The U.S. Army launched the Janus Program to install microreactors on domestic bases by 2028, addressing strained power grids.
The small nuclear reactors, generating under 20 megawatts, will ensure continuous power for critical base operations and weapons systems.
Commercial companies will own and operate the reactors, with Army and Energy Department support.
…
Janus builds on more than six years of efforts by the Army and the Defense Innovation Unit, the arm of the Pentagon that works with technology startups, to acquire small and easily transportable nuclear reactors for bases in the U.S. and military operations overseas. The program is intended in part to better prepare the U.S. for potential war with China in the Pacific or conflict in the Arctic, Army officials said, which would bring major transportation and logistical challenges for supplies—including power…. [end quote]
This is great for national security.
It’s also great for supporting the companies that make the microreactors as they improve and spread their products. It’s far from the first time that the military supported an early-stage technology that later became widespread.
I support this effort, but it makes no sense to have the Army take the lead on the program. The US Navy has been operating small (mobile) nuclear reactors for decades. This year is the 70th anniversary of the USS Nautilus first voyage under nuclear power. The Navy has the expertise and the program already in place to operate and manage a nuclear fleet. Putting the reactor on land to supply electric power to a military base makes perfect sense.
The WSJ article is behind a paywall, but below are a few other news articles.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There are always going to be unexpected delays and costs with the first-of-a-kind plants. It is better to have those bugs worked out under a government program. Then, when the plants are up and running, the private sector will be more willing to invest in the technology. There is another government program at the Idaho National Laboratory to also develop some of these SMRs.
I have several macroeconomic questions - big picture.
I see “government program.”
That sounds bureaucratic and inefficient and probably provides way too many jobs.
Why would we want the government to lead on building new technology?
What about all of the waste, fraud and abuse? How will we stop that?
Can’t the free market handle this important project?
Also, now that we are moving towards a centrally planned economy, like Russia and China, aren’t we operating differently?
I foresee a tough-talking dealmaker (character optional) at the very top who alone can fix it.
This person will dictate a large, untransparent, uncompetitive but lucrative contract to one of our innovative tech companies who can develop this new technology under “free market” principles (will use the “invisible hand”).
Even when the project is late and over budget, our very top leader will tell us everything is great and we’re the best like no one has ever seen.
Do you mean like railroads? Or like microchips? Or like space travel? Or maybe jet engines?
There was the Erie Canal, the TVA, Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams, and of course lots of stuff which have flowed from DARPA including avionics and aeronautics. GPS too.
Focused government industrial policies have helped Japan recover following World War II, and China to become the behemoth it now is in solar, wind, EVs, and so much more.
Not that it makes everything perfect, but dismissing it out of hand because “government” ignores some of the brightest successes in industrial history.
With all of these success stories, and private enterprise very much benefitting, why is everyone so down on government and yammering on about bureaucrats and waste, fraud and abuse?
Can’t our high volume (but low character) leader make it all great with amazing deals?
Because it’s a winning political strategy, even if it’s completely wrong and ignores history. It dates back to “the most dangerous words… “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. Who was that, again? Since that time there have been ball carriers who have taken it downfield for a near endless series of touchdowns - and it’s easy to convince people of the “waste fraud and abuse” when they see a few cherry picked examples trumpeted in the media, amplified by the “silos that care.”
Politicians who say “we’re going to raise taxes to do these swell things” don’t stay politicians for long, and the only acceptable spending seems to be Military, which has an endless appetite and perhaps one of the worst records of accountability.
That said, sometimes it’s the only way to get something done: see GPS, satellites, radar, aeronautics, etc. I’m all in favor of the military handling micro reactors, heck, they’ve been doing it for 50 years aboard submarines, why not on land?
Army researchers are developing rechargeable batteries for Soldier-worn and handheld equipment with increased temperature ranges.
Initiatives to field Soldiers with next-generation equipment — such as night-vision devices, weapons, and radios — are driving the need to transition from single-use batteries to rechargeable versions, said Lexi Karalekas, an Army C5ISR Center chemical engineer.
The needs of the military can often drive new inventions where there is currently little to no civilian demand - but in the end create the civilian/commercial demand.
And permitting will be much easier on govt property. Should be a win for everyone.
Yes, the Navy has needed technology. Too bad we have to start over rather than use that technology. Not many Navy bases where we need them. Maybe the Army could share some space in the middle of the country.
LEU is the smallest ~$7B Supplier of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU)
SMR $13B NuScale technology owner with consortium partners and JV partners to deploy
OKLO $26B
I’m with you in spirit, but nuclear is a mature industry. Sure, there are always improvements to be made, but improvements will likely be incremental at this point. Like you say, been done for 50 years on subs.
If we need these small reactors for defense, fine. But nuclear by its very nature works better on large scales. We’re unlikely to get any kind of economic breakthrough going down this path.
They used to say the same thing about computers. Different, I know. But …
The breakthrough would be to have distributed power, which is less vulnerable to shocks (terrorism, weather, accidents). With the hyper growth of AI data centers, we are likely to have more of (any/all of the above), not to mention rapidly increasing electric prices for us, the little folk. Have more widely distributed, but smaller power plants is a way of decentralizing the issues (by definition, I guess) but also comes with other risks.
I see “decentralized” power as a big change in the industry. Not that it changes the economics in a comparable way as “chips” but still a big change for the industry, historically.
That’s the hope and the dream, but reality is blowing some strong headwinds at them. Nuclear has big fixed costs like site preparation, regulatory compliance, infrastructure, and grid connection. Those are pretty much the same for SMRs and conventional, only SMRs generate less power to spread the costs over. And that’s fundamentally the problem. An SMR has to do all the same things as a big reactor, just on a smaller scale. The hope is to one day have an SMR factory somewhere pumping out SMR parts, but that day is long way away, maybe not ever.
Thing is, South Korea appears to have cracked the code in regards to making conventional reactors cost effective. Still expensive, but cost effective. For one, they are building globally, not just locally, so they have a long pipeline of reactor projects. All the reactors are the same design and lessons from the first one are applied to the next one, and so on. And they try to build at least two or four in the same location at the same time. And the reactors are big, 1400 MW each which brings the fixed costs down. Seems to work.
As it turns out, most nuclear facilities in the US were originally designed to accommodate multiple reactors. That solves a lot of the siting problems right off the bat. In theory, if we really wanted nuclear power we could do a South Korean-style program, building out say, 20 reactors of the same design at 5-10 existing sites over 15 years (all numbers made up). Probably by the fifth or sixth one we’d be pretty good at it and the remainders could be constructed in a time and cost effective manner.
One way to get the cost per kilowatt-hour down is to put multiple SMRs at one site. Amazon recently provided new information on its planned nuclear power facility in Washington state. They will install 12 reactors, each with a capacity of 80 MWe, for a total of 960 MW. This will be about the same capacity as one of today’s existing plants.
“The SMRs will be supplied by X-energy, which received $500 million in Series C funding from Amazon last year, using X-energy’s advanced nuclear reactor design. The Cascade facility will be built outside Richland, Washington, near Energy Northwest’s Columbia Generating Station.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The X-Energy design is a high temperature gas-cooled reactor, using TRISO pebble fuel. This is an extremely safe design, with low power density and passive air cooling. Multiple reactors can be operated from one control room, which reduces costs.
I doubt the military base plants will have as many multiple reactors at one site, but you install as many as you need, at any particular location.
Looks like they are bringing in the South Koreans to help build it. Makes sense. What the tech industry needs to do is get all the players into the same room. Lock the doors and don’t let anyone out until they all agree on the same model of SMR. And if someone changes their mind, they don’t get invited to Burning Man or something. SMRs aren’t going to work unless they can build them in large-ish numbers. If everyone has a different design (which is the way things are heading) they won’t get the economies of scale.
I support this effort also and I think the Army and Energy Department are the right government agencies to fund and support the development of these land based small reactors. The Navy is just using old technology and mind set for these land based small reactors. The companies developing these small reactors should be the owners and operators if they are shown to be reliable, safe, and meeting military performance requirements. They do not need to compete with commercial small reactors just like the Navy small reactors used on submarines do not compete with commercial reactors. The Navy small reactors were designed by Westinghouse time long ago.
These military small reactors will/may need to be kept separate from commercial small reactors because the military wants its own bells and whistles on these reactors. That is what Admiral Rickover required of Westinghouse. I worked on the commercial side of Westinghouse reactors in late 1960s early 1970s. We were never allowed to communicate with the Navy side of Westinghouse reactors.
The Army and Energy Department need to decide (once the military small reactors have proven to be the solution for the military’s need of land based small reactor) to be owned and operated by the private companies or the military with technical support by the private companies.
Government projects are never competitive with commercial projects. But government likes to have contractors design, build and operate small and large facilities based on government needs and requirements. Government projects are funded by the taxpayer via Congress. Commercial projects are funded by private monies and sometimes with help from government loans, tax credits, or other means.
The discussion is about military small reactors. The do not follow the same site prep, regulatory, infrastructure or grid connection requirements that commercial small reactors need to meet. The military’s primary requirements are that these small reactors produce the power required, reliably, safely during critical battle/war conditions. Cost of building and operation of these small military reactors is of second importance.
I disagree with your praise of South Korean commercial nuclear power plants cost effectively. The Korean plants are still more expensive than commercial combined cycle gas turbine plants, or wind facilities or solar facilities.
Building more than 2 or 4 large nuclear power plants at one site may save about 10 to 15 percent, but it will not make large nuclear power plants cheaper than natural gas, wind or solar. And do not start the old worn out song about wind does not blow and sun does not shine. Energy storage is becoming the go to source to make up for any lost wind or solar.
The world does not operate in this fashion. In the 1960s Westinghouse, General Electric, Combustion Engineering, Babcock and Wilcox, Atomics International, Allis Chalmers, and others were in the same boat as today’s SMRs are now. They all had to build prototypes to prove their designs and cost estimates. That is how Westinghouse, General Electric, Combustion Engineering, and Babcock and Wilcox were able to build many of the large nuclear plants in the 1970-1990 in the US. The others did not make the grade.