>>65462619
>2028
not happening, typical pissy "we're totally gonna do this before our term is over guise" bullshit.

>>65462646
Keel laid, its the same mistake made by the peanut gallery as when the Trump class BBGN was announced.

>cargo ship
>/k/ - weapons
Are you trying to tell us something anon

>>65462653
this shit would imply mass-produced ship reactors in 2 years.
it's not fucking happening.

>>65462656
Maybe anon hopes they're nuclear weapons disguised as cargo ships

>>65462658
Which are so insanely different than submarine ones.

>>65462661
We Americans do not need such perfidy. If we wished to nuke somewhere we can have a stealth plane drop one off, an ICBM, or a sub launches one. Or a sneaky fellow with a large briefcase / duffel bag leaves it in the enemy city to go whoosh.

>>65462658
>this shit would imply mass-produced ship reactors in 2 years.
>it's not fucking happening.
>nuke plant in a CONEX
>electric driven props
Done.

>>65462669
>we

>>65462661
>denied harbor in "nuke-free" ports
Great plan.

>>65462669
>If we wished to nuke somewhere we can have a stealth plane drop one off
Like that glacier in Nepal or Tibet or whatever. BLAMMO! Take that ching chong.

>>65462665
mass producing any nuclear reactor is extremely fucking difficult yes, that's why we don't have thousands of nuclear subs anon.

>>65462656
logistics win wars

Why do secretaries and politicians talk like schizoid retards who capitalize random words or just write entire words in caps all of a sudden? Shit's embarrassing.

>US built nuclear ship
That shit will cost more more to build than the entire lifetime expenses of 100 chink container ships

>>65462658
It's completely realistic to produce the first reactor in 2 years if it is already designed.

Why not sails?

>>65462706
You don't do unrep with container ships.

>>65462699
Reactor production is not the limiting factor for nuclear subs.

File: 1779596691814098.jpg (32 KB, 640x505)

32 KB JPG

>>65462689
>He's surprised to see Americans on an American website on an American board

>>65462707
no, no it's fucking not anon.
you're also going to need 100x the amount of nuke operating crew expertise, which literally doesn't exist.

>>65462736
cargo ship crews are small and they don't need crews for dozens of ships in 2 years

File: NS_Savannah_En_Route_to_1(...).jpg (322 KB, 1280x1054)

322 KB JPG

>>65462619
>American shipbuilding is so fucked due to Jones Act making anything built instantly unprofitable
>decide to fix it by making a ship that uses the most expensive propulsion system possible
Wow! That will surely fix things!

Where the fuck do they even plan on building this thing? The only nuclear yards in the US are military ones and their buried up to their eyeballs in construction and maintenance of Navy ships.

>>65462740
they're small when they don't contain nuclear reactors, anon.

>>65462745
He's probably going to repeal the jones act by the end of his term, which is unfortunate for me. He's already waived it like 3 times in a row

>>65462745
anon don't question it, you have to cheer even though it's fucking retarded and isn't even related to weapons.

>>65462748
You're a retard. If they can fit a reactor into a submarine with very limited space, it can be done on a massive cargo ship. This has been studied before and hopefully it will lead to a re-invigoration of nuclear power as a whole.

>>65462699
well i guess we just shouldn't do it then

>>65462619
Remember the Marne!
The Lusitania!
Gulf of Tonkin!
This is like announcing a WWIII false flagship.

>>65462761
>answer that has nothing to do with the problems i raised
you're the fucking retard, i never said fitting a nuclear reactor into a containership and building it was infeasable, i'm saying going from a dead shipping industry to building homegrown nuclear capable containership in 2 years is delusional politician bullshit and you're a fucking moron for defending it as if it's in any way realistic.
build some more fucking infrastructure dedicated to raising a massive new generation of nuclear gearheads, then i'll know they're at least being serious, if not still completely bullshitting about their timetables.

File: we.png (68 KB, 528x623)

68 KB PNG

>>65462733

>>65462779
Now I'm no fancy city slicker using all these social media apps and whatnot but that vaguely looks like twitter and I'm not gay enough to bother with any of that shit

>>65462699
Not really. The main reason why nuclear power plants cost so fucking much and take so long to build is because of red tape and lawsuits and alcoholics claiming that the area is suddenly an ancient ritual site and having to do studies to determine if it’s going to impact the population of blue-footed gouramis that haven’t been seen within five hundred miles in the last two hundred years and so on and so forth.

>>65462804
yes and that red tape is still fucking there so nothing's changed.
you'd have to expand the production capability of existing ship reactor production which will take years in and of itself.

>>65462775
You are a stupid nigger. America has one of the largest domestic nuclear workforces in the world, we have the most nuclear submarines and carriers, aswell as a large number of power plants. We have led the way in developing small modular reactors and in all honesty, our shipbuilding industry has to start somewhere. Its not like you can just say its 'not feasible' and roll with it forever. Something needs to get the ball rolling and a commercial vessel doesn't take nearly as long to make as a military one. The fact its nuclear wont change this much, as there are plenty of subcontractors which can handle this without difficulty.

I hate politicians and the current administration has made that hate much more thorough, but something needs to jumpstart our industry, and whether it is orange man or someone else doesn't matter. And no, I didnt read your reply chain because I dont care, eat shit.

>>65462713
Sails do not project the strength nuclear power does. What we really need are the ai operated, tall masted, globe circling mega container ships Larry Niven prophesied in 'A World Out of Time', so you're not far wrong.

>>65462745
>Where the fuck do they even plan on building this thing?
Hopefully in your backyard, faggot.

>>65462818
>y-you are a stupid nigger
wrong
>america has one of the largest domestic nuclear workforces in the world
all working on existing nuclear powerplants, the navy is already having trouble getting enough personnel for this as it is.
>it's not feasible
i'm saying it's complete and utter bullshit on the timetables alotted, it's going to take at least 10 years to get the first few ships out, not very competitive with regular shipbuilding.

>>65462818
>the fact its nuclear wont change this much
and that's why it will fail. a nuclear ship won't be different enough to compete with the ships that are already being build.
even if they can the shipping companies won't just start replacing their fleets with them without testing one for at least half a decade
starting a new shipping company to commercialize those ships would have to fight against well being a new player in a market dominated by a few much larger players
or it could just stick to the shipping lines protected by Jones act. but a nuclear powered ship would just be retarded on those
no the whole point of the "announcement" is down to "set to be built in 2028" it's meant to drum up excitement for political reasons

File: IMG_2093.jpg (179 KB, 1051x740)

179 KB JPG

>>65462745
Anon you are confused, these are not commercial cargo ships.

>>65462807
>and that red tape is still fucking there so nothing's changed

Not for USN ships.

>>65462858
>industry has to start somewhere
What about this do you not understand? Unlike navy ships we can build the hull in an allied country (or one that will play ball, anyhow) like Japan or worst korea, and the inegration and final fitting out can be done in the United States.

>>65462874
A small fleet of nuclear powered cargo ships have the potential to be much larger, as they could simply forego the panama canal, are a decent idea to augment the dwindling domestic American cargo fleet.It could be chartered by our navy, which would benefit from a ship like this due to higher speeds and they could easily serve double duty with both the navy and civilian companies. In peacetime they could leverage their potentially high speeds to cut down on the downsides of not using the canal and allow for reduced transit times when using said canal simply isn't required. This could open it up to more unconventional uses that could generate more income, and in wartime their use for sealift (as long as they steer relatively clear of hot-zones) are self explanatory. It could open the doors to more exotic designs as a ship like this hasn't been built since the 70's in the west.

I just want to add that Maersk already has a small fleet of trial ships to test alternative propulsion systems.
but they aren't testing nuclear propulsion and it's not like they couldn't afford get one build to test it if they thought it would be a viable option
if the biggest player in the field doesn't think it's a good idea smart money is on it not being a good idea

File: nuke boats.png (158 KB, 1114x841)

158 KB PNG

>>65462754
The waivers have unironically been good for the US cabotage trade. First time in decades that oil is being shipped between the Gulf and West coasts and Puerto Rico is buying US gas instead of foreign (there's no LNG tanker in the US fleet to do that normally). The problem with the Jones Act is that it links building with ownership/operation. It needs reform, not abolishment.

>>65462881
The program is explicitly for commercial cargo vessels, not USNS supply ships. See picrel.

>>65462804
That German lady on youtube made a similar arguement, and it was just as circular and retarded as yours.
>nuclear is so safe!
>its safe because of regulations and laws
>but the regulation and laws make it too expensive
>so we'll get rid of the regulations and laws to make it cheaper
>that's ok to do because nuclear is so safe

>>65462646
Maritime reform is totally bipartisan, sorry.

>>65462913
Why tf do we need nuke cargo ships for cabbages?

>>65462900
>could simply forego the panama canal
yes, it isn't like there aren't any ships carrying cargo that are to big to fit through the panama canal
btw for your information Suezmax is about trice panamax displacement already
>decent idea
lol
>augment the dwindling domestic American cargo fleet
what makes you think they wouldn't simply replace the few remaining ship on the protected Jones act routes?
>could easily serve double duty with both the navy and civilian companies
sure all those civilians that need to transfer cargo on the open sea
also the navy already pays to keep an auxiliary fleet, most of the time it's in dock doing fuck and all
as it turns out the requirements for being a good ship for the navy and one for commercial shipping are quite different
>potentially high speeds
the power/speed ratio isn't fixed but is a one of diminishing returns
>could open it up to more unconventional uses
you are aware that shipping is a very well developed and mature industry where every niche is already being catered to
>ship like this hasn't been built since the 70's in the west
could it be that if it was tried and abandoned that there were some good reasons to do so

>>65462913
The problem is they'll probably just repeal it instead of reforming it, and let's be honest they'd probably fuck up reforming it too. The requirement for US flagged ships to be crewed by Americans means American merchant mariners are the highest paid in the world, euros get paid pennies in comparison.
I was planning on attending a merchant mariner academy next year, but I'm not sure if it'll even be worth it if most of the jobs are replaced by filipinos soon

>>65462913
The article you didn't link.

https://gcaptain.com/u-s-takes-next-step-toward-nuclear-powered-commercial-ships/

>>65462929
>could it be that if it was tried and abandoned that there were some good reasons to do so
that was 50 years ago, much has been done to rectify problems with nuclear propulsion and its complexity has been reduced with relative significance
>could open it up to more unconventional uses
A high speed cargo ship has more flexibility in terms of what it can do, not necessarily because it can carry different things than normal vessels, but because it can maintain a pace that is otherwise hard to match with conventional vessels.
>what makes you think they wouldn't simply replace the few remaining ship on the protected Jones act routes?
It could, but it would make more sense to help build prestige for otherwise standard companies and shit.
>as it turns out the requirements for being a good ship for the navy and one for commercial shipping are quite different
The navy has chartered civilian vessels before, and while it may have trouble conducting some duties, it would be a boon in others, its high speed is something very few conventionally powered ships have. It wouldn't make much sense to build a ship like this if it wasn't also fast.

File: 8B209B11-992D-484D-8AB4-1(...).jpg (383 KB, 1536x2048)

383 KB JPG

>>65462957
https://www.corepower.energy/
https://x.com/corepower10/status/2067183956877852908
So a BWXT SMR.

>>65462713
where do you put the sails on a cargo ship? makes sense on a tanker where the cargo is covered up

File: MHM-Konecranes-STS-Ship-T(...).jpg (283 KB, 1500x1001)

283 KB JPG

>>65463035
Yeah

File: 1678465450944473.jpg (333 KB, 3500x2663)

333 KB JPG

>>65462699
>is extremely fucking difficult
no its not retard if the design work has been done. What slows down fission reactors to a crawl is over regulation and red tape.
>You need certificates from three different agencies that these specific bolts have been torqued to a specified value, verified by three different inspectors on three different visits
type of bureaucracy

This is done deliberately by anti-nuke hysterics who couldn't get it outright banned across the board, so their next play was over regulation via legislation. Since you can always use "safety" as an excuse for ulterior motive demands

Bigger hinderance for civilian nuclear cargo carriers are the crew. Companies cheap out on the dime and usually the sailor crews speak six different languages from eight different regions. Even worse, the cheapest bottom of the barrel discount humans they could find. Like pajeets. For example even on the Costa Concordia the captain started out as an security guard and weaseled his way to the bridge. While the first mate, who misunderstood the commands on the critical moment, was a poorly english speaking SEA monkey that worked as a painter before coming to the ship. And as soon as he got out from the italian jail to await trial he immediately disappeared back into the jungles

These would be the types crashing ships with nuclear reactors into docks. On the flip side sinking in the ocean is a nothing burger as the sea itself is a wonderful radiation shielding so the wrecks would be safe in 95% of the cases with deep waters

>>65462745
scrapped because even after subsidy for construction it was TOO EXPENSIVE to operate.

Germans built 3 extra fast cargo ships that also turned out to be too expensive and were bought by USN, who still operates them AFAIK, but not at their 30knots.

>>65462902
Nuclear cargo ships are currently uninsurable by Lloyd's IIRC, so Maersk have no incentive to test out a technology that would be legally unusable.

File: the spicy trail.png (1.38 MB, 1070x790)

1.38 MB PNG

>>65463439
>What slows down fission reactors to a crawl is over regulation and red tape.
Yeah let's just drop that, it'll be fine

>>65463456
Germany also built a nuclear powered freighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship)

Was also too expensive to run.
The guy who captained her at the end was the actual former U-boat CO who was portrayed in Das Boot.

>>65462619
I gotta better idea.

Make neo-Panamax sized combo olde-Jap full flat top combo tanker-carrier-container ships.

Take your basic tanker and reposition the super structure to kinda flatter. Put a modular deck about 20' above the tanker normal deck over all the pipes (F-18 is 18' tall). Pipes are basically big cross so that creates 4 more or less open spaces.

Cut hatches in the tanker deck and install some framework of rails, etc to allow it stack shipping containers as well as oil.

Put basic elevators on all four corners.

Configure the tank compartments so that the inner most compartment could be behind 50ft of alternating sea water and air gaps.

>>65463439
>What slows down fission reactors to a crawl is over regulation and red tape.
Breakneck-production civilian nuclear vessels rushed through the bureaucracy in order to meet arbitrary presidential promises? I don't see any way this can go wrong

>>65463487
>soviet union
who cares?

>>65462619
CAN'T WAIT FOR THEM TO BE DECOMMISIONED IN INDIA

File: fukushima or 3rd time's t(...).jpg (171 KB, 1063x1299)

171 KB JPG

>>65463527
>no regulations will work out this time, trust me bro
>just one more exclusion zone bro

>>65463541
Don't worry, the reactors will be removed first.
With your tax dollars, lol.

>>65463554
Nobody is calling for no regulation. Nuclear is the most regulated industry in the world and most of the standards are based on fear mongering

>>65462619
Why will presidents do literally anything except repeal the Jones Act?

>>65463618
There's a lot of things being done by this admin that i think is retarded, but their work on trying to reshape US shipbuilding (military and civilian) is not one of them

>>65463487
this wasnt even a reactor retard, it was a refinement facility

>>65463554
white people care about safety, slants and russians aren't white

>>65463554
Fukushima Dai-ichi was completely preventable, if the TEPCO employees at the site hadn't been buckbrocken sararii men.

>>65463439
>For example even on the Costa Concordia the captain started out as an security guard
He went to nautical college and worked as security officer for Costa before being promoted as captain. Security duties are part of STCW and every deck officer needs to have the appropriate knowledge before getting certified. Schettino demonstrated bad seamanship and Murphy and bad luck shafted him.
>First mate
That was the helmsman, an AB sailor. Companies do cheap out on crew (up until recently, my employer never hired SEA as officers, only European) but in this hypothetical nuclear cargo ship standards would be much higher, it wouldn’t surprise me that even deck officers would have to hold extra qualifications before being able to sail on a nuclear powered ship. That would exclude SEA crew until their training facilites catch up, if ever.

And exactly that is the reason why this development will take a long ass time, longer than this retarded administration. The IMO moves slow and new regulations, provisions, and training standards will have to be made. I don’t have a copy of SOLAS with me but if I remember correctly the safety requirements on nuclear ships are one pitiful page.

>>65462918
>s-sorry
i'm not whoever you think your political enemy is, faggot, i'm saying 2028 is complete horseshit and you're a gimp.

>>65463439
>no it's not
yes it is, which is why you don't already see them everywhere.

>>65462619
Oh yeah, because engineers trained to work with maritime nuclear reactors are a dime a dozen and not somethign you'd have to spend the next few decades building a large enough workforce of.

>2028
LMAO, it's a nothingburger.

>>65462653
>the Trump class BBGN
You mean the nothingburger that doesn't exist outside various copium artworks?

>>65463439
LNT and ALARA are finally dead. Let them never return.

>>65463439
>This is done deliberately by anti-nuke hysterics
Yeah, "hysterics" like Hyman Rickover. Dumbass.

>>65463618
Laws passed by Congress can only be repealed by Congress (or an Amendment, which still needs Congress unless you want to go the spicy route).

>>65462974
>that was 50 years ago
going up against the diesel engines of 50 years ago
>more flexibility
>not because it can do more things
>because it is faster
shipping gets planned well in advanced having a few faster ships thrown into the mix doesn't really add anything to a shipping companies fleet
or you'd have to start changing your whole fleet over but that's not a "by 2028!" announcement
>prestige
doesn't mean shit, reliability is what you want
>The navy has chartered civilian vessels before
yes, to send cargo to port where it gets transferred to the USN's own supply ships
there's really no gap there where you need a cargo moved faster than what a conventional ship can do but isn't worth airlifting to get it there
and it would be such a niche ability that no commercial shipper would pay for the premium
at best it's a tax funded gimmick
>>65463481
>currently uninsurable by Lloyd's IIRC
>currently
if you ask nicely they will get you a quote especially if the biggest shipping fleet asks for it
I'd like to remind you that when Maersk started to experiment it's other alternative propulsion there wasn't an insurance product for them

>>65463768
>airlifting to get it there
some things are too heavy to airlift retard, that and you can carry much more without using a big ass amount of your strategic lift capabilities.
>more flexibility
Getting something somewhere sooner will always be a plus, regardless of 'planning' or schedules. Some things are too big to airlift but really need to get wherever fast. I guess in some cases it can be shipped in parts, but some things cant even do that.

>>65462704
they're copying trump

For me it's <10MW nuclear reactors

>>65462619
Hell yeah, China will make them better and I'll get my teme orders faster

>>65463943
and other fantasies you can tell yourself, chinkshill.

On one hand, nuclear specialists are indeed much more expensive. But on the other, most ships travel at around 18 knots to save on fuel.
So if you go back to 30 (because traveling slower on nuclear makes no sense), you might need fewer crews in total to cover the same cargo volume

>>65462619
I like the concept because >>65462703, but it's not gonna happen. America's shipbuilding is over capacity as it is, and nuclear shipbuilding is strained even further and it's a small niche to begin with.

The only way I'd say this was feasible if you could containerize a SMR reactor which also would have to be approved and certified and what not AND you'd need a supply chain for personnel and training and so on.

Essentially the US wouldn't be building nuclear VLCCs, but instead build a drop-in nuclear powerplant.

File: 1000030119.png (10 KB, 768x360)

10 KB PNG

>>65462913
>>65462745
>>65462699
The US is basically the global center of small modular reactor design and production. There are a LOT of viable patented designs by now, and a number of them are either ready for or already starting mass production.

Let me be clear that this admin generally has no idea what it's doing. But a broken clock is right twice a day. This is a serious venture and, if successful, could represent a major push to revitalize US shipbuilding - the difference in labor costs in production will be dwarfed by the difference in fuel costs over the vessel's lifetime. If they do actually wind up being faster, it becomes even more enticing.

Current commercial pricing of small modular reactors starts at about $50mil (cargo vessels would be using these smaller/cheaper ones) and that price would of course decrease as production scale ramps up to accommodate shipbuilding. But even using today's pricing, you're looking at as little as 5 years (probably 7-10 most cases) of operation for the saved fuel to even out the cost of that reactor. The lifespan of these vessels is ~30 years.

>>65464111
What are the maintenance and disposal costs for the reactors? Decommissioning costs have been incredibly high as is and you need to take into account the reduced number of ports available due to nuclear free zones and rejection by countries not onboard with the specific SMR design.

You're also very optimistic about something that hasn't actually been built yet.
>a LOT of viable patented designs
Patents aren't worth shit when the basic concept of SMRs hasn't even been proven yet. There are exactly two in operation, and neither has been running long enough to prove the concept.

Your graph also isn't taking into account the cost of the rest of the ship. US yards add massive margins to the point where the basic hull isn't economically viable.

This project is at least a decade and a half away from being technologically sound, is never going to be financially viable, and will require massive multinational treaty and IMO backing to be legally viable. It's done for.

>>65464111
Commercial SMRs are still vaporware. You have to sell and operate one example of the thing before you can be considered the 'global center' of it

File: 1-s2.0-S0360544223015980-gr1.jpg (37 KB, 376x279)

37 KB JPG

>>65464111
>Current commercial pricing of small modular reactors starts at about $50mil
Where are you getting that number? There aren't any SMRs in commercial production, so your only possible source could be some sort of manufacturer advertisement/propaganda. Any actual study of SMR economics has shown the projected costs to actually be much higher than the public manufacturer number. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.128204

>>65462975
Core Power's BWXT June partnership is for floating power stations, not ship propulsion. IDK if they've announced the actual design for the ship.

>>65464111
>the difference in labor costs in production will be dwarfed by the difference in fuel costs over the vessel's lifetime
The contribution of labor to cost is already dwarfed by the contribution of materials (mostly steel) to costs, where the US historically had a huge comparative advantage. The US is uncompetitive in shipbuilding because of protectionist policies (the Jones Act) that made it bad at building commercial ships. People don't buy Japanese, Korean and Chinese cargo ships over American ones because labor is cheaper there, they do it because they build much better cargo ships much faster. Nuclear power isn't going to change that.

File: 20260709_162515.jpg (200 KB, 2048x2048)

200 KB JPG

>U.S. does something
>faggots come out of the woodwork screeching and pissing their pants
They're really not sending their best, folks!

>>65463554
not beating the allegations of being an ignorant twat

>>65464271
It is so blatantly transparent.

>>65462619
Yes. The US will totally dominate the world's largest producer of nuclear reactors in the nuclear reactor game.

>>65464271
>China does something
>faggots come out of the woodwork screeching and pissing their pants
They're really not sending their best, folks!

>Anti nuclear propaganda being posted ITT
Yep its useful idiot leftoids, possibly ziggers. Nuclear energy is our only option to make modern electrics viable, we no longer are in the era of slight performance upgrades for less energy, we are developing vastly more powerful electronics that need a lot more power.

>>65464309
>Chinkshill self reports as the one seething ITT
lol

>>65464309
>China does something
>wumao pretend has never been done before and/or is far superior than western versions

>>65464302
This but unironically. The US is the world leader in nuclear engineering.

File: file.png (2.23 MB, 2446x1442)

2.23 MB PNG

>>65462619
KEK They had to use World of Warships and a French boat to make this.

>>65463793
sure some things can't be airlifted and getting stuff there a bit earlier is always nice
but the key point you are missing is that if you have capable planners you don't need to sail that bit faster, you just ship it a bit earlier
there might be a military use for it if you fuck up your planning or are caught flatfooted
but there's no commercial application for it
if you need it rushed accommodations can be made to get it on a boat faster or to put it on a boat that's going more or less straight to where you need it
a fast boat wouldn't sail with just your cargo nor would it sail directly to your destination (unless you are willing to pay obscene amounts of money)
so you'd sill have to wait for the rest of the cargo to be loaded, for it to make the occasional layover to load and unload ect.
the only routes where being faster would be a boon would be the direct routes from China to the US/EU
but even then you'd need enough ships to work the route to offer reliable transport
that ofc also means you'd need enough cargo to to fill those ships and since the vast bulk of cargo isn't in a rush and isn't going to pay the premium to get their a bit faster
>>65464271
the tone of the announcement is like they are going to fundamentally change the shipping landscape. it's meant to grab headlines and make the administration look good not deliver on a actually commercially viable product
that makes me think that come 2028 no hull will be getting laid down because there's nu fully thought out plan behind it
if they instead announced that they are going to make a couple of experimental test ships with the goal to over the long term change the shipping fleet over to nuclear than It'd be stoked

>>65464345
>not deliver on a actually commercially viable product
Its blatantly going to he a money sink initially, the main question is if this administration and the next can push it through long enough for visible ROI.
Take for example China's ship building, that took for over a decade of the PRC eating financial losses and passing it on to the citizenry. Now theyre making money hand over fist(Chang ship builders get paid extremely well despite all the memes)

>>65462913
>every single regulation and law is 100% necessary and vital, and cannot be questioned

>>65464331
Post installed nuclear capacity over the last 5 years...

>>65464343
Spits water
World of warships...

>>65464400
The wumao is going to point to Chinese built Anerican designed reactors.

>>65463439
>This is done deliberately by anti-nuke hysterics who couldn't get it outright banned across the board, so their next play was over regulation via legislation. Since you can always use "safety" as an excuse for ulterior motive demands

bypassing "bureaucracy and safety red tape" is exactly why these anti-nuke hystericals exist in the first place.

Will the crew be Indian like all the other cargo ships?

>>65462761
there's no problem with putting a reactor on a cargo ship but the issue is they crew cargo ships with ~10-20 filipinos. do you really thing shipping companies aren't going to cut corners?
meltdowns aren't even the biggest risk here. imagine allowing turdies access to all of this radiological material. knowing that stealing a little and selling it to terrorists for a dirty bomb would be enough to buy a palace in their home country. Yes there is plenty of low grade material out there already causing issues but this is going to scale that up by an order of magnitude.

Nuclear powered cargo ships were explored in the 70s and this is ultimately what torpedoed it. It's not economical once you factor in risk/waste costs. It doesn't matter in the US military's context because they have effectively infinity money.

>>65464479
Nuclear Engineering is one of the last few White Man professions out there, US Nuclear Engineers will not tolerate jeet techs.

>>65464479
If they repeal the jones act yeah

>>65464253
Core Power's plans for this is to actually have the hull built in Japan or South Korea, which then gets towed to the US for the nuclear install. Would actually make it Jones Act ineligible since the keel is laid overseas lmao.

>>65462656
>>cargo ship
>>/k/ - weapons
Well, /n/ is fucking dead, always has been, so here it belongs

>>65464552
>logistics are not relevant to war

>>65464549
There is also the thing in the recent Memorandum that lets at least two ships for the USN (from a given manufacturer) be built overseas before having to be built in American yards.

>>65464549
Jones Act only regulates ships traveling between American ports and there's no particular advantage to building ships that can sustain high speeds over relatively short transits like that.

>>65462619
Duffy is a retard who is only known for being on one of those old boomer MTV reality shows. Nuclear cargo ships are fine, whatever go for it but he's clearly not considering what that is going to do to insurance or force protection needs, or crew requirements both in numbers and training. And increasing the speed of a cargo ship gets you virtually zero increase in throughput speed because almost the entire bottle neck is how fast the port can load and unload the ship. This fucking bozo ran fucking NASA for a year.

>>65462715
It's not an unrep ship, that would be pretty pointless if these "have no fuel tanks" which is the main point of unrep, to transfer fuel

>>65464445
>The wumao is going to point to Chinese built Anerican designed reactors.
Hualuong One is a domestic chinky design thoughever.

I guess Somalia will become a nuclear power in 2030's.

File: shut up nigger.jpg (18 KB, 640x265)

18 KB JPG

>>65462656
Look at this tattling bitch. Imagine coming to 4chan to be a wannabee Reddit mod.

>>65462656
The next 20 year quagmire the US gets involved in with be supplied with nuclear powered logistics.

>>65464600
Until automated nuclear power plants and enrichment is possible only countries capable of actual organization and able to cultivate a university culture in their borders are going to have anything nuclear.

>>65464320
Every times

>>65464372
idk about the next administration but nothing about how this administration communicates or acts gives me any confidence in them seeing this trough as a coherent strategy

>>65462619
Surely this is a complex system that will survive the competency crisis.

>>65464562
Increased speed is incredibly useful for keeping pace with naval groups.

>>65464675
>Until automated nuclear power plants and enrichment is possible

SMR are pretty close to a nuclear power plant in a box

>>65464489
Will shipping companies tolerate US nuclear engineer wages?

>>65464852
For the ~2 crew members that would need to be nuclear engineer rated? It's a rounding error cost increase relative to operating a ship.

>>65462619
>set to be built in 2028
lmao so in firstie speak, that means the ship will float sometime in Q3 2041

>>65464875
It means the first hull will be in the water in 2028.

File: dream-on-aerosmith.gif (240 KB, 220x165)

240 KB GIF

>>65464886
>It means the first hull will be in the water in 2028.

>>65464898
If you bother to scroll up and read the thread you would know why its actually happening pretty quickly.

>>65464558
Which is somehow even more stupid than the bullshit about asking for a quote on ditching EMALS.
>We are aware that American shipyards are in crisis due to our policy of canceling proposed ship classes with only 2-3 hulls built
>We'll address this by building those 2-3 hulls overseas so the American shipyards get no revenue whatsoever

>>65462658
>mass producing
Anon it's supposed to be huge ass cargo ships, "mass production" would mean maybe half a dozen reactors a year. Which is not unreasonable if enough money is thrown at the production facilites.

>>65464994
I'm actually with the retard on this one. Reactors have a 5-6 year lead time. Scaling up production over the next few years so there's a dozen more reactors in production is entirely feasible. Shortening the pipeline so much that we have reactors for these cargo ships and the battleships ready in just a couple of years without cannibalizing from submarines or carriers is not. All of these new nuclear powered ships are entirely feasible to build, but they'll be entering the water early next decade at the absolute soonest.

Literally every single shitty little foreigner needs to come to my American website and tell me what to feel about things, in my own country, as an American.
This is having the opposite intended effect and hopefully you'll grow to realise it, but I do not believe a lot of you contain that level of self awareness unfortunately.

>>65464600
Kek
Underrated comment

File: windscale sellafield.jpg (47 KB, 635x440)

47 KB JPG

>>65463670
>white people care about safety
Yeah they added a filter before setting the graphite and uranium on fire.
Well, they had one guy who wanted a filter. And caled him a fool for insisting on it..
Then swept everything under the rug for half a century to cover the monumental political fuckup.

>>65463660
Can't have one without the other, m8.

>>65464990
American shipyards are not in a crisis because of canceled programs and you are being dishonest (for a second time) by omitting that said foreign shipbuilders have to build their ships at American yards after those first 2.

>>65463677
Sure.
So was Chernobyl, Harrisburg and a dozen less devastating ones.

But corporate decisions and political decisions got involved and fucked everything up.
Unless you can guarantee that these are not involved, and you let actual engineers run the ractors, these accidents will continue to happen.

>>65465098
Fukushima was 'preventable' because it was an ancient design that didn't take into consideration its backup generators being taken out by a storm surge.

Chernobyl was 'preventable' because it was caused by a deliberate action.

Referring to Three Mile Island (which was largely a nothingburger) as Harrisburg is a red flag.

>>65465022
Your site is slow and dead, mutt

>>65465105
Red flag for what, Eglin?

>>65465110
Makes shilling here even more pathetic, like some kind of cargo cult mentality that if foreign shills can astroturf a consensus here that it will impact US culture. Sorry best we can do was get Trump elected 10 years ago everything else has been out of our hands.

>>65465116
It's the 'Elgin' schitzo, don't bother wasting your time.

>>65465113
>eglin
lol schizo

>>65462653
>Trump class BBGN was announced.
shipyard status?
funding status?
not being a retarded idea status?

>>65465105
>Fukushima was 'preventable' because it was an ancient design
Yes. But they didn't do jack shit, and let it sit there until a wave fucked up their cooling system, and their cooling ponds evaporated and at least one core melted down and blew up in a hydrogen explosion.
>Chernobyl was 'preventable' because it was caused by a deliberate action.
You refer to the infamous rundown test?
That really wasn't the ultimate cause, the whole design of that reactor was idiotic, and many of them had a partial meltdown at one time or another.

Both of these are prime examples of why nuclear power COULD be safe, but will never be.

>Referring to Three Mile Island (which was largely a nothingburger) as Harrisburg is a red flag.
It's just what the accident is best known as outside teh US. I can call it TMI accident if it makes you feel better.
I literally listed it together with a bunch of less devastating ones that 'only' released some radioactive water and gasses, which on closer analysis mostly turn out to be caused by bad design, bad operating practices and badly trained operators.

Which translates to 'mismanagement'. Which is why the whole thing is doomed.
As soon as you get C-suite go-getters who are there to deliver three or four good quartely reports, middle management climbers who exist to never admit to any mistake to safeguard their carreers and HR who exist to make sure any and all mistakes are the employees fault into the picture, you can't ever run these things in a sane, objective and intelligent manner.

>>65462619
Based.

>>65462706
Sure it will, chang. Sure it will.

File: bbgx-model-sna-2026.jpg (295 KB, 1506x800)

295 KB JPG

>>65465158
>shipyard status?
There are three drydocks in Newport large enough.

>funding status?
The current year NDAA.

>not being a retarded idea status?
You have no idea what it is for or why it is "battleship sized" but you know you must oppose it because Trump is associated with it.

>>65465275
Why are you omitting half of the post you are responding to just to say what you omitted?

>>65465275
>their cooling ponds evaporated and at least one core melted down and blew up in a hydrogen explosion.
Which was preventable had they *not* vainly/idiotically tried to save the reactors, and just dumped a fuckton of seawater into them. Would it have irreparably corroded everything? Yes. Would it have prevented the fuel bundles from breaking down and generating explosive hydrogen due to overheating? Also yes.
Instead, they kept doing a back and forth with their superiors regarding "most prudent" course of action, until the plant itself eventually decided for them.

>>65465416
i.e., mismanagement and corporate/political decisionmakers attempting to save their carreers because it is more important to assign blame and save face than stop the desaster.

>>65462619
Already tested and it's not worth it. This is another scam by Trump to fill some of his friends pockets.

>>65465936
Can you show us these cargo ships powered by SMR?

>>65465095
American shipyards would not be in crisis today if they'd had stable contracts for the last 30 years, and making two ships of each class overseas doesn't solve problems caused by canceling classes after the first two ships.

>>65466273
Go ahead and tell us which shipyards are struggling because they don't have ships to build for the USN.

>>65466298
Todd and Avondale, what do I win?

>>65464482
You cant just remove nuclear material from a reactor without causing a major incident. I am surprised at how little anons know about nuclear power, its no wonder there is some much negative press surrounding that shit.

File: contractor.gif (2.81 MB, 300x225)

2.81 MB GIF

>>65465088
>britshits fucking up something
No surprise, they were rushing multiple aspects of their nuclear program, and not to mention the complete lack of regard for safety protocols due to government interference in said programs. They may be 'white', but they are still British. A bunch of inbred retards living on an island.

>Can't have one without the other, m8.
Yea, but that doesn't mean that you have to dump byproducts into a fucking river. Not to mention giving no warning to surrounding settlements. Of course, they were more worried about word getting out than the safety of their citizens, just Russian things.

>>65466615
>No surprise, they were rushing multiple aspects of their nuclear program, and not to mention the complete lack of regard for safety protocols due to government interference in said programs. They may be 'white', but they are still British. A bunch of inbred retards living on an island
What was the US' excuse for TMI? Brownification?

>>65466669
Like everything in America it was designed by teh lowest bidder, built by the lowest bidder and the managers hired the cheapest workers.
management also ordered the workers to disregard safety protocols.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
>An operator noted that the pumps were running but did not notice that a block valve was closed in each of the two emergency feedwater lines
>The valve position lights for one block valve were covered by a yellow maintenance tag. The reason why the operator missed the lights for the second valve is not known, although one theory is that his own large belly hid it from his view
Ah yes, America.

>The operators had not been trained to understand the ambiguous nature of the PORV indicator
>A downstream temperature indicator, the sensor for which was located in the tail pipe between the pilot-operated relief valve and the pressurizer relief tank, could have hinted at a stuck valve had operators noticed its higher-than-normal reading. It was not, however, part of the "safety grade" suite of indicators designed to be used after an incident, and personnel had not been trained to use it. Its location behind the seven-foot-high instrument panel also meant that it was effectively out of sight.
Designed on the cheap, staffed by kids with no training, managed by clowns.

>>65464799
It's really not up to them.
Congress controls the purse, so Congress would have to commit money over a decade instead of piecemeal CRs and annual budget requests. They'd have to not agree to cost+ and buy a large number at a fixed price.

>>65466615
>they were rushing multiple aspects of their nuclear program
So was everyone.
US and USSR both blew up several experimental reactors. Canada, too.

>Yea, but that doesn't mean that you have to dump byproducts into a fucking river.
The French dump them into the sea. The Brits, too.
Well the Brits actually flooded the lower levels of their own reprocessing plant first, because. . .I actually don't know why. They probably ran out of money to repair things.
Japan and China also dump the liquid waste into the sea. Only Russia uses actual riveers.

>>65465095
That is retarded. You need the learning curve and process engineering to transfer. The american shipyard will literally have to start from scratch with the same problems they have today with 2 less hulls. And the foreign shipyard has the same issue, but hull 3 onwards could be much more efficiently if built there too.

America needs to stop sitting in between the chairs. Do you want to be the worlds most powerful Navy or not? I'd you do, then you need to invest serious money into your shipbuilding industry. Specifically LNG tankers and other high density ships where the supply chain is more than steel.

>>65465022
>level of self awareness
If Americans had any they'd not be acting the way they are. Everybody hates you and that will come with national security implications down the line. Maybe that means you'll be all alone, maybe that means generous lend-lease at 23% APR, maybe that means just moving on without you.

>>65466768
>If Americans had any they'd not be acting the way they are.
It's not too late, if the Americans manage to rid themselves of MAGA tehy might change course.
>Everybody hates you and that will come with national security implications down the line.
Well, it's really MAGA that deserves the hatred, though teh damage they do is mostly to American interests and businesses.
But you are right, the trust is gone and the strategic decision to never rely on US systems again has been reached in all European countries.
The Arabs also lost all trust due to US failures against Iran, SK and japan saw the US drop all pretenses that they were 'pivoting to China' and now realize tehy cannot rely on any kind of support, so they'll also build their own stuff.

>>65466768
>>65467082
>foreigners talking about Americans lacking self awareness
One of the biggest red pills for Americans is realizing just how bad every other country is compared to us. The issue stems from you constantly consuming American culture, without understanding it

>>65462619
>>65462646
>>65462745
I think we can all agree that Thomas Crooks shouldn't have missed.

>>65467310
no, because giving maga a fucking martyr to crow about for all time would be a fucking disaster, are you stupid?

File: jorge.jpg (11 KB, 234x215)

11 KB JPG

IF this happens, IF it happens and I'm 98% sure that it won't, but if it does I will accept the cuck Trump and his coterie of cucks did one good thing in their administration.
But it won't happen.

>>65466328
Shipyards that never built any ships dor the USN, cancelled or otherwise, in your lifetime?

>>65464846
SMRs are advertised by companies fishing for venture capital as nuclear power in a box. Reality is far different. Only two have been built, one in Russia and one in China. Everything else is just bullshit from companies who haven't even built a prototype to even begin working out engineering problems. All the American SMR hype is just empty marketing built around incomplete CAD models. They literally have nothing physical.

>>65464343
>World of Warships
That's still a thing?

>>65464445
>muh American designed
LMAO, cope.

>>65465022
>what to feel
More like what reality is like. Actual non-suhumans aren't as obsessed with feels as you are.

>but I do not believe a lot of you contain that level of self awareness
LMAO, that's some irony right there.

>>65464970
If you bothered to actually read the thread AND apply a minimum of critical thinking, you would understand that it isn't happening outside of the cope-fueled delusions of retards who knmow less than nothing about ship building or nuclear reactor construction.

>>65464675
-------------> the joke
your head <--

>>65464864
LMAO, those two are gonna crank up personnel costs by like ten times. No shot anyone is gonna go for that.

>>65467460
With how butthurt chinkshills are ITT its hard to tell sarcasm from a sinoid being unironic about giving Somalia nuclear weapons to spite America or something.

>>65466768
>>65467304
One of the biggest 'red pills' for Americans was learning how much our allies disdain us and feel entitled to America's wealth. The reason Trump angers them so much is because he is the first POTUS in living history to not put up with their shit.

>>65467464
>nuclear engineers get paid thousands of dollars an hour

Anon I...

>>65467346
it would've been a more interesting timeline than what we're in now

>>65462656
It's a tourist thread anon, they aren't here for weapons

>>65467444
Yes. It's slowly dying, but due to the gameplay being rather unique it's still there

>>65467304
>MAGA
Yeah we're past that point. America means all of you, liberals and republicans and everything in between. Liberals especially should take note that they'd basically need to sell out the US to get back on even footing: favorable trade deals, deference to EU institutions etc. I know how I would feel in my country if I'd be on the other side of that so I don't think that's politically feasible for you, but you know that better than I do.
>But you are right, the trust is gone
Yup. And It's not just intentions which could change with a new leadership, but it's also capability: The ability to be everywhere where America promised protection, and the ability to provide material assistance to those places. Add in the unsustainable fiscal pathway and there's no real pathway for America to go.
>>65467304
>consuming american culture
It's ironic because that consumption used to endear you to me quite a bit and I would've unironically gone full ameriboo in the belief that I'd be ensuring another generation gets that "Malcolm in the Middle" style family.
>>65467478
>muh Trump
From everybody else's POV America has made it's own bed for the last few decades and slowly begins to realize the mess they've made.


The problem America faces isn't that it overextends itself indefinitely. It's that you retrench chaotically and bitterly, under fiscal duress and without strategy. Because the establishment never did the intellectual work of designing a disciplined drawdown while you had the slack. It's not that your productive frontier is lost suddenly, it's that you're hollowed out politically underneath it to the point where you can't sustain the domestic consensus to act coherently abroad. A lot of people here argue primacy v. restraint, and this is something they don't have a word for because it's a failure of the political economy, not foreign policy. And the entire american elite considers this arena beneath their notice.