Again, if you're going to say that civilian nuclear maritime propulsion doesn't exist, because there have only been 7 such ships built by four different countries then green fuels powered cargo ships don't exist either. Again, how many cargo ships have been powered by green fuels? How many have operated for more than a decade?
A couple of questions, answer those or just, pardon my French, shut up:
How do you think all those hundreds of nuclear ship reactors will be built yearly?
Have you heard of NOx catalysts?
Are you aware of the possibility to generate hydrogen through electrolysis?
Hoe do you square the fact that litterally nobody in the shipping industries is making the case for nuclrar powered cargo vessels?
Literally nobody, huh? https://maritime-executive.com/article/abs-completes-groundb...
Any "brilliant" thoughts on zhe other questions? Or the fact that your articke ends with pointing out nuclear propulsion was considered promising in the 50s and was a dead end ultimately?
If you want to play the game of digging up studies that didn't go anywhere, I need some time so. Just from top of my head:
flying wing passanger aircraft, that was something! Even Airbus launched studies into it, and man was it promising!
Again, those other cargo ships, NS Savannah, Otto Hahn and the Japanese one, were all economical failures, the Japanese one was even a technological failure. That makes a grand total of around 7 civilian maritime NPPs in operation, all Russian, with less than one built per year. Global shipping needs hundreds of those, at cost point competitive with alternatives to be viable. That tech, or capacity to build those numbers, simply doesn't exist. heck, that is even mentioned as a direct quote in the Reuters article that is being paraded around.