Back to roadmapBack to list

Nuclear Energy in Maritime Shipping

Port infrastructure for nuclear-powered vessels enables the safe berthing, servicing, fuel handling, waste management and emergency response of NPVs.

Alternative fuelsMarine shipping

Introduction

Port infrastructure for nuclear-powered vessels concerns the port infrastructure required to receive and service nuclear-powered seagoing vessels (NPVs), specialized berths, nuclear fuel handling and exchange facilities, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) interim storage, radioactive waste management, and emergency response capacity.

Value proposition

  • Nuclear propulsion offers zero operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

  • Nuclear propulsion offers extremely high energy density enabling unlimited vessel range

  • Fuel price stability

  • Ports that develop the necessary reception infrastructure position themselves as first-mover strategic nodes in an anticipated nuclear shipping supply chain, with significant commercial and reputational advantages

Nuclear propulsion offers zero operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, extremely high energy density enabling unlimited vessel range, and fuel price stability, properties that directly address IMO 2050 net-zero targets for deep-sea shipping. Ports that develop the necessary reception infrastructure position themselves as first-mover strategic nodes in an anticipated nuclear shipping supply chain, with significant commercial and reputational advantages.

Port applicability

Port infrastructure for nuclear vessel reception is applicable to deep-sea container, bulk, and tanker ports with sufficient land area for exclusion zones and specialised infrastructure. Ports in flag states with established nuclear regulatory frameworks and national nuclear industry capacity have the highest readiness. Coastal state policy under UNCLOS is a critical determinant: port states may restrict or deny nuclear vessel entry. It is unlikely that this development is relevant for inland ports as inland barges are too small for a feasible business case.

Groups of innovations

  • Nuclear-licensed berths

    - Requires 5–10 years to design, license, and construct; new infrastructure category with no commercial precedent- early starters gain regulatory learning advantage. - Dedicated secured berthing with exclusion zones, perimeter controls, radiation monitoring, and physical security per IAEA recommendations. New construction or substantial adaptation of existing quayside. - TRL 2–4

  • Nuclear fuel exchange facilities

    - Medium term; dependent on first commercial vessel timeline (est. late 2030s); refuelling cycles of several years mean bunker calls infrequent but high value. - Quayside or drydock shielded infrastructure for loading fresh nuclear fuel and removing spent fuel under controlled conditions. Requires specially trained personnel and licensing from the national nuclear authority (NNR). - TRL 3–5

  • SNF interim storage

    - Technology mature for land-based applications; maritime scaling requires regulatory adaptation and national storage pathway to be in place before port operations can begin. - On-site or near-port interim storage for spent nuclear fuel pending transfer to licensed national deep geological repositories. Must comply with IAEA safeguards and NPT obligations. - TRL 4–6

  • Radioactive waste management

    - Dependent on national waste infrastructure; cross-border transport agreements must be in place before commercial operation — currently a gap in most jurisdictions. - Handling, packaging, and transport logistics for radioactive operational waste from NPS vessels. Requires national waste management pathways and international transport agreements under IAEA conventions and INF Code. - TRL 4–6

Impact

Impact level per aspect
ImpactLevelRemark
GHG emissions (tank-to-wake)Very large impact
Near-zero operational GHG from nuclear energy and propulsion; one of the most favorable energy sources on this metric.
GHG emission (well-to-wake)Large impact
Very low lifecycle GHG; uranium enrichment and fuel supply chain introduce limited upstream emissions (~4–15 gCO₂eq/kWh for nuclear vs. 600–900 for gas).
Noise reductionMedium impact
Nuclear propulsion produces no combustion noise during port calls, potentially reducing noise levels compared to conventional vessels.
Air pollutionVery large impact
Zero NOₓ, SOₓ, PM₂.₅ from nuclear operation; very large positive impact compared to diesel-based port energy and HFO ship propulsion.
SafetyNegative impact
Introduces new radiological hazard category absent from conventional ports; high-consequence risk requiring stringent, layered safety management (Gen IV designs improve inherent safety).
Thermal pollutionNegative impact
Nuclear-powered vessels release waste heat that must be managed through cooling. Local thermal impacts are expected to be limited but require careful design, monitoring and regulatory control.
Energy security and price stabilityMedium impact
Ports receiving nuclear-powered vessels may benefit from reduced exposure to fossil fuel bunker market volatility, as nuclear-powered vessels do not require conventional bunkering.
Circularity and wasteNegative impact
Spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste require long-term (centuries) management; open fuel cycle produces high-level waste; negative impact on circularity metrics.
Spatial impactNegative impact
Small reactor footprint compared to equivalent energy capacity; however emergency planning zones (EPZs), security perimeters, and SNF storage require significant surrounding area: net limited positive spatial impact.
Human capital and workforceMedium impact
Creates demand for high-skilled nuclear engineers, operators, and regulators; significant workforce development investment required — medium positive for local economy and expertise.

Port characteristics

Port infrastructure for nuclear vessel reception requires a fundamentally different set of preconditions compared to conventional port investments. A port needs dedicated quayside space for licensed berths with exclusion zones, national nuclear regulatory capacity to license maritime nuclear operations, national spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage and waste management pathways, port-state political commitment to allow nuclear vessel entry, and a trained nuclear safety workforce that currently does not exist in any commercial port. In addition, operational emergency and security procedures would be required, including radiation monitoring, crisis communication, physical security, cybersecurity, and joint exercises with national nuclear safety authorities. These requirements make nuclear applicable to a limited subset of large ports in the near to medium term, with the first realistic deployments expected in the late 2030s to early 2040s.

Barriers and enablers

Enablers

  • TechnologyEnabler

    - Generation III+/IV nuclear reactors passive safety advances - Next-generation reactor designs incorporate passive cooling, inherent safety, and compact architectures that substantially reduce accident probability compared to legacy designs, strengthening the case for nuclear vessel reception in near-port environments and supporting public acceptance (DNV, 2025; Lloyd's Register, 2025).

  • DirectionalityEnabler

    - IMO 2050 net-zero mandate and classification guidance - The 2023 IMO GHG Strategy creates strong regulatory tailwinds for zero-emission propulsion. Lloyd's Register (2025) and DNV (2025) have published structured frameworks for nuclear maritime project development, reducing knowledge barriers and providing project teams with clear regulatory navigation pathways.

Barriers

  • Standards & regulationBarrier

    - Regulatory vacuum for commercial nuclear maritime - IMO SOLAS Ch. VIII covers only legacy PWRs; the 1962 Brussels Convention on nuclear ship liability has not entered into force. As of October 2025 neither IMO nor IAEA has issued guidance for commercial privately-owned nuclear maritime applications (Lloyd's Register, 2025). Regulatory process from concept to license is estimated at 15–20 years where frameworks are immature (DNV, 2025).

  • EconomicBarrier

    - High CAPEX and unresolved liability regime - Port nuclear reception infrastructure adds further unquantified capital requirements. Existing nuclear liability conventions (Paris, Vienna) do not clearly cover mobile reactors, deterring private investment and creating an insurance market gap (DNV, 2025). - Risk of insufficient return on investment, given the uncertain utilisation rate of nuclear reception infrastructure and the lack of guaranteed traffic volumes to offset high fixed costs.

  • Stakeholder interactionBarrier

    - Port-state denial and public acceptance - Under UNCLOS, coastal states may refuse nuclear vessel access; historical cases (NS Savannah, Mutsu) show this is not merely theoretical. Public perception of nuclear risk near port cities is a structural barrier vessel reception that requires sustained, transparent community engagement to address (Freire & Andrade, 2015).

  • InfrastructureBarrier

    - No nuclear port infrastructure exists anywhere - No commercial port currently holds nuclear-licensed berths, fuel handling equipment, SNF interim storage, or a nuclear-trained port workforce. Building this from scratch requires long lead times, substantial public investment, and new coordination mechanisms between nuclear, maritime, and port governance bodies.

  • KnowledgeBarrier

    - Nuclear workforce scarcity in the port sector - Ports lack personnel with nuclear engineering, radiation protection, or nuclear emergency management expertise. Regulatory approval requires suitably qualified and experienced persons (SQEP) — a category virtually absent from current port organisations (Lloyd's Register, 2025). Building capacity requires partnerships with national nuclear institutions over years.

How to implement?

  1. Step 1

    Policy & legal framework

    Governments, IMO, IAEA

  2. Step 2

    Port infra investment

    Port authority, National government

  3. Step 3

    First pilot vessels calls

    Shipowners, Classification societies

  4. Step 4

    Fefuelling & waste services

    Port authority, Waste operators, NNR

  5. Step 5

    Exploitation Commercial nuclear fleet servicing

    Hub capability

Timeline

The arrow below represents the expected development of the TRL of port call optimization.
* Technology Readiness Level

What should a port do in the next 3 years?

Priority actions focused on resolving barriers • Commission a nuclear vessel reception feasibility study assessing quayside capacity, exclusion zone requirements, regulatory preconditions, and a preliminary business case — to determine whether investing in nuclear vessel reception infrastructure warrants further commitment. • Map the national regulatory landscape: identify the national nuclear regulatory authority (NNR), existing legislation on nuclear vessel entry and port reception, and any specific barriers to nuclear vessel operations in national waters; initiate early dialogue with national government and port-state authorities on a regulatory pathway. • Engage the IMO nuclear working group process and monitor classification society guidance updates (Lloyd's Register, DNV) to track the timeline for first commercial nuclear vessels and understand port-state obligations under any emerging framework. • Launch stakeholder dialogue with local communities, city authorities, port users, and insurers on nuclear vessel reception concepts. Early, transparent communication is essential given the depth of public acceptance barriers identified historically. • Identify workforce development gaps in nuclear engineering, radiation protection, and nuclear security within the port organisation and begin planning for training partnerships with national nuclear institutions or universities. • Explore consortium and financing models with other ports, national governments, and industry partners. Investment scale for nuclear vessel reception infrastructure exceeds the capacity of most ports acting alone.

Investment overview

Nuclear vessel reception infrastructure is characterised by very high CAPEX with low, stable OPEX over long operational lifetimes. Full lifecycle costs, including long-term radioactive waste management and decommissioning, should be considered in any port-level business case assessment.

Stakeholder overview

Below is an overview of the required involved stakeholders.
Blue stakeholders are essential, white stakeholders are enabling.

Knowledge base