The US Maritime Administration has formalized a partnership with UK-based nuclear developer Core Power to create regulatory and commercial frameworks for nuclear-powered merchant ships, targeting a 2028 construction start for the first vessel – a concrete step toward decarbonizing deep-sea freight that has resisted electrification and alternative fuels.
Seventy-Year Gap Since NS Savannah Proves the Challenge
The agreement revives a concept last tested in 1962 when the NS Savannah, the world’s first nuclear-powered merchant ship, entered service as a Cold War demonstration project. Savannah operated for only eight years before being laid up; its reactor required specialized port infrastructure, highly trained crews, and liability frameworks that no commercial operator would absorb without government guarantees. The vessel proved technical feasibility but commercial failure – a pattern repeated by Germany’s Otto Hahn and Japan’s Mutsu, both retired early.
Core Power, founded in 2018, proposes a different model: small modular reactors (SMRs) designed specifically for maritime use, paired with a “turnkey” service model where the reactor owner retains ownership, operation, and waste responsibility – the shipowner simply buys propulsion as a service. The MARAD agreement tasks both parties with developing the licensing pathway, port acceptance criteria, insurance structures, and crew certification standards that would make this model legally and financially viable under US and international law.
MARAD’s involvement is significant because it controls the US-flag fleet’s operating subsidies, the Maritime Security Program, and the Title XI loan guarantee program – financial levers that could de-risk early adoption. The agency also chairs the US delegation to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), where nuclear propulsion rules remain skeletal. The 2028 construction target implies a licensing submission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) no later than 2026, assuming a two-year review for a first-of-a-kind marine reactor design.
Maritime Decarbonization’s Hardest Sector Finds a Potential Pathway
Deep-sea shipping – vessels over 40,000 deadweight tons on transoceanic routes – accounts for roughly 80% of maritime CO2 emissions but remains nearly impossible to electrify; battery energy density would require sacrificing 40-60% of cargo capacity on a typical Asia-Europe voyage. Ammonia and methanol dual-fuel engines are advancing, but green fuel supply chains are years from the scale needed for the global fleet, and both fuels carry energy-density penalties of 2-3x versus heavy fuel oil.
Nuclear propulsion sidesteps the fuel supply chain entirely. A 100-200 MWth marine SMR could power a Panamax container ship or Suezmax tanker for 10-15 years on a single fuel load, eliminating bunkering stops and exposing operators to zero fuel-price volatility. That points to a levelized cost of propulsion potentially competitive with conventional engines over a 25-year hull life, even before carbon pricing – though the upfront capital intensity is an order of magnitude higher.
By comparison, the first commercial SMRs for land-based power (NuScale, GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, Rolls-Royce SMR) target levelized costs of $60-90/MWh. Maritime reactors face additional costs: seawater corrosion hardening, motion-resistant internals, collision-certainty containment, and passive decay-heat removal in a sinking scenario. Industry estimates for first-of-a-kind marine SMRs cluster around $5,000-8,000/kWe installed – roughly 3-4x land-based SMR projections – but the avoided fuel cost over 25 years ($150-250 million for a large container ship at current bunker prices) recovers a meaningful fraction.
The Core Power model also intersects with the emerging “nuclear-as-a-service” trend on land, where developers like Oklo and Radiant offer power purchase agreements rather than reactor sales. If maritime regulators accept the same ownership separation – reactor vendor retains nuclear license, shipowner holds commercial license – it could unlock institutional capital that currently treats nuclear shipping as uninsurable.
Who This Affects
- Shipowners and charterers: First movers on nuclear propulsion could lock in 25-year fixed propulsion costs, insulating against IMO carbon levies (likely $100-300/tonne CO2 by 2030) and fuel-price shocks – but only if flag states and ports accept the vessel class.
- Port authorities and terminal operators: Must develop nuclear berth protocols, emergency planning zones, and liability caps; early adopters (likely major transshipment hubs in Singapore, Rotterdam, or US Gulf) gain a structural advantage in attracting premium low-carbon cargo.
- Insurance and P&I clubs: The agreement’s focus on liability frameworks signals a push to create a nuclear maritime insurance pool – analogous to the 1960s Paris/Brussels conventions – without which no commercial owner will assume reactor risk.
- SMR developers and supply chain: A maritime order book of even 20-30 vessels creates a dedicated production line for marine-specific reactor modules, reducing unit costs for land-based SMRs through shared supply chains (pressure vessels, HALEU fuel fabrication, instrumentation).
What to Watch Next
- NRC pre-application engagement: Core Power or its US reactor partner (not yet named) must enter formal pre-licensing dialogue with NRC by late 2025 to hit a 2028 construction start; the agency has no precedent for licensing a mobile, sea-going power reactor.
- IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) 108-110 sessions: Development of a mandatory “Goal-Based Standard” for nuclear ships – currently only voluntary guidelines exist – will determine whether nuclear vessels can trade globally or remain restricted to bilateral agreements.
- Title XI loan guarantee applications: MARAD’s first nuclear-ship guarantee request will test whether the program’s $3 billion lending capacity can accommodate first-of-a-kind nuclear risk, or if Congressional reauthorization is needed.
- HALEU fuel supply commitments: Marine SMRs likely require 10-19.75% enriched uranium (HALEU); the first firm fuel supply agreement for maritime use will signal whether domestic enrichment capacity (Centrus, Urenco USA) can serve both land and sea markets.
Bottom line: The MARAD-Core Power agreement is the first US government action since the 1960s that treats nuclear merchant shipping as a solvable regulatory and commercial problem rather than a technical curiosity – but the 2028 construction target leaves almost no margin for licensing surprises, port-state rejections, or insurance market hesitation.
Read the full report at Energy Central
Note: facts and figures attributed above to reflect that outlet's original reporting. Broader context, cross-sector connections, and forward-looking scenarios reflect independent analysis by our editorial team.
About this article: Drafted by Energy Ai with AI-assisted research and writing based on public reporting, then reviewed under our editorial process before publication.
Leave a Reply