• Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 天前

    Nuclear submarines already exist. Why not use that technology for shipping purposes?

    But the point of this meme is that by reducing our use of coal and oil on land, our need for those ships would also dwindle.

    • Phineaz@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 小时前

      Why would you pick a submarine for civil purposes? Just use a “normal” freighter and “slap” nuclear power on it.

      (Ignoring the glaring issues from nuclear power on land that would be exacerbated at sea)

      • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 小时前

        Ok maybe I wasn’t clear enough. That’s exactly what I meant. The nuclear technology, not the submarine technology.

        What are the glaring issues?

    • Thevenin@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 天前

      Ships can register any nation as their flag state, so they often choose flags of convenience based on whoever has the lowest fees or regulations – or more insidiously, whoever has the least ability to hold companies accountable.

      This is why so many shipping companies register in Liberia, Panama, and the Marshall Islands. Also Mongolia, which is landlocked.

      So unless we want to fill the oceans and ports with ships that have nuclear reactors with no regulation, no safety measures, and no accountability, we’re gonna have to fix the last hundred years of international maritime law.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 小时前

      The big thing is that ports need to learn how to handle and refuel nuclear material. It’s all possible, but not a small task. The ports won’t want to do it until there are ships that need it, and the ships won’t want to do it until there are ports that can handle it.