The Incredible Atomic Ship of Dreams

[@TodayIFoundOut]

This video brought to you in part by our Patrons over on Patreon. If you’d like to support our efforts here directly, and our continued efforts to improve our videos, as well as do more ultra in-depth long form videos that built in ads and even sponsors don’t always cover fully, check out our Patreon page and perks here: www.patreon.com/TodayIFoundOut And as ever, thanks for watching!

[@DanielJohnson-ps4xv]

I’d love to see this technology re examined. I’ve spent the last 14 years as a merchant mariner on tugs. The amount of fuel we burn every month let alone when I’ve pulled up to a container ship to bunker them with 40 thousand barrels of fuel oil and that was the first of two barges. Ships burn an amount of fuel a lot of people don’t comprehend.

[@massmike11]

Yet they use less fuel per pound mile than anything other than the railroads

[@kyleschultz8350]

The navy reactors are amazingly efficient and CAN run on decommissioned (used) fuel rods out of larger power plants. However regulated the maritime industry is, it's no where near what goes into getting a license for material for industrial use

[@muddrudder2656]

I was thinking. If anyone managed to manufacture ships and made some updates to a liberty, then they would be like the torus or Saturn's of the sea. Not much to look at but nothing to shake a stick at

[@BernardLS]

Short answer move less stuff. Do you really need Marigolds to be made half a world away just because that means they can either be pennies cheaper per unit, or the margin can be pennies per unit greater?

[@BernardLS]

@@massmike11 Marine transportation has rail freight beaten I think you will find, however it is slower and cannot reach parts other systems can.

[@MrRetluocc]

Given what we have learned over the last 60 years, it's high time that we take another look at nuclear power for maritime travel, both freight and passenger.

[@Sacto1654]

Especially now with modern reactors that are vastly smaller than in the past. Such small reactors could make it possible for faster container ships, since the nuclear reactor(s) could drive a pump-jet system to even a huge container ship travel almost twice as fast as now.

[@Hobbyblasphemist]

I’m not sure you would see much of a speed increase, most are limited by hull speed, as these large cargo vessels are all displacement hulls, forcing water out the way rather than skimming or cutting through. You could keep forcing it to go faster but the extra strains on the hull would probably cost a lot to repair and or mitigate. I am not a naval architect, just my own slightly informed (seafarer) opinion so not claiming anything outright.

[@Cloud30000]

You are better off keeping the large reactors on land where it is easier to maintain and control with no risk of rogue waves, and use them to create hydrogen to power the ships without taking away from the weight capacity. Virtually no maintenance for hydrogen fuel cells means near 100% uptime for the ship as well.

[@Cloud30000]

Unfortunately, refineries produce a lot of “waste” oil that can’t be used for anything else, which makes it dirt cheap to use as fuel for cargo ships; that alone means new propulsion technology for them is very unlikely for a long time.

[@T.R.75]

nah that would be a mistake. nobody wants or needs civilian shipping being targeted in a hot war that leaves irradiated hulks all over the ocean etc. would be a huge dangerous mess.

[@CatoTheElder-]

Live in Canton. Been on the Savannah once, back in 2015 or so. It's fascinating. Only a few areas were in a decently restored state (dining room, bar, a few state rooms, the bridge). They have the china on display, covered in very intricate designs of atoms. If this had been built about a decade later when containerization was coming online, it might have had a larger impact, but since it was a dual bulk/passenger, it was designed for a logistics age that was coming to an end. Highly recommend visiting if you have a chance. The John Brown should still be docked next to it, one of the last surviving Liberty Ships (and it's in original configuration). Edit: I wrote this only 4 seconds into the video. Boom, John Brown mentioned moments later.

[@ADeNardo95]

I've driven by where it is docked, and I had no idea about this ship until this video. As a local Baltimorean I have to say that it is quite special.

[@CatoTheElder-]

​​@@ADeNardo95 They apparently have more frequent tours now; I'm guessing it's been restored a bit more in the past 9 years. Just Google the ship and you'll see the Friends of NS Savannah website (or whatever it's called). The next pier or two over (either 11 or 12) is where they shot that John Travolta firefighting movie (Ladder 49). They blazed up one of the old dock facilities for a major, if not the major, scene in that movie.

[@Kendallian132]

I was fortunate to have worked with a gentleman--now deceased--who served as the power plant chemist aboard "Savannah" in the early 1960s. One of the most vivid memories I have of his stories was that he was regenerating a demineralizer in the ship's power plant space when he learned of President Kennedy's assassination.

[@davidjernigan8161]

Prior to being moved to Baltimore the Savannah was a museum ship at Patriot's Point in Charleston,SC along with the USS Yorktown.

[@1976Chinman]

I toured it when it was there 30 years ago.

[@clemenshampel]

In Germany we had the "Otto Hahn" nuclear powered cargoship. It turned out be ineffcient since it was too expensive to run. Thus it was not competitive in the Age of normal fuel ships. If was the third of its kind, the Russians had the Soviet Ice breaker Lenin.

[@henriroggeman7267]

I actually saw this ship as it visited the port of Antwerp in Belgium in 1964. I was 8 at the time. People were allowed to visit the ship, although I can't recall if we did.

[@AchilleBelanger]

Dad worked on Project Plowshare, was an Ice Worm and also helped build an Aircraft that flew with a working Atomic Reactor on board. It was conventionally powered, but carried a Reactor above the Earth to prove a Reactor could be flown. He helped bury the Aircraft and Test Facility and flood it. It’s now in a State Park

[@208Concepts]

Said state park is the one around EBR-1 in Idaho. One of the places to see here in Idaho 😁

[@udowannun7780]

Holy cow!

[@jaymac6041]

Have a great weekend everybody!

[@jennyanydots2389]

You too jaymac!! I'm gonna get hammered and chase the backyard animals around all weekend long son!!

[@Iris_and_or_George]

But it's Monday! Your so considered! How did you know my weekend is always Monday & Tuesday ? 😂

[@JohnBerry-q1h]

When I saw the _Savannah_ in 1990, it was docked at a place called Patriot's Point. Before that day, I had only seen photos of it in encyclopedias.

[@charlesachurch7265]

Thanks Sir. Your presentations are delightful. X

[@John-g6x1h]

I remember building a model of the Savannah in the 1960s. (I was building a lot of ship models in those days.) But I had little idea the problems she went through.

[@york2600]

I love how quotes from rich dudes just don't change 60 years later. The idea that the engineers should settle for a low wage for the good of the country is ridiculous. Let me know when that congressman takes a pay cut. Want to run a nuclear ship? Better pay up.

[@T.R.75]

wish there were more Eisenhowers around nowadays. sadly all we seem to have are Neville Chamberlains and wannabe Stalins all over the place.

[@jimgraham6722]

Too true, leadership missing in action.

[@Cloud30000]

So you want someone who lies to you to make you think that they are developing something for the betterment of humankind, while using it to hide a much more dire and destructive means to conduct war and devastate future adversaries? Did you miss the part where he began the whole policy of stockpiling massive amounts of nuclear weapons, leading to a state of affairs where a miscommunication can actually lead to the end of the world and blocking the sun around the world for months if not years? Never meet your heroes.

[@benjaminbeard3736]

Too many Trumps as well. Edit: I suppose the wanna be Stalins covered that though.

[@VladimirPutin-p3t]

​@@benjaminbeard3736it's ok, you removed any possible ambiguity

[@prophetsam]

So True! Eisenhower, though Firmly Republican, was like the *Last* Republican President who, when it came to the Well-Being of The Nation, or it's Citizens, could put away the "Party Politics," & Work Amicably with the 'Other Side' to Achieve 'Nonpartisan Agreements,' without, like in Modern Times, necessarily needing some form of "Party Compensation," for every 'Inch given in Compromise' when Reaching an Agreement! He *Most Certainly* was the *Last* of the Republican Presidents, to Actually *Care* about the Well-Being of the *Common-Man* instead of only Caring about the Already *Privileged* & *Increasing the Military Budget!*

[@Dave5843-d9m]

The PWR reactors used in almost everything actually burn less than 4% of the energy available within the fuel. This is why the waste has such a long radioactive life. Todays reactors eg Moltex can use 99% of the fuel resulting in a short life waste. Hopefully Simon will cover their technology.

[@matthewgaines10]

Waste has everything to do with fission products created. That is dependent on the fuel used. The reactor itself isn’t the problem. Nuclear physics isn’t your thing. Designing a fuel and reaction is what these newer initiatives are focused on. The reactor design is driven by what you’re trying to react.

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

​@@matthewgaines10ok

[@stewiex]

Why does the thumbnail say it might've killed thousands? I'm pretty sure there was no mention of it killing anyone in the video?!?!

[@jonyemm]

You might want to look to the definition of the word "might".

[@stewiex]

@@jonyemm You might want to look to the definition of the words "click bait".

[@datadavis]

@@stewiex SHITBAIT.

[@Kolan_Koala]

@@stewiex Or "bullshit"

[@xray86delta]

Ironically, all of those nuclear incidents that you mentioned resulted in minimal loss of life, not the end of the world scenario that was always predicted. Still, it has virtually destroyed the use of Civilian nuclear power, especially here in the United States, where we are terrified of it.

[@GuntherRommel]

Yep. Oil industry is really good at convincing is change is bad.

[@bondobilly9369]

​@GuntherRommel don't forget movies like "China syndrome", and people like Jane fonda

[@natehill8069]

The Savannah was docked at a museum in Charleston for a while. I recognized her from her encyclopedia photo, unmistakable profile. Very sleek. I went aboard. She was deserted. It felt kind of creepy.

[@realJeffDunham]

Thank you Simon for uploading! I am start law school next week and am anxious about going back to school. Thanks for helping to get me to think about something less frightening like a nuclear disaster! :)

[@IanDOG]

Good luck congratulations

[@gamerjaqi7873]

Good luck, you got this!

[@toastyy4186]

You got it brother just stay focused !!

[@remnantsofNikki]

Congratulations 🎉 it's a new experience and a beginning of a wonderful career. It won't be easy, but you can do it ❤ don't forget to breathe, 🤩and you will be awesome

[@darranwilkins4648]

dont be be strong and keep the truth stick to who you are and smash it 🎉🎉🎉

[@jasongarland3165]

Nuclear powered freighters are an interesting idea. We certainly operate a lot of nuclear powered warships. I wonder how the amatorized costs work out compared to oil after carbon offsets?

[@chezsnailez]

Fun fact - the Italian Line's TN Leonardo da Vinci was built with the idea that it could be converted to nuclear power. It had the effect that the hull shape was inefficient and it consumed more fuel than the ship it had replaced (Andrea Doria) Built the (Lindberg?) kit model of the Savannah back in the day. Wee beastie sure was a beauty. Would love to reactivate as some sort of a marine research vessel, but alas 💸💸💸... Maybe Elon Musk could replace the reactor with an 'atomic battery' ~ something that converts radioactive decay directly into electricity ~ same principle as a solar panel but contained.

[@willythemailboy2]

Such batteries exist but would be entirely inadequate to power something that size. Many space probes are powered by radio thermal generators, such as the Voyager probes. The Voyager probes each had 4.5 kg of plutonium aboard but only generated 470 watts of power at launch, and that power output has decreased significantly since then.

[@coconutsmarties]

*IT MIGHT'VE KILLED THOUSANDS* I mean yeah I get the concept of clickbait.. but that alarming thumbnail doesn't seem in any way related to the content of this video

[@charleslord8672]

A nuclear powered ship?...think about the possibility of a meltdown in port...large port, high casualties

[@RailPreserver2K]

Im just glad ns savannah is being saved :)

[@jennyanydots2389]

Only Jesus saves brugh.

[@chairrider2462]

I got to see Patriots Point back in the 80's. Back then the Savannah was severely worn looking and a shadow of what it had represented. As a navy nuc mechanic, I found her especially interesting.

[@nordisk1874]

NY Maritime Colleges Nuclear Laboratory was built to train Mariners to work on the Savannah. It sat empty for years until converted to a diesel lab.

[@jeremytoms5163]

If we’d continued with the development of reactors for ships, we’d have mastered the science of small nuclear reactors . With those we would have been able to almost eliminate gas/oil fired generator stations. With the availability of cheap clean energy, electric and hybrid vehicles would have been far more advanced than they are now. Maybe then the climate and environment wouldn’t be in the dire state it is now.

[@EricGranata]

Kinda sad to think of what we’d be capable of without fussing politicians and warmongers screwing everything up.

[@BernardLS]

'Cheap, clean energy' so not nuclear which is neither cheap nor clean, the only cheap clean energy is energy that you do not use.

[@williambrasky3891]

@@BernardLSNo, nuclear is incredibly cheap. Here in the US, we haven’t built a new nuclear plant in decades. We are running all second generation reactors. They are much more expensive to build & run than modern reactors. Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors ranging from outdated design requirements dating from the days of PWR reactors, the failure to maintain a workforce experienced in nuclear plant construction, political opposition from a nuclear shy public (less impactful in present day) & powerful natural gas industry interests, & an unwillingness to be the first to invest & thus cover the high first mover cost penalty associated with industry stagnation, nuclear is perceived as much more expensive than forecasts predict. Often, those who claim it to be relatively expensive (mind you, still competitive with other generation methods, including fossil fuels, at today’s prices) invariably take the costs of building the first new reactor & apply them to subsequent reactor installations. As if that’s not suspect enough, operating costs are frequently assumed to be on par with existing plants. (All 40+ year old designs). There are efforts to reform dept of energy design requirements to accommodate modern reactor designs, though progress, thus far, has been frustratingly elusive. The main issue remains unwillingness to bear those high 1st time costs; costs investors see as buying nothing but a long term comparative disadvantage. If only there were some sort of system or institution in place with the capacity to address such issues stemming from externalities…. And dirty? In what way? Hazardous waste? If you think that’s an issue that needs solving, let me introduce you to modern nuclear reactors specifically designed to burn the spent fuel that makes up the majority of nuclear waste! Rely on ppl to eschew all carbon producing energy? Only if you’re delusional enough to believe you’ll be able to stop people from burning fossil fuels without a viable alternative. I don’t know if you’ve looked around lately, or at any chart of total energy use since the end of the Middle Ages, but there’s only brief periods where the growth even slows down. On top of that, maintaining the sort of global infrastructure necessary to ensure compliance would itself require a shit load of energy. And, by the time you’ve bent all peoples around the world to your will & forced them to live lives free from as much industry as possible, you’re all but assured to have expended as much or more carbon budget than had you just built a shit ton of nuclear reactors & while using the energy they provide to build out renewables. But, go ahead, try to put the geanie back in the bottle. As soon as you convince someone to let their child die of preventable disease rather than use the energy it would take to cure them, I’ll consider your proposal as serious. That said, it could work for a few thousand years as a delaying tactic. Any attempt to enforce such a global system would inevitably lead to a nuclear exchange. People would be clamoring for nukes in the hopes of preserving their sovereignty. There’d be constant war & eventually someone will let one fly. Then BOOM! Back to the Stone Age with everybody. Knowledge would still be preserved to some degree tho, so if humanity survives, I would expect them to speed run history as it has progressed to this point. It won’t be long before somebody reaches for some coal then starts pumping up that oil. I’m not gonna lie, I don’t see how that’s gonna help long term. Perhaps you plan to ride out the apocalypse & emerge to rule the wastes?

[@BernardLS]

@@williambrasky3891 ‘Here in the US’ while outside the US we have one NPP /nuclear power palnt) building in the UK, there is another one in Finland and there are no doubt others in China & India that I have not researched. The Uk & Finland NPP are, not unexpectedly over cost and behind schedule, but that is a given for any large scale project. Shore based NPP may have a place for base load supply but the ‘bean counters’ will soon haul you back to reality if you try and cover any intermittent supply load requirement with one. However this is the marine transportation section of the discussion where things are even more unfriendly towards nuclear energy. The best answer to the question 'how may we reduce the impact of merchant shipping on the environment?' is 'move less stuff and move that lesser amount by the shortest distance possible'. Not necessarily at 'pre-industrial hair shirt' levels; but do we need a 5 litre V8 pickup to get to the golf club? Is a family of 'two parents having two children' (assuming both will survive to adulthood) a good size to aim for given the generational replacement rate is 2.1? In summation; reduce consumption, limit reproduction, satisfy 'needs' not 'wants' and be satisfied with 'comfort' not aspire to 'luxury'. Apart from the fact that the hydrocarbon age is not quiet at an end yet the era of large scale mechanical mercantile shipping may have provided us with the means to get out of a cycle of 'nasty, brutish and short' life into an epoch of life that is, relatively, 'pleasant, refined and long'. Much of the current ‘quality of life’ we enjoy we owe to the fossil oil and gas industry (FOGI). The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) held in Glasgow between 31 October 2021 & 13 November 2021 established requirements and targets for mitigation of the production of GHG and with regard to shipping steps to reduce atmospheric pollution to acceptable levels could include, but not be limited to: - 1) Abolish the cruising fraction of marine transport; 2) Abolish recreational boating; 3) Improve fuel quality; 4) Localise production to consumption; 5) Reduce 'freight mile' distances; 6) Reduce spoilage / waste of all commodities; 7) Reduce freight carrying capacity; 8) Reduce the global population of consumers; 9) De'fossil'ise the fuel chain. The use of any of the options above may not be the future of marine transportation but moving less material and moving what is transported over shorter distances, as in the past, should be. Together with localised production and minimised consumption a global population that has individuals’ voluntarily self-limiting reproduction to two children per parent (both male and female), might save the planet.

[@d0ntcare]

I remember scouring the James River Fleet locations via Google Earth many years ago and finding a flagged image indicating the NS Savanah was anchored out there at some point.

[@Pamudder]

A nuclear-reactor-powered vessel has one overwhelming limitation: the catastrophic effects of a nuclear reactor meltdown into the water of any major seaport. No ship could carry a containment vessel sufficient to prevent this. For diplomatic and defense reasons, a small number of countries do permit port calls by the relatively small number of other countries’ nuclear-powered naval vessels. This causes significant public dissent.

[@matthewfrisbie7776]

Nuclear power is proven to be pretty safe, perhaps it may come to revive the ship for an emergency power plant for disasters like the hurricane on Haiti or volcanic eruption on Monserrat.

[@chaseweeks2708]

Do you remember when US Presidents could string together entire paragraphs of inspiring and hopeful speech without getting distracted halfway through a sentence and going off-script, off-topic, and off rocker? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[@jimgraham6722]

I do actually, seems it's something in the orange skin and golden hair dye that affects their cognitive processes. There should be health warnings in that stuff.

[@chaseweeks2708]

@@jimgraham6722 I mean, it is known in the state of Cancer to cause california.

[@davegallo8166]

Sure, 2015

[@warringwarthog]

yes it seemed like it was only 4 yrs ago and then back in 1988

[@davidgenie-ci5zl]

We currently have senile biden, and the Dems want him to be replaced by cackling kamalalalala, the border czar. What fools.

[@charleslord8672]

Quite interesting subject, Simon. Especially for an old Navy (US) sailor

[@venera13]

The super clickbait thumbnail is so not a good look. You don't need click bait for views please do not fall into that category.

[@klocugh12]

If you saw last Brain Blaze, this is actually super meta.

[@ChopStickSoSushi]

Maybe they took your advice, the image and title are exactly what's in the video

[@T57Custodian]

That was a disc of fuel I believe. For the reactor.

[@joseph-mariopelerin7028]

Did you actually watch the video? Lol...

[@altelephono3373]

You do actually need to clickbait in order to get views. Dude's got to eat😂

[@grandaddyoe1434]

I was a child in the 1940s and 1950s and the publicity for this vessel was most impressive to a young mind. The hopes and dreams never materialised, like so much in those far off days.

[@geraldreynolds9650]

I took a tour around Savannah when i was 11 years old (This was in 1964) I remember that you could actually view the reactor through special viewing windows.

[@otm646]

Please get rid of the clickbait thumbnail. You are better than this. This is a good piece

[@dutchieman06]

@ the editor, PLEASE stop with the flashing lights on screen to make stuff look old, it's totally not needed, and makes it unwatchable on those parts

[@CanesVenetici]

Hell I thought my TV was going bad. I had to look this vid up on my phone to make sure I wasn't going nuts. Not cool Simon!

[@AchilleBelanger]

MK ULTRA

[@robertpierce1981]

Thank you SW

[@pauld6967]

I have sailed on the John W. Brown and plan on doing so again. Visiting the NS Savannah is also on my 'To Do' list. Thank you for doing a video about the ship.

[@margotrosendorn6371]

It's unfortunate we never got past the one prototype here. Nuclear cargo ships sound like a practical idea for such long journeys...

[@klocugh12]

This would make a better Megaprojects video tbh. Also, Savannah-oh-nah-nah

[@Tanemis]

I've been on this ship! It was super neat to tour and they are working on making this into a tourist spot in the future!

[@jimgraham6722]

The ruzz have since built a lot of 'civilian' nuclear powered ships, mainly configured as ice breakers.

[@tripsaplenty1227]

Who?

[@Godmadius]

I took a tour of this ship while the reactor was getting removed to turn it into a museum ship. Have tons of pictures of the interior if you want to update this video or make a follow up

[@BobB-w4q]

This single example illustrates the difference between idealism and reality. Our new generation of idealists will learn this the hard way.

[@DmacDomage]

It may seem like a failure, but I would hope that a whole raft of experience and data was gleaned from this project. Mistakes are where we learn.

[@BernardLS]

And the lesson learnt from this adventure was 'the rsiks and costs outweigh the benefits'. 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.

[@blackmagemasher4031]

I learned about this early this year, would have loved to see this in its hayday

[@Brera011]

I was a lucky boy, visiting my grandparents in Rotterdam in the 1960's, when this ship was in the Rotterdam harbor and I could see her and even joined the tour onboard. So futuristic like it came from the Thunderbirds tv series

[@AG3n3ricHuman]

I expected this to be about nuclear pulse propulsion, AKA the method of interstellar travel we've had for decades but have never attempted.

[@Spiekerdude]

The Atoms for Peace include the first nuclear powered plant to generate electricity near Sioux Falls SD in Brandon. It ran for only 30 minutes and then it was shut down to never be operated again.

[@Spiekerdude]

It was named Pathfinder.

[@allangibson8494]

It actually ran for considerably longer than 30 minutes - but design problems with its water condenser caused major problems (and then the cooling tower falling down saw the end of the plant).

[@LoganKearsley]

Not quite. EBR-1 outside Arco, Idaho generated electricity on the grid about a decade earlier.

[@johnfoster3895]

I've been aboard Savannah when she was on display at Patriot's Point Charleston, S.C.

[@steveg8102]

I got to see a functioning 12:51 nuclear reactor as a civilian when I was in college. Had to get a security background check etc. Since 9/11 no civilian is allowed anywhere near what I got to see.

[@charleslord8672]

Unless you join the Navy. US NAVY FIRST! SECOND TO NONE!

[@bradlevantis913]

It looks like Dave has locked Gilles in his basement. It’s becoming a worldwide phenomenon

[@fabricdragon]

oh you covered this 2 years ago on side projects! interesting to see a different take on it

[@RayvenTheNight]

Bit amazing that this is what pretty much laid the ground work for such technology. Now we have submarines and even super aircraft carriers completely powered by nuclear reactors.

[@terrancenorris9992]

I toured the ship NS SAVANNAH on a visit to Jacksonville, Florida.

[@mherndon]

Back when she was a museum ship in Charleston SC I was aboard her several times.

[@shea455]

Good of them to put the provisions (food) right next to the core. Outside of this, it seems a good idea. I'd think a worst-case-scenario would be to sink the boat in deep water as water is a natural neutron absorbant.

[@Kaitlyn.Moore.]

Love this topic! ❤❤❤

[@Evil_This]

It always makes me laugh when Simon is talking about "power" because all I hear him say is "Paah"

[@richardcarr6493]

Funny this option would be more contributing to lowering greenhouse passes for all shipping ships if they went this direction as a hybrid.

[@jennyanydots2389]

Shipping ships? Sounding shifty.

[@Poisonwc]

Um, Mrs. Eisenhower's first name was "MAYmee". 😁 Great video, as always!

[@aliciatyrell3705]

Come visit here in Baltimore

[@laszlogman2545]

And all of the other beautiful ships on display including the USS Constitution and the submarine!

[@jamiepeter3567]

Gerry Anderson musta seen all of this, think it, his production company was called Centuary 21 at one point and there are a few ships in Thunderbirds and Stingray that bear design resemblances to the Savhanna

[@surferdude4487]

Considering the prodigious amounts of bunker oil freighters use, I expect that the economics of running a dedicated container ship with a nuclear reactor might be a viable choice these days. Other than the machinery and fuel storage being swapped out for the reactor and its shielding, the ship could be conventional otherwise. I would think that not having to refuel for years at a time would have huge operational savings.

[@welchianachi7707]

Quite interesting story, and as you pointed out, history tends to repeat itselves. Nevertheless, try not to include "end title"* music in the middle of the material. * the one you chose for the end title of your video.

[@pentabular]

Nicely groomed beard Simon!

[@mwolkove]

It almost feels like they didn't want this project to work, made sure it didn't work, and then the results of them making sure it didn't work was used to prove it would never work. I feel like if someone put a little effort into incorporating a reactor into a well designed ship, they could probably figure out a way to make it profitable.

[@bnthern]

IN 1964, while stationed in Norfolk VA, we saw the Sasvannah come in - all the Nuke crerw wanted to see us to try to LEARN how we did our jobs!

[@etiennebosman786]

Background music when you're talking from 0800 is driving me nuts

[@RCAvhstape]

9:30 The glory days of Camden, when they actually built stuff there.

[@randomunicorn1578]

Man! There are so many haters in the comments! Just watch the video. If you don't like it, click off. No one is forcing you to watch! I think it's an awesome video, Simon. As are all of your productions.

[@danmoar94]

"A relic of a more wide-eyed and optimistic age"? It was a product of cold war-era nuclear anxiety.

[@adamredwine774]

The plowshares projects weren’t really that crazy. The amount of fallout from a nuke is largely containable with good design. Dynamite is still extremely commonly used for purposes like digging and tunneling. Nukes are not inherently bad.

[@terminusest5902]

Generation 4 fission nuclear reactors may provide another opportunity for economic nuclear ships with safer, efficient, low maintenance, walk away safe, cheap, small, modular and low waste reactors suitable for ships. Shore based reactors could provide low risk fuel. The systems, being modular and well protected, could be kept in a removable system for easy recovery after sinking. A pebble bed reactor may be ideal with no need for recovery after sinking's in deep water with silicon / carbon fuel pellets. No meltdown risk. Gen 4 reactors could use a variety of fuels including nuclear fuel waste, depleted uranium, non enriched uranium, thorium, or weapons material depending on the reactor design. Nuclear powered ships and submarines are not rare and have great safety records. Much safer than fossil fuels. China has 3 operational Generation 4 reactor prototypes already. Much cheaper than the ITER reactor.

[@4362mont]

Savannah is a very powerful name. The savannah tayght our ancestors to walk, and rub, which freed up their hands to do all the things that hands can do whike on the move.

[@jackbarnhill9354]

I saw the Savanna go through the Panama Canal.

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

A very small molten salt reactor could power ships. 5 megawatts would be more than enough power for a ship. Maybe even larger than needed. If Brayton cycle super critical co2 turbine was used the engineering spaces could be even smaller than an oil burning ship. That is even capturing xenon gas and tellurium to keep most radioactive components like cesium 137 and iodine under control at all times. Not like pressurized water nuclear at all. Costing nearly the same as an oil burning vessel.

[@RiffeLivingLife]

Have a Great Day World and Love one another♥️

[@EyeKnowRaff]

TBH, much of the commercial US reactors' instrumentation & control systems would be considered outdated & obsolete. 🤷‍♂️ Call it a safety feature since they can't be hacked.

[@clee79]

The Savannah was not the only civil nuclear freight ship: There was also the German ship "Otto Hahn".

[@tomduke1297]

now i would be interested to learn about the story of the Lenin atomic ship.

[@JFischer-fr3eh]

Damn I was only thinking how cool it would have been to see and then to hear it was a stones through away, a mile down the road to see but the only problem is I was only three or four 😂Good stuff though preciate it 👍🙃

[@crowdpleaser1036]

It is bizarre how nuclear submarines have become accepted as weapons of war despite the potential for a nuclear accident and yet the peaceful use of nuclear power as a means of maritime propulsion has despite its obvious potential benefits never gained any traction.

[@WardenWolf]

Build one, but build her to military specs. Wartime comes, her cargo holds get filled with modular missile cells. Turnkey arsenal ship.

[@sop2510]

I was berthed next to her in Rota, Spain in the mid-Sixties.

[@andrewzimmer4015]

I live in Baltimore and every time I fish in that area I wondered what that ship was

[@crazypedia1717]

I feel like we've watched the same story play out in real time dozens of times over the last few years

[@partialsweat230]

Should of been a mega projects

[@davidjernigan8161]

Part of atoms for peace was operation gas buggy to stimulate gas production from tight rock formations.

[@Satire-Gaming]

Civilians constantly crash cargo and cruise ships, could you imagine if they polluted the area with nuclear waste and reactor meltdowns every time? omegalul

[@metalhead2550]

I have one word in response..... QUADRUPLING!

[@tristan7216]

Wait til Simon reads George Dyson's book about his dad's work.

[@fredblonder7850]

I’m one of the “dedicated volunteers”. I’ve been working with a friend, to re-animate the reactor control-room, in the hope that having lots of flashing lights will help sell the ship as a museum. There’s a lot of graffiti in the control-room, and handprints left by the engineers, that have never been cleaned. There are unlabelled and mislabelled things, and one wire prominently labelled “Earl’s Folly”. Things have been changed, moved or stolen. Many controls are pneumatic. Nothing is digital. The instruments all operate at 120-volts AC. Here’s poking into Auxiliary Wiring Cabinet A: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYC4eJmebdiSrq8 .

[@voxproveritate]

@00:18 It's SPELT luxury yacht, but it's pronounced "throat-warbler mangrove".

[@Firmth]

Wow Eisenhower talking about nuclear power like it's the blockchain

[@Rorschach1024]

Given that British scientists were part of the Manhattan project, it isn't realistic to say that the UK developed its own weapon. They read our test answer over our shoulders

[@CommandLineCowboy]

11:18 "312 Kilograms of low enriched uranium". That doesn't add up. A critical mass of U-235 is at least 47 Kg. That's 15% enrichment of 312 Kg, what we call "High Assay Low Enriched" these days, perhaps that terminology has changed? It seems the smaller the reactor core the higher the enrichment needed. I believe U.S. submarines use a core of pure plutonium a critical mass of 10 Kg.

[@PenitentTangent2401]

The interior views make me think of Fallout.

[@nathanmoreau3937]

Reminds me of the borealis from the half life series