Chemtrails ?.. are you serious?

[TeePee]

Interesting, I didn't actually know that! It's also a fair bit better than I'd been led to believe.

A lot of people do, mostly because there is a lot of variation based on range and passenger configuration, and airplanes have improved greatly over the years.

The 737-600, which is still in service with many airlines, gives about 90 passenger mpg (UK). 20 years later, the 737 MAX-9 is grounded for being a design compromised in the name of fuel efficiency, but did fly at an amazing rate of about 140 passenger mpg (UK).

[Ttaskmaster]

A typical airliner returns approximately 110 passenger mpg. Bad compared to trains, great compared to cars.

And amazing compared to boats, which measure theirs in gallons per mile.
Wonder if I should install a jet engine on my motor yacht and run it on AvGas....

[TeePee]

And amazing compared to boats, which measure theirs in gallons per mile.
Wonder if I should install a jet engine on my motor yacht and run it on AvGas....

Yes! Even considering thousands of passengers, cruise ships are typically in the low teens for passenger mpg, possibly the worst form of mass transit. Of course, they're moving around passengers together with their staterooms, lounge areas, restaurants and shopping malls, instead of a 17" wide seat and enough legroom for a legless midget.

Of course, a ship would be a prime candidate for a move to Nuclear propulsion, and electric trains powered from clean, renewable, Nuclear power generation give both forms the possibility of being environmentally friendly.

With the paranoia surrounding Nuclear energy, we may actually be relying on chemtrails to reduce global warming.

[Ttaskmaster]

Of course, a ship would be a prime candidate for a move to Nuclear propulsion, and electric trains powered from clean, renewable, Nuclear power generation give both forms the possibility of being environmentally friendly.

How small can you make a nuclear reactor? Small enough for a 36-foot motor yacht?
Hey, if it's small enough for a backpack, I might even consider a career as a Ghostbuster...!

[Smudger]

How small can you make a nuclear reactor? Small enough for a 36-foot motor yacht?
Hey, if it's small enough for a backpack, I might even consider a career as a Ghostbuster...!

Small enough to fit on the back of a DeLorean, if the documentary I watched the other night is to be believed...

[ik9000]

Of course, a ship would be a prime candidate for a move to Nuclear propulsion, and electric trains powered from clean, renewable, Nuclear power generation give both forms the possibility of being environmentally friendly.

They tried that. The market for it didn't take off, and the ship left a (mildly) radioactive wake wherever it went - so not that environmentally friendly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28439159

[watercooled]

And amazing compared to boats, which measure theirs in gallons per mile. .

Probably still better than my mate's Defender 90!

How small can you make a nuclear reactor?

Submarine PWRs are pretty small, the entire Royal Navy submarine fleet is nuclear-propelled. The issue with anything nuclear-powered is the security of the fuel, and obviously the paranoia. Not such a big deal in the Navy but more of a challenge for civil uses.

@TeePee: Nuclear isn't normally considered renewable, given it's still consuming a fuel. But depending on how far you take the definition, you could say that about solar, wind etc too!

It does make you facepalm though, the same group of people stamping their feet about global warming then spreading FUD about nuclear energy.

[Xlucine]

How small can you make a nuclear reactor? Small enough for a 36-foot motor yacht?
Hey, if it's small enough for a backpack, I might even consider a career as a Ghostbuster...!

Radioisotope thermal generators are pretty small. Not quite backpack, but definitely yacht, and easy to operate (generally no control rods to worry about, it's just a lump of material that gets hot)

Yes! Even considering thousands of passengers, cruise ships are typically in the low teens for passenger mpg, possibly the worst form of mass transit. Of course, they're moving around passengers together with their staterooms, lounge areas, restaurants and shopping malls, instead of a 17" wide seat and enough legroom for a legless midget.

Of course, a ship would be a prime candidate for a move to Nuclear propulsion, and electric trains powered from clean, renewable, Nuclear power generation give both forms the possibility of being environmentally friendly.

With the paranoia surrounding Nuclear energy, we may actually be relying on chemtrails to reduce global warming.

The economies of scale make it undesirable for sensible-sized cargo vessels (bear in mind that nuclear supercarriers have a couple times more power than the largest cargo ships). Massive carbon taxes or ludicrously big cargo ships could change the maths

[watercooled]

Radioisotope thermal generators are pretty small. Not quite backpack, but definitely yacht, and easy to operate (generally no control rods to worry about, it's just a lump of material that gets hot)

The fuel being immensely expensive and scarce, and RTGs being better suited to fairly low power output doesn't make them particularly well-suited to powering a ship though, it's not really a scaleable technology either.

[TeePee]

They tried that. The market for it didn't take off, and the ship left a (mildly) radioactive wake wherever it went - so not that environmentally friendly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28439159

Leaking radioactivity probably shouldn't be part of future designs, tbh...

[TeePee]

Probably still better than my mate's Defender 90!


Submarine PWRs are pretty small, the entire Royal Navy submarine fleet is nuclear-propelled. The issue with anything nuclear-powered is the security of the fuel, and obviously the paranoia. Not such a big deal in the Navy but more of a challenge for civil uses.

@TeePee: Nuclear isn't normally considered renewable, given it's still consuming a fuel. But depending on how far you take the definition, you could say that about solar, wind etc too!

It does make you facepalm though, the same group of people stamping their feet about global warming then spreading FUD about nuclear energy.

Nuclear is about the only actually 'Renewable' source, since properly closing the fuel cycle would mean the fuel would be literally renewed. Solar and wind, etc all use the sun, which isn't being renewed!

Nuclear is also cleaner and safer than solar and wind.

[TeePee]

Radioisotope thermal generators are pretty small. Not quite backpack, but definitely yacht, and easy to operate (generally no control rods to worry about, it's just a lump of material that gets hot)



The economies of scale make it undesirable for sensible-sized cargo vessels (bear in mind that nuclear supercarriers have a couple times more power than the largest cargo ships). Massive carbon taxes or ludicrously big cargo ships could change the maths

Realistically, Nuclear power is so unpopular, it's unlikely to be used for a cruise ship in the future. Cargo ships might have the will, but we're back to efficiency. While passenger mpg is horrible for a cruise ship, when it comes to moving tons of cargo, ships are already the most efficient method going.

[watercooled]

Nuclear is about the only actually 'Renewable' source, since properly closing the fuel cycle would mean the fuel would be literally renewed. Solar and wind, etc all use the sun, which isn't being renewed!

Nuclear is also cleaner and safer than solar and wind.

It really depends on how you define the term but you could say the fuel still isn't strictly renewable, as the parts of the fuel that produce energy have fissioned into lighter products and can't be used again in new fuel. So we still have a very finite amount. Some of the mass of the fuel elements can be separated out and reprocessed into new fuel, either unused fissile isotopes or e.g. fissile isotopes bred from other elements in the reaction. Breeder and fast reactors are very interesting though, as is the thorium fuel cycle.

There's way too much fear and misunderstanding around nuclear though, and the skills shortage is likely contributing to the higher costs we're seeing now for new nuclear. It's downright demonised and dismissed from many discussions, as a *realistic* source of scalable, continuous, low-carbon energy.

[TeePee]

It really depends on how you define the term but you could say the fuel still isn't strictly renewable, as the parts of the fuel that produce energy have fissioned into lighter products and can't be used again in new fuel. So we still have a very finite amount. Some of the mass of the fuel elements can be separated out and reprocessed into new fuel, either unused fissile isotopes or e.g. fissile isotopes bred from other elements in the reaction. Breeder and fast reactors are very interesting though, as is the thorium fuel cycle.

There's way too much fear and misunderstanding around nuclear though, and the skills shortage is likely contributing to the higher costs we're seeing now for new nuclear. It's downright demonised and dismissed from many discussions, as a *realistic* source of scalable, continuous, low-carbon energy.

Or even worse, Germany, who are replacing their Nuclear power with Coal power, most of which comes from Lignite or 'Brown Coal'. Basically the stuff which caused the Great Smog of London in the 1950's.

[watercooled]

Good to know that they're getting rid of evil nuclear and doing the right thing to protect public health and reduce CO2 emissions right? Oh no wait a minute...

It's really a little ironic to claim some sort of 'green' high ground when you make emotive, knee-jerk, FUD reactions on a governmental level that fly in the face of objective data.

[badass]

Or even worse, Germany, who are replacing their Nuclear power with Coal power, most of which comes from Lignite or 'Brown Coal'. Basically the stuff which caused the Great Smog of London in the 1950's.

Then a bunch of either incompetent at best or wilfully ignorant at worst "reserachers" in germany use that as a basis to claim that Diesel is better for the environment than electric cars! https://electrek.co/2019/04/22/study...esel-debunked/

Personally I think Nuclear power is a great technological solution. It would encourage me to get an electric car since technically my car would be nuclear powered!