[krasin]

In the meantime, China is constructing nuclear cargo ships ([1], [2]) that will be able to transport 14,000 containers at full throttle (200MW) without a need to refuel for years.

Obviously, it's still not done, and yet to prove to be profitable, but their reactor design does suggest that they have a chance to make it work and replace a lot of CO2 emissions.

1. Original article, but paywall: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3331031/chin...

2. Derivative (+based commentary), but no paywall: https://www.chosun.com/english/world-en/2025/11/07/MND3QUGUT...

[SirHumphrey]

Nuclear ship propulsion is not a new technology so I have no doubt they will succeed. But where this will and all previous attempts have (see: N.S. Savannah) failed is that ports do not want to accept such ships, because of environmental and insurance issues.

[pmontra]

China owns some ports abroad and probably they have enough leverage in some of those countries to let their ships dock there.

[mmooss]

> Nuclear ship propulsion is not a new technology

Have they been used in for-profit scenarios? Military ships and ice breakers don't have to turn a profit.

[infinet]

As much as we want the next generation ships with less CO2 emissions, that nuclear cargo ship is not coming anytime soon. It will use a Thorium melting salt reactor, which although not new, is still in experiment. US first proposed melting salt reactor in the 1940s and had operated one briefly in the 1960s. China is building and testing an experimental Thorium reactor. It made the news earlier this month for been successfully converting Thorium to Uranium, perhaps means it is actually burning Thorium as compare to rely on Uranium in previous melting salt reactors. The news also states the plan has 3 stages: experimental reactor, research reactor, and demonstration reactor. The current one is at first stage. The third stage, demonstrator reactor, is scheduled to build in 2035. Therefor that nuclear cargo ship is at least another 10 years from now.

[prmoustache]

Aren't all military submarines and aircraft carriers using nuclear power already? No reason they couldn't make it work as long as regulations allow them in ports.

[mmooss]

No reason the ships can't be built but turning a profit is another thing. US nuclear-powered aircraft carriers cost ~$10 billion, though of course they have many other requirements.

Flying to the Moon can be made to work - it's been done for 56 years. But turning a profit is trickier.

[4gotunameagain]

How ironic, a huge "EMBRACING NET-ZERO FUTURE" logo on the behemoth filled with cheap plastic crap that will chill out in landfills for generations to come.

[mcdonje]

How ridiculous they're solving one part of the problem when other parts aren't solved.

[mmooss]

If there was a trade-off: Stop climate change but increase platics production, would you do it?