Army selects five bases for nuclear microreactor program

The Army has selected five nuclear-energy companies and five U.S. military installations for a new microreactor program intended to strengthen power supplies during commercial-grid disruptions.

The announcement on August 26, 2026, marks a contracting and site-selection step—not the completion of construction, licensing or operations. The companies still must finish engineering, procurement, construction, regulatory and operational work before any reactor can produce electricity.

The Army is pursuing a first reactor regulated by the service and producing usable electricity at a domestic military installation by September 30, 2028. That is an ambitious target, not a guaranteed completion date.

Five companies, five initial bases

The Army identified these initial vendor-installation pairings:

Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg, North Carolina
BWXT Advanced Technologies at Fort Campbell, Kentucky
General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood, Texas
Radiant Industries at Fort Benning, Georgia
Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum, New York

Army officials told reporters that the five selections provide competition in case one or more companies cannot meet the program’s technical, financial or schedule requirements. Independent energy and federal-policy reporting said Antares and Radiant are associated with three-reactor plans, while the other three companies have one reactor assignment each. Those concepts remain subject to final execution and approvals.

How the funding and ownership would work

The agreements could provide approximately $2.2 billion in combined federal funding across fiscal years 2027 through 2031. Payments are expected to be released after vendors meet technical and construction milestones rather than as a single upfront commitment.

The planned model is contractor-owned and contractor-operated. Private companies are expected to provide substantial—and potentially the majority of—total project investment, but the Army has not specified the private-capital amount. Long-term operating costs and post-construction financial responsibilities also remain unsettled.

The $2.2 billion figure is therefore an approximate maximum or ceiling for combined federal support. It is not a confirmed final cost for all reactors, and it does not mean each company will receive the same amount.

What the reactors are meant to do

The proposed units are intended primarily to support critical installation infrastructure and provide backup or independent power if commercial-grid service is disrupted. The bases are expected to remain connected to the grid under normal conditions, and the reactors would not fully power the installations.

Independent reporting described the selected designs as ranging from roughly 1 megawatt to under 20 megawatts, depending on the vendor. Major military bases can use power on the scale of a small city, so the initial purpose is resilience for critical loads rather than complete energy independence.

The effort follows Executive Order 14299, issued in May 2025. The order designated the Army as the Defense Department’s executive agent for military nuclear energy and directed the department to begin operating an Army-regulated reactor at a domestic military installation no later than September 30, 2028.

The Army also says private investment could support more than 20 microreactors across Department of War installations. That is a broader program goal, not a final deployment plan. Additional sites and totals will depend on technical performance, financing, construction progress and regulatory requirements.

Why the 2028 target is difficult

Before a reactor operates, vendors must complete design work, secure components and fuel, build the facility, satisfy environmental requirements and pass the Army’s regulatory and operational reviews. Officials have acknowledged that one or more of the selected companies could fail, which is why the program is maintaining multiple competitors.

The Army’s announcement describes the payments as milestone-based, giving the government a mechanism to withhold funding when technical goals are not met. The approach may limit some taxpayer exposure, but it does not resolve questions about schedule delays, cost growth or what happens if a project is abandoned after construction begins.

Oversight, fuel and community questions

The five military-installation reactors are expected to be regulated through an Army process rather than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s commercial licensing system. The Army says it is coordinating with the Department of Energy and the NRC to align standards where possible, so designs tested on military bases can later pursue commercial licensing. The NRC’s advanced-reactor program separately covers non-light-water reactors and small modular light-water reactors, including designs with passive-safety features and alternative fuels or coolants.

That distinction matters: NRC coordination is not NRC approval of these five projects. The Army and vendors still must address environmental compliance, site-specific reviews and the requirements of the service’s regulatory process.

Fuel supply is another constraint. The designs are expected to require high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. Independent energy reporting said the Army expects initial supplies to come through Department of Energy stockpiles and that expanding the program to more than 20 reactors could test domestic fuel availability.

Spent fuel and other radioactive materials are also not a permanently settled issue simply because the Army says they will be removed from installations. The service has discussed a Department of Energy arrangement for removal and limits on long-term storage at the bases, but the timing, destination, legal framework and operating details remain important questions.

Nearby residents should watch for site-specific environmental documents, public meetings, emergency-planning information and details about construction traffic and land use. The program’s main accountability questions are who regulates each reactor, who pays for long-term operations, where fuel and spent material come from and go, and what happens if a vendor misses milestones or fails.

No nuclear microreactor is currently supplying electricity to the U.S. commercial grid. The Army’s five selections are a significant step toward a military demonstration and potential deployment program, but the practical test will be whether any project can move from design and approval to safe, usable power by the September 30, 2028 target.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.