Review the engineering
Challenge the boundary, map existing standards, identify missing disciplines or open an issue.
Review on GitHub ↗Energy Port
Standard
A technology-neutral interface between transportable power generation and shore-based electricity demand.
Stop moving joules. Deliver kilowatts.
Generation can move.
The interface cannot.
Generation is becoming more modular and, in some cases, transportable. Floating generation, modular plants, storage and future transportable nuclear systems can bring capacity closer to demand.
At the same time, industrial projects, mines, ports, remote communities, construction sites, data centres and constrained grids can need power faster than permanent generation and transmission are able to arrive.
Mobility solves only part of the problem. Every new destination still requires the shore connection, responsibilities, protection, controls and commercial interface to be designed again.
Mobility exists. A reusable shore interface does not.
The economic hypothesis. Standardization may change the comparison where distance, constraints and time-to-power matter.
Conventional
Fuel → logistics → fixed generation → transmission → demand
Mobile
Mobile generation → maritime logistics → Energy Port → demand
Under what combinations of distance, load, grid constraint, project duration and time-to-power does the second architecture win?
EPS does not claim that mobile generation is universally cheaper. It asks whether a repeatable interface can reduce recurring engineering, commercial uncertainty and deployment friction where mobility already has value.
Discuss a use case →Build the socket,
not another bespoke connection.
Technology-specific supplyMobile Generation
→Repeatable boundaryEPS interface
→Shore-side socketEnergy Port
→Site-specific demandEnergy District
The generator remains technology-specific. The Energy District remains project-specific. Between them, the Energy Port is the shore-side system required to safely receive power from compatible mobile generation. EPS attempts to make that boundary repeatable.
Review the technical concept →Standardize the boundary. Not the whole system.
Standardized engineering, not no engineering.
EPS is a proposed interoperability boundary, not a universal design for a port, generator or local grid. Every deployment still requires competent, site-specific engineering.
The working concept identifies domains that may need common requirements; it does not imply mature requirements in every discipline.
- Interface boundaries and responsibilities
- Electrical requirements and compatibility
- Protection, synchronization and control
- Communications and cybersecurity
- Metering, safety and connection procedures
- Compatibility documentation and conformity
- The complete generator
- The entire port or its civil works
- The Energy District and local grid
- Site-specific marine, environmental or regulatory design
ElectricalMechanicalProtectionControlCommunicationsMeteringCybersecuritySafetyOperations
What we know — and what we do not. EPS is public before it is complete so engineers, operators and project owners can challenge its assumptions.
Evidence Shore interfaces require substantial project-specific engineering. Technologies, ports, grids, loads and regulation differ.
Hypothesis Part of that engineering can become repeatable without eliminating local design.
Vision One socket. Many plugs. Compatible assets could eventually serve compatible locations; this is an aspiration, not a deployment.
Questions that can still change the concept
- Which parameters genuinely belong in a common interface?
- Where should generator responsibility end and port responsibility begin?
- Which technologies can realistically share one boundary?
- What evidence and governance would make conformity credible?
Current status: working concept v0.1. Not an adopted IEC, IEEE, ISO or governmental standard, certification scheme or finished specification.
The standard needs real constraints, not imagined markets.
Candidate environments include ports, constrained industrial loads, mines, remote projects, large construction sites, data centres and existing local grids. They are questions to investigate, not claimed customers or confirmed markets.
The next useful step is to examine actual demand, location, alternatives, timing, marine conditions and grid constraints—and learn where the architecture fails as well as where it helps.
Working concept→Technical review→Real use cases→Evidence→Revision
Discuss a project
Bring a candidate site, constrained load or deployment problem.
Discuss a use case →Follow the thinking
Socket Matters is Dmitri Kudriavtsev’s weekly online book about the wider ideas behind EPS—not the specification.
Read Socket Matters ↗The generator wasn’t the problem. Getting the electrons to the customer was.
Dmitri Kudriavtsev
Initiator, Energy Port Standard
Dmitri is an energy-project executive and business-model strategist focused on large-scale and mobile power infrastructure.
From May 2022 to February 2026, he led an SPV developing power for a major Arctic industrial project: four 106 MW floating nuclear units, 424 MW in total. His work covered the PPA, financing preparation, requirements, construction oversight, shore infrastructure and commercialization.
His team also developed a pipeline involving 18 additional floating units advanced toward preliminary-PPA readiness. These were not completed sales.
Earlier: nuclear-fuel export and related services, 2007–2014; independent strategy and transformation consulting, 2017–2022.
In early project development, the recurring question was not how the generator produced electricity, but how to get it from the water to exactly where the customer needed it. In Dmitri’s experience, this delivery and interface problem could consume roughly two-thirds of early commercial-development effort.
Work on diesel and gas fleets suggested that the problem was not unique to nuclear generation. Platform business models offered another frame: stop optimizing every generator–customer pair as a unique system; let ports build compatible sockets and generation owners build compatible plugs.
Demand can exist before a specific generator arrives. Generation can be developed without knowing every future destination.
That insight became the Energy Port concept. The preferred strategy is open because interoperability creates more value when ports, consumers, generators and suppliers can participate without proprietary lock-in.
An initiative, not proprietary technology. Dmitri intends to help commercialize real deployments, while the technical standard should ultimately be developed and governed by the engineering community and, if successful, appropriate standards institutions.