[superice]

Does not matter if you can’t move that much power to container terminals. You presumably don’t want to put a nuclear plant in every port. Even if you consider the battery problem to be solved at scale, you just don’t quite appreciate the enormous energy consumption of these ships. Charging them with existing infra used for refrigerated container is a fiction, plain and simple. You’re off by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.

[_hypx]

This is one area where we’re guaranteed to see a fuel being used. Either synfuels, e-fuels, ammonia, hydrogen, etc., it will have to be something that can be carried into the port from elsewhere. There’s no other way around this problem.

[slashdev]

For long distance shipping anyway.

These are river barges in the article.

[_aavaa_]

Long distance shipping is currently mostly burning "resid" it's the bottom-of-the-bottom or the barrel. It's 3.5% sulphur and it's not worth much more than the cost of transporting it from the refinery to the port.

The idea that shipping companies will go straight for the expensive options of as synfuel, green ammonia (the deaths alone for the crew will be horrific), or green hydrogen is absurd.

[slashdev]

If nuclear were cheap enough to do that, we’d just put the reactor on the ship.

Note, I’m not suggesting you could use the existing infra for refrigerated containers, but I am pointing out that containers that need an electrical hookup are not novel. The difference here is the current supplied via that hookup.

[_aavaa_]

I doubt any other country would let you dock a (non-military) nuclear vessel in their port.

[slashdev]

Because it’s very rare currently. I’d be an uphill battle though to get permission, insurance, etc.

It could be done, but it’s currently not even close to economical. It’s still safer for the port and surrounding area than the dirty diesel they burn now.