Nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping remains far from reality, with no viable business case and unresolved regulatory, insurance, and political hurdles, reports London's Lloyd's List.

Advocates such as British start-up Core Power argue that small modular reactors are the only alternative to fossil fuels. However, experts say the technology is decades away from being viable. Norwegian and UK academics note that no Gen-IV designs have been commercially deployed, and fuel supply chains for HALEU remain limited to Russia.

The industry has yet to settle on a reactor design, leaving unanswered questions regarding refueling, waste disposal, and costs. Professor Steve Thomas of the University of Greenwich warned that it will be the late 2030s before any experience with SMRs is available worldwide.

Even if modular shipyard production could reduce costs, governments would have to fund the first reactors and assume liability. Shipowners would face high capital expenditure and decommissioning costs, while charterers would benefit from lower fuel bills.

Political and regulatory barriers compound the challenge. Nuclear ships would be restricted to flags of nuclear-equipped states, limiting trade routes. The IMO and IAEA have yet to clarify oversight, and there is no international convention on liability for nuclear shipping.

Analysts say the real customers for SMRs are more likely to be warships and submarines, where governments absorb costs. For commercial shipping, nuclear remains an unproven technology promoted more for its political cachet than its economic feasibility.