The United States Army is betting roughly $2.2 billion that five private companies can turn nuclear microreactors from a promising idea into dependable power at military bases.
I am excited about it.
America’s energy appetite is already enormous, and it is only getting bigger. Data centers, manufacturing, electrification and national defense all require electricity that works when needed, not merely when the sun shines, the wind cooperates or an activist grants us permission to turn on the lights.
If we are serious about meeting the country’s energy needs over the next several decades, we must develop nuclear power. That is not optional. Physics has already voted.
The Army’s Janus program is a sensible place to prove whether the next generation of nuclear technology can perform outside a PowerPoint presentation.
The selected companies are Antares Nuclear, Radiant Industries, BWX Technologies, General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems and Westinghouse Government Services. Their microreactors would produce between 1 and 20 megawatts.
Antares and Radiant are each slated to deploy three reactors at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia, respectively. BWX Technologies would place one at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. General Atomics would deploy one at Fort Hood in Texas. Westinghouse would install one at Fort Drum in New York.
No Colorado installation was identified. We do not need to pretend otherwise to understand why Coloradans should pay attention.
This state spends plenty of time arguing about grid reliability, military readiness and which energy sources are morally fashionable this week. If Washington can help produce compact, reliable nuclear power that operates for years and keeps critical military infrastructure running when the larger grid fails, that matters here.
But enthusiasm is not an exemption from accountability.
The federal money is scheduled to flow from fiscal years 2027 through 2031 through fixed-price, milestone-based agreements. The companies are expected to own and operate the reactors, and private investment is supposed to provide most of the total project cost.
That sounds encouraging. It also contains several phrases that have helped launch federal spending programs into low Earth orbit.
Army officials say the model is partly based on NASA’s partnership with SpaceX. Fair enough. SpaceX eventually produced rockets that fly, land and fly again. The standard, therefore, cannot be that five companies hold meetings, hire consultants and produce glossy renderings of reactors that would be wonderful if somebody ever built one.
The agreements cover engineering, qualification, regulatory work, construction and the first year of operation. After that, the projects are expected to transition to power-purchase agreements or other long-term arrangements with the Army.
The program is targeting at least one operating reactor by September 30, 2028, and more than 20 reactors within five years. Army official Jeff Waksman offered an even better definition of success: multiple companies producing reliable and affordable microreactors that can attract customers beyond the military and survive without government subsidies.
Good. Put that sentence above every desk involved in this project.
Success means reactors operating safely, on schedule and at a defensible cost. It means measurable reliability during grid disruptions. It means vendors attracting real private capital and real customers. It means spent fuel and radiological material being removed as promised. It means taxpayers can see which milestones were met, which payments were made and who is responsible when performance falls short.
Anything less risks turning “next-generation nuclear” into another consultant-fed subsidy carnival where the ribbon gets cut, the photographers go home and taxpayers are left holding a commemorative shovel and a $2.2 billion invoice.
I want this to work. I believe nuclear power must be part of America’s energy future, and military bases are logical proving grounds for resilient technology.
That is precisely why this program deserves hard scrutiny.
Nuclear advocates should demand more accountability, not less. A successful reactor strengthens the case for nuclear energy. A failed federal spending spree strengthens the case of every ideologue who would rather keep America energy-poor than admit nuclear power works.
Build the reactors. Measure the results. Name the people responsible.
Then show us electricity, not excuses.
Source: Utility Dive
Now It's Your Turn...