The unsolved issue in nuclear maritime is making it cost effective, including all life-cycle costs. The US actually had a couple commercial transports which were nuclear powered (NS Savannah being the main one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah) , and the USSR built a few icebreakers and supply vessels, a few of which are still in operation.
back
1 comments
Cost-effective is comparative. If there was a severe shortage of other maritime fuel, we'd be stuck between nuke and sail.
True; and according to NS Savannah's reports, it actually would have been viable during the 1970s.
I wonder if there would be a business in either operating nuclear civilian ships, or outsourced reactor build and management. The irony being that some of the best prospects would be nuclear Very Large Crude Carriers.
The other reason the Navy doesn't want 100% nuclear (and kept ships like the Kitty Hawk around) was some countries are weird about nuclear warships specifically transiting their waters; some are anti civilian nuclear too, but are generally more anti-nuclear warship.