Report Challenges Concerns on Public Perception and Insurance for Maritime SMRs

A recent review of the U.S. Center for Maritime Innovation Report, "Small Modular Reactor Technologies for Maritime Applications" (May 19, 2026), suggests that two key concerns highlighted in the report—insurance obstacles and potential adverse public reactions to nuclear commercial ships—may be overstated.

Rik van Hemmen, writing for MarineLink / Maritime Reporter, indicates that a closer reading of the USCMI report suggests these primary concerns appear to be "marginal concerns" or "concerns of the unknown." He notes that the USCMI report seemingly relies on panel polls among conference participants, without detailed breakdown of their backgrounds.

Van Hemmen argues that there is no data presented in the USCMI report to support claims of unusual liability concerns from insurance providers or negative public perception. Drawing on decades of experience in the insurance industry, he states that underwriters consistently have concerns, which are typically addressed through premiums. He asserts that insurance will be a problem that is ultimately resolved, describing it as "not a technical or even a social problem."

Insurance as a Commercial Reality

During a June insurance function where MARAD administrator Carmel spoke about SMR vessel insurance, van Hemmen recounted a shipowner's response: "Who cares about insurance. Tell me I can build ships with SMRs and we will figure out the insurance on the fly." This anecdote suggests that shipowners, when presented with a viable technology, are inclined to address commercial challenges as they arise.

He further referenced an attorney's advice: "Rik, don’t invite attorneys to concept meetings, they will think of so many potential barriers the concept will never get off the ground." This perspective underscores a sentiment that focusing too heavily on perceived barriers, rather than initial development, could impede progress in nuclear ship construction.

Public Perception: A Lack of Data

Regarding public perception, van Hemmen contends that there is no actual data available on public attitudes towards nuclear commercial vessels, as they do not yet exist. He draws a parallel with the public's initial reaction to the idea of landing a man on the moon, suggesting that without concrete experience or information, public opinion may be misguided.

He highlights that the last decade has seen a "massive shift in favour of nuclear power," with public support for land-based nuclear power reportedly reaching 60% or more, even after events such as Fukushima. He questions why public sentiment would be more negative towards inherently safer SMRs on water. He also points out that the public generally has limited awareness of the maritime industry, and that historical objections to nuclear vessels, such as with the NS Savannah in the 1960s, were primarily cost-related, not safety or perception. The commissioning of the nuclear submarine New Jersey, described as a public "party," is cited as a recent example of positive public engagement with nuclear vessels.

Van Hemmen concludes by advocating for immediate focus on building nuclear commercial vessels, rather than allowing "unsupported marginal issues" to hinder policy and technical discussions.