Given that 99 nuclear reactors operate on ships, that would suggest that we have lots of experience with marine reactors.
Therefore, although this apparently escapes the attention of antinuke fossil fuel worshippers, it is possible to power freighters with nuclear power plants.
We have oodles and oodles and oodles of navy veterans capable of running these potentially clean machines. How is it that antinukes can't imagine peaceful uses for nuclear propulsion while they work to entrench fossil fuels, a highly weaponized use?
About 10% of the carbon dioxide dumped into the planetary atmosphere is associated with shipping. It is therefore low hanging fruit to do something about this, not that there is a single fucking antinuke on this planet who gives a rats ass about the destruction of the planetary atmosphere from their inattention and indifference to fossil fuels.
How come our crazed antinukes around here are advocating for banning jet fuel, since jet fuel is used in weapons? Are our antinukes familiar with jet fuel terrorism at the World Trade Center, and diesel terrorism practiced by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City?
Diesel runs tanks. Are nutty antinukes now calling for shutting down the trucking industry?
How about palm oil, since it's a constituent of napalm?
Should we ban salad dressings?
There are no technologies that can be prevented from weaponization. This includes, of course, sticks, and, again, the wind, given the battle of Trafalgar, and in fact, the battle of Yorktown which led to the independence of the United States. Should we apply for readmission to the British Empire because of the weaponization of the wind?
One wonders if our benighted antinukes are trying to be absurd, or that they're simply clueless about being so.
= new reply since forum marked as read