The US Navy is looking to nuclear energy to protect critical military operations from power outages. The service has selected California based Radiant Industries to design, build and deliver a prototype nuclear microreactor power plant at Naval Weapons Station Crane in southern Indiana.
The project is intended to provide a dedicated source of electricity for essential military systems if the commercial power grid fails. The Pentagon wants the prototype operational by September 2028, although several important technical and regulatory hurdles remain before that deadline can be met.
The installation at Crane supports weapons development, advanced manufacturing, electromagnetic warfare and other strategic military activities. It also houses the Crane Army Ammunition Activity, which is involved in conventional munitions production.
A prolonged power outage at such a facility could disrupt operations that are important to national defence. The Navy believes a dedicated nuclear power source could provide an additional layer of resilience, reducing its dependence on electricity supplied through the civilian grid.
Brendan Rogers, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment, said the project would help ensure critical naval support systems remain operational during disruptions.
However, the proposed reactor is not designed to power every building and US Navy nuclear microreactoroperation at the sprawling installation. Its primary purpose is to support selected critical loads, making it a backup source for essential systems rather than a replacement for the existing electricity supply.
Radiant’s Kaleidos reactor is designed for rapid deployment
Radiant’s selected design, known as Kaleidos, is a factory built, helium cooled microreactor with a stated electrical output of 1MW. The company says the system can be transported by road, sea or air, potentially allowing military installations to deploy nuclear power without constructing a conventional nuclear power station from scratch.
Unlike larger reactors, Kaleidos is designed to minimise the infrastructure required at its destination. Radiant says the system does not need cooling water, extensive excavation or major on site construction. These features could make it useful at remote military facilities where conventional energy infrastructure is limited or vulnerable.
The reactor uses TRISO fuel, a form of nuclear fuel in which uranium particles are surrounded by multiple protective layers. This design is intended to help retain radioactive materials under demanding operating conditions.
Radiant also says Kaleidos can operate for up to five years on a single fuel load and has a planned service life of 20 years. The company is expected to manage fuelling, refuelling and spent fuel storage, rather than leaving the host installation responsible for handling used nuclear fuel.
The entire reactor unit would be transported as a complete system. It is not intended to move around the base while generating electricity.
These characteristics could make microreactors attractive to military planners seeking power supplies that can be deployed quickly and maintained independently of vulnerable civilian infrastructure. However, the claimed performance and logistical advantages still need to be demonstrated through testing and operational experience.
One major limitation remains: Kaleidos has not publicly demonstrated a reactor operating at full power. Testing at Idaho National Laboratory will therefore be an important step in determining whether the technology can meet the Navy’s requirements.
The 1MW reactor will not power the entire base
Although the project represents a significant step in the military’s interest in portable nuclear energy, the proposed output needs to be put into perspective.
Radiant rates Kaleidos at 1MW of electricity, but the Navy’s announcement did not disclose the plant’s final output, cost or detailed delivery schedule. The 1MW figure comes from the company’s published specifications rather than a confirmed operating result at Crane.
For a large military installation, that amount of electricity is modest. The reactor is intended to supply selected critical equipment and infrastructure, not meet the full energy demand of the entire base.
The approach is consistent with the US Army’s Project Janus programme, which is intended to introduce advanced microreactors at military installations. Army officials have stressed that these reactors are not expected to supply 100% of the electricity used by the bases where they are deployed.
Instead, the military is exploring ways to combine existing grid connections with dedicated power sources that could help essential operations continue during emergencies.
The Navy’s decision also builds on a longer history of military interest in small nuclear reactors. In March 1962, a portable 1.75MW pressurised water reactor known as PM 3A began operating at McMurdo Station in Antarctica. A Navy team operated the facility for approximately a decade.
That project ultimately faced serious problems. A hydrogen fire occurred during its first year, and the reactor was permanently shut down in 1972 amid concerns about corrosion and operating costs. Decommissioning also involved removing thousands of tons of contaminated gravel and soil for shipment back to the United States.
The experience illustrates why portable nuclear power cannot be judged solely by its ability to generate electricity. Transport, maintenance, safety, waste management and the cost of removing a reactor at the end of its service life all matter.
Testing and nuclear waste management remain key challenges
Radiant’s selection does not mean the reactor is ready for deployment. The prototype must still demonstrate that it can operate safely and reliably before it can fulfil its intended role at Crane.
Project Janus also includes requirements for removing radiological material from host sites within two years of shutdown. The aim is to prevent military installations from becoming long term storage locations for nuclear material after a reactor is retired.
Radiant says it will handle spent fuel and can return a site to its previous condition within two years of removing a unit. That arrangement could simplify the responsibilities of host installations, although the practical details of fuel transport, storage and disposal remain important considerations.
The approach has also attracted criticism. Anti nuclear organisation Beyond Nuclear has raised concerns about transporting reactors containing irradiated fuel on public roads. Moving nuclear equipment between manufacturing facilities and military bases introduces logistical and safety questions that will need careful management.
The Pentagon’s timetable adds another challenge. The Navy is targeting September 2028 for the project, while Radiant has also secured a substantial Army contract associated with the military’s wider microreactor programme.
The Navy’s involvement brings considerable experience in nuclear technology, but the new reactor must still prove its performance under real operating conditions.
If testing succeeds, Kaleidos could offer the military another way to keep essential systems running when electricity from the commercial grid becomes unavailable. If technical or regulatory problems emerge, the schedule could face delays.
For now, the selection of Radiant’s reactor marks a move towards more resilient military power infrastructure, rather than a completed solution. The decisive question is whether a reactor that has yet to publicly demonstrate operation at power can meet the reliability, safety and deployment requirements of one of the Navy’s important weapons support installations.
Follow TechBSB For More Updates
