[vampyregirl]

In the 19th century steam took over from sail. After all a steamship could travel much faster than a sailship and wasn't at the mercy of the weather the way a sailship was.
Then in the early 20th century the Diesel engine replaced the steam engine. After all it provided far more power than steam and didn't require constant attention from the crew the way the coal burning steam engine did.
Today we are in an era of huge ships. Cargo carriers ranging from 200 to 1000 tons. There is talk of fitting these huge ships with nucelar reactors in the future.
Is it feasible? Well many navies have done it with warships. First nucelar powered submarines then aircraft carriers. And modern reactors are relativly safe. When that Russian nucelar sub Kusk sank in the Arctic it didn't poison the water cause the reactor is designed to shut down if the ship sinks. Early reactors in Russian and Chinese subs were dangerous to the crew but have since been much improved.
Could the nucelar reactor be the future of ocean transport?

[FreakOil]

It seems feasible, and one company has even fitted a container ship with a kite to use wind power. But I don't think this would have a huge overall effect on oil supplies.

Shipping is by far the most energy efficient form of transport. I read somewhere on this site that the cost of ocean shipping makes up only 0.04% of the final cost of a product.

How the goods get from the factory in Guangdong province to Shenzhen and from Long Beach to Omaha is more important in terms of energy use.

[emersonbiggins]

^^^

Well said, FreakOil

[lowem]

It could be interesting. Nuclear reactors for the heavy lifting, supplemented by high-tech sails.

They would need tight security though. Military naval reactors are always part of the fleet and are always surrounded by people with lots of guns. What are civilian reactors going to be guarded with?