Renewable methanol (ultimately via atmospheric CO2 + hydrogen from water) looks a lot more plausible as the long-term option, and is being deployed already. Mu

Renewable methanol (ultimately via atmospheric CO2 + hydrogen from water) looks a lot more plausible as the long-term option, and is being deployed already. Much cheaper and no unusual risk profile, see Maersk and JP Morgan: https://www.fastcompany.com/90923816/maersk-first-cargo-ship-green-methanol-food-waste https://www.fastcompany.com/90923816/maersk-first-cargo-ship... https://www.offshore-energy.biz/jp-morgan-confirms-deal-for-methanol-powered-chemical-tankers/ https://www.offshore-energy.biz/jp-morgan-confirms-deal-for-... > "The utilization of green methanol on vessels is capable of eradicating SOx and Particulate Matter (PM) pollutants, while delivering a 60% reduction in NOx emissions. Furthermore, when measured on a tank-to-wake basis, it achieves nearly 100% reduction in CO2 emissions when compared to conventional marine fuels." As far as nuclear, I can't imagine many port operators are going to take the risk of irradiating the entire port for decades due to a catastrophic accident or deliberate attack that lightly. Countries might be more willing to accept stationary floating nuclear power plants as they'd have tighter control over them (although putting a floating nuclear power plant in SF Bay or similar locations also seems unlikely).