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/

  • iridaniotter [she/her, they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    306 months ago

    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

    • @Redderthanmisty@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      256 months ago

      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.

      Australia isn’t looking so happy.

      • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        186 months ago

        Incidentally, Australia has huge reserves of thorium, so a nuclear economy would rely on them as well.

        Unless you’re using fusion reactors. some-controversy

        • invo_rt [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          116 months ago

          [China] aims to build an industrial prototype fusion reactor by 2035 and have the technology in large-scale commercial use by 2050.

          xi-lib-tears

            • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              76 months ago

              I can believe the goal of an industrial prototype fusion reactor by 2035.

              The problem is reactors are extremely complex and it’s become very clear that size matters for a self sustaining reaction. China’s EAST reactor breaks a new milestone every year - http://english.ipp.cas.cn/news/202112/t20211231_295486.html

              I think they’re totally wrong about large scale commercial use by 2050 though, fusion is likely to be incredibly expensive and the fuels we’re fusing create highly radioactive waste. There are few terrestrial applications for something that will likely cost 10-20x solar and wind, and optimistically 3-4x nuclear fission.

            • Abracadaniel [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              46 months ago

              They’re much more right than they were in the 1950s.

              There are multiple reactors right now, utilizing different design approaches, which can fuse and contain plasma. The work right now is on increasing the net-energy and reaction time

          • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            56 months ago

            Australia has huger deposits (and can be accessed less expensively through exisiting mines)

            Chinese companies also already own a bunch of ports and mines in Australia and the trade relationship has basically normalised

        • kristina [she/her]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          66 months ago

          China has a lot of mining operations and therefore a ton of thorium just laying about.

    • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      66 months ago

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

      Australians hate it.