How Does the Public Really Feel about Small Modular Reactors?
In a spare few minutes I took a quick look at the U.S. Center for Maritime Innovation Report: Small Modular Reactor Technologies for Maritime Applications of May 19, 2026.
As near as I can figure, it focuses on two major concerns with regard to the use of SMRs in commercial ships:
1. Insurance obstacles and
2. Possible adverse reactions by the public to nuclear commercial ships.
That is weird to me, since my major concern would be that it is taking way too long to simply build a commercial ship with an SMR as its power source. In a closer read of the report, I started to wonder why negative public perception and insurance are bigger concerns than the glacial pace of nuclear ship construction.
What is that concern based on? The report actually appears to rely on panel polls among the participants in the conference.
There is no actual breakdown of the participant’s backgrounds, but it is interesting to note that those two primary concerns are marginal concerns; concerns of the unknown.
As near as I could figure out there is no data that shows that there are unusual liability concerns by insurance providers and negative perception by the public.
I have lived within the insurance industry for half a century. Underwriters always have concerns, but those concerns are always papered over with premiums. That is the nature of insurance. To worry about that as a potential issue is as useless as worrying about taxes. Like taxes, insurance will be a problem and like taxes it will be resolved. Insurance is not a technical or even a social problem. It just happens, whether it is an OPA 90 resolution (pretty cool) or a national flood insurance program (pretty stupid) or health insurance (which is not really insurance anyway).
In June I attended an insurance function, and MARAD administrator Carmel, as the keynote speaker, focused on insurance for vessels with SMRs. One can assume he wanted to discuss this issue in this forum based on the results of the report.
I was sitting next to a shipowner who, before the speech actually concluded, said: “Who cares about insurance. Tell me I can build ships with SMRs and we will figure out the insurance on the fly.” That is what shipowners do. They find something they like, and they clear the way with their suppliers.
It also makes me think of a comment a wise attorney once made to me:
- “Rik, don’t invite attorneys to concept meetings, they will think of so many potential barriers the concept will never get off the ground.”
Add the public and politicians to the mix, and we are talking ultimate infant death.
Meanwhile, moving mountains is easy; you just do it one shovel at a time. All you need to do is bring a shovel. In this case a nuclear commercial vessel.
When the shovel shows up, we will know what the public thinks of it. You can only get a real public reaction to a real thing. If we asked the public’s reaction as to whether it would be smart to put a man on the moon before we started the project, the public would have called it crazy, and they were all wrong because they knew nothing about getting a man on the moon.
I don’t think there is any data on the public’s attitude to nuclear commercial vessels. As a matter of fact, when I AI’d that issue it basically copied the sentiment in the report, but provided no background data (a classic case of AI groupthink). Quite frankly, to ask the public about commercial nuclear vessels is pointless since they have never dealt with one.
But let’s look at the real world. When was the last time there was a demonstration against nuclear power at all? And if there was such a demonstration it was a NIMBY demonstration, and if there is one thing maritime is famous for it is a lack of backyards. As a matter of fact, we know the public barely knows maritime exists.
I understand there was some tepid pushback at some ports of call for the NS Savannah in the 1960’s, but the real reason commercial nuclear propulsion failed at the time was the excessive cost of it all. (CLICK HERE to read my January 2025 discussion of NR-1 on MarineLink.com).
I also remember that at one time New Zealand would not allow Nuclear US Navy ships to enter its ports. That was related to antiwar issues. I am sure that once the world runs nuclear commercial ships, the Kiwis will be just as desperate to ship their kiwis on nuclear vessels as the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, the US Navy, the Russians, The British Navy and the French Navy all operate nuclear vessels and where is that negative public perception?
Last year the Nuclear Submarine New Jersey was commissioned in New Jersey. A rare visit by a nuclear vessel. It was a party, and everybody came out to see it. Birdwatchers took pictures of it when it passed the tip of Sandy Hook, with happy comments as if they had sighted a roseate spoonbill flying by.
The record speaks for itself, at worst the public does not care, at best they even like it. In the last decade or so there has been a massive shift in favor of nuclear power where (according to AI) the public supports nuclear power with a 60% or more majority and is even reaching 70%. That is on land and after Fukushima!
Does it really make sense to think the public now will worry more about nuclear power on water using inherently safer nuclear reactors?
Let’s focus on what needs to be done, instead of focusing on unsupported marginal issues.
Let’s build some nuclear commercial vessels now, and stop worrying about sailing off the edge of the world. And most of all let’s not introduce edge of the world concerns in policy and technical forums.
