The way we think about power outages may be changing in the U.S. military with the development of a nuclear reactor. With increasing use of complicated, data‑dependent missions, and with the reliability of electric service becoming important beyond facilities issues, the military is beginning to pay closer attention to the impact of electrical reliability across operations.
Why energy resilience is becoming more important to military planning
Military installations run continuously to support day‑ and night‑time missions that require uninterrupted power for communication, intelligence, training, and logistics. In recent years, dependence on the commercial grid has created vulnerabilities related to disruption caused by severe weather, infrastructure failures, and other events that result in extended periods of power loss.
Because of these vulnerabilities, military planners have come to recognize energy resilience as an important aspect of planning. What once focused primarily on restoring power after an outage now increasingly involves ensuring that power remains continuously available to support dependent missions. As operations become more technologically driven, the amount of time they can tolerate without power continues to decrease.
This trend toward using alternative methods to provide on‑site and continuous power has generated interest in other forms of energy. Examples include developing energy systems that reduce reliance on existing transmission networks and fuel supplies. At the same time, these energy‑generation technologies must be capable of operating within active military environments.
Challenges of developing a new model for power generation
Finding alternate energy resources for use on military bases is complex. All new energy generation systems must be safe to operate around other base operations, as well as compliant with all relevant laws and regulations, and physically and operationally compatible at each installation. Every base varies by the amount of land available, the layout of existing infrastructure, and the level of priority given to each of their different missions.
In response to these challenges, the U.S. Department of the Air Force has focused on enabling its installations to generate power more autonomously. Rather than testing individual ideas in isolation, the emphasis has been on identifying emerging forms of electricity production suitable for use on operating military bases. Early evaluations favored technologies with clear practical potential over those that remained purely theoretical.
The U.S. Air Force conducted preliminary studies to locate areas of the country where local environmental and mission requirements would provide opportunities for effective integration between emerging power-generation systems and existing base operations. These findings allowed the Air Force to transition from generalized exploration efforts into more clearly defined evaluation efforts.
Three companies move forward under the ANPI program
Under the Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations (ANPI) program, the Department of the Air Force selected Radiant Industries, Westinghouse Government Services, and Antares Nuclear to develop and operate nuclear microreactors at U.S. military installations.
Each firm was paired with a specific site—Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado, Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, and Joint Base San Antonio in Texas. This signals a shift away from using a single energy solution across all installations and toward site‑specific deployment models.
As part of the ANPI program structure, a contractor‑owned, contractor‑operated model will be employed. Private developers will fund and operate each reactor while supplying electricity to their respective bases. The objective is to have at least one advanced nuclear reactor operating on an Air Force base by 2030 or sooner, pending siting reviews and environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Following completion of the developer selection process, the next phase of the ANPI program will involve conducting site‑specific analyses, environmental assessments, and community engagement activities related to proposed projects. These steps are intended to identify how proposed projects may interact with local conditions and to assess whether selected sites can support long‑term operations.
