WHY all the buzz around new nuclear for shipping?

In an opinion piece, which will probably win me few friends, I argue the technology of small modular reactors is still far from certain to work for shipping.

It will probably get better, and might get more attention as governments stop chasing impractical hydrogen and look for more radical options.

Tech bros in Silicon Valley seem to be fans. The FT has reported on start-up Oklo, which has a $20bn valuation, backing from AI boss Sam Altman and close ties to Donald Trump’s energy secretary, but no revenues, no licence to operate reactors and no binding contracts to supply power.

But potential hype bubbles aside, it’s the other barriers that matter more: high capex costs, safety and security, stopping the spread of nuclear materials, and of course public perception.

Nuclear power has a terrible track record when it comes to value for money. The technology is not usually progressed for commercial reasons, but for strategic ones: think submarine-based missile deterrents.

A world where countries can’t pass a $100 per tonne CO2 levy on ships is not one where nuclear power gets the money it needs. It’s almost pointless to talk about it in the absence of global regulation on emissions.

Class societies make lots of money from services to civil and defence nuclear, so their support is easier to understand.

No, I think the nuclear buzz is a by-product of the near-hopelessness of the rest of decarbonisation — not a strategy but a fantasy.

Industry bosses can promise what they like about nuclear today, safe in the knowledge that nothing will come of it for years or decades. They can keep doing business as usual while they wait, while looking saintly on climate.

Call it nuke-washing. It’s beautiful, in a way.

Declan Bush
Senior reporter, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing