[nradov]

How do you intend to address the crew training issue? Merchant vessel operators tend to hire low wage seamen with limited technical training, plus a few qualified engineering officers. Marine diesel engines are pretty simple and robust but I would imagine that operating a fusion plant might require more technical training.

[wiml]

Back of the envelope (and some quick googling), a large container ship burns hundreds of tons of fuel per day, at a cost of 700-1000 $/t. Plus, all that fuel occupies tonnage that isn't carrying paying cargo. If you can save on that with a magic new reactor, the cost of a well trained tech on every ship isn't going to break the budget.

[nradov]

Fusion fuel isn't going to be free. Fusion reactors aren't magic: in a sense they're very traditional in that they will be used to turn water into superheated steam that spins a steam turbine to drive the propeller. Just like in 1897. Even if the fusion reactor could somehow magically be made maintenance free, the steam plant will be maintenance intensive. Ask any engineering officer who worked on a steam plant, regardless of whether the heat source was fossil fuel or fission. This is part of the reason why merchant ships switched from steam turbines to diesel engines decades ago: lower maintenance costs and lower crew training requirements.

Maritime fusion power could be a good idea but you have to evaluate complete system lifecycle cost instead of looking at just one component.

[DennisP]

Fusion fuel will be close enough to free. Deuterium is less than a thousandth of the hydrogen in water, and there's enough in your morning shower to provide all your energy needs for a year. A liter of heavy water costs about a thousand bucks.

For DT reactors, lithium is the other side of the fuel equation, and at the scale we need that's really cheap as well.