Costa Concordia', Francesco Schettini, may also be relevant; the consequences of his actions, whether due to ineptitude, an isolated act of incompetence or driven by a corrupt corporate culture, illustrates well one of the dangers of releasing nuclear energy into commercial shipping. As a second point if you fit 'walk away safe' reactors on ships you will need duplicate drive trains as there are seldom salvage tugs around when you really, really need one. A nuclear ‘dead ship’ drifting around NUC (not under command) would be a disaster waiting to happen and duplicate systems increase expense. Land based nuclear power plants have a few issues but are immobile, stable and usually well regulated. Reactors on ships by their very nature are able to move between regulators, bump into each other and roll over. Regulation of ships by both / either flag state or port state has problems and adding any nuclear regulatory obligations on to those already overstretched facilities would be very taxing for all involved. This is not about 'can it be safe' it is all about 'will it be safe'. Furthermore, while merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade', as the RN would say, or may be captured or impressed by non-state quasi military entities by way of piracy, cargo ships are not military vessels. They therefore do not have the same inherent level of self-protection and internal discipline. Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety.

I think my favorite aspect of this ship is just how sleek and futuristic it looks. Very "Star trek"

@fredblonder7850

Жыл бұрын

Not a coincidence. Savannah went up the coast of California, making stops in several cities and allowing the public aboard. There is no definitive proof that one of them was Gene Roddenberry, but consider that Star Trek began a couple years later, and the fact that the Starfleet Logo is used as a design element on eight of the tables in the Veranda . . . You’re wrong. Savannah doesn’t look very Star Trek. Star Trek looks very Savannah.

Nevermind all that. With all due respect when are you going to do a new episode of Into The Shadows big guy

She looks very Thunder Birds to me

4:40 Talks about reactor... shows a picture of a steam turbine. 5:10 that's steam turbines too. 5:30 Another steam turbine.

Spelt Chapter wrong at 1:53 . I wouldn't normally mention it, but your production quality is usually so high that it stands out like a sore thumb 🙂

In Pratchett’s Discworld, magic can be used only at a cost that makes doing it the hard way much cheaper. Nuclear power has seemed to hold a similar position, in that whatever now-cheap energy you get, you have to pay ten fold in other costs.

@andrasbiro3007

2 жыл бұрын

Still cheap overall. It's the risk that kills it. The payback period is long, and if anything bad happens, you lose. And it doesn't help that utilities can just push the operational costs to the consumers, they aren't incentivized to make electricity cheaper.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

@@andrasbiro3007 The old 'price, cost, value' trap. as the atmospheric degradation of hydrocarbon or other combustion fuel use is externalised everybody is happy to ignore it.

I think that barge is actually being demolished down here in Mobile Alabama at a ship yard contractor i used to recently work for was doing site work on the containment area where the barge will be scrapped. I think the drydock built is going to be enclosed. Whatever the case we have plenty of open drydocks on the bay and surrounding waterways that could have been rented, but they are building one from scratch... Way to go federal government waste that money that isn't yours...

I visited the ship when it was in Philadelphia

I imagine the diesle container ships now used for trade will have to be converted to nuclear once oil gets 10x more expensive in about 40 years. Seems like it would already be cheaper since they only need refueled every 20 years and these days AI can run it completely automated. Just toss the spent fuel rods at that spot in the Pacific that space programs already use for an underwater junkyard.

@andrasbiro3007

2 жыл бұрын

@Cancer McAids I highly doubt. I did the math for solar, and it's nowhere near enough to power a large ship. I doubt wind would do much better.

@fvckyoutubescensorshipandt2718

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrasbiro3007 yeah sailing ships don't weigh 220,000 tons. Even unloaded and made of fiberglass instead of steel would still be a tall order.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

Move less stuff shorter distance. Does my BBQ charcoal need to come from West Africa? Does the sisal twine on sale in the local garden centre have to come from China?

@fvckyoutubescensorshipandt2718

Жыл бұрын

@@BernardLS Yes, because of logistics these days that is just unworkable. Sure, if people are willing to do without some (or most) complex things we have today everything can be made locally if you don't care if the global economy collapses to 1/10th of it's present size. No nation, including the US, has every resource locally in the ground to make the parts of a smartphone, even if the factories were already built. So if you enjoy modern civilization (even if it is unsustainable unless 75% of humans die off) you either ship the finished product or you ship the raw materials after being mined. China smartened up and realized it was far more profitable to ship finished goods made locally, so the gov't banned exports of alot of raw materials long ago. Other nations are also doing the same if they have the WTO clout to do so.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

@@fvckyoutubescensorshipandt2718 WADR there is nothing complex about charcoal or sisal twine. Shipping currently has a 'high volume, low added value' business model and it needs to return to the 'low volume, high value added' model it followed in the past. Much of the high volume or marine freight is transported to sahev fractions of pennies on the cost of goods that are consumed. Bulk raw materials and high value finished products will continue to be shipped because as you say everybody needs what everybody needs.

In all fairness. If i have a choice to visit one of Americas might daughter of steel or some nuclear pet project I'm picking the Warship. Especially if it's one of our best earth reshapers

I love nuclear history! I also love nuclear power, it's the future of energy!

@TecSanento

2 жыл бұрын

But rather fusion then fission, don't you think?

@rcolorado2364

2 жыл бұрын

@@TecSanento I'm hopeful for fusion but it isn't going to be everywhere it's going to be too expensive to build. No definitely fission. It's viable and deployable right now. And it is safe and clean. Fusion in the big cities and fission everywhere else.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

WADR not in this application, just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors, small modular reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to dissipate the residual energy associated with the possible 12.5 megaWatt power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible? Would there have been sufficient heat energy contained in the power system to facilitate a hydro thermal explosion? In a casualty ships may capsize, like the ‘Karin Hoej’ off of Bornholm in the Baltic early December 2021, in which situation any safety system reliant on gravity might not work. It might also be worth bearing in mind that part of the TMI near miss was the fault of the US navy trained operators focusing on not letting the primary cooling system 'go solid'; due to their training overwhelming their education and the particularity of the situation. The actions of the captain of the 'Costa Concordia', Francesco Schettini, may also be relevant; the consequences of his actions, whether due to ineptitude, an isolated act of incompetence or driven by a corrupt corporate culture, illustrates well one of the dangers of releasing nuclear energy into commercial shipping. As a second point if you fit 'walk away safe' reactors on ships you will need duplicate drive trains as there are seldom salvage tugs around when you really, really need one. A nuclear ‘dead ship’ drifting around NUC (not under command) would be a disaster waiting to happen and duplicate systems increase expense. Land based nuclear power plants have a few issues but are immobile, stable and usually well regulated. Reactors on ships by their very nature are able to move between regulators, bump into each other and roll over. Regulation of ships by both / either flag state or port state has problems and adding any nuclear regulatory obligations on to those already overstretched facilities would be very taxing for all involved. This is not about 'can it be safe' it is all about 'will it be safe'. Furthermore while merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade', as the RN would say, or may be captured or impressed by non state quasi military entities by way of piracy, cargo ships are not military vessels. They therefore do not have the same inherent level of self protection and internal discipline. Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety.

👍👍

Russia has made nuclear powered merchant ship before anyone. Please highlight on that also.

For a prototype it was pretty cheap, should have continued development to bring down cost.

Chaptter One.

CHAPTTER 1 🤣

Great video, so US emerged after world war 2 having the most innovative military building world's first nuclear ship and submarine, UK had world's first civilian nuclear power to the grid.. Incidentally I noted when an American plane crashed by terrorism near there in south west Scotland, just a coincidence the plane could have crashed nuclear facilities and create a nuclear disaster. This ship, she sure gets passed around a lot doesn't she? ;-)

You decided to do this video after seeing Mustard's video didn't you?

Since the making of this video, the reactor has been removed. Here is my video of the event: kzread.info/dash/bejne/fYl2sK1mnrezf6g.html

Back to the future, y'all! I have a feeling in 20 years MOST ships will be electric, hydrogen or nuclear powered. Especially if they can make SMR's both safe and affordable...

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors, small modular reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to dissipate the residual energy associated with the possible 12.5 megaWatt power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible? Would there have been sufficient heat energy contained in the power system to facilitate a hydro thermal explosion? In a casualty ships may capsize, like the ‘Karin Hoej’ off of Bornholm in the Baltic early December 2021, in which situation any safety system reliant on gravity might not work. It might also be worth bearing in mind that part of the TMI near miss was the fault of the US navy trained operators focusing on not letting the primary cooling system 'go solid'; due to their training overwhelming their education and the particularity of the situation. The actions of the captain of the 'Costa Concordia', Francesco Schettini, may also be relevant; the consequences of his actions, whether due to ineptitude, an isolated act of incompetence or driven by a corrupt corporate culture, illustrates well one of the dangers of releasing nuclear energy into commercial shipping. As a second point if you fit 'walk away safe' reactors on ships you will need duplicate drive trains as there are seldom salvage tugs around when you really, really need one. A nuclear ‘dead ship’ drifting around NUC (not under command) would be a disaster waiting to happen and duplicate systems increase expense. Land based nuclear power plants have a few issues but are immobile, stable and usually well regulated. Reactors on ships by their very nature are able to move between regulators, bump into each other and roll over. Regulation of ships by both / either flag state or port state has problems and adding any nuclear regulatory obligations on to those already overstretched facilities would be very taxing for all involved. This is not about 'can it be safe' it is all about 'will it be safe'. Furthermore while merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade', as the RN would say, or may be captured or impressed by non state quasi military entities by way of piracy, cargo ships are not military vessels. They therefore do not have the same inherent level of self protection and internal discipline. Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety.

Since cargo ships have to stop to load and unload frequently it doesn't seem the range would matter. The nonsense of operation plowshare.

Of course they dumped it on Baltimore.

What a wasted opportunity, just pick one thing and stick to it, passenger or cargo.

As we move to net zero carbon ... I wonder?!

@Epidombe

2 жыл бұрын

@Paul Thiessen lol

Atomic radiation is supposedly stopped by water within 2 meters. What's wrong with dumping nuclear waste into the Marianas Trench, where it can spend the necessary 20,000 years to decontaminate, compared to a landfill that's potentially unstable geologically over that much time? And Eisenhower's concern for the peaceful atom is truly touching. The US sponsored no thorium fuel reactors as thorium can't be weaponized.

@raul0ca

2 жыл бұрын

They would never do that since it's cheap

@TheBaldr

2 жыл бұрын

The only reason they don't is that it is not secure. Thorium is not economically viable by any means.

Hypothetically you could create a perpetually erupting volcano by tossing a bunch of uranium ore into an existing one.

First

@sigor2011

2 жыл бұрын

First to last

@justinsbeaver9010

2 жыл бұрын

Lies.

Definitely NOT 100% accurate.

I was 100% sure this was gonna be about Russia making something stupid nuclear. But nope! Was the USA 🤦‍♂️

@SpencerGD

2 жыл бұрын

Can't underestimate us 🇺🇲

@ArchitectandOracle

2 жыл бұрын

And you would prefer several million tons of CO2 being dumped into the air over the lifetime of a ship powered by bunker oil?

@SpencerGD

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArchitectandOracle in reality, nuclear powered ships have some merit. For example, cargo shipping would be much faster and much more efficient if the ships used nuclear power instead of bunker oil. However, the real problem, in my opinion, is control of and access to nuclear material. For example, if pirates manage to swarm & board a ship, they could take the nuclear material and sell it to terrorist organizations, who could subsequently use it to produce a dirty bomb. (I.e., a bomb that does not rely on nuclear mechanics like fission or fusion, but instead uses a conventional explosion to disperse radioactive material in the area around the blast site.) I'd rather see progress towards alternative, less-risky power sources, like, for example, solar-powered electrolysis that uses sea water to produce hydrogen for a fuel cell.

@johnmiller8975

2 жыл бұрын

Savannah wasn't stupid at all -- if you want scary stupid take a look at Hanford

@andrasbiro3007

2 жыл бұрын

@@SpencerGD If you have to worry about pirates, you already have a problem. Also it's not that easy to access nuclear materials. You would need a lot of knowledge and special tools to even begin to think about it. And then there likely would be security measures. For example dropping the core into the ocean. Recovering it would be far beyond the capabilities of pirates, but easily done by a nation.

Eff this contaminated coffin.

I have always a sucker for exotic vehicles on this channel or Megaprojects for the past 2 years 😃👏👏🛳️