You can carry more cargo if you don't need all those batteries. If that difference makes economic sense is not yet known of course, as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of.
> as there are no containerized nuclear reactions that I know of.
Even if you built one, as some people have proposed designs, it doesn't get you nuclear reactors you can just stack up on a ship or something. Containerized reactors could be convenient for getting a reactor to a remote site where it's needed but once there you'll have to provide substantial shielding for it; usually the way this is meant to be done in these proposals is digging a big hole and/or putting up earthen berms around it. And those earthen berms will be subjected to a lot of neutron radiation, so you need a plan to deal with the site after you run this reactor for any substantial amount of time; the whole site will be radioactive.
There's really no getting around this, and most of the people pitching container-sized nuclear reactors are hoping investors don't realize it. The amount of shielding that you could ever hope to place in an ISO container isn't anywhere near enough.
Reactor fuel remains radioactive even when the reactor isn't operating.
And the proposal was a containerised nuclear reactor, so you're going to irradiate the surrounding containers in the process.
Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are completely different beasts. The reactor core is very heavily shielded, is built into the ship/boat, and is tended by a team of expert operators, and (at least in the case of US/UK subs) uses bomb-grade uranium as fuel.
