As the maritime industry faces mounting pressure to decarbonize without sacrificing range or reliability, nuclear energy has emerged as a novel, yet intriguing option, especially with China announcing plans in late 2025 to build the world's first nuclear container ship. Even so, the path forward for the technology remains far from certain, as regulatory questions and high upfront costs have clouded the outlook, all while commercial shipping has struggled to find its place in an increasingly crowded nuclear renaissance.

Nuclear energy comes with a fair number of benefits as a maritime fuel — a nuclear-powered vessel can potentially go years between refueling, it produces no carbon emissions at sea, and it has more space for cargo since it eliminates the need for bulky fuel tanks. The technology is also far from new. Russia's history of using icebreakers equipped with onboard nuclear reactors dates back to the late 1950s, the U.S. Navy has the largest fleet of nuclear submarines in the world — as well as 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers — and China's bid to build a nuclear container ship powered by thorium instead of uranium is well on its way.

So, what's stopping ocean carriers from rolling out a fleet of ultra-efficient vessels powered by nuclear reactors right now?

"The problem is the operational feasibility, and that's where it gets ludicrously expensive, fast," says Scott LaFoy, VP for nuclear and technology security programs with supply chain management platform Exiger.

The biggest issue right off the bat is the lack of infrastructure — ports don't have any systems in place to host and refuel nuclear container ships, and establishing that infrastructure would represent a massive financial and logistical lift, LaFoy explains. Next you have all the various regulatory problems, given that a number of countries don't allow nuclear materials from foreign countries to cross their borders, while many major ports prohibit nuclear vessels from docking altogether. And finally, there are still crucial unanswered questions around insurance liabilities for carriers, as well as the need for additional security and engineering staff aboard nuclear ships.

Those barriers create a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma for the industry. Carriers are unlikely to commit tens of billions of dollars to develop nuclear-powered container ships without more clarity on things like port access, liability caps and international oversight, while regulators and port authorities have little incentive to build out frameworks for a fleet that doesn't even exist. Unlike other alternative fuels like LNG or methanol — where bunkering networks have expanded in kind with vessel orders — nuclear propulsion would require a coordinated, multinational policy push spanning maritime law, nuclear safety agencies and insurers before the first commercial reactor can ever leave dry dock.

That's all without considering the bottleneck in uranium enrichment. There, limited global capacity, geopolitical sensitivities around fuel supply chains, and the long lead times required to license and build new enrichment facilities all create significant roadblocks for the wide adoption of nuclear shipping. At present, the U.S. relies on foreign imports for its supply of uraniam, with Canada, Kazakhstan and Australia topping the bill as providers. (For decades, the U.S. relied heavily on Russia, before banning most uranium imports from the country in 2024.) The U.S. has recently announced plans to invest heavily in domestic enrichment capabilities, but as LaFoy points out, "there's plenty of space for the uranium market to get really weird again," especially if geopolitical tensions flare or demand accelerates faster than capacity can come online.

And yet, nuclear energy has still managed to gain momentum as a viable shipping fuel in just the last year. In the U.S. especially, negative public perception of the technology has reversed course substantially, as more companies have poured capital into spinning up reactors to power artificial intelligence data centers.

"For the first time since Three Mile Island, you have legislative pressure to make it easier to build, develop and test nuclear reactors," says LaFoy. While the 1979 partial meltdown at the now-infamous Pennsylvania power plant has been widely blamed for souring the American public on nuclear energy for decades, the practical energy consumption problems presented by AI data centers have reframed the technology as compelling moving forward. The result has been faster permitting timelines, sizable federal loans for nuclear infrastructure and development, and a surge of private investment for advanced and small modular reactor designs.

Read More: To Support AI Development, the U.S. Needs to Rebuild Its Domestic Uranium Supply Chain

The AI data center boom has also operated as a bit of a double-edged sword for the commercial shipping sector, forcing it to compete for limited resources with tech giants armed with billions of dollars in capital investments. 

"Tech companies are locking up small modular reactor contracts and engineering talent before maritime applications even get considered," says Eliot Vancil,  CEO of fuel management company Fuel Logic. "From a fuel logistics perspective, I've watched energy priorities shift based on who pays fastest, and shipping isn't winning that race."

Even if maritime regulators were to clear a path tomorrow, commercial shipping would still be competing with public utilities and defense programs for the same limited pool of advanced reactor designs, nuclear engineers and enriched fuel. Small modular reactors that are widely viewed as the most practical fit for oceangoing vessels also remain in the early stages of licensing and commercialization, with only a handful of projects moving through regulatory review. For ocean carriers, that means nuclear propulsion is less a plug-and-play solution and more a long-term strategic bet; one that hinges not just on safety and public acceptance, but on whether the industry can coexist with the demand created by data centers.

That all makes the path ahead difficult, albeit not impossible, posits LaFoy. At some point down the line — be it 10, 20 or 50 years from now — the maritime sector will need a reliable alternative to oil, and nuclear energy isn't without its advantages, particularly for carriers thinking longer term. LaFoy believes that, within the next five to 10 years, we could even start seeing nuclear-powered container ships serving certain niche routes, before transitioning to longer hauls once the maritime industry has more time to work through regulatory and infrastructure limitations.

"I think it's realistic, but you're going to have a really tough adoption period," he predicts. Initial insurance negotiations are likely to be rocky, and carriers will only be able to call a small number of ports initially. "It's going to come down to willingness and cost," LaFoy says.