Why is nuclear powered ships limited to only aircraft carriers and submarines?

Answer 1

To build on radars answer -

Other than military naval bases there are VERY, as in less than a dozen main ports GLOBALLY, that will allow a nuclear powered vessel, or even just carrying nuclear material, into their waters. This would make life for a cargo ship rather difficult and would negate and benefites found from being nuclear powered.

To give you an idea of how few ports allow such ships in: A company called Fishers transports nuclear material from the UK to Japan. That ship has to make that voyage - right to the other side of the globe - without once putting into port

Answer 2

Actually it's not. The cruiser USS Long Beach was commisioned 9 September 1961 and was just the first in a class of nuclear powered cruisers.
To date no smaller vessels have been nuclear powered for a simple fact of space. There isn't enough room in smaller vessels to contain a reactor of sufficient size, along with the adequate shielding to make it safe. There is a minimum amount of lead shielding necessary to keep the radiation from leaking into the ship and the sea.
On a side note, The USS Long Beach was being built at the same time as the USS Enterprise. The long Beach was being constructed in Massachusetts and the Enterprise was under construction in Newport News. The main structures for both ships were made by the same contractor, with only minor differences, but shipped wrong. The tower on the Enterprise SHOULD be on the Long Beach and Vice Versa.

Answer 3

Strictly speaking they're not. The Russians have a nuclear ice breaker and we had a nuclear cargo ship - the Savannah. The problem is the weight of the required shielding, and the complexity and cost of the system. Really works well in large ships. For submarines, nuclear is the way to go, because no oxygen is required for the engine. At this point all US subs are nuclear.

Answer 4

Aircraft carriers are strategic weapons which enable the navy to carry the fight to the enemies doorstep. You can't have them leave to refuel, or risk having them sidelined because their supply lines are vulnerable. In addition, any fuel rations are needed for the fighters and helicopters on board. In the case of nuclear, submarines, they must also be able to operate indefinitely and independently, far inside enemy territory. In many cases, they are insurance that if the host nation is destroyed in a nuclear exchange, the submarine fleet can deliver payback. Most destroyers and other such classes of warships are not powerful or stealthy enough to be nuclear powered, and their vulnerability means that it would be an unacceptable risk to have so many nuclear powered craft operating worldwide. Even if we considered only the potential number of accidents during peace time, the risks would be way out of proportion to any benefits.

Answer 5

the US Navy had cruisers and large destroyers ( frigates) with nuclear power; the Russians have several nuc powered icebreakers; there was one merchant ship, the NS ( as in Nuclear Ship) Savannah built in the 60's.......answer is basically cost; while over the lifespan of a ship you save money by not having to buy fuel , the initial outlay is so great that no one, not even the US Navy can really afford it.

Technically there's no reason you can't put a reactor into a ship as small as 8,000 tons......

Answer 6

First link is a list of reactors world wide, including research reactors and those on naval vessels. In the US, there are 104 reactors providing electric power commercially. Navy has a bunch, look at second reference. Many are experimental, or the ship has been retired, so it's difficult to get a total. 3rd reference says today, there are 160 subs 10 carriers at this point. The navy has a number of research and prototype reactors but that number is not known. I think those used in Navel vessels are in the minority worldwide. In the US, the navy has the most, counting just commercial ones compared to those on vessels. If you count research and prototype and development reactors, the numbers are huge.

Answer 7

Actually, its not. There are a number of nuclear powered heavy cruisers in the USN and Russian Navy, as well as nuclear-powered icebreakers, etc.
However, nuclear power is expensive and complex, thus relegating its role to larger ships, such as carriers, heavy cruisers, etc.
Its use in submarines is to allow long-distance cruising and diving. It remains dangerous, obviously.

Answer 8

There have been nuclear powered freighters and ice breakers as well as cruisers and destroyers. However the cost of nuclear power keeps it in subs which benefit too much to be without it and massive oil guzzlers like carriers that are more economical as nuclear powered versus oil fired engines. Other nuclear powered vessels were USS LONG BEACH, USS VIRGINIA class, USS CALIFORNIA class USS BAINBRIDGE, NS SAVANNAH, ICEBREAKER LENIN.

Answer 9

You already got a lot of the good answers.

I will add this, By definition, any ship propelled by machinery is classified as a steam ship.

Politics and Green advocates also prohibit nuclear ships from their harbors.

Answer 10

because there the only ship big enough to have a damn nuclear power plant in them and if every one could have it the us wouldn't wont citizens driving around in bombs basically hell for all we no if we did that they would stop hijacking planes and start doing boats