Why The World Was Afraid Of This Ship: The N.S. Savannah

Nuclear plane!

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

Avro lancaster

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

Avro Arrow

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

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

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

@@RobotDrivingACar the cheapest option is $32000

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

> "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

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

@@wheels-n-tires1846 qq l

Legendary mariner right there

Yepp, bad timing.

Savannah is a passenger ship not container/cargo ship

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

@@Frey_00 Did you even watch the video?

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

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.

Nuclear power is the only option for a successful future

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

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

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.

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

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

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

@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.

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

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.

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

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

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

@@miapdx503 Thank you for reading it.

Cool story bro (not sarcasm 😉)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

How the fuck do you know this?

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

@@oskar_2114 Wikipedia can sometimes actually be correct.

so he should have been in jail

Average protestors

Mostly women and all leftists

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

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

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.

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

@@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. 😎🖖

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

​@@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.

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

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

@@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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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

A useful and well informed comment, IMHO:

Excellent comment, needs more attention

@@Brave_Sir_Robin thanks!

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.

Super Carrier?

@@NBrixH or Nuclear sub

@@chrismafer2000 true true

You’ve slept next to a reactor???😲

@@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.

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

@@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.

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

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

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

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.

​@@BernardLSconsumers are seldom given a choice!

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

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

@@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.

Cool comment :)

epic

Cool comment :)

Cool comment :)

Cool comment :)

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

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

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.

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

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?

Damn, its hard to believe how safe it is!

That day at the beach was skin dose.

Wow

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

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

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

@@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.

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.

@@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.

@@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)

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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?

@@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.

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

technically you could swim in those pools

@@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!

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

@@ChrisRobertson09 but only at the top

Same as supersonic aircrafts.

thanks to marxists posing as hippies.

@@Jace888 wat

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.

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.

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

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

​@@FLY2KO What did they mean by this?

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.

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.

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 :)

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)

@@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)

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

@@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.

So a nuclear powered container ship may be feasible?

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

@@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.

@@FallenPhoenix86 steam is always possible.

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

I loved that reference too.that was genius.

3.6, not great, not terrible

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

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.

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

@@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

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

Awesome

Totally badass!

We need some of those in Argentina!!

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

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

ik lol old one was perfect

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

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.

@@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.

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.

@@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.

people is stupid

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

@@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.

@@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

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

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

Sevmorput got luckier in this regard.

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.

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

It was also designed mostly as a cruiseship

@@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.

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

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.

I also saw it.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

@@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.

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

@@fredblonder7850 comment edited thanks

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

@@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 .

@@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.

'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.

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).

Iam guessing the radiation levels were normal where u slept

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'.

Nautilus was my qual boat

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

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.

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

@@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.

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

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

True, true, except there is no climate crisis

@@BiggHoss oh brandon, educate yourself

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

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

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.

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.

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.)

@@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.

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.

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

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.

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

Pretty sure they mostly use bunker fuel.

@@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.

Manic, so grim haha

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.

@@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

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.

@@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

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

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

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

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

@@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.

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

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

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.

Keppitelism

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.

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

‘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.

Propaganda by oil companies, I suppose.

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

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.

@@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.

@@Jehty21 Millions of civilians _do_ carry weapons though.

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

I am with you on this.

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

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

Every video is a masterpiece

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

Hmm i have a feeling i know you

@@ducc3031 perhaps....

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

@@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

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.

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

reminds me of USS Lexington CV-2 powering Tacoma

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

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.

@@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 😄

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.

@@Nyx_2142 examples?

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.

@@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.

@@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.

👁️👁️☢️

Same lol

Click "play," click "like," click "skip ad," enjoy.

Same!

Xdxdd so real

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.

@@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.

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

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.

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

It still exists and is docked in Baltimore MD, you can even tour it on certain days. Fun fact: in addition to it's reactor being decommissioned a very large herringbone gear from the propeller drive was removed through a temporary hole in the side for use in another ship. The Savannah was also equipped with one of the first microwave ovens.

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

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.

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

Hi Max, love your videos!

@@dave8599 Thanks Dave

True, but more of an oddity (as this vid is showing) than popular.

Does those model kits content a miniature nuclear reactor like a radioisotope battery or any kind?

I had one, but it kept capsizing!

7:51-7:55

This needs 15.000 likes