Happy 2022! What topics would you like to see covered in the coming year? (edit.. it's 2022...Ooff)

@critical_shot9292

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear plane!

@terrarian7910

2 жыл бұрын

uhhh, something about space because the last four videos were on land,air and water.

@arthurgallagher1822

2 жыл бұрын

Avro lancaster

@jrgv5754

2 жыл бұрын

@@terrarian7910 nah nah he needs one about fire next obviously

@Jowjoejoe

2 жыл бұрын

Avro Arrow

Yes, if radioactive accidents occur, it has terrible consequences. But if we look at the many disastrous oil leaks in the world’s oceans in the past, the millions of deaths due to air pollution each year (plus the serious long-term environmental damage process of the global on-shore and off-shore oil industry in the first place), it’s definitely worth considering switching to nuclear power...

@leerman22

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear leaks don't affect oceans nearly as much as oil, since there is just so much oil needed to do the same work. Radioactive ions dilute in the vast volume of water (and uranium fuel pellets aren't very water soluble) while oil spills destroy entire coastlines. A lost reactor in the middle of nowhere isn't too much an environmental loss; large parts of ocean are like deserts as far as life is concerned, and if a reactor sunk near the coast it can and should be recovered before its containment corrodes.

@jakehildebrand1824

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear power is the only option for a successful future

@SpecialProjectY

2 жыл бұрын

@@leerman22 Hopefully, until some lizard gets effected by the radiation...

@Captain_Biggles

2 жыл бұрын

Surely the frequency for accidents is an argument *against* nuclear power

@condaquan9459

2 жыл бұрын

Not to mention nuclear power is quite safe, we all hear about Chernobyl and 3 mile island yet Chernobyl would never happen in the west, nearly all nuclear accidents that have happened have not had dire consequences.

I hate how nuclear power is always seen as dangerous even though it is next to green energy one of the most safe

@steffenjachnow8176

2 жыл бұрын

> "one of the most safe" Yeah! Soo safe that ten of thousands died and hundreds of thousands lost their homes because of nuclear accidents... #chernobyl #fukushima

@dzello

2 жыл бұрын

@@timothymeyer3210 That's not what he said. He basically said you got the hydro, solar, wind that are super safe... Then you got nuclear. It's next, right after those green energies.

@kackdackel9170

2 жыл бұрын

@@timothymeyer3210 yes, but exactly how many solar panels would be needed to generate the same output of energy as a nuclear reactor? Safest isn't always best, and nuclear is objectively our best choice if we don't want to kill our planet with Co2 emissions.

@gluesniffingdude

2 жыл бұрын

@@timothymeyer3210 The production of solar panels still involves many environmental concerns, and as I understand are neither very environmentally friendly nor particularly efficient.

@9skyman945

2 жыл бұрын

The amount of people killed per TWh of hydro power generated is far higher than people killed per TWh of nuclear power generated.

Fun fact: The captain of the NS Otto Hahn was the former real-life captain of the WW2 submarine U-96, on which the novel and movie "Das Boot" are based.

@wheels-n-tires1846

Жыл бұрын

What a neat historical nugget... thanks!!!! Interesting for someone to go from a killer of merchant ships, to a pioneer in their (almost) renaissance!!

@emthegem8141

Жыл бұрын

Hi! This is interesting! It seems that the captain of the Otto Nahn is Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock who was, like the author of Das Boot, also a U-96 U boat captain. The book was written by Lothar-Günther Buchheim and is based on the authors experiences, in which he joins Henreich on the U-96. I don't know why I decided to dive into this much detail but whatever. ᴵ ᵈᵒⁿᵗ ᵏⁿᵒʷ ʷʰᵃᵗ ᶦᵐ ᵈᵒᶦⁿᵍ ˢᵒʳʳʸ

@tobiastho9639

11 ай бұрын

Looked it up... Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock indeed was the captain and after 5 years she got another one.

@garymahony701

9 ай бұрын

@@wheels-n-tires1846 qq l

@thalmoragent9344

3 ай бұрын

Legendary mariner right there

One other problem for Savannah was the fact that it came along when traditional cargo ships were being replaced with container ships that can carry more cargo.

@zapfanzapfan

10 ай бұрын

Yepp, bad timing.

@Frey_00

9 ай бұрын

Savannah is a passenger ship not container/cargo ship

@zapfanzapfan

9 ай бұрын

@@Frey_00 Combined passenger and cargo ship. Passenger cabins around the bridge section and cargo fore and aft.

@brandonsyatessr.3667

9 ай бұрын

@@Frey_00 Did you even watch the video?

@qwertykeyboard5901

23 күн бұрын

It should of been fully passenger or cargo, not both.

The fun thing about nuclear power is that it's so unsafe that you could have a Chernobyl-style (Gen I graphite pile reactor with no containment) disaster every single year, and you'd still have fewer deaths and pollution/contamination from that event than from fossil fuel usage while ignoring the deaths and damage from fly ash spills and other accidents. Heck, the pollutants from marine diesel are so bad, that people die near harbours every single year from COPD and other health issues. It's a major issue in e.g. NYC with the cruise ships that tend to leave their diesels idling while moored. Great example of how irrational fear ended up killing thousands more than would have if the world had gone nuclear last century.

@lemmyboy4107

2 жыл бұрын

Same fear then humans have when flying but not when car driving. On the other Hand critism of nuclear power is very important and its not a long term solution, just the Arguments against it are sometimes not well thought out.

@Alex-cw3rz

2 жыл бұрын

Fun thing nuclear is more expensive then the oil used, that's why it isn't used.

@chicagotypewriter2094

2 жыл бұрын

Very befittingly this being the channel Mustard, I can best describe it to aeroplanes! Like think of it, most modern day planes are very safe & make hundreds of journeys. But when one crash or incident happens people (understandably) get scared shitless & can sometimes say "Oooh planes aren't safe", despite crashes being very rare, similar to accidents in nuclear energy, if infrastructure is done right, etc. Now, ofc, not all planes are safe or are notorious for issues *cough cough Boeing 737Max*, everything has its exceptions

@brytonmassie

2 жыл бұрын

@@Alex-cw3rz Incorrect, the startup costs are more expensive than oil, in the long run modern day reactors are cheaper and cleaner.

@slipknottin

2 жыл бұрын

@@brytonmassie no. Both the initial and on-going costs with nuclear are much higher.

I had no idea civilian nuclear vessels were ever made. And watching a Mustard video is a very pleasant way to learn anything. The finest channel on KZread, by a large margin.

@debadityasaha1684

2 жыл бұрын

One of the finest channel, some recommendations are Lemmino , Disrupt , Subject zero , Real engineering and many others.

@WarpGhost92

2 жыл бұрын

My own knowledge wa limiteds to russian/soviet icebreakers. I never knew about cargo ships.

@Ass_of_Amalek

2 жыл бұрын

russia currently operated nuclear icebreakers that you can book arctic vacation tours on.

@stephanvelines7006

2 жыл бұрын

@Roadster Life true, nice to see that you’re interested in the history of engineering as well. This channel is another YT gem but don’t dismiss your own work, I am a big fan and can only encourage people to take a look.

@andyrob3259

2 жыл бұрын

No. Mustard videos are amateur at best. Videos for millennials that never learnt anything other than what social media tell them.

i served on a nuclear submarine in the US Navy and it was awesome. We wore "TLD's" to measure the amount of radiation we received while onboard, but we were often told that you get more radiation from the sun in one day than you do from three months underway. Either way, I am huge proponent of nuclear energy, especially with today's better understanding of better and safer operations.

@BernardLS

10 ай бұрын

Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety. In engineering terms hydrocarbon fuelled ships do the job adequately and are simpler, financially hydrocarbon fuelled ships are, considering only internal costs, cheaper and socio-politically hydrocarbon fuelled ships are a known entity they thus have incumbent advantage. With regard to safety hydrocarbon fuelled ships may have serious problems but these are generally considered manageable and have known limits of impact, most importantly they can be shut down at short notice and are then walk away safe, while nuclear energy has fewer incidents those rarer occurrences are seen to be catastrophic and having unlimited effects. The biggest problem, if the problems have to be rated, is the economics. If the ship owning and operating community thought they could make money with nuclear energy they would make it happen despite the safety, socio political and engineering factors. ‘They’, the advocates of nuclear energy, may say nuclear is cheap, but it is not it is expensive, and has a large embedded carbon quotient as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. With nuclear energy all fuel costs are ‘up front’ while hydrocarbon fuels are incremental and thus can be funded from earnings rather than requiring capital commitment in something that has no secondary market. With regard to safety of nuclear shipping; contrary to the claim often made that ‘navies have been doing it for x years without a problem’ this is just not so. Based solely on the material in the public domain there have been a number of incidents, USS Thresher and USS Scopion being two from the USA. Between France and the UK there was the rather embarrassing incident when they each managed to get a ballistic missile armed nuclear powered submarine in the same place (latitude, longitude & depth) at the same time so quietly that neither heard the other coming (collision of HMS Vanguard & MN Le Triomphant in the night between 3rd & 4th Feb 2009). The navy of USSR, and its successor the Russian Federation, have also had a number of ‘events’, most notable the K-141 ‘Kursk’ that sank in an accident on 12 Aug 2000. These are all very competent, disciplined and well funded organisations; not FOC commercial shipping companies trying to turn a profit in a market that is overly competitive. As an example the Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. When the nuclear power plants on ships do need to exchange / refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black cSt380 HFO, or thin runny MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth (QE) and HMS Prince of Wales (PoW) are pushed about by ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power; so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each of the current iteration has a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and even more generous funding. If you still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 21 RN nuclear powered boats no longer in use are laid up (some, 7, in Rosyth and some, 14, in Devonport) awaiting deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. Also twenty years is a typical life expectancy for a commercial hull so about when the reactor needs refuelling, due to the elements being 'poisoned' (?), it is time to drag it up a beach on the Indian sub continent and start beating the thing to death with hand tools. The first layer of 'the onion of survivability' is 'do not go there'; which means that the case for nuclear energy at sea has a very high bar to adoption. The armed forces have no need to turn a profit to stay in business and being funded by the taxpayer can call on a relatively immense resource pool; private enterprise has to make back the money it spends (return on investment). Another, similar but more extensive, view may be found at www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-few-nuclear-powered-cargo-ships-If-it-works-for-ice-breakers-and-submarines-why-hasn%E2%80%99t-it-been-established-for-merchant-vessels.

@benjaminmiddaugh2729

7 ай бұрын

I'd love to see research on using thorium reactors on ships.

@miapdx503

6 ай бұрын

​@@BernardLSdude you just wrote a book...

@miapdx503

6 ай бұрын

We're all bombarded with radiation. That's why I take iodine. That's what they give you for radiation poisoning.

@BernardLS

6 ай бұрын

@@miapdx503 Thank you for reading it.

I love the people who were so concerned about a ship leaking radiation, that they camped out next to it for 2 months

@doomerius1300

5 ай бұрын

Average protestors

@40nakedniggasonahugespacecraft

3 ай бұрын

Mostly women and all leftists

@Noobie2k7

2 ай бұрын

We hate this ship. It could leak radiation and kill us all, let's make sure it cannot leave.

@CQC_CQC

2 ай бұрын

Japs are known for their selfless behaviour (especially the elderly), those fisherman probably think better them than anyone's else that suffer the radiation. It's maybe wrong for them to do that, but it's not their fault, the media giving them fear mongering information are to blame for the incident

@spvillano

14 күн бұрын

Well, they were from the only nation on earth to be nuked and there remains a nearly superstitious fear of nuclear anything. Where do you think that entire Godzilla thing came from, a desire to turn green and get superpowers? The laugh is, by the time these vessels were built and launched, there had been a number of reactors on land that melted down, some intentionally to study what happens under controlled conditions, some due to mishaps. So, meltdowns and power excursions and more was being learned each year, with the SL-1 never melting, despite some efforts that the closest we've seen since was at Chernobyl, albeit without a building roof catching fire and reactor contents spewed outside the building, everything with SL-1 stayed inside containment - including the crew, one of whom was located a week after the accident, pinned to the concrete ceiling by a control rod plug. With each intentional and unintentional mishap, we've learned more, until where we are now, we can actually build reactors that the operators could just literally walk away from and nothing bad would happen. Well, nothing bad, save if I got my hands on the controls, as I'm not a reactor guy. I know that I'd screw the damned thing up, even if it couldn't leak.

"In the 1960s, nuclear power was viewed as a revolutionary, near limitless source of energy." That's exactly what it is though.

@budthecyborg4575

2 жыл бұрын

Except that nuclear accidents leave the area of an entire city uninhabitable for centuries.

@weemissile

2 жыл бұрын

​@@budthecyborg4575 Except you can clean it up if you've got the time and money. It definitely is a pain if you have a big meltdown, but properly built nuclear reactors are effectively meltdown proof. In addition the damage done to in terms of economic and human harm of all the nuclear accidents in history is dwarfed by even a small fraction of the harm done by burning coal and oil.

@keithbubb730

2 жыл бұрын

What if we dump nuclear waste in to a volcano? I was just thinking the heat of a volcano would break it down.

@weemissile

2 жыл бұрын

@@keithbubb730 lol that is not how it works, heat does not increase rate of radioactive decay

@TarikDaniel

2 жыл бұрын

@@weemissile Nothing is 100% safe. And if something happens, nuclear meltdown is the worst thing that can happen. Let alone the fact that no one has found a vialble solution to store the waste for hundreds of years.

Fun fact, there are still technically two remaining nuclear "cruise" ships that you can pay to travel aboard. Russia's Yamal and 50 Let Pobedy are nuclear powered icebreakers that take paying passengers to the north pole.

@BungieStudios

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, I'd do that in a heartbeat. I better start saving up and learning Russian. 😆

@RobotDrivingACar

2 жыл бұрын

@@BungieStudios If I’m not mistaken it’s £50,000 per person.

@igameidoresearchtoo6511

2 жыл бұрын

@@RobotDrivingACar Oh well, I guess I better put my house on sale

@user-dt8rj2qg6y

2 жыл бұрын

@@RobotDrivingACar the cheapest option is $32000

@ghaspar

2 жыл бұрын

@@RobotDrivingACar it starts from 30k USD, if I remember correctly

As a child I watched this ship sail down the channel on its visit to my hometown, Savannah, GA. At 6:22 in your video it shows the NS Savannah in the Savannah River along with a motor yacht named "The Flying Lady". The grandfather of a childhood friend was the captain of that vessel at the time.

@BikingVikingHH

Жыл бұрын

Cool story bro (not sarcasm 😉)

At the time my dad, a WW II Navy veteran, was an electrical engineer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories specializing in air-filtration systems for nuclear reactors. He spent months away from our home in Kingston, TN, helping build the Savannah.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

I thought the 'Savannah' was built in Camden, New Jersey? Was he working on sub systems latter built into the hull after assembly?

@RoscoesRiffs

Жыл бұрын

@@BernardLS I can see how it might have been unclear we lived in Kingston, Tennessee, a short commute to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where the National Laboratories were built by the Atomic Energy Commission during World War II. He traveled out of the Knoxville Airport to wherever the Atomic Energy Commission sent him . I was seven or eight years old at the time, so I don't know for sure. I suspect it was Camden because he brought me simple magic tricks from a novelty store when they occasionally sent him home for a few days. 😎🖖

Fun fact: The first Captain of the "Otto Hahn" was Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock, german U-Boat ace during WW2 and the direct inspiration for the U-Boat commander in the famous novel (and later movie) "Das Boot".

@DSAK55

2 жыл бұрын

Otto Hahn was a physicist first developed the idea of nuclear fission

@oskar_2114

2 жыл бұрын

How the fuck do you know this?

@chicagotypewriter2094

2 жыл бұрын

@@DSAK55 Don't forget Lise Meitner, his assistant who helped more scientists know about it!

@andyrob3259

2 жыл бұрын

@@oskar_2114 Wikipedia can sometimes actually be correct.

@Pseud0nymTXT

2 жыл бұрын

so he should have been in jail

It's so depressing to see all these things from the past where we almost took the correct turn into the good future, but people let their fears and a few mistakes ruin everything.

@TarikDaniel

2 жыл бұрын

It's so easy and arrogant to say that bad things happened in the past just because of old/inferior technology or very specific reasons that will never happen again. In 50 years from now, our today's technology will be outdated as well and even then, they most likely won't have found a solution for nuclear waste.

@redengineer4380

2 жыл бұрын

@@TarikDaniel The amount of waste outputted and fuel consumed in comparison to coal for nuclear power is massive. Coal is way, way, _way_ more inefficient and produces way more waste. I would certainly be more worried about coal, and would heavily rather use nuclear.

@TarikDaniel

2 жыл бұрын

@@redengineer4380 Fossil energy is mainly bad when you use it. Nuclear waste management is far away from being controlled solution. Also, there are better ways to get energy. Replacing a bad technilogy with another bad one is not an improvement.

@kodeystockton1124

2 жыл бұрын

@@TarikDaniel Okay so what is a better way to power a ship than either nuclear energy or oil? Fucking solar power??? Nuclear energy is safer than oil and coal so why not just transistion everything to nuclear? We have nuclear waste storages deep underground in remote areas btw. And the statistics for deaths per MW from nuclear energy vs oil is phenomonally better.

@HowToChangeName

2 жыл бұрын

@@TarikDaniel that is science, its not perfect but there's always room for improvement. And even for pilot design its surprisingly safe and thoroughly calculated to minimize damage

Fortunately, there are new, smaller reactor designs that are a lot safer to use and doesn't hog so much interior space on a ship. That could make it possible for container ships that could carry as much cargo as Maersk's largest container ships but with virtually no air pollution.

@BernardLS

8 ай бұрын

Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety. In engineering terms hydrocarbon fuelled ships do the job adequately and are simpler, financially hydrocarbon fuelled ships are, considering only internal costs, cheaper and socio-politically hydrocarbon fuelled ships are a known entity they thus have incumbent advantage. With regard to safety hydrocarbon fuelled ships may have serious problems but these are generally considered manageable and have known limits of impact, most importantly they can be shut down at short notice and are then walk away safe, while nuclear energy has fewer incidents those rarer occurrences are seen to be catastrophic and having unlimited effects. To reduce the impact of marine cargo shipment reduce the amount of stuff being moved and how far it is moved. Is it essential to have your Marigolds (kitchen gloves) made in China or Malaysia? It is the freight tonne miles that do the harm not the goods themselves. At the moment the lowest cost resolution of the challenges is ICEs powered by liquid fossils fuel. Some environmental costs are externalised, so the global community has to bear them, for the benefit of the users of the service. The internalisation of those costs is the responsibility of the regulators while the ultimate liability should lay with consumers of the materials being transported. If you want your toys, gadgets and stuff you will need to pay that cost.

@norml.hugh-mann

5 ай бұрын

​@@BernardLSconsumers are seldom given a choice!

@BernardLS

5 ай бұрын

@@norml.hugh-mann Except the ultimate choice, 'just say NO and walk away'

@simon2493

3 ай бұрын

Has something changed and smaller reactors stopped being a glorified boiler? There is a reason why commercial ships use diesel and not steam turbines.

@BernardLS

3 ай бұрын

@@norml.hugh-mannYou are correct any form of ‘reactor’ is a type of boiler and the ICEs surpassed external combustion in terms of direct cost and so came to predominate, the oxygen (free use of ‘a common good’) and atmosphere (waste depository) are externalised costs that are not factored in. Nuclear energy is said to be ‘clean’ but the cost depends on where the boundary is drawn. In much the same way as ‘tailpipe emmisions’ and ‘well to wheel’ costs differ. Best environmental option is the ‘Negawatt’, as in ‘energy you do not use will never pollute’. Merchant shipping is on a ‘high volume, low added value’ business model and reverting to a ‘low volume, high added value’ business model should reduce the impact of the activity.

I actually got to tour Savannah when she was part of the Patriot's Point Naval Museum near Charleston. Unfortunately all the interior passenger spaces were closed off and what was left was a walk by the reactor control room and peering through a porthole at the navigation bridge, along with an art exhibit that had bizarrely been set up in one of the cargo holds. She was eventually removed from Patriots Point and was honestly not really missed. It seems even as a museum people were unclear about how to manage her.

@kevinmulkey9774

Жыл бұрын

I saw it there growing up in the early 1990's. Neat, but like you said not much to see sadly.

@TheRiverPirate13

Жыл бұрын

Same. I toured this ship in 1986 while it was at Patriot's Point.

@naberville3305

Жыл бұрын

Awww... I'm sad it wasn't there. I was stationed in Charleston for 2 years for nuke school. We had a mandatory visit to patriots point to be shown around the boiler rooms of the carrier. Would've been a heck of a lot cooler to explore the savannah.

@justinjohnson7250

9 ай бұрын

I still have a brochure in and photos from about 1997 in Charleston .

The NS Savannah is still docked in the ports at Baltimore, and it's a public museum now. The fuel is removed, and the reactor decommissioning is slowly getting done, but it's a wonderful look into such a bright nuclear age. I've been, and I recommend it for anyone who's near and into this kind of thing.

@Happymali10

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder if they could swap it's motors too (maybe in a mock reactor shell) and offer cruises again.

@isaacstevens5415

2 жыл бұрын

@@Happymali10 Obviously I don't work there, but it's a real big ship. Anything powerful enough to push it would take up a lot of space, and right now it's perfectly happy as a floating museum.

@Happymali10

2 жыл бұрын

@@isaacstevens5415 I was just throwing thoughts around, bcause apparently it's been done to other nuclear ships.

@stuarthall3874

2 жыл бұрын

I'm glad to hear that. I remember seeing it docked in Newport News around 2007, looking abandoned and unloved.

@mvd4436

2 жыл бұрын

One day most ships will be nuclear and this time will be known as some weird anti nuclear dark age

I remember this ship , from a clear afternoon in the English Channel back in 1967 , literally walk (more like run ) past my steam turbine ship, trudging along at 15 knots . Was a cadet then , standing watch on the bridge . Even managed to get a snap on my Kodak box camera . Thanks for the detailed explanation .

@MustardChannel

2 жыл бұрын

Cool comment :)

@fulccrum2324

2 жыл бұрын

epic

@vanhahillo9984

2 жыл бұрын

Cool comment :)

@hridgreximp6194

2 жыл бұрын

Cool comment :)

@bouncingshot

2 жыл бұрын

Cool comment :)

I remember going to see Savannah with my parents when she visited Southampton in the UK. We went aboard and took a guided tour. She was impressive (especially to 11 year old me) and seemed so far ahead of any other ship we'd seen.

This is an excellent video, the 3D modelling and graphics are top notch. The use of archival materials matches the narrative extremely well. The research and presentation of issues is equally well done. That said, I have a few nits. I am the project manager for NS Savannah for the Maritime Administration, and represent the agency as the holder of the ship's NRC license. I also act as steward of the ship as a National Historic Landmark. That said, my comments are personal, and not on behalf of the US Department of Transportation or MARAD. First, please understand that Savannah was, and is to this day, a government-owned and funded project. The ship was operated by American Export Isbrandtsen Lines under contract from MARAD (same for its predecessor, States Marine Lines). To this day, every penny spent on Savannah was on the MARAD budget, and the ship was never subsidized (at 8:15). From 1965 - 1970, Savannah earned revenue that was equal to between 50 and 60% of its total budget, but that money was deposited to the US Treasury as receipts - much like income taxes. The MARAD budget, and therefore the direct cost of the program, was never offset by revenue from the ship. The program was ended in 1970 not because the ship was unprofitable (at 10:25), but because it had successfully demonstrated all of its objectives (and more), while there was tremendous pressure on the federal budget from activities such as the Apollo Program, Vietnam War and Great Society. Quite simply, federal dollars could be better spent elsewhere, when it was obvious that no new nuclear merchant ships would be built in the US. The comment on the practicality of the ship's design beginning at 7:50 is a common contemporary misunderstanding of ship design. Passenger-Cargo ships like Savannah were extremely common ship types well into the jet and container revolutions. Four similar ships were built in the US after Savannah, for Grace Lines. In conceiving the ship as primarily a demonstration of the Atoms for Peace concept, President Eisenhower directed that economics and efficiency not be considered in its design. He favored aesthetics, and the simple acts of carrying cargo and passengers safely as being the most important missions when related to Atoms for Peace. The hull is actually a derivative of the famous C4 Mariner class general cargo (breakbulk) ship. Savannah employs deep sheer and flare to create the beautiful appearance, but behind that is a pretty standard cargo ship whose holds are almost identical in size to the Mariner (they are not too small). The passenger space does not affect the holds, except for cargo hold 5. This was intended to be a "blind hold" served by sideports in the hull connected to elevators and mechanized conveyors for palletized cargo. Unfortunately, the funds appropriated to build the ship were insufficient to fit that equipment, so 5 hold ultimately was used for non-cargo purposes. Yes, cargo handling was inefficient because of the rake of the masts - but it was more inefficient because only half as much cargo gear was fitted than normal. This was because aesthetics were a more important design consideration than cargo handling. If you imagine Savannah with 5 more sets of cargo trusses (to give 4 booms at each hold, vice 2), would you think she is as attractive? Probably not. Finally, I really don't think its true that Savannah inspired other countries to build nuclear merchant ships (at 8:38). Yes, the 3 other ships (Otto Hahn, Mutsu and Sevmorput) came after Savannah, but all of the projects began in the heady days of atomic optimism in the mid-50s, and Sevmorput in particular was inspired by Soviet interests in their Arctic waters, and experience with their nuclear icebreakers. Projects in other nations did not advance, and that had little to nothing to do with Savannah. Ok, that's it for my nits - the length of the comment really doesn't reflect the very high quality of this video, which to me is perfect all the way through 7:50, and very good from there to the end. Thanks for the good work. And please watch for info coming in 2023 regarding Savannah's future.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

A useful and well informed comment, IMHO:

@Brave_Sir_Robin

11 ай бұрын

Excellent comment, needs more attention

@ErhardKoehler

11 ай бұрын

@@Brave_Sir_Robin thanks!

@brianb-p6586

19 күн бұрын

Thanks, but saying that the ship's operation was entirely funded by MARAD and that this funding was always greater than the income generated is confirming - not contradicting - the video's statement that it was government subsidized. You can shuffle money between pockets all you want, but in the end the taxpayer's pockets funded this exercise.

I served on Nimitz class carrier, the very one you showed 11:50 USS Eisenhower CVN69. NO berthings were located near the 2 reactor plants. I worked in those reactor plants. In the 4 years I was aboard, my total radiation dose was less than if I spent a day at the beach

@jordanplays-transitandgame1690

2 жыл бұрын

Damn, its hard to believe how safe it is!

@paulskopic5844

2 жыл бұрын

That day at the beach was skin dose.

@KaushikBala333

2 жыл бұрын

Wow

@viscountalpha

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulskopic5844 In the defense of the country, they can't have the sailors falling over dying or getting sick. It's safe you nitwit.

@themeantuber

2 жыл бұрын

They should have just kept quiet about the ships being nuclear and no one would have known, no one would have complained etc.

As someone who has slept next to a nuclear reactor for years, its fine. Better than the sound of diesel engines running too

@NBrixH

2 жыл бұрын

Super Carrier?

@chrismafer2000

2 жыл бұрын

@@NBrixH or Nuclear sub

@NBrixH

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrismafer2000 true true

@henrywood5462

2 жыл бұрын

You’ve slept next to a reactor???😲

@gluesniffingdude

2 жыл бұрын

@@henrywood5462 probably not right next to it, the nuclear spaces on US warships at least are partitioned off from crew quarters. Still, submarines are fairly small boats and OP's comparison to diesel propulsion makes it likely that he's talking about a submarine.

The Savannah made a stop in Le Havre in 1965… lots of visitors took the tour. I clearly remember the large round portholes, very elegant. They were polarized, and you could rotate the frame with a handle, to dim the light.

I had a plastic model of the Savannah when I was a kid and thought it was a beautiful ship. Saw it years ago in Charleston, SC. Shame it didn't catch on more. Nuclear powered cargo ships sailing faster than the one's we currently have would be a great boon to civilization and the environment.

@richardchiriboga4424

Жыл бұрын

Me too! The Savanna was the first model ship I built. I thought that it was beautiful and I still do!!!

@FLY2KO

10 ай бұрын

but you weren't of this ship were you????

@donaldtrump6491

9 ай бұрын

​@@FLY2KO What did they mean by this?

@jvl4832

9 ай бұрын

I also had a Model of the Savannah that I built as a child. I believe it came in a red plastic color. Long time ago. What a novel at the time , a nuclear powered ship.

Just for those curious: Water is dense enough to completely absorb all ionizing radiation once it's a few meters deep. It's possible to look directly at Cherenkov radiation in "open pool" reactors without any danger to your health.

@mafiousbj

2 жыл бұрын

"But think of the dolphins!!!" Greenpeace would say (and they do have a point to an extent)

@ChrisRobertson09

2 жыл бұрын

technically you could swim in those pools

@totallynoteverything1.

2 жыл бұрын

@@mafiousbj fuck eco terrorists and eco authoritarians, don't they know that nuclear power is the mother of all energy sources? The sun is a nuclear reactor for fucks sake, and what? We only collect a small fraction of that power through pussy shit solar panels? When we already have the full capability to safely and effectively grasp it in our hands!

@aolson1111

2 жыл бұрын

@@mafiousbj The dolphins would be fine. Only life within a couple feet of the reactor on the sea floor would be affected.

@StrokeMahEgo

2 жыл бұрын

@@ChrisRobertson09 but only at the top

It is a shame to see nuclear power being so politicised and feared by the public, hopefully people will realise how great it can be

@docdragoon8095

2 жыл бұрын

Well the main reason nuclear power is so fear mongered is because of fossil fuel industry leaders. Long story short the oil industry is the number one enemy of nuclear power and funds most of the anti-nuclear propaganda

@Project2457official

2 жыл бұрын

@@docdragoon8095 Very true. Thats why fossil fuel corporate lobbyists tend to push an only renewables, non nuclear option in electricity for example, because they know that renewables are best coupled with nuclear power. It benefits them to basically lobby for solar and wind and no nuclear because the fallback (which tends to happen often), is typically on to natural gas fired power plants. These emit a shit ton of methane which is much more potent of a GHG than carbon dioxide is for example. I'm writing a paper on electricity and I have a bunch of sources if you want them on natural gas and renewables.

@cheapestf1598

2 жыл бұрын

This is a big issue because I know that nuclear is extremely safe, but I still fear accidents happening, because if one were to somehow happen, the effects would be detrimental, our planet would basically be on a tightrope, which is why I want Solar, Hydro, and Wind over Nuclear. And I'm 100% up to having my mind changed on it, but I just haven't heard a statistic or revelation that's convinced me yet.

@unotechrih8040

2 жыл бұрын

@@cheapestf1598 The only way solar, wind, and hydro will cover our energy needs is in addition to nuclear power. I live in a cabin that is not connected to the power grid and use solar and wind all the time. The solar works pretty good but doesn't cover everything.

@TheScouter1542

2 жыл бұрын

@@cheapestf1598 do not take this comment as fact because all of this is off the top of my head from a very basic knowledge of nuclear, but i'm pretty sure newer reactors not only are less likely to suffer accidents, the ones that do happen are very limited in scale compared to something like chernobyl (in itself the result of what happens when you don't handle such a technology properly in favor of delegating the project to party yes-men)

Hey I got to work on this ship for a couple of years, she's a beautifully made ship too. Good to see people talking about her!

@drspangle13

Жыл бұрын

Oh wow! What was that like? I've always heard the staffing tensions were one of the issues with the NS Savannah, as marine reactor staff are often paid rockstar salaries, while other cruise ship staff tend to be paid barely minimum wage (if that). Was there actually that tension aboard?

I can't even imagine how much of the dreaded green house gases we would eliminate if we used SMRs to power container ships. Being constantly in water, they sit in their own cooling fluid so as long as the control robs drop it will not melt down.

@BernardLS

9 ай бұрын

Sea water is two stages removed from the heat source. It can only be used to condense the secondary cooling loop that runs from the primary cooling loop condenser through the power turbines before that steam is condensed for recirculation. The primary cooling loop, that transfers the energy from the reactor core to the heat exchanger, is not connected to any sea water.

Yea, I think I probably would. It wouldn’t bother me at all since the chances of one actually going wrong is minuscule, and I expect the ride would be much more efficient and nice.

@Project2457official

2 жыл бұрын

Just for reference: a NASA Goddard study found that it was magnitudes more dangerous to work in an urban region than it is to work at a nuclear power plant. I think this further justifies the point :)

@X-Caliber02

2 жыл бұрын

And if it did go wrong, it's not like you're gonna be alive long enough to know about it (that isn't sarcastic btw, I'm on TeamNuclear) Edit: Alright, everyone seems to think they need to mention how most people die from the radiation over a few days, however my comment was more in relation to an explosion. The video is talking about sleeping right beside it, so personally, I feel a nuclear explosion (even if it's not large enough to sink the ship, would still do some damage to people sleeping near it)

@jakehildebrand1824

2 жыл бұрын

@@X-Caliber02 depends on how wrong things go. Most likely the only way it would effect you would be the alarm going off and waking you up at 1:00 in the morning. Might have a hard time getting back to sleep, but its a perfect excuse to read a good book. Worst case scenario, ship goes immediately to port, ending the cruise. Not getting refunded for an incomplete cruise may be infuriating but hey, you can always take them to court for violation of contract. (When you pay them, that is considered by law to be a legally binding contract) Even in the event of a total core meltdown, the fuel would most likely melt a hole through the ships hull before any serious issues occur. (Ok, no serious issues other than the hole in the boat)

@hunterbear2421

2 жыл бұрын

@@X-Caliber02 the chances of it going wrong if done right is next to none You would have to have one serious unlucky day

@DoubleMonoLR

2 жыл бұрын

@@X-Caliber02 People involved in nuclear accidents have often suffered and died over days or longer. Deaths & injuries are typically from exposure, not directly from an explosion.

On my last cruise, my first one as an adult, i couldnt help but notice the ship was leaving a massive smog trail behind it, that lingered for hours. It made me realize just how bad they can be for the environment. I would absolutely sail on a nuclear ship, it would probably be better for my health than a regular cruise.

@jonathanverret6872

Жыл бұрын

Yep, bring on the nuke ships, I would cruise on one in a heartbeat.

@justalpha9138

Жыл бұрын

Although nuclear energy does have some major downsides (mainly storage of used rods), it's got FAR more positives than negatives. I'm a huge environmentalist, and nobody smart can deny that nuclear energy needs to be expanded upon.

@patty109109

Жыл бұрын

The biggest cruise ships consume 1 gallon of fuel per second. That is not a mistype.

@rutuu7236

Жыл бұрын

@@patty109109 not to mention that fuel is the nastiest, thickest, most polluting fuel they make, it's barely a step above crude oil, they have to heat it above the boiling point of water to even get the stuff to flow

@andrewyork3869

Жыл бұрын

@@patty109109 and I thought my gas mileage was bad.

The ship was manned by engineers in the MEBA maritime union . I knew one of the Nuclear 2nd engineers, the late Tom Cannon of Jersey City , NJ. Later he was Chief Engineer on the first US Merchant ship powered by gas turbines , the Admiral Callahan. He was brilliant and humble and always made you feel important. The reactors used a low enrichment uranium reactor unlike the USNavy ships so the Engineering Plant was more like a shore power plant than a Navy reactor.

@mikegrant8490

Жыл бұрын

Do you have any idea where the Savannah is located now? About 15 years ago it was tied up in Newport News Shipbuilding awaiting some work. I saw her a few times from the water, her stern facing the James River, and just wondered what could be done to modify her into a sea-goer again. Though long in the tooth, she had the very sweetest lines ever seen in a commercial vessel of that age. Too bad that for something like that to continue to exist it had to make enough money to pay for it's self. I wasn't aware of the flat run of the bottom and the horizontal stabilizer planes, though. I was just a kid when she was launched and quite remember the photo of Enterprise, Bainbridge, Savannah and I think, the Nautilus together at sea somewhere.

@robertgutheridge9672

Жыл бұрын

And most people don't realize that modern reactor design make them much much much safer than the old Westinghouse design of things like 3 mile island . Because engineers have learned from the past and know that you need to have multiple redundant systems . But small modular reactors are safe because if anything goes wrong they automatically shut down.

@MC-810

Жыл бұрын

@@mikegrant8490 It is currently in Baltimore in a state of basic maintenance while waiting for final decommissioning (the plant has been non-operational for many years, and no fuel aboard there are still things aboard that are considered “hot”) and final disposition of the vessel. There are some who want to make this into a permanent museum ship though this is a very expensive undertaking.

@mikegrant8490

Жыл бұрын

@@MC-810 Thanks for the information about her. It must've been at Newport News Shipbuilding that the reactor was removed? Where in Baltimore? Sparrows Point?

@MC-810

Жыл бұрын

@@mikegrant8490 I don’t know if it was defueled in Newport News. That would make sense as they do have the experience from all of the Navy vessels. It is presently in the Port of Baltimore, at the marine terminal.

The Savannah was a first-of-a-kind ship, so it is understandable that it wasn't as efficient as a production vessel would be. Still, it was a pioneering effort. Here we are, nearly 70 years later, and technical decisions are still driven by politics.

@BernardLS

9 ай бұрын

'Decisions are still driven by politics' because of the social consequences of nuclear power the local population must have a voice in what goes on, In a representative democracy the elected politicians are supposed to exercise that control on private enterprise, such as random merchant ship operators. The other three reasons why nuclear energy failed in merchant shipping are engineering, finance and safety. In engineering terms hydrocarbon fuelled ships do the job adequately and are simpler and financially hydrocarbon fuelled ships are, considering only internal costs, cheaper. With regard to safety hydrocarbon fuelled ships may have serious problems but these are generally considered manageable and have known limits of impact, most importantly they can be shut down at short notice and are then walk away safe, while nuclear energy has fewer incidents those rarer occurrences are seen to be catastrophic and having unlimited effects.

As someone who was unaware these even existed, it feels like a historical turning point sadly left only to military use in modern day

@Jace888

2 жыл бұрын

Same as supersonic aircrafts.

@guillermoelnino

Жыл бұрын

thanks to marxists posing as hippies.

@yesyes-om1po

Жыл бұрын

@@Jace888 wat

@mikaelranki

Жыл бұрын

I know this reply comes 7 months too late, but I completely understand why nuclear propulsion is not used in any vessels outside military use. First of all there is the liability issues as described in the video itself. Sure there are commercial nuclear powerplants, but even with those liability is always a topic of hot debate. However, in case of a meltdown/other accident, limiting the damage is much easier with a stationary powerplants which are usually built on rural areas with only small towns around them. It's completely different story if that accident happens in a port of a coastal megacity. With military vessels, the liability is not a question that has to be debated, since government is always liable. My second (and I'd say more important) point is the safety concern of those vessels being hijacked/attacked/bombed. Military vessels are always heavily guarded, so attacking them is not too tempting for organizations wishing to cause harm for general public, not to even mention the fact that since they are military targets the organization hijacking/attacking them would be relentlessly hunted down by military. A civilian vessel does not have hundreds or even thousands of always armed troops guarding them, nor do they have any ship mounted heavy weaponry to defend themselves in case of an attack. Sure, if a civilian nuclear vessel would be hijacked, a (most likely) large scale counterterrorist operation would be conducted, to prevent that ship and nuclear materials from falling in to the wrong hands. However, the sea is a large place to hide single ship even during this age of satellite surveillance, as we have seen from the countless stories of "ghost ships" that have vanished without a trace on the seas, only to be found floating somewhere months or years later. The idea of clean propulsion and energy, that nuclear brings with it is tempting and I'm supporting nuclear powerplants completely, but using nuclear propulsion on civilian vessels simply seems too risky in this day and age where even countries bomb nuclear targets like powerplants during their military operations, like we have seen in the war on Ukraine. Perhaps if commercial vessels would be allowed (or even required) to have heavy ship mounted weaponry and private "armies" to protect their vessels, like trading companies had back in the history, the idea of civilian nuclear vessels could be viable. This however would bring another severe risk in to the table: what would happen if someone could still somehow hijack a trading vessel like that. If that would happen, the hijackers would have basically an armed nuclear warship in their disposal. It would also be very problematic, if one of the companies owning a fleet of nuclear vessels like that would use those vessels to further their own gains by using force/selling the vessels to some not-so-reputable organisation. It's also a fact that even back in the days of private tradingcompany navys, no ship was carrying cargo/powersource that could literally kill hundreds of thousands of people, if the ship would fall in to wrong hands and be blown up as a dirty bomb somewhere. Sure, I'm being very pessimistic about this subject, but I simply do not believe that civilians could be freely trusted with such a destructible power. Not everyone wants to further the common good of people. I believe that Humankind is a species rotten to the core and trusting civilian population with such a big responsibility only leads to death and suffering, no matter if the vessels have weapons or not. Sorry about the long comment, but that's my two cents on the subject.

@mikaelranki

Жыл бұрын

It's also important to notice how civilian ships sink every year because of insufficient or even nonexistent maintenance. What makes you think that these same private companies that cant even take care of their current diesel powered vessels would be responsible enough to take care of a nuclear reactor. If nuclear powered ships would be readily available and "affordable" to the commercial sector, there would be meltdowns, I guarantee it. Maybe those meltdowns would not happen immediately, but after a few decades when those ships would have changed fleets couple times, and perhaps found their way to some company based on a third world country, it would be inevitable. There would need to be yearly or even monthly inspections for those vessels conducted by government officials, but as we all know, in certain countries the inspector will ignore any faults found in the vessel, for the right sum of money of course... A global joint authority that would operate under UN for example could perhaps work, but the larger the organization, the more rampant the corruption. It's also certain that some countries would refuse to be part of such organization, even if they "would not be allowed" to register civilian nuclear vessels unless they are part of that organization. "Life, uh, finds a way", so do governments and corporations.

Nuclear powered container ships would not only eliminate emissions but would fulfil all the promises that Savannah made because they wouldn't be burdened with a poorly thought out cargo/passenger hybrid design. All that would be needed is for people to leave their irrational/excessive fear behind. The USN has been training 18 year olds for decades to operate reactors without a single major accident. Nuclear is safe right now and is already well regulated. So please let's get going full speed with nuclear power.

@GoingtoHecq

2 жыл бұрын

I think there are issues of national security. Too much uncontrolled nuclear material. Also, ships sink frequently. It is absolutely tragic, and a lot of it is from negligence of the owners. They don't care about human life. Only profit margins. There is no reason to trust them with a device that could irradiate oceans, bays, or in the worst case, meltdown. It would likely be safer to produce fuel using nuclear power. Maybe just hydrogen, or various hydrocarbons. It's a complete compromise, but it might be a good one. Maybe though I'm wrong. Maybe we can have nuclear cargo ships safely. After all he said the military has used nuclear ships for 50 years. Frankly that's huge. We'd have to be real strict with shipping companies though and who is allowed to use them and where. Frankly it might even act as a sort of sanction.

@alienclay2

2 жыл бұрын

Premade and activated fuel rods lack the both the fissile density and general construction to be remade into fuel for weapons.

@bennylofgren3208

2 жыл бұрын

Hex As for national security, the US isn’t the only country in the world capable of designing nuclear technology, you know. There are already plenty of civilian nuclear reactors world-wide, including in many countries without nuclear weapons. There are very few “national security” concerns with most of those.

@fredericrike5974

2 жыл бұрын

While I will agree that the fuel rods, in and of themselves are very limited in value towards a weapons program, all uranium based reactors breed plutonium- all of them, some, the fast breeders, more than others. And ground up fuel rod would still make a great "core" for a dirty bomb, so the security case is valid. Much of what made marine nuclear fade away could have been pursued better with thorium, which they did have over 20 thousand hours experience with before the decision to put all the research and government shoulder behind uranium.NS Savannah's lack of success was due to many unforeseen causes- and developments like containerized cargo, which BTW, beached, then scrapped many hundreds of ships in it's first few years.

@alienclay2

2 жыл бұрын

@@fredericrike5974 hence why i said "activated" it would take very sophisticated and expensive techniques to deal with highly radioactive active rods in any fashion. And not just get yourself killed in the process, or send up so much activity that your movements are easy to see even via satellite. You may be able to liquify some substance and send it though a few loops for neutron activation, but it doesn't take a reactor to do that, and there are better and easier to obtain sources for that as well. If it's an issue of state actors I can see a point but I think by and large the biggest issue is that maritime reactors are a long-term investment and cargo ships are usually a bit more of a short-term purchase and changing cargo ship technology and port access as well as the efficiency of size puts too much volatility into the nuclear powered civilian ship platform to make it worthwhile to make that big investment.

6:58 that big "but......." unspoken but there

I like how he changed this year old video's thumbnail despite the previous one already perfect

@asiandrag0n

Жыл бұрын

ik lol old one was perfect

As Russian, I'm glad that you mentioned our fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers. In winter only these machines have enough power to break the thick ice of Arctic Ocean and provide our most remote regions with supplies. However, in summer these atomic monsters operate as cruise liners and tour regularly straight to North Pole! Carribeans? Indonesia? Pfff... Jump onto my floating Chernobyl and let's go icebreaking right to the tippest tip of the Earth!!! Isn't it badass as heck?))))

@ddaneh3090

2 жыл бұрын

Awesome

@dubistverrueckt

2 жыл бұрын

Totally badass!

@mafiousbj

2 жыл бұрын

We need some of those in Argentina!!

@veyle-trickshotter5232

2 жыл бұрын

@@mafiousbj how you think all those nazis got there!

@mafiousbj

2 жыл бұрын

@@veyle-trickshotter5232 certainly not in nuclear powered ice breakers :p

honestly this guy deserves some sort of award at this point

I remember seeing the N.S. Savannah docked in Savannah, Georgia when passing through the area in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I believe it was later moved to Baltimore, Maryland.

@jamesevans5453

Жыл бұрын

Yep, I've had the honor of being able to go aboard while my dad was supplying the ship for an event it was having. It's I think still docked there to this day.

@henrydjr

10 ай бұрын

I also saw it.

I personally think part of the problem Savannah faced was the designers trying to make it a Jack-of-all trades. Might have helped to have the ship either be a passenger ship or a cargo ship, not both. Even if it meant making it a ship Class and having cargo and passengers variations of it. Just my thoughts. Would have loved to sail on a nuclear cruise ship

@WhyDoesMyNameChangedTo_user

7 ай бұрын

I assume that this decision was motivated by the inability to inexpensively manufacture a high-quality low-power nuclear reactor. A reactor building is like building a tunnel by closed method: the creation itself is more significant in cost than its size. Therefore, by adding functions, they tried to compensate for the excessive cost of the reactor.

What a beautiful ship - with that streamlined design she looks just as much a luxury yacht as a cargo ship. Her passengers and crew were at more risk of contracting cancer from all that sunbathing and unfiltered cigarettes than her reactor.

@gabehammond7591

2 жыл бұрын

I really agree to this, people look at nuclear almost as the only source of cancer, yet there are so many other sources that we don’t even second guess, like smoking

@patagualianmostly7437

2 жыл бұрын

Beautiful indeed. I made a model of this as a kid....and just loved the finished job. Many years later, as a merchant seaman.... I sailed past this ship, laid up at anchor in Savannah (of course)...she was still beautiful. I think the mistake was the attempt to make the ship cargo & passenger....too many compromises on space and practicality and overstaffed as a result.

@bubba99009

2 жыл бұрын

@@patagualianmostly7437 Yea hard to see any cargo/passenger hybrid work with only 30 staterooms. You need a lot of extra staff to take care of passengers that you don't need to look after cargo. Either way you need to go for scale.

@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking

2 жыл бұрын

What about when the crew is lurched out of bed when another ship collides, tearing it in half? A lethal dose of radiation would be inflicted on everyone aboard within seconds. Sea Travel for reactors is not safe. Glaring omission from this doc: There are reactors on the bottom of the ocean from submarine accidents. We may have to deal with them leaking in the future. Even 5,000 years from now, they're still incredibly dangerous. Could make entire seas devoid of edible seafood, and worse.

@lukemellor9950

2 жыл бұрын

@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking I think you need to look up the effects water when it comes to absorbing nuclear radiation. Only a few meters of water are able to effectively absorb the radiation from an active nuclear reactor so to the point that you can safely swim within view of it. I understand the bad potential of nuclear power is very sensational, but the reality is nuclear accidents are incredibly rare. In fact, statistically more people die installing solar panels every year than have died from the only three nuclear mishaps history. In fact, the “Deaths per KWH/TWH” of power produced by various energy sources is extensively studied, and nuclear is by far the safest energy source by this metric. I think it’s important not to attach emotion to nuclear power. The statement “there are nuclear reactors on the bottom of the ocean” sounds ominous, but in reality it’s not a threat to any one or thing.

Back in the summer of 1970, I sailed as crew on the last voyage of this ship (Bayonne NJ to Galveston TX). The ship actually had four purposes. Besides cargo and passengers, she also had a school and a laboratory. There were extensive classrooms and student staterooms for the training of future nuclear engineers. The ship was also highly instrumented, much more so than any future commercial ship would be or than modern naval ships are today. What killed the N.S. Savannah's career was the same thing that killed similar conventionally powered passenger/cargo vessels like the Grace Line's Santa Rosa and Santa Paula. Passengers started flying and cargo started to be put in containers.

@coromark

2 жыл бұрын

So a nuclear powered container ship may be feasible?

@pistolgrip772

2 жыл бұрын

@@coromark oil tycoons would never let a nuclear powered container ship to be built

@FallenPhoenix86

2 жыл бұрын

@@pistolgrip772 Pretty soon they won't have a choice or influence, its either nuclear or a return to the age of sail... the later doesn't strike me as particularly viable.

@NoaZeevi

2 жыл бұрын

@@FallenPhoenix86 steam is always possible.

@caav56

2 жыл бұрын

@@coromark Yes. One even exists already, called "Sevmorput".

My dad worked on the savannah. And I remember being on this bad boy as a child. Also revisited it in s.c ❤

That teardrop bridge.... its like a fast-back ocean liner. That is so cool

The one thing the NS Savannah couldn't overcome was it was the wrong ship design. It was designed as a break bulk carrier, that loaded and carried individually packaged goods - crates, boxes, sacks, pallets, etc. - but the future of shipping wasn't in break-bulk cargo. Such a ship relies heavily on a large crew and workforce of longshoremen, with warehouses and sorting/loading areas to move that cargo and required a lot of time in each port. The age of intermodal containers was just dawning and was seen as the future of shipping. The NS Savannah would have done much better if designed as an early container or even a RO/RO (Roll-on/Roll-off) for semi-trailers instead of relying on the same cargo handling that dated back to the age of sail and was steadily losing favor with large shipping companies. It was futuristic in almost every aspect except where it really counted - making money! And cargo handled quickly and efficiently is what makes money - and the one thing she couldn't do, by design.

@caav56

2 жыл бұрын

Sevmorput got luckier in this regard.

@torinnbalasar6774

2 жыл бұрын

If they wanted it to be profitable, they would've made it a full cargo hauler or an oil tanker. Her primary mission was advertising the Atoms for Peace message that nuclear power was safe and the future- hence the passenger side.

@globohomo9114

2 жыл бұрын

agree mostly but my god nuclear powered RO/RO ships are literally begging for disaster lmao

@crowtein677

2 жыл бұрын

It was also designed mostly as a cruiseship

@Jon651

2 жыл бұрын

@@globohomo9114 I don't know if a RO/RO is inherently any more dangerous than any other sort of cargo vessel (except for possibly an LNG carrier...), but it would certainly have had military benefits as a reserve vessel, not to mention usefulness in natural disaster relief efforts, etc.

I recently watched another video on the pollution of cargo and leisure vessels. Coming from a navy town with bases that receive multiple nuclear powered ships, it blows my mind that this technology has not been used commercially. I can't believe the public perception of nuclear power is worse than the public perception of pollution from diesel burning ships.

@smopuim

2 жыл бұрын

people is stupid

@attilaabonyi8879

Жыл бұрын

Thank god then that nuclear energy is getting a renewed talk with it's purpose in climate change,the newer reactors are cheaper,safer and there are some that are the size of a whole cargo container,speaking of wich can be used in ships,nuclear power plants and other heavy industries

@sheilaolfieway1885

Жыл бұрын

@@attilaabonyi8879 seems to be completely ignored in the US i'm all for nuclear, but i don't believe in this 'cimate change' thing i'm into nuclear because it's a more powerful and cleaner source of energy.

@attilaabonyi8879

Жыл бұрын

@@sheilaolfieway1885 so your a climate change denier? Defenitely is not a good thing to think that climate change is not real...because that's the kind of thinking that will doom humanity,altough i apreciate that your for nuclear

@attilaabonyi8879

Жыл бұрын

@@sheilaolfieway1885 also recomend hearing those climate change protest and those mountains of scientific papers from the IPC

Loled a little at the easter egg "not great, not terrible". Outstanding quality, keep up the good work Mustard!

Excellent, concise and informative on an obscure yet very important subject. Even in ship circles you rarely hear about this.

@sfarrell71138

2 ай бұрын

What do those “ship circles” look like? Are they like grain circles that are found in fields near Scotland? What else do you hear in those ship circles? Are they audible voices or more like whispers in the wind? I am intrigued. Please tell. Thanks

I would have loved to have traveled on this ship. Nuclear Fission Energy gets way too much criticism these days. When you take the time to look at the actual studies and data, Nuclear Fission Energy is incredibly safe, and it would make a good energy source to tackle the current climate change crisis. Seeing this ship also kind of makes me sad because it shows a bright future we could have had if we hadn't given into our nieve fears.

@BiggHoss

2 жыл бұрын

True, true, except there is no climate crisis

@SpewtGG

2 жыл бұрын

@@BiggHoss oh brandon, educate yourself

@s.i.m.c.a

2 жыл бұрын

The only problem are, how to deal with nuclear waste.

@gabrielp.179

2 жыл бұрын

@@s.i.m.c.a and the price. It's still way too expensive...

@AtheistOrphan

2 жыл бұрын

Anyone with enough money can still go for a cruise holiday on a nuclear-powered ship. The Russians sell passenger cabin space on their fleet of research icebreakers, some of which are nuclear-powered. Not cheap though, last time I looked they were charging £40,000 for a cruise.

It’s sad to see the public still against nuclear energy despite the technology we have today. When done properly, nuclear energy by far is the greatest opportunity we have to get closer to a 0-emission future but the media still depicts nuclear energy as unreliable, destined to fail, etc despite MANY positive applications of nuclear energy we use today that doesn’t get reported.

@Reddsoldier

2 жыл бұрын

The sceptic in me thinks that certain companies with vested interests in oil may also have been/are behind the scenes stoking anti-nuclear sentiments. I mean mobil knew about their role in global warming in the 1950s, it wouldn't be surprising to discover nuclear alternatives have been continually undermined by that same greedy self interest. I can't really see any other reason why we aren't flying full force into commercialising and normalising small scale nuclear energy.

@HalNordmann

2 жыл бұрын

There are still problems with nuclear energy, but it is safe if sufficiently regulated.

@Misha-dr9rh

2 жыл бұрын

@@Reddsoldier The only reason we haven't is because of political corruption, internet experts whose knowledge of nuclear physics is entirely sourced from HBO chernobyl, and karens with learning disabilities who have never heard the word neutron in their life.

@vetamauromihali

2 жыл бұрын

@@Misha-dr9rh and the media that twist facts to me nuclear power "scary"

@2.7petabytes

2 жыл бұрын

Where do you store all of the nuclear waste if everything goes nuclear, is one very real issue we haven’t found a good remedy for yet

i live in savannah and i went to the Maratime museum and saw the model for this ship- it was amazing.

4:40 there were hundreds and hundreds of vessels with stabilization systems by this point. Even fin stabilizers patented in Japan 2 decades earlier. Further, a couple dozen years separates this stabilized ship from the first Japanese cruise liner with a stabilization system

@jade7631

Жыл бұрын

One of the first. Hundreds is little compared to the tens of thousands of ships at the time.

@CYMotorsport

Жыл бұрын

@@jade7631 no. Being beaten by More than 2 dozen years does not constitute a “one of” caveat. It’s only a very small point of clarify. But certainly not a defendable one

@jade7631

Жыл бұрын

Time doesn’t equal use. There were many scientist before Einstein, so does that make him irrelevant? There were scientist with the concept almost centuries before him. So going back, there are also different types of stabilizers. Fixed or retractable, fin or motor. Savannah’s stabilizer concept uses a fin retractable stabilizer. Practically the first of its kind. The first stabilizers were either fixated fin stabilizers or gyroscopic stabilizers.

So basically it's a great idea, and it works very well when designed properly... But people are scared 😔 If we swapped them all out for nuclear, and it killed, let's say 40000 a year in accidents (which is of course highly unlikely, probably almost no one would die) it would still be 90% less deaths than now with diesel

@manictiger

2 жыл бұрын

People are f777ing stupid. I just had no idea they were that stupid in the 60s, too. Media lies, people flip out and block an innocuous ship. Stupid. We deserve the dark future we're headed toward. We don't deserve the stars and planets.

@Jay-jq6bl

2 жыл бұрын

@@manictiger Nah, we should just require people to know what they're talking about before taking their opinion into consideration.

@Jay-jq6bl

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure they mostly use bunker fuel.

@manictiger

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-jq6bl That's really cute on paper, but tell that to the fishermen that blocked the Japanese vessel. No, people are infinitely stupid and you can not educate them. It just takes 1 little CNN hit piece to turn them into a mob.

@jensvestergaard8065

2 жыл бұрын

Manic, so grim haha

I'm surprised nuclear powered civillian ships required so much approval ahead of time before entering ports when allied nuclear powered submarines can lay into port with little to no pre-approval due to standing arrangements. Seems that if those could be standardized for foreign military operations, they could be standardized for civilian use, especially since the latter would actually earn a profit.

@augustovasconcellos7173

2 жыл бұрын

Of course they could... if they could overcome oil company lobbying. Nuclear submarines naturally can do that because the military-industrial complex has more than enough power to tell oil companies to shove it. The civilian shipping industry, though? Nope.

@TheStefanskoglund1

2 жыл бұрын

countries which allows US and Russian nuclear powered military ships already has fairly long-reaching defense agreements with US or Russia. Defense matters has a nasty habit of blowing away civilian society rules (hint: easiest is the prohibition of halons in civilian equipment, while it is basically uncontrolled in military ships and aircrafts.)

@gkarfalcon

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheStefanskoglund1 The last civil aircraft I worked on was factory fitted in 2005 with halon fire extinguishers. As for the last military aircraft I worked on, they were stricter with their halon controls that the civil company I worked for.

@ROBLOXGamingDavid

2 жыл бұрын

they remain fixiated on nuclear use for wartime purposes. And since ships like aircraft carriers who powers on nuclear reactors, they have no problem anyway... But to use nuclear power for commercial operations like carrying cargo or passengers in half the time while emitting 50% of toxic fumes generated by bunker-oil diesel engine-powered naval vessels, it would be a difficult prospect.

@diegoferreiro9478

2 жыл бұрын

If I'm not mistaken, to this day even US Navy nuclear carriers are banned to enter in New York harbour.

I love the “nit great not terrible” thing on the Japanese ship

@Samael746

Жыл бұрын

I loved that reference too.that was genius.

@commandertaco1762

Жыл бұрын

3.6, not great, not terrible

I once took the walking tour of the ship while in Charleston, SC in the mid 80's. I was formerly in the U.S. NAVY stationed on the U.S.S. TRUXTUN (CGN-35). A nuclear powered guided missile cruiser. So seeing how the peaceful use of nuclear propulsion was used then was quite a treat. I only wish it had caught on until terrorism spread its evil hand world wide.

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive, and has a large embedded carbon quotient as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. When the nuclear power plants on ships do need to exchange / refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black cSt380 HFO, or thin runny MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth (QE) and HMS Prince of Wales (PoW) are pushed about by ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power; so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each of the current iteration has a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and even more generous funding. If you still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 21 RN nuclear powered boats no longer in use are laid up (some, 7, in Rosyth and some, 14, in Devonport) awaiting deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. Also twenty years is a typical life expectancy for a commercial hull so about when the reactor needs refuelling, due to the elements being 'poisoned' (?), it is time to drag it up a beach on the Indian sub continent and start beating the thing to death with hand tools. The first layer of 'the onion of survivability' is 'do not go there'; which means that the case for nuclear energy at sea has a very high bar to adoption. The armed forces have no need to turn a profit to stay in business and being funded by the taxpayer can call on a relatively immense resource pool; private enterprise has to make back the money it spends (return on investment). Another, similar but more extensive, view may be found at www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-few-nuclear-powered-cargo-ships-If-it-works-for-ice-breakers-and-submarines-why-hasn%E2%80%99t-it-been-established-for-merchant-vessels.

The Animation, Models and writing are getting better and better with each video, keep up the incredible work!

@ferrocen

2 жыл бұрын

Only one little typo on the spec sheet :-) Otto Hahn not Otto Hanh! Love your videos!

Cargo ships converting to nuclear power is spot on, maritime shipping is not part of the Paris agreement, and is gonna play a large role in all CO2 emissions in the future.

@dave8599

2 жыл бұрын

of course shipping is not effected by the paris global warming fraud. You see, red china has been exempted from the global warming hysteria. A ban on dirty cargo ships would harm the red chinese economy, so the dirty ships get a pass, much like red china gets a pass on burning dirty coal, with over 100 new coal burning plants being built, while the west is stuck with windmills and chinese made solar panels. red china is the enemy.

@perlasandoval7883

2 жыл бұрын

@@dave8599 people's republic of china is currently the most producing pollutant in the world but also the country that is transitioning the fastest to more renewable energy and the prc is also a signatory of the paris climate agreement

@subhajit1128

2 жыл бұрын

yeah same thoughts here, cargo ships can be the best option to put a reactor in, specially in the ships of the size of evergreen. Once they reach the port the only work left will be to thoroughly examine for radiations in the cargo.

@perlasandoval7883

2 жыл бұрын

@@cplobolova i only said they are transitioning the fastest that does not mean i trust them also i hate how americans devolved into political hooligans after four years of trump rule

@perlasandoval7883

2 жыл бұрын

@@cplobolova usa is also part of the climate agreement they rejoined

I toured it with my elementary school class when it was docked at Savannah, GA in the early 60s.

I came upon this ship while out on the water. She was docked just outside of Baltimore city. I had to go home and find out about it. I thought it the most beautiful ships I've ever seen. That was some 15 years ago or there abouts.

I slept near one for 10 years in the submarine service. Best sleep I ever got. I also was a reactor operator, so I knew what it took to keep her safe and accident-free.

@CJ-re7bx

2 жыл бұрын

I slept near one on a carrier. Worst sleep I ever got lol (not because of the reactors, carriers are just really busy, loud, and annoying).

@faikerdogan2802

2 жыл бұрын

Iam guessing the radiation levels were normal where u slept

@nofbi8582

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know much about nuclear material, but from everything I've heard and from what I DO know. It pisses me off that people are so against nuclear power. People are screaming we need a clean power source, that's safe, then completely ignore the nuclear option because 'Oh no, Chernobyl'.

@moonbatxray

2 жыл бұрын

Nautilus was my qual boat

@ArxosFX

2 жыл бұрын

So true. Something about racks underway make me instantly fall asleep. I wish I could do that at home.

Hundreds or even thousands of sailors, enlisted and officers, sail daily on nuclear powered submarines, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, nuclear powered missile cruisers, and even nuclear powered ice breakers. Why would this be any different?

@JohnSmith-fd5un

2 жыл бұрын

Propaganda by oil companies, I suppose.

@OhSome1HasThisName

2 жыл бұрын

​@@JohnSmith-fd5un and short-sighted anti-nuclear environmentalists who are easily tricked by them

@Jehty21

2 жыл бұрын

And millions of soldiers worldwide carry guns daily. Why would it be any different if civilians would carry weapons? My point is: soldiers are not civilians. Soldiers do stuff that civilians wouldn't do.

@sandal_thong8631

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-fd5un I was wondering about that. They use a lot of dirty oil, so someone selling it stands to lose if nuclear ships catch on.

@Shaker626

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jehty21 Millions of civilians _do_ carry weapons though.

I have seen that ship first hand. You would never realize how special it is.

I built a model of this ship about 1960. I was fascinated by the concept. I always wondered what happened to it.

I've watched several videos featuring different "futuristic" ship propulsion designs and every time I wonder, why no nuclear? The USN has long since proved their viability and with modern designs they're even better.

@theotherohlourdespadua1131

2 жыл бұрын

It's the perception. And the fact Nuclear energy entered into our world in the most rep-hobbling entrance imaginable: a superweapon...

@bobograndman

2 жыл бұрын

Because corporate interest blocks nuclear from seriously taking off. It’s way more profitable to continue powering everything with fossil fuel compared to nuclear energy consuming far less fuel that is common.

@xymonvillapando9129

2 жыл бұрын

Keppitelism

@sandal_thong8631

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear power plants on land is pretty dead industry too. I thought with the success of the nuclear navy we could have nuclear cruise and cargo ships. It's good they tried this, but sad that it didn't catch on. The nuclear industry must have a 0-release record of radioactive elements, but so many times they have an almost faith-based idea that it can't happen, so it does. There still could be a future for nuclear-powered ships.

@timp.9582

2 жыл бұрын

Hard enough to find talented and competent seafarers to operate commercial cargo vessels.

Just in case anybodys wondering, Savannah is now a kind of a museum ship moored in Baltimore.

@fredblonder7850

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, she is NOT (legally) a museum ship, as she is still radioactive and under federal nuclear license.

@douglasmcdermott2830

2 жыл бұрын

@@fredblonder7850 comment edited thanks

@dave8599

2 жыл бұрын

so there is some legal reason a reactor cant be in a museum? Please cite that law.

@fredblonder7850

2 жыл бұрын

@@dave8599 NS Savannah is licensed as a nuclear reactor. Although her fuel was removed in the early 1970s, she is still radioactive. The half-life of the radiation is about five years, so she has been through many half-lives. The radiation level is still too high, so she retains her nuclear license, even though there is no fuel and the reactor is not operating. Because of this she cannot regularly be opened to the public. Sometime around 2030 the radiation level will finally be low enough that this will change. If you want the particulars contact the director: Erhard Koehler, U.S. Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E., Washington, DC 2059 .

@edwardmeade

2 жыл бұрын

@@fredblonder7850 The ship WAS a museum ship at Patriot's Point near Charleston SC for most of the 1980s. There is no radiation issue. There IS a cost issue. Being a licensed, even if deactivated, nuclear reactor significantly increases the maintenance cost. Patriot Point chartered (leased) the ship back in the 1980's with MARAD retaining ownership. By the way 2031 is when the license expires by which time the reactor must be removed and disposed of. She's back in Baltimore after a recent drydock in Philadelphia.

This has to be the most beaitiful ship I've ever seen

I’ve been on the NS Savannah. It’s a beautiful vessel and i wear the hat from it every time I head out

"would you sleep beside a nuclear reactor?" The sailors who "live" for weeks/months in nuclear arcraft carriers and submarines: hold my uranium

I’m with you on the nuclear vs oil idea, we must be at or beyond the point of technological development where we could easily make safe, efficient, cheap and relatively eco-friendly nuclear civilian ships

@Cherb123456

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, come on Science & Engineering, I instinctively know we can do this Humanitas!

@leonswan6733

2 жыл бұрын

I am with you on this.

@thearisen7301

2 жыл бұрын

Well the USN has operated nuclear powered ships for decades with no major accidents so the framework already exists.

@rovat6285

2 жыл бұрын

@@thearisen7301 The media tho, they like to depict nuclear power as if it always fails

I visited the ship at Patriot's Point in Charleston, SC back in the 80s. Very cool ship. She was a museum at the time.

Perfect switch all the ships and get rid of the Electric Vehicle movement 🤝

I live in Rochester where most of my power is generated by nuclear energy. So I already live "next to" one! I'm proud of it and we avoid the pollution AND radiation given off by coal fired plants.

@8Hshan

2 жыл бұрын

Right! People usually have no idea that coal plants emit loads of radioactive pollution. And they fear nuclear plants...

@Luis-be9mi

2 жыл бұрын

Me and many members of my family served aboard many US Navy vessels that uses nuclear reactors. None of us developed cancer or illnesses that were in any way related to the close proximity to a nuclear reactor. The only cancer my family developed was lung cancer, which was caused from smoking cigarettes.

@BlackEpyon

2 жыл бұрын

@@8Hshan It all stems from Hollywood misconceptions, and general miseducation.

Mustard, thank you so much for for having a level head when discussing nuclear energy. I know plenty of people, including some who have STEM degrees from top-tier universities, that still don't appreciate just how beneficial nuclear power is. I've always been a supporter of nuclear power for cargo ships. I'm hoping someday we may make that a reality!

@jakehildebrand1824

2 жыл бұрын

Kinda sad when the world ignores what is literally the best solution to multiple problems.

@Fractured_Unity

2 жыл бұрын

@@jakehildebrand1824 But scary. People are afraid of what they are ignorant of. And sadly, the majority of the world is imbeciles

@jakehildebrand1824

2 жыл бұрын

@@Fractured_Unity you got that right, we definitely do live in a world full of imbeciles.

@christianyoung4016

2 жыл бұрын

@@Fractured_Unity 100% agree, especially in this case. Nuclear science is so obscure to the average person that they never have the chance to learn about all of the benefits. That, and also confirmation bias. Once I was talking to a friend who had a degree in mechanical engineering (so not exactly someone who isn't smart) and any time I made comparisons between the problems of nuclear and other green forms of energy, like the lack of good recycling for both nuclear fuel and solar panels, he would just dismiss it. Sometimes, even if you know, you just cling to whatever you believe is true.

@Fractured_Unity

2 жыл бұрын

That’s why we need good leaders to direct these people. But alas, we don’t

I was stationed at Charleston Navel Base in the mid-70s. The NS Savanah was docked near the North Charleston Terminal.

Back in te 70s l made a model of this ship. I did a project in school on it too. This vid takes me back.😁

Engineers in the early 60s: “Hey John” “Yeah Billy?” “See that nuclear reactor?” “Yeah?” *“I want you to put that thing is every vehicle possible”* “Mk”

So all in all not the concept of a nuclear powered ship was the key problem with the N.S. Savannah. Rather bad logistics (carrying both passengers and cargo) and the skepticism of the people led to the Savannah being overly complicated and inefficient to operate. Just another example of an invention that was ahead of its time.

@Nyx_2142

2 жыл бұрын

Oil tycoons lobbying against nuclear certainly don't help. Remember, the fossil fuel industry has gotten away with murdering people for showing even the slightest hint of alternative fuel or power generation working. Thankfully they are losing power but far too slowly.

@NoaZeevi

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nyx_2142 examples?

@TBone-bz9mp

2 жыл бұрын

It seems to me that the nuclear powered ship should've been the last step, build up port infrastructure, change regulatory hurdles, and then start putting nuclear ships down slipways.

@ee-ef8qr

2 жыл бұрын

@@TBone-bz9mp Ironically the only way to encourage nuclear development is to regulate the use of oil and natural gas to the point where the private sector has to engage in nuclear development.

@Leoluvesadmira

2 жыл бұрын

@@ee-ef8qr how about we do something else like get the Govt out of people's lives and see what happens. Nuclear power plants face the anti-nuclear crowd which tend to be the same Greens that want to do away with fossil fuels.

I remember watching the Savannah and the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk being built at New York Shipyard in Gloucester City, NJ. It was in the late 50's early 60's. I'd see it as i crossed the Walt Whitman bridge going from Gloucester City NJ to Philadelphia Pa

My father a captain got a private tour of this ship and I got to go along at about 5 years old :)) in Galveston TX

Another beautiful thing about ships like this is the ability to share power while docked. One of the big reasons why US Navy does so much disaster relief is nuclear powered Naval vessels can double as mobile power stations capable of powering cities. Now imagine that all shipping vessels could do the same thing while at Port, using it as a way to pay for the port fees and maintenance costs. It could be the answer to the energy crisis.

@toddkes5890

2 жыл бұрын

Add in the reactors' waste heat to help desalinate water?

@ham_the_spam4423

2 жыл бұрын

reminds me of USS Lexington CV-2 powering Tacoma

@michaelaustin269

2 жыл бұрын

Sadly nuke powers ships cannot provide emergency power to cities. To even to attempt such a thing all port infrastructure would have be pristine and ou

@michaelaustin269

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry hit wrong button. I say this might be possible dont know for sure but certainly not in a place that is in s disaster. The shops to have amazing water production and we used that to fill thousands of tons and put them on helicopters to fly to isolated areas in 2005. We arrived on bears day in 2005 disaster occured in dec 2004. Death toll was 280k bad one.

@jwcfive7999

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelaustin269 if you click on the three buttons beside the comment, you can edit the comment I think. Im curious, though, what job did you have in the Navy? Sounds pretty cool 😄

It's so sad to see that whenever we had achievement with nuclear power, people always afraid of it. For decades it stays that way. Imagine if we already focused on nuclear power since that, we now might already have very safe and and efficient nuclear plant all across the globe.

@ManteIIo

2 жыл бұрын

It's not about being afraid, more like oil companys lobbying. Same as for the electric cars, slowing progress as much as they can. Nuclear ships/submarines of the military naturally can do that because the military-industrial complex has more than enough power to tell oil companies to shove it. The civilian shipping industry, though? Nope.

@elkhaqelfida5972

2 жыл бұрын

@@ManteIIo You're right dude. What's make it worse is that their propaganda works. People believe it. The military meanwhile will always agree to research on nuclear. It's two birds hit with one stone, they can also develop the weapon from it.

@pixytokisaki1457

Жыл бұрын

Nuclear ships are viable and safe today. You don't need to look far just look up the nuclear aircraft carriers and ice breakers the US and Russia are operating

@KoopaXross

Жыл бұрын

In fact the joke is today nuclear power is seemed as just another pollutant next to oil. Thus Germany shut down uclear plants countrywide and relied on Russia, until the war happened. Now they rely on imported gas which in itself is polluting just to transport.

@khanhnguyen-tt3ff

Жыл бұрын

@@pixytokisaki1457 those are military used and another nation cant just seize or hijack it

My family toured her at Port Everglades (Ft. Lauderdale FL). What a beauty she was.

This reminded me of kyle hill as his videos explaining what truely went wrong during disasters related to nuclear power and his Journey to making others realize its safe and beneficial!

@BernardLS

Жыл бұрын

After having a quick dip in one example of the output from Kyle Hill I am still happy to contest the point that nuclear energy has a place in making merchant shipping sustainable. Why not use nukes on merchant ships? It is down to engineering, finance, socio-political attitudes and safety. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive, and has a large, embedded carbon quotient as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually, it does need refuelling just not as often. When ‘they’ do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerably longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, cSt380 HFO, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth (QE) and HMS Prince of Wales (PoW) are pushed about by ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Similarly, the USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power; so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each of the current iteration has a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and even more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended, but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 21 RN nuclear powered boats no longer in use are laid up (some, 7, in Rosyth and some, 14, in Devonport) awaiting deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. Also twenty years is a typical life expectancy for a commercial hull so about when the reactor needs refuelling, due to the elements being 'poisoned' (?), it is time to drag it up a beach on the Indian sub -continent and start beating the thing to death with hand tools. Another, similar but more extensive, view may be found at www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-few-nuclear-powered-cargo-ships-If-it-works-for-ice-breakers-and-submarines-why-hasn%E2%80%99t-it-been-established-for-merchant-vessels. Collision, grounding or capsize are existing hazards for cargo ships and other vessels; why would we want to increase the possible consequences of an existing risk? Aircraft may crash and trains derail but knowing the hazards and risks both are highly regulated. The first layer of 'the onion of survivability' is 'do not go there'; this means that the case for nuclear energy at sea has a very high bar to adoption. The armed forces have no need to turn a profit to stay in business and being funded by the taxpayer can call on immense resources; private enterprise has to make back the money it spends (return on investment).

The number of people who think RTGs are scary is the terrifying thing. Tea kettles are not only reliable and clean, but extremely safe. They've been in continuous use for more than 50 years aboard basically every US carrier and sub, and under gone frequent redesign and improvement for that entire time. But the "nuke scary" people only ever talk about "almost" disasters from when they were still experimental, or Chernobyl, which was built shoddy using a decades old design when it was brand new.

@haldir108

2 жыл бұрын

Isn't "a decade old" just a different way of saying "tried and tested"? Of course there are loads of improvements made to designs, but there are many old reactors still operating safely across the world. Don't equate old with bad. Equate Bad with Bad.

@zombieshoot4318

2 жыл бұрын

Chernobyl the boogeyman of nuclear power. Of course the haters of nukes always leave out the part that Chernobyl was an extremely old design, was designed by the Soviets who were notorious for not caring about safety, and designed and run in the Soviet Union where being truthful could destroy your career. It was an accident waiting to happen. I'm only surprised it didn't happen at more nuke plants in the USSR.

@patagualianmostly7437

2 жыл бұрын

Couldn't agree more. Britain could have done more research and built more Nuclear Power Stations....now, in a post-Brexit world we find ourselves buying electrical power from French Nuclear plants..... Just so short-sighted. As usual. (Shrugs)

@Emppu_T.

2 жыл бұрын

No one dared to say anything when they built that reactor, or face gulag.

@DriantX

2 жыл бұрын

@@zombieshoot4318 "old design", "not caring about safety", "being truthful could destroy your career" and "accident waiting to happen" are some of the things that come to mind when one thinks of large corporations today as well. I'm not against nuclear power, but very strict international and independent audits are some of the musts if we're talking about nuclear going mainstream, otherwise we all know big corporations will cut costs in every possible corner and cause multiple disasters, once again scaring the public away from the merits of nuclear energy for decades to come.

With modern tech and safety, we really SHOULD be going through the nuclear revolution now instead of in the 50s. It’s very possible to do today and make it completely safe. We could be using thorium reactors on land, too. Fission very well could be a potential energy replacement. We even have new developments in destroying nuclear waste safely.

@4450krank

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, but sadly we have a bunch of boomers still crapping their pants over chernobyl:/

@ccibinel

2 жыл бұрын

Technologies even from the 60s/70s could replace PWR reactors and they did very good safety wide in practical terms for naval vessels. Shipping megaships with some of the new SMR designs would reduce massive amounts of diesel usage. Nuclear tech research is 40 years behind where it would be if not for the stigma. Candu based reactors could burn all our existing waste.

@369Sigma

2 жыл бұрын

@@ccibinel we’ve lab developed bacterial strains that can literally eat nuclear waste, and safely break down the isotopes. But they are what you would call a GMO. There’s all sorts of stigma around that stuff as well :(

@joshuaandrewvives9676

2 жыл бұрын

5 million social credits to you good sir or ma’am

@TheRandompaint

2 жыл бұрын

And we also recycle 90% of the spent fuel

Just for anyone in the future. The thumbnail of this video appeared to have changed around early February the photo went from a photo of the whole ship to a more action shot. As of Feb 10th the only other video I can see this is, is the Bristol Brabazon. The Brabazon also went from a photo of the whole craft to a tighter action shot. It's cool to see some videos get new thumbnails.

@dwoolaver1549

Жыл бұрын

You maybe the only one or 2 keeping track of stuff like that sir.

The boat is in Baltimore Maryland and can be seen while driving by on I95 it is also working towards becoming a museum! I did a tour a few years ago and it was amazing!!!!

I remember Mustard being a channel with 70,000 to 100,000 subscribers. I thought to myself, "the world needs to see this content." The music, render quality, and asset detail has improved tremendously, Mustard is one of the biggest names out there for these education-type videos. Keep up this phenomenal work!!!

@rgerber

2 жыл бұрын

Every video is a masterpiece

@yesyes-om1po

Жыл бұрын

lol at modern youtube, 70-100k subs being small nowadays

Savannah was a dead end, not because it was dangerous, but because it was expensive to operate. Nevertheless, cruises on nuclear-powered ships still take place. Russian nuclear icebreakers take everyone on cruises to the North Pole. But this is very expensive.

@jaredgarbo3679

2 жыл бұрын

Was it so expensive just because it was a new concept and so didn't have the effficiency of normal transportation or because it is expensive to run nuclear energy on ships,

@662chungus6

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear technology is far cheaper today still expensive but far less than even 10 years ago just alot of propaganda from big oil keeps people from moving forward to a new future instead they think about today and themselves not future generations and the whole world

@arlanda98

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaredgarbo3679 Usually the former. What makes Nuclear power so expensive today is the lack of many qualified engineers and operators for the powerplant, due to lack of interest and of course Nuclear-scare.

@Luis-be9mi

2 жыл бұрын

It's expensive because nuclear energy was still in it's infancy back when the Savannah was built. Today you have universities who have nuclear reactors for both studies and energy production for the universities. And if you compare the ecological impact of nuclear energy alongside fossil fuels, nuclear was far less harmful than coal and oil.

For a long time, that ship was docked at Patriots Point, Mt Pleasant, SC. Part of several ships you could tour.

I toured this ship when it was a museum in Charleston SC next to the aircraft carrier

Would like to point out that, cars don't emit that much SO2 because sulfur fuels are banned in cars, which is not the case in marine fuels. So the comparison isn't really fair.

@sl600rt

2 жыл бұрын

Ships still pollute way worse in every way, except co2 per mile per pound.

@TheRealWilliamWhite

2 жыл бұрын

So it's not that bad because they're using fuel that would be banned if a car used it. Makes sense.

@NixodCreations

2 жыл бұрын

@@sl600rt The co2 per mile is also somewhat misleading, because while ships pollute less across the same distance as a car, oceans are huge and ships travel much further than cars, which means that the actual pollution emitted is significantly higher.

@keyworksurfer

2 жыл бұрын

"fair" doesn't really apply here... the numbers and ratio are true. ships emit millions of times more SO2 than cars.

@dave8599

2 жыл бұрын

CO2 is not a pollutant. do not buy into the global warming scam.

She was in Philadelphia in dry dock in 2019 for hull repairs. It is rotting away. A friend of mine was overseeing the work. I got go onboard for a while and got a personal tour. I’m in the maritime industry myself and it was interesting. There was an initiative by another person I knew that was trying to maintain it as a museum. Some of the museum refurbishment was errrr a bit half ass. Overall the ship was impressive.

@raymondclark1785

Жыл бұрын

Philadelphia shot themselves in the foot banning Nuclear ships from their ports. It killed this from ever coming up the Delaware and doomed the Navy Yard

@Jason_OConnor

Жыл бұрын

The savannah is in the port of Baltimore I see it almost everyday going into the harbor tunnel

@MC-810

Жыл бұрын

It was a museum ship for a while and was in Point Pleasant (Charleston), SC for a number of years. Then it was moved to the James River, in Virginia. (Not far from Norfolk). It is now permanently ported in Baltimore and is owned by the Maritime Administration, part of the Department of Transportation. They have a contractor who essentially just keeps the lights on and acts as a caretaker. The issue is the reactor has been deactivated, but there is still so much nuclear “hot” material on board in the form of pipes, the pressure vessel itself, etc. So why hasn’t all of this stuff been removed? Money. Congress simply hasn’t funded it. They are waiting for funding from Congress to remove all this stuff. What will happen to the ship ultimately? Make it a museum again? Scrap it? Nobody knows.

@Jason_OConnor

Жыл бұрын

@@MC-810 I’ve been on the ship while she’s been in port in Baltimore there used to be a burnt out building right behind her that was used in the movie Ladder 49 but the building has since been torn down there was a business fair there a few years ago and they were letting people on to tour the ship she’s really interesting if anyone ever gets a chance to see her

11:47 USS Long Beach! I used to love this ship as a kid. Such a cool-looking cruiser.

U are amazing, I love to see your vids, also you explain it all very well. good job :D

Interesting fact, the N.S Savannah's name sake was based off the S.S. Savannah. The first ocean going ship to propelled by an engine. It's model is showed in the interior at 5:53 on the top left pannel. The golden ship model.

@kostiemuirhead8187

2 жыл бұрын

7:51-7:55

Not mentioned was that the NS Savannah was named as an homage to the SS Savannah, the first steamship to cross the Atlantic in 1816. Furthermore, the Savannah was built at the dawn of containerization and was, to some degree, not viewed as cutting edge in its operational role a bulk carrier. I was onboard the ship several times when she was berthed in Savannah, GA, and visited her in Charleston SC as well. She's currently located on Baltimore, but was in really sad shape the last time I saw her in Charleston.

This is perfect proof why we should just do whats good and ignore people that say is bad or dangerous

@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.

@programix8432

Жыл бұрын

@@BernardLS yeah i agree.