Power Shift: Nuclear Power Pathways for Future Containership Fleets

Challenge

Rising fuel prices and emerging carbon penalties increase the need for an energy pathway that limits long-term exposure to cost and compliance pressures, including growing GHG-emissions expectations. With Seaspan’s fleet totalling 241 vessels and about 2.5 million TEU on a fully delivered basis, the company is examining options that support competitiveness while meeting sustainability expectations. Seaspan required independent clarity on whether a nuclear pathway could meet these pressures and the conditions needed for future adoption.

Solution

Lloyd’s Register (LR) Advisory with LucidCatalyst, was commissioned to assess whether small modular reactors (SMRs) could form a viable option for future containership propulsion, and examined factors that would determine its suitability for long-term fleet planning. SMRs can provide an operationally zero-carbon power option independent from bunker fuel and can reduce exposure to carbon penalties, while reactor power output can allow for higher operating speeds. Modelling indicates that a 15,000 TEU nuclear-powered containership operating at 25 knots, 39% faster than conventional vessels, could achieve up to 38% greater annual cargo capacity by increasing round voyages from 5 to 6.3 per year, while the elimination of fuel tanks could free up to 5% additional container space.

Approach taken

The project team analysed current business operations and future targets to develop a set of requirements that must be met by future nuclear ships. These were used to frame the concept of a nuclear ship, and outline its performance and operating model. Economic modelling from LucidCatalyst, advised by LR on marine-specific factors, considered the removal of bunker fuel costs – which could reach around $50 million annually on some routes – and potential reductions in carbon penalties of about $18 million, depending on future carbon pricing regimes. A comparison of the life cycle cost of ownership (LCO) was done considering the benefits of nuclear ships, the trade-offs of higher capital costs and the comparative costs of other alternative fuels.

Key activities and outpouts

• LR and LucidCatalyst assessed the commercial, technical and safety conditions required to support nuclear power
• The review covered cost structures and expectations for multi-year fuel cycles
• Supply-chain readiness was evaluated, including the ability to scale reactor-module production
• Production scaling was identified as a route to manufactured modules reaching commercial readiness within four years.

Key customer benefits

• Independent evidence on the feasibility of nuclear power
• Clearer understanding of comparative performance and credible cost thresholds
• Identified procurement and supply-chain options that may reduce commercial risk
• Insight into technology features that can inform Seaspan’s long term energy planning.

Project outcome

The work resulted in a high-level business case outlining a pathway toward the deployment of nuclear-powered ships, including an implementation strategy centred on an industry consortium model. 

The study found that nuclear power may offer a commercially meaningful option if defined technical, regulatory and procurement conditions are met. Modelling showed gains in transit speed, cargo capacity and GHG-emissions performance, 
supported by higher sustained operating speeds and additional container space created by removing fuel systems.

Viability thresholds were identified, including total system costs below $4,000 per kW and fuel costs under $50 per MWh. Market projections indicated potential uptake of 40–90 GW by 2050, depending on regulatory progress and industry adoption. 

Industry commitment is a key factor in lowering costs. If more than 1,000 units are ordered over a 10–15 years period, modular reactors could be produced for US$750–1,000 per kilowatt, significantly lower than conventional nuclear plants and with maintenance aligned with standard vessel drydock cycles. Each unit is designed to operate for around five years between refuelling, which substantially reduces downtime between normally scheduled drydocks.

The findings underscored the need for coordinated supply chains covering reactor manufacture, fuelcycle planning and maintenance arrangements. Procurement and leasing structures may support commercial predictability. The work clarified where SMRs can deliver value and the areas requiring further design and regulatory engagement.

Impact on customer's business & operations

The findings inform Seaspan’s long-term planning by identifying an energy pathway that may lower emissions and support commercial competitiveness. The conditions for regulatory readiness, multi-year fuel cycles and maintenance arrangements highlight where operational adjustments may be required for future deployment. The work provides a clearer basis for assessing how SMRs could influence network planning, operational reliability and the timing of renewal decisions. It also frames the issues that Seaspan may need to address in discussions with shipyards, technology providers and regulators when evaluating investment options.

Conclusion

The study provides a clear evidence base for evaluating nuclear power in future containership fleets. It defines the technical, regulatory and commercial conditions shaping feasibility, and the development steps required to advance SMR concepts toward design maturation and regulatory engagement.