You obviously know nothing of this subject. A shipping container is the box that contains the cargo.

Container ship. Whoops. Jesus, dial it down, buddy.

That would have to mean that the ships would be able to reach 48-75 knots.

No.

Most shipping containers are diesel powered and are required to stay under a certain speed limit to limit emissions

3 x 12 knots is 36. See this is the problem when you get so offended that you immediate jump to a semantic argument. Sometimes its just an announcement of your own misinterpretation.

It is the worst for cost. Nuclear power is extremely expensive.

The cost for SMRs will be an order of magnitude or less than large scale nuclear reactors. Not only are they more compact, hence "small," they're also "modular," meaning that their parts are manufactured on an assembly line rather than being custom built and take advantage of economies of scale. And producing them at scales small enough to power a container ship, or a small facility as opposed to a small town or city, it lowers the entry cost for purchasing a reactor. Meaning more people will be able to buy them. Helping to drive the cost down even more and help make the use of nuclear more ubiquitous.

I think it is safe to presume that it is not operated in a free market

Tell that to General Electric-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (US), Moltex Energy (Canada), NuScale Power(US), Terrestrial Energy (Canada), Westinghouse Electric (US), Afrikantov OKB Mechanical Engineering (Russia) and China National Nuclear Corporation (China).

All of these companies are developing SMRs for commercial distribution. They make use of molten salt instead of deuterium, which is a superior neutron moderator, as well as has a much higher heat capacitance. Which can be stored for a long time without significant heat loss. So they're a lot safer and unable to "melt down," since the scale of the nuclear reaction is much smaller, occurring inside a molten solvent, and in the case of thorium such as the 2 fluid reactor being developed by Terrestrial Energy, can't even produce a runaway fission reaction. Some of these companies are even developing automated systems that don't need to be manned.

Any company trying to operate a nuclear powered ship in the highly competitive market of container shipping would go bankrupt.

The opposite is going to be true. Once the first nuclear container ships are available, not only will they require less fuel but they'll be green and won't have to pay carbon or environmental taxes. And would be able to rival ships like the Emma Mærsk because they can be designed for speed instead of fuel efficiency. Diesel may weigh less/have a higher energy density than a battery, but it weighs far more and has a much lower energy density than nuclear fuel. Meaning you pretty much don't have to take the weight of your available fuel into consideration at all. And nuclear container ships would have a clear advantage in power alone. Positively contributing to greater speeds and cargo capacities.

Nice "Let it all out," argument. lol. Do you honestly think anybody reading that can't see it for what it is?

oops. sry. wrote an essay. My bad. ik u have a 100 character maximum

If that's an essay then how did you survive middle school?

Funny how you don't read anything that could potentially inform you.

I'm not refuting your argument, but I've been following/supporting the development of nuclear powered shipping containers for a while now. Most shipping containers are diesel powered and are required to stay under a certain speed limit to limit emissions. But with SMRs on the horizon, the nuclear shipping revolution is coming!! And it'll make shipping containers roughly 3x faster as well as being pretty much the only feasible way of making the shipping industry green. For trucks and cars, electric is more practical, but not for shipping containers, which would require massive batteries that would compete with the mass of the contents needing to be shipped.

Shipping, aircraft and isolated/northern communities are a few examples of where fuel is more practical than batteries or other forms of green energy, due to their remoteness or mobility. And for isolated/northern communities, propane is probably going to be the only feasible solution for a long time even with green interventions. (Or carbon neutral bio-propene) At least for shipping containers and eventually aircraft, nuclear is the best of both worlds in terms of mass, mobility and energy density.

So basically Westworld. Didn't that not turn out too well?

#Synthrights

Well cholesterol is a hormone. Your body can make its own cholesterol. But studies do show that childhood anemia does meaningfully affect brain volume and cognition later in life. I have no doubt adult anemia has a similar affect on cognition. B12 deficiency can also cause permanent neurological or central nervous system damage. Although serostudies show that veganism doesn't necessarily impact B12 or protein intake that significantly. You only need a little bit of B12, even though it is a mass limiting macronutrient in mammals. Vitamin D, Calcium and Iron are what blood serostudies consistently show are lower in vegans, despite supposed interventions. Which also contributes to an increased likelihood to break bones and decreased rates of fertility among vegans as well.

Anyone else been victimized by this supposed vegan compassion?

This is how I know they believe in a hearsay belief system. Because instead of reasoning their beliefs, they defer to/abuse supposed authorities in order to insinuate shame and peer pressure. Like a cult.

When you remove evidence from the formula, knowledge/intelligence becomes a status symbol and truth is only determined by authority figures after that point. The reason why vegans are constantly deferring to authority figures and cherry picked studies that insinuate some kind of moral authority is no different from a Christian deferring to god and claiming you will go to hell. Its a baseless, empty threat born only out of invalidation.

This is the way they know how to reason their beliefs because this is the way it was reasoned to them. Its the reason why they believe in misinformation in the first place. They're showing you what convinces them. And its not evidence. Its confirmation bias.

If you have a reason to believe what you do, then you can point to it. You can provide the reasons, aka evidence; real events that occupy space and have energy/mass, so that other people can come to the same conclusions that you have. Vegans don't do this. No misinformation believer does. They conflate vertical complexity, the objectively real characteristics of an argument, with horizontal complexity, the relative, qualifying characteristics of an argument, in order to insinuate anything. And instead of zeroing in on an explicit, specific reason for their beliefs, their reasons are instead open ended and indeterminate, and can mean literally anything. They're leaving them open to interpretation by design, because it gives them room to insinuate what they want you to think. This is machiavellianism. Its active coercion.

This is not what arguing in good faith looks like, and no placating it doesn't work. If you go into this argument with a live and let live mentality, mentalities what want to defeat and undermine you will survive. Its like Popper's paradox of intolerance: A tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance otherwise intolerance overtakes tolerance and we find ourselves back in an intolerant society again. Hence the paradox. The same applies to misinformation. We must be intolerant of misinformation, otherwise misinformation overtakes real information and we find ourselves living in a misinformed society.

These people have already broken social contract. In fact, all indeterminism breaks social contract. It undermines knowledge and anything that can be known. Indeterminism is morally wrong. There are reasons to believe things, and if you don't have those reasons, then you don't know. And abusing supposed authorities does not change that.

This is how I know you believe in a hearsay belief system. Because instead of reasoning your beliefs, you defer to/abuse supposed authorities in order to insinuate shame and peer pressure. Like a cult.

No Shame

And perfect example. You realize I'm still right, right? This post doesn't change that.

Listen to the meaning of an argument and try to apply it. Instead of always choosing to respond to perceived tone.

If both people are reasoning based on evidence, they should be coming to the same conclusions. No wonder your conclusions are consistently wrong if you just blanket deflect anything that hurts your feelings. Being offended doesn't automatically make the other person wrong. Sometimes being offended is the universe telling you to smarten up. Feeling bad is the normal way to feel when you're wrong.

No Shame

You're still typing to me as if I'm reading anything you write?

And you think this makes you the good guy. lol

No Shame

No Shame

I keep telling you I'm not sad. This is you using misinformation. Same reason why you believe veganism. Veganism = "How Sad" comments. That's literally the main way misinformation believers convey misinformation. That's what confirmation bias is. And animal suffering comments are. "How Sad. Don't you feel sad? Agree with me if you're sad. You hate animals if you're not sad." /s

lol. perfect impersonation of a vegan right there. Have fun with your plethora of friends and support in your totally not isolated and fringe belief system supported only by your insecurity and internalized hate. You deserve to be isolated by your crazy beliefs. All this anger is the product of your own actions. Psycho Pete.

No Shame

How about the two posts where I made actual points. You only started posting those screenshot (on all of my past posts) after I responded to you with reason. You instantly went into attack mode.

Even those screenshots were just giving you what you wanted to prove that hyperbole was your only motive. I really don't feel bad about them, and even reddit wouldn't suspend me over them because its obvious you're an antagonist.

That guy makes a great point and you deserve to be called out on it. You plan on stalking him now too?

Also, I've gotten 10 upvotes in the hour since you started responding to me. lol

Its just so incredibly stupid that this is your counterpoint to my point that your belief is hyperbolic hearsay. Case and point, buddy. Misinformation believers will literally ignore real life and then do exactly what you told them they would do. No wonder you believe in misinformation.

The definition of stupid is having the evidence available to you and still coming to incorrect conclusions.

You tried this further up already.

No Shame

And keep stalking me

You would know.

insulting me

I haven't insulted you.

and telling me to kill myself

I did my time for that. And it looks like reddit saw through your antagonism anyways.

Keep typing to me as if I'm going to read a single thing you say.

Of course you won't. You're a vegan. My only goal is to expose what you are to others.

Read this or don't. But there are two ways people learn: Reason, and trial and error. And you're immune to the first one. Time to let entropy do what it does best.

Better than a 20 year old potato body.

Name one? Troll. Notice how you haven't answered any of my valid statements earlier?

I think I have a moral obligation to follow you around and refute all your crazy posts at this point.

Nice, now you're stalking me into other threads after having harassed me in DM's telling me to kill myself about a dozen times alongside a whole bunch of other insults?

You just wrote this, hypocrite. Have fun advertising to all these threads how insane the vegan is. You do your own cause a disservice. Knock yourself out. lol

No Shame