Agreed, it's probably MRI. There's more strange things going on in this article. While "In a way, they [superconductors] are the opposite of toasters" made me giggle a little, "Without magnets, we'd lack generators [electric lights and toasters], motors [municipal water supplies, ship engines], magnetrons [microwave ovens], and much more" made me cringe. Electric lights and toasters are pretty much unrelated to generators and I've yet to see an electric engine on a commercial ship. I wonder whether the author of the article put the examples there, I doubt that Prof. Weinstein did.

Electric light and toasters run on electricity "generated" by the generator.

A lot of ships have electric engines. On cruise ships, diesel electric propulsion offers quieter and smoother rides. Some air-craft carriers and submarines have nuclear-electric propulsion systems.

The article made me cringe, too, but mainly because it created a false impression on how big magnets are really energized. I've done it a few times (always with the same magnet, which keeps quenching...), and described the process here:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69222/

Diesel electric propulsion is quietly taking over most large mobile applications. Even cars are slowly going gasoline-electric. Better magnetics would only speed up the switch.

Of ships it has what you stated, and you no longer have to build the engine on a incline to drive the propeller or have complex transmissions. Other benefits are you can have 2 engines and only run 1 during calm weather cruse. Also electric motors are able to be mounted in stearable pods, greatly increasing maneuverability of a ship (need fewer tugs to go into port). Some ships have nothing but the pods for good station keeping.

Multiple locomotive trains only need 1 engine, but run power to several for extra traction, and it enables things like traction control that can't be cheaply done mechanically.