Port Of Corpus Christi Studies Maritime Nuclear Feasibility

The Port of Corpus Christi is examining how small modular reactor (SMR) technology could supply power to industrial users and support nuclear-powered shipping. Working with CORE POWER, the port is serving as a U.S. case study for a site-specific assessment of floating nuclear power plants and the facilities needed to receive nuclear-propelled vessels.

Jeffrey Pollack is chief strategy and innovation officer at the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, where he oversees planning, environmental and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) functions as well as the port’s Technology Advancement Program. He joined the port in mid-2018 as its first director of planning, leading strategic planning, land-use master planning with an emphasis on coastal resilience, transportation planning and

grant pursuits.

Before that, Pollack was executive director of the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Coastal Bend, and he specializes in coastal growth and development, multimodal transportation and watershed planning. He holds a master’s degree in coastal environmental management from Duke University, where he was a Doris Duke Conservation Fellow, and he is an American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) certified planner and an Envision Sustainability Professional through the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure.

In the following interview with The Waterways Journal, he discusses the study’s scope, potential environmental benefits and implications for the maritime industry. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

WJ: How does your background inform the port’s exploration of advanced nuclear technology?

Pollack: My background is in environmental science, coastal ecology and coastal community planning. Before coming to the port, I was running a federally funded transportation planning organization. I came here to start a dedicated planning practice.

My responsibilities include organizational master planning, land use planning and strategic planning, along with our grants and applied technology functions. The other half is our environmental practice and regulatory work. I am also the primary liaison to the academic community and applied research, and I tend to take the lead on initial strategy for new energy opportunities.

What I love about maritime is that it brings together coastal environmental science, land use planning and policy. Everything we do is set in the coastal environment.

WJ: What prompted the port to investigate SMRs and their maritime applications?

Pollack: Modern nuclear technology, modular reactors, either micro or small, and Generation III+ or IV designs got on my radar about five years ago. I saw it as potentially disruptive technology for the power supply challenges we face globally.

At CORE POWER’s nuclear and maritime summit, I realized maritime could be a primary target of the technology, rather than an indirect beneficiary. I also learned they were looking at nuclear readiness in the Port of Rotterdam.

We have a unique peer-to-peer relationship with Rotterdam. The idea of conducting an equivalent feasibility study in Corpus Christi, looking at both floating nuclear power plants and propulsion, was compelling. It gives us an opportunity to compare nuclear readiness at two ends of one of the world’s busiest trade corridors.

WJ: What is the study evaluating, and how close is it to an implementation plan?

Pollack: CORE POWER is using Corpus Christi as a representative case study for U.S. ports. The team is taking a granular look at what deploying floating nuclear power plants and receiving nuclear-propelled ships would look like at specific locations.

During their visit, we looked at four or five sites that we think, at least conceptually, are worth evaluating for floating nuclear power plant deployment. Some will fall out of the alternatives based on logistics. We also looked at a handful of terminals that could serve as case studies for receiving nuclear-propelled vessels.

We are trying to ground the analysis in real-world use cases. Does that necessarily lead to deployment of a floating nuclear power plant? No. Does it advance our knowledge in a site-specific way that helps us understand what that would mean? Yes.

This is a desktop-level feasibility analysis. It is granular and site-specific, but it is not necessarily an implementation or deployment plan.

WJ: How could a floating nuclear power plant benefit port customers and the surrounding community?

Pollack: The technology CORE POWER is using for this analysis assumes about 300 megawatts of electric output. That is a lot of power, roughly the same size as the power plant that serves a large part of our community.

It could serve one or two industrial customers with large loads. It could also serve an industrial customer and help stabilize the grid. There are different possible combinations.

If it is grid-connected, another firm, dispatchable source of electricity could benefit the community and all users. There are also power users in the port area whose work is important to the community, both economically and because of the things they produce. Firm, stable generation has an overarching community benefit.

WJ: Where do you see the potential environmental benefits for vessel operations?

Pollack: Vessels are the single largest source of mobile emissions in the port. Today, we are talking about how to electrify those vessels through shore power. With nuclear propulsion, you would have a vessel coming into berth that is its own power plant.

That turns the power supply relationship around. Could a vessel provide electricity it does not need while at berth to the grid or to a terminal? That is an interesting model, including as a potential source of revenue.

For a fleet dedicated to a particular operation, the vessel owner might be connected to the terminal through ownership or a commercial relationship. Every time a vessel is at that berth, it could help power the operation.

WJ: What implications could this have for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway?

Pollack: At first pass, I do not know that there are direct impacts. Again, what we are doing is a feasibility analysis.

In CORE POWER’s model, floating nuclear power plants would be assembled and receive nuclear material at a designated shipyard, then be delivered to the locations where they would be connected. Their ability to use the Intracoastal Waterway would depend on vessel size and draft.

If they were to transit the waterway, there would be questions about security zones and transit. I do not think there is necessarily an immediate consideration, but those are potential implications.

WJ: Could smaller reactors eventually have a role in tugs, towboats or other harbor vessels?

Pollack: It is an interesting question. I do not know the power requirements of a typical tug well enough to size a reactor for that application. But is there a scenario where a microreactor could be used instead of a battery? Yes.

From an engine and drivetrain standpoint, nuclear propulsion looks more like a battery electric powertrain than a diesel powertrain.

There are interesting possibilities for the tug fleet in terms of emissions, fuel supply and having power available when it is needed. When those vessels are not working, could they serve as mobile power sources for something like a shipyard?

WJ: What shipbuilding and workforce capacity would maritime nuclear development require?

Pollack: We need a realistic view of whether it makes sense to build the entire value chain, from raw steel to a finished ship, in one U.S. location. That would be difficult, given how the supply chain has been distributed globally, but certain vessel classes and parts of the work could be brought back to the United States.

Shipyards create stable jobs and demand for highly skilled trades. That demand supports investment in training institutions, which can also serve other industries, including modular reactor development and parts of the nuclear supply chain that require advanced machining and manufacturing.

It is not just job creation. It is the pipeline of talent and workforce development. There are not enough nuclear-ready shipyards in the United States today to serve even the nuclear Navy, let alone the growth of a civilian maritime fleet. We need to build that capacity.

WJ: How does advanced nuclear fit with the port’s existing energy business?

Pollack: I see these as complementary. Contemporary nuclear technology can enable other parts of the energy market.

For example, oil and gas operators are looking at how microreactors could support extraction in places without a grid connection, where they currently use gas turbines or diesel generators.

Nuclear propulsion could eventually reduce vessels’ direct consumption of fossil fuels, but it could also improve the movement of energy cargoes. If an LNG vessel can make a faster transit between the Gulf Coast and Rotterdam, that could mean more cargo loaded and sold.

We move a large volume of wind components, and that does not diminish our commitment to our existing energy customers. I describe this as the “era of and.” We need to understand where different energy sources fit. I view advanced nuclear as an enabling technology.