So? The industry, shipping, agreed on standards and a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. And if you think nuclear power plants on civilian cargo vessels are a good idea,consider the following:

- costs for a single ship reactor (shipping is extremely price and cost sensitive)

- time, and lost revenue (a ship not carrying cargo is only costing money, see above) for refuelling

- piracy and terrorism (I am not really convinced risking having some pirate group somewhere capture nuclear reactor is a good idea)

Also, shipping doesn't have a reputation for operating in the bright sunshine of law and regulation, with expert leadership and engineering. We're not talking about the US Navy building and operating nuclear submarines, led by Navy officers, who have gone through extensive training, have years of experience, a culture of competency, etc.

Just pointing out a benefit when it was said there was none, I agree with all your points here.

Or just the attacks by the Houthi in the Red Sea the past month.

Imagine one target being nuclear powered.

Ships and planes together account for single digit percentages of global fossil fuel use and emissions.

It’s almost all cars, trucks, and electric power, so those are the things it makes the most sense to worry about as opposed to things that are much harder to decarbonize and account for less emissions.

Is ship pollution really that negligible?[0] To be clear though the entire world is dependent on trans ocean shipping, it cannot be kneecapped for environmental purposes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a relevant part of the issue.

[0] https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023...

And a great deal of what's sent by ship is... fossil fuels!