Here the KUN-24AP container ship would be a massive departure with its molten salt reactor. Despite this seemingly odd choice, there are a number of reasons for this, including the inherent safety of an MSR, the ability to refuel continuously without shutting down the reactor, and a high burn-up rate, which means very little waste to be filtered out of the molten salt fuel. The roots for the ship’s reactor would appear to be found in China’s TMSR-LF program, with the TMSR-LF1 reactor having received its operating permit earlier in 2023. This is a fast neutron breeder, meaning that it can breed U-233 from thorium (Th-232) via neutron capture, allowing it to primarily run on much cheaper thorium rather than uranium fuel.

An additional benefit is the fuel and waste from such reactors is useless for nuclear weapons.

Another article with interviews: https://gcaptain.com/nuclear-powered-24000-teu-containership-china/

  • hglman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s much better to just reduce shipping volume than dive into the unknown without considering safe guards. Your making dangerous arguments that are following the same reckless ideas that got us here.

      • hglman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Utopian is thinking that you just hope it all works out and roll forward ignoring risk again.

        • CatoPosting [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          The thread is absolutely filled with people telling you there is little to fear. Nuclear isn’t profitable, that is why capitalists have brainwashed you into believing it is dangerous. Even with the noted disasters, nuclear has still killed a fraction of the people coal has, per kilowatt hour created. Hell, coal plants are even more radioactive than nuclear ones. And this ship is safer still, because it quite literally can’t catastrophically meltdown, as it is in the FUCKING OCEAN.

          • hglman
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Such is true, and yet, it would be safer without the commercialization of shipping. What point do you make? None. Only suggesting that we just blindly accept. Not shipping is the best step today until we understand the risks of a new system. Think beyond tomorrow and go slow. We need not rush, only not be complacent. To rush to gain is the disease of the capitalist.

            • CatoPosting [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              So wait until the oceans are dead already from global warming and acidification and the grand magical global socialist revolution that is coming “any day I swear guys any day” for the last 150 years to do anything about it?

              I don’t think capitalist globalism is good, I don’t think the planet’s resources should be being drained so that the treats keep flowing, but there will be megaships carrying goods globally for the foreseeable future, and this could actually, meaningfully reduce our harm done to the precious earth.