• IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is a much bigger story than you might initially think. It’s equivalent to the first combustion powered or steam powered ships. This is the technology that will change warfare over the next few decades. And China is so far ahead in it it’s almost baffling. The US really dropped the ball on this. If China takes this tech and runs with it they’ll be untouchable in 20 years.

    • It’s one of those things like the Hoover Dam - certainly an impressive finished product- but the number of engineering/construction innovations that made it possible (e.g. concrete curing methodology) and then disseminated to the industry at large is even more impressive (imo).

      For instance I’m so excited about this:

      The 200MW heat generated by the reactor is not used directly to drive the ship, according to Hu. Instead, it powers a supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) generator using the Brayton cycle – a highly efficient thermodynamic process that converts heat into electricity far more effectively than traditional steam turbines.

      The Brayton cycle uses compressed gas – in this case, carbon dioxide – heated to extreme temperatures, then expanded through turbines to generate power. Supercritical CO2 behaves like both a liquid and a gas, allowing for compact, high-efficiency systems.

      And about molten salt reactors in general (honestly I’ll take any meaningful innovation at this point).

      To sound like a gamer, it does make me feel like a CIV scientist working a space race victory but being obviously far behind other countries. Very happy someone is making progress, hopeful it will spread to my backwater nation, and annoyed that the nation which employs me constantly switches to pursuit of a domination victory (which they also are woefully flailing at).

      • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s a bit like those games where you can choose between a tech rush and military focus. Military focus works fine for the first little bit, but then the tech rush civs switch to military and are wiping the floor with you using way better tech weapons.

        Like if China keeps making these reactors smaller they could get one onto a battle cruiser or destroyer potentially. And power a DEW array. Which would basically make missiles childsplay to shoot down, and could even be used to melt right through the hull of enemy ships at close range. Were talking about the ability to vaporize every person on a ships bridge in seconds as long as you have line of sight on them.

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      The S6W reactor produces comparable power output, just with traditional uranium instead of thorium. Although thorium might be cheaper and safer, capability-wise it doesn’t really change anything, right, when comparing apples to apples? This doesn’t in itself mean Chinese ships can now do laps around the fastest US ships. I’m not knowledgeable about this so feel free to correct me on that. I just haven’t found anything indicating a military advantage so far.

      What new capabilities does this reactor type offer?

      • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Wrong on the it doesnt change anything. Thorium changes everything. It’s still in the very early stages of development so yes it does appear similar to uranium reactors but what you need to understand is these can get SMALL. It’s about density of energy production. The S6W and other traditional reactors are stuck being huge. You need fuel rods, and water cooling which takes up tons of space.

        The molten salt coolant requires a lot less space than a water based coolant, and because thorium itself is so much easier to work with you can create what is referred to as Small Modular Reactors.

        Basically the idea is they would function like an engine. You could construct them entirely in factories and ship them to where they are needed and simply slot them into place.

        You’ve also got the pressure issue, and meltdown issue. Traditional reactors have high pressure steam to deal with. If it gets shot, and springs a leak it EXPLODES. Not ideal for a high risk naval asset that’s job is to get shot at. Plus the reaction can get out of control if the reactor is damaged and cause an ecological disaster. Thorium doesn’t have these issues. It’s pressure is the same as atmosphere basically, and its pretty much meltdown proof.

        So to sum it up, Liquid Salt Thorium Reactors are smaller, safer, more economical (can be produced at scale and the fuel is much more common), tactically viable in more areas, and probably other stuff I’m forgetting.

        Also a little bonus is that Uranium requires sourcing usually from overseas. It’s not really a viable replacement for oil since it’s rare. Need enrichment, etc. Just with the Thorium that China currently has in it’s domestic reserves it could power it’s entire electric grid for 60,000 years. So no need to import it, or worry about sourcing.

  • sexywheat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    I couldn’t get past the damned paywall and archive dot ph wouldn’t work so I just yanked the article from the source code you’re welcome:

    spoiler

    China has unveiled critical details of a revolutionary cargo ship under development: a nuclear-powered vessel that can carry 14,000 standard shipping containers.

    But what makes this ship truly groundbreaking is that it will be powered by a thorium-based molten salt reactor (TMSR) with a thermal output of 200 megawatts – matching the power level of the S6W pressurised water reactor used in the US Navy’s most advanced Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarines.

    Unlike traditional nuclear reactors that rely on uranium and require massive cooling systems and high-pressure containment, this new Chinese reactor uses thorium, a safer, more abundant and proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel.

    And critically, the reactor does not need water for cooling, allowing it to be smaller, quieter and inherently safer than conventional designs.

    If successfully deployed at scale, this technology could trigger a paradigm shift in commercial shipping.

    While the ship’s concept was first revealed in 2023, few technical details were available.

    Writing in Chinese trade publication Ship & Boat on October 15, Hu Keyi, a senior engineer with Jiangnan Shipbuilding Group, disclosed critical specifications and explained China’s strategic choice of the thorium molten salt reactor for maritime use.

    The 200MW heat generated by the reactor is not used directly to drive the ship, according to Hu. Instead, it powers a supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) generator using the Brayton cycle – a highly efficient thermodynamic process that converts heat into electricity far more effectively than traditional steam turbines.

    The Brayton cycle uses compressed gas – in this case, carbon dioxide – heated to extreme temperatures, then expanded through turbines to generate power. Supercritical CO2 behaves like both a liquid and a gas, allowing for compact, high-efficiency systems.

    This system will generate 50MW of electrical power – enough to propel the massive vessel across oceans for years without ever stopping for fuel. For emergencies, the ship will also carry a 10MWe backup diesel generator.

    One of the biggest fears about nuclear ships is a meltdown or radiation leak. But in the article Hu said the thorium-fuelled solid-core molten salt reactor was inherently safe.

    The reactor operates at atmospheric pressure, eliminating the risk of explosive pressure build-up.

    The core runs at around 700 degrees Celsius (1,292 degrees Fahrenheit), but thanks to a strong negative temperature coefficient, the reaction naturally slows down as temperature rises – preventing runaway reactions.

    There are two passive decay heat removal systems: a natural circulation cooling system inside the reactor compartment and an emergency drain system that can safely evacuate molten salt into shielded, passive cooling tanks if needed.

    In a worst-case scenario, if cooling fails, the molten salt fuel would drop into a safety chamber and solidify – trapping radioactive materials and preventing widespread contamination.

    In addition, the entire reactor is designed as a sealed, modular unit with a 10-year operational lifespan. After that, instead of refuelling, the whole reactor module is replaced – drastically reducing the risk of leaks or human error.

    Thanks to the high-temperature operation and advanced sCO2 power cycle, the thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency reaches 45 to 50 per cent – a massive improvement over the approximately 33 per cent efficiency of conventional nuclear reactors that use steam, according to Hu.

    Hu also revealed that China was exploring other nuclear-powered vessel designs: a Suezmax oil tanker powered by a lead-bismuth cooled fast reactor, and a floating nuclear power station using high-temperature gas-cooled reactors.

    However, these designs will have lower power outputs compared to the thorium molten salt reactor used in the container ship.

    Thorium is not just safer – it is also far more abundant than uranium. China holds vast thorium reserves, particularly in Inner Mongolia, where a single mine’s tailings contain enough thorium to power the entire country for over 1,000 years at current energy consumption levels.

    While the United States built the first thorium reactor in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, the programme was abandoned due to technical challenges, including corrosion of pipes by molten fluoride salts.

    China, however, has persisted. In 2025, it achieved a historic milestone: its experimental thorium molten salt reactor in the Gobi Desert became the world’s first to achieve long-term stable operation. A larger, power-generating demonstrator reactor is now under construction.

    Despite the promise, huge hurdles remain. “The capital cost of a nuclear-powered merchant ship is expected to be significantly higher than that of a conventional vessel,” Hu wrote.

    Key financial and operational barriers include high upfront construction costs, difficulty securing private financing due to perceived risks, limited insurance coverage for nuclear maritime incidents and ongoing expenses for reactor maintenance, spent fuel handling, decommissioning and specialised crew training.

    While nuclear fuel itself is cheap and stable in price, Hu notes that economic viability hinges on whether long-term fuel savings can outweigh the massive initial investment and operational complexity.

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    If you’re running a nuclear reactor to power the ship can you not also run considerably more propulsion than traditional power would allow?

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      It says that the power output is about the same as the US Navy’s S6W reactor at about 200 megawatts.

      I did some googling and it seems that the most powerful diesel engines, which are most common for commercial shipping, land at around 80 MW. So if it’s more practical to build and use thorium reactors on commercial ships (not just the most advanced Navy ships) the I think it’s got to change the game at least economically right? Not just speed, but other factors like eliminated need to refuel at ports (which can take days, but maybe that happens during downtime anyway). For military application that’s a key benefit too.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah the thing I was thinking here was like, if you increase speed you also increase overall efficiency of movement. 2 days faster shipping across an entire fleet of ships is a massive increase in the total amount you ship if something is usually a 20 day journey.

        Just pulling numbers out of the air obviously.

  • dil@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    3 days ago

    Ima be pissed if throrium fixes other countries energy needs making them the jetsons while the US regresses to Colonial times