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/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 30 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I'd say this is a real shot across the bow for Australia, as it signals decoupling from the coal economy.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 26 points 2 years ago

But modern container ships don't burn coal, they burn bunker fuel which is an oil product?

Australia's days are numbered either way with China moving towards renewables an nuclear at speed but I just don't see the connection here.

[–] iridaniotter@hexbear.net 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Incidentally, Australia has huge reserves of uranium, so a nuclear economy would rely on them as well. Unless you're using breeder reactors and/or thorium reactors. some-controversy

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago

Learn this one neat trick to decouple yourself from the hated English post-colonial dregs.

Australians hate it.

[–] HexBroke@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago

Bunker fuel comes from oil (though the name itself comes from coal)