Originally Posted by
Deano969
Never understood why they couldn't run container ships or cruise ships for that matter by nuclear power
Seems to be ok to power subs and aircraft carriers
Cost, Cost, Cost.... Russia uses nuclear power for its civil arctic fleet as it is more efficient than building conventional breakers and support vessels like ice protected tankers to keep them going. Therefore a breaker can stay on task much longer without support vessels which in turn covers the extra cost of nuclear power. They also have a strengthened hull nuclear freighter to support arctic operations and a few floating nuclear power stations again as support for remote mining and such.
The other more important factor is how much do you trust shipping lines to maintain a fleet of floating nuclear reactors? The EPA is always chasing conventional ships for spill and leaks of oil and biological waste, its a constant war with some of the regular offenders, imagine non algae glowing waters on your shoreline from a coolant leak. Freighters quite regularly sink, catch fire, run aground, even in this modern age and there is still very little to do about it. The floating luxury car carrier that burnt out for days is a good example, it burned for 2 weeks and then sank, add a nuclear reactor to that mess and it would just cap off the environmental disaster that it still is.