Federal agencies advance plans for floating reactors and nuclear cargo ships

Core Power targets 2028 construction as regulatory standards remain unsettled

The U.S. Maritime Administration and the Port of Long Beach signed an agreement to help the port establish carbon-free offshore nuclear power. The deal is one part of a nationwide drive to use offshore reactors to supply ports and fuel a privately owned cargo fleet, with federal and local agencies partnering with start-ups.

Kofi Asante wants to float a reactor on a barge off Long Beach through Bluecore Energy, his company. The company’s nonfueled reactor is a few feet wide and looks something like a rocket at its warehouse-like headquarters. Asante said federal and local officials helped him navigate bureaucratic hurdles. “They’re texts or calls away from CEOs like myself,” he said.

The Transportation Department recently agreed with the British company Core Power to develop a framework for nuclear-powered merchant ships, including potentially establishing specialist nuclear shipyards. Core Power also reached a deal with a Texas port to assess a floating reactor and how ready the port might be for nuclear-powered ships.

In mid-October, the Energy Department and the American Bureau of Shipping agreed to study floating power plants, nuclear-powered ships and sea routes for nuclear vessels. The wider effort brings together the Maritime Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Coast Guard and the departments of energy, interior and transportation.

Although the Navy has used nuclear reactors on submarines for decades, the technology has not taken off in international commercial shipping. At the recent launch of Atlas, an international initiative for nuclear at sea, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said, “When that leads to ships and transformation of global shipping—too early to say deadlines on that—but really critical is to establish a framework.” Agencies have not set a timetable for the additional guidance and standards they need to issue, though administration officials say the coordinated approach can move faster.

The maritime program also forms part of the Trump administration’s effort to revive the nuclear industry, partly to meet energy demand from artificial intelligence. The administration set a goal for three advanced, land-based reactors to reach a technical milestone by July 4; reactors from four companies met those expectations by the deadline. Jacopo Buongiorno, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor focused on nuclear energy, said, “Nobody believed that would happen,” adding, “We’re in a bit of a different era.”

The United States is pursuing the technology as China and Russia have already made floating nuclear reactors a reality. China dominates commercial shipbuilding and is investing in nuclear-powered vessels, while the Trump administration’s “maritime action plan” calls on government arms to support the industry and emphasizes nuclear power.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is leading the safety effort, including potential hazards from sloshing waves, and is working on guidance for businesses. The commission also said it has held early-stage conversations with companies interested in using nuclear barges to power offshore oil rigs.

The Coast Guard has established a dedicated nuclear-policy office with a three-person team of maritime experts. The team is preparing to examine whether a vessel can withstand a collision or knocks if it bumps into anything. Capt. Christopher Rabalais, who leads the Coast Guard’s office of design and engineering standards, said, “We’re ready to take an application [for a nuclear vessel] today,” adding that a review would take longer than a regular proposal because the concept is novel.

Buongiorno said the larger hurdle is bureaucratic: agencies must define their individual responsibilities and powers as they plan. “This is not a technical issue, the technology exists—that’s not going to be the hurdle,” he said.

Core Power aims to start construction of nuclear-powered cargo vessels in 2028. Chief executive Mikal Bøe said nuclear reactors can propel ships more quickly and allow vessels to travel for years without refueling. “The beauty of nuclear propulsion is that speed is free,” Bøe said.

The ships could cost several times more than conventional cargo vessels. Traditional cargo ships can cost as little as tens of millions of dollars, though prices vary. Nuclear propulsion could save cargo space because vessels would carry less fuel, and nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions. At the same time, the International Maritime Organization is pressuring the shipping industry to decarbonize by 2050. The Energy Department said emissions reduction is not its priority. “Decarbonized shipping is absolutely not on the U.S. agenda,” Wright said.

The envisioned cargo ships would use small modular reactors, described as more compact and less dangerous than large-scale predecessors. Nuclear experts said they do not have safety concerns about reactors at sea because the technology has long been used in the military. Government would still have to manage environmental considerations and safeguard nuclear fuel against piracy or terrorism as companies move it through international waters.

Floating plants would also have ready access to cooling water. “You could have a reactor located next to a river, but that river is running dry,” Bøe said. “You don’t have that problem when floating on the ocean—water is always there.” The regulatory timetable remains uncertain, and the potential cost gap has not been resolved.

In June, MSI previously reported that nuclear power was seeing a revival as artificial-intelligence demand and public support rose. The maritime agreements extend that broader push into port power and commercial shipping, but the federal government still has no timetable for the additional standards a fleet would require.