Army to build nuclear microreactors at 5 U.S. bases, including Texas

Nuclear News

Fort Hood and Army leaders look at a possible site for a new microreactor. Photo courtesy of U.S. Army/Fort Hood Media Center

The U.S. Army announced Wednesday that it plans to add nuclear microreactors at five military bases from New York to Texas as a reliable source of energy independent of the commercial electric grid.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration pushes hard to develop the next generation of nuclear power, including billions in loans for large nuclear reactors to meet skyrocketing power demand from data centers and a pilot program to boost advanced reactor designs and projects for military and civilian use. No nuclear microreactors are supplying power to the commercial electric grid in the United States today.

Five companies selected by the Army will be awarded up to $2.2 billion in total over five years to own, construct and operate the microreactors, if they hit set milestones along the way for their performance. The Army expects that more than 20 nuclear microreactors will be built and operated.

Army and industry officials say microreactors offer a resilient power source for critical infrastructure at military installations in case the grid fails. Reactors can run for years without refueling.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said the awards will accelerate the military’s ability “to deliver safe, reliable baseload power directly to our installations. We are building the energy resilience necessary to project combat power globally, without relying on potentially vulnerable external grids,” he said.

The grants are part of the Army's “Janus Program” launched last year to deliver next-generation nuclear energy. Officials hope to push nuclear development forward so that advanced reactor designs move beyond experiments and prototypes to provide power for years to come. This will be the “spear tip,” said Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment.

“That is the transition that we are trying to effect here,” he said on a call with reporters Wednesday. “These are not meant to be Army-specific designs.”

Critics of building more nuclear reactors say they’re too expensive and riskier than other energy sources. The Army program is using the military's “deep pockets to provide a hidden subsidy” to nuclear companies that can't find private-sector customers for their hypothetical and uneconomical reactors, said Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project.

The reactors will be licensed by the Army, rather than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses commercial nuclear reactors. Kuperman said it's “a dangerous scam on many levels.”

Waksman said these reactors will shut down safely in case of a failure, they're small and the Army wouldn't add them to installations without being certain they are safe. He said the Army is working on a deal with the Energy Department to remove radioactive waste, and there won't be any long-term storage on these installations.

The Army is working to align its regulatory processes as much as possible, Waksman said, so that companies won’t need major changes to their designs to be later licensed by the NRC. Along with federal funding, the Army expects billions of dollars in private capital investment.

Army leads the military’s adoption of nuclear energy

President Donald Trump signed executive orders in May 2025 to speed up the development of nuclear power. The Army was tasked with ensuring that an advanced reactor would start operating at a domestic military installation no later than Sept. 30, 2028. The Janus program is named for the ancient Roman god of transitions.

Officials know that delivering nuclear power to a military base will be a challenge, so they picked five companies in case one or more fail, Waksman said. The selected companies are: Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; BWXT at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood in Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning in Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum in New York.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Army to select Fort Drum. The critical missions Fort Drum supports require secure power generation, the New York Democrat said.

The military installations will remain connected to the grid. The reactors would not completely power them. Each reactor will provide between 1 megawatt to 20 megawatts of power, depending on the company's design. Major bases use as much power as a small city. Antares and Radiant are planning to deliver their reactors in three-packs, Waksman said.

The Army now uses diesel as a primary backup for critical infrastructure. But in a conflict, Waksman said, the Army may not be able to move fossil fuels easily wherever it needs them.

“That makes nuclear energy just a natural game changer,” he said. “It makes sense for the Army to take the lead here.”

A reactor at Fort Belvoir in Virginia, completed in 1957, was the first nuclear power reactor to provide electricity to a commercial power grid in the United States for an extended period, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Companies say this will accelerate US nuclear development

California-based Antares reached a crucial milestone under the U.S. pilot program that could allow it to produce electricity at Idaho National Lab next year. The company said the Army's announcement extends its momentum. Westinghouse Government Services said it’s proud to support the Army’s efforts to strengthen energy security and innovate.

Tori Shivanandan, president and chief operating officer of California-based Radiant, said the Army’s $750 million award “shows confidence in Radiant’s product and ability to manufacture, deploy and safely operate nuclear microreactors for the American military.” The Janus program “will build a stronger and more resilient America,” she said.

General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems said its reactor is designed to operate in remote, off-grid and extreme environments for 40 years. It said it will draw on more than 70 years of nuclear expertise to provide safe, dependable and independent power for the military.

Rex Geveden, BWXT's president and chief executive officer, said, “As we commence work on the Janus program, we are delivering the nation’s most credible and reliable path to deployable nuclear power.”

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston bio-based materials co. steps into new sustainable consumer products

a cleaner shoe

A more sustainable shoe can’t be built on a single material swap. From the hard plastics hidden inside a heel to the material covering a sneaker’s upper, footwear is a collection of components—and each presents a different challenge for companies trying to move away from conventional, petroleum-based materials.

Houston-based Rheom Materials wants to change that equation. The biomaterials company has launched a sustainable footwear platform featuring two of its bio-based alternatives: Benree, a biodegradable plastic designed for hard internal components, and ShoraiDura, a durable leather alternative for footwear uppers.

“A shoe is not one material; it is multiple parts working together as a system. Substituting a single material has never moved the needle,” Rheom founder and CEO Zimri Hinshaw said in a news release. “Rheom wants to make it easier for brands to make a positive impact. By providing an assortment of bio-based materials, brands can change the system, not just a swatch of it.”

Benree is Rheom’s alternative to conventional hard plastics used in footwear construction. The company says it is a 100 percent USDA-certified bio-based, biodegradable material with performance comparable to acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), a widely used engineering plastic.

The material has passed SATRA testing for high-heel applications with Bared Footwear, an Australian footwear brand.

“At Bared, we're constantly on a journey to remove plastic from our shoes. At the same time, our brand won't compromise on quality for the end customer,” Millie Richards, Bared’s head of sustainability, added in the release. “From samples and testing, Rheom has proven to be solving both of those problems for us. We look forward to seeing how they develop as a company and would love to use them in our shoes.”

Rheom says it is also exploring Benree for additional internal components, including toe puffs and heel counters.

Rheom's Benree material was used for a high-heel prototype. Photo courtesy Rheom Materials

The company’s ShoraiDura material addresses another major part of shoe construction: the upper, which must withstand repeated flexing, friction and wear while maintaining its appearance.

Containing about 80 percent bio-based content, ShoraiDura is engineered as a durable leather alternative for footwear. Rheom says the material’s molecular structure is designed to deliver the strength and durability required for demanding applications.

To demonstrate how the material could be used in finished products, Rheom worked with a Los Angeles-based footwear manufacturer to create two prototypes: an athletic sneaker and a textured skater shoe, both featuring ShoraiDura uppers.

The two offerings reflect the company’s broader strategy. Rather than asking brands to evaluate a single material in isolation, Rheom is positioning its platform as a way to explore alternatives across different parts of footwear construction.

The next step is broader industry adoption. Benree’s testing with Bared Footwear and ShoraiDura’s footwear prototypes offer early examples of how the materials could be applied, while commercial use will depend on manufacturers’ evaluations and product-development decisions.

Rheom Materials is a Houston-based biomaterials company developing bio-based alternatives to petrochemical plastics. Its product portfolio includes Shorai, a leather alternative, and Benree, a hard plastic alternative.

The company debuted Shorai at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo in 2025 and showed a bio-based "leather" collection in Milan earlier this year. Read more here.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.

Houston solar manufacturer expands facility, production capacity

houston expansion

Solar tracking and manufacturing company PV Hardware USA is increasing its production capacity and expanding its Houston facility in an effort to meet growing demands.

The move marks the company's third expansion in the Houston area in three years. PV Hardware reports a 400 percent surge in national market growth over the past three years, as solar-based projects have been pivotal in energy resilience efforts.

PV Hardware plans to increase the capacity at its Houston facility by 42 percent, according to a news release. With the additional capacity, PV Hardware expects a 35 percent increase in production of pre-assembled parts. The company has not announced whether any additional employees will be hired or the costs of expansion.

In September, the company completed its new dedicated pre-assembly facility, which will help migrate difficult assembly into an easier manufacturing setting. The new pre-assembly area will also assist with streamlined field installation, enhanced schedule predictability and reduction of manual labor.

Citybiz reports that the expansion totals approximately 34,200 square feet.

PV Hardware USA aims to make solar installation more efficient. For large-scale solar projects, PV Hardware USA’s pre-assembly process helps to relieve assembly work done by installation teams. According to PV Hardware USA, it reduces the number of on-site components by 70 percent.

“Traditionally, manufacturers pushed the assembly burden onto the jobsite,” Rodolfo Bitar, vice president of business development for PVH USA, told Renewable Energy Magazine. “We ask a different question: what work can be done more efficiently before the equipment ever leaves the factory? By managing the assembly of 188 loose parts per row in our controlled manufacturing environment, we remove field complexity and make installation highly predictable.”

PV Hardware USA produces single-axis solar trackers made in Texas and has supplied over 52 gigawatts of solar trackers worldwide.

“The expanded presence in Texas underscores a long-term commitment: bringing world-class solar expertise to local American manufacturing, supporting communities, and serving as a reliable partner through the clean energy transition,” the company said in the release.

In July of 2025, the company opened its 95,000-square-foot facility, which was the second Houston location following its initial $30 million U.S. manufacturing facility, which, at 50,000 square feet, is one of America's largest solar tracker manufacturing facilities.

Gulf of Mexico marine life dramatically declined after BP spill, study says

Gulf Life

In a deep, dark part of the Gulf of Mexico, the number of marine animals plummeted by about 60% in the years following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, a new study found.

In a crucial part of the Gulf between the light surface and the darkest depths, where the BP-operated well failed and dumped 134 million gallons of oil, the number of fish found dropped by 63.5% from the year after the spill to 2015. Crustaceans, including shrimp and krill, a key food for whales, went down 62%, and larger animals like squid and octopuses fell 59.7%, according to a study published Monday in the journal PNAS.

And those populations haven't come close to recovering, the study found.

Researchers focused on the ocean's “twilight zone,” a vast area above the seafloor, where much of the surface marine life, including dolphins and whales, feast on creatures. Yet little is known about this gigantic ecosystem, and this region of the Gulf had not been studied before the 2010 spill, said study lead author Tracey Sutton, a biological oceanographer at Nova Southeastern University.

A 2011 post-spill exploration cited in the research, which used six sets of nets at different depths and acoustic sonar, gave scientists a good sense of how much sea life was in the area between the surface and 5,000 feet deep (1,500 meters). They returned to the same place with the same equipment three-and-a-half years later and found sea life was between one-third and one-quarter of what it was in 2011.

“We saw this big decline,” Sutton said. “The question was then why? So we looked at all of the natural variables we thought could account for it, namely temperature, oxygen supply and food. None of those vary with the decline. The event that did was the oil spill. So we think that’s the most likely cause of the decline.”

Researchers kept on sampling since 2015 and the low populations remained, with a slight rise in 2022 and 2023 that did not prove statistically significant or lasting, Sutton said.

Documenting the decline

Sutton's team documented the population declines with three different lines of evidence: what they caught in the nets, what their acoustic sonar found and genetic studies showing the species losing genetic diversity because of inbreeding.

A lot of marine life died instantly after the explosion, which killed 11 workers, and from nearly five months of leaking oil and gas. Those pollutants got stored in the eggs of survivors and subsequent generations of critters got more compromised and weaker, Sutton said.

BP spokesperson Paul Takahashi said the accident “forever changed” the company: “We have made many changes intended to help prevent an event like this from ever happening again.”

Both the oil and the dispersants used to clean the spill hurt fish, but in different ways, said study co-author Isabel Romero, a chemical oceanographer at the University of South Carolina. Oil is more toxic and an overall threat, but the dispersant breaks the oil into smaller droplets, increasing the exposure of animals that live in the deeper water column, she said.

Dispersants caused many problems, and new studies show that in future accidents, it would be better to avoid those chemicals and instead add agents that increase oil-munching microbes, said former National Science Foundation Director Rita Colwell, a University of Maryland environmental microbiologist who headed a 10-year, $500 million BP-funded program to study spill effects.

Sutton said his team couldn’t prove an exact causal link to the BP oil spill, but by eliminating the other possibilities and looking at the timing, it’s logically clear that the spill caused the problem.

The krill population dropped 72%. Lanternfish — odd fish with blue-green lights embedded over their bodies — are a third of what they used to be, Sutton said. The stunning but scary dragonfish — with sharp teeth, light organs and a lure attached to its head — also had big losses, he said.

“These are foundational species,” Sutton said. “They're the things most things eat. So it's no wonder that we had wholesale changes across the community.”

The inner ocean is more unknown than outer space

Scientists learned much about this unexplored area of the Gulf.

“One of our biggest findings from the whole thing is how connected the whole oceanic Gulf is from top to bottom because the animals move up and down,” Sutton said. “There are predators at the top that dive deep. Lots of things that are deep that come up at night. So the system is one very large pulsing system, rather than just a layered system like people might have thought beforehand.”

Outside scientists were especially bothered by where the spill damaged.

“We know more about space in some ways than we do about the inner ocean. Because we can’t see these regions, there is a tendency to assume everything is fine, but here we have a clear result showing that something went very wrong," Scripps Institution of Oceanography marine scientist Kaitlin Frasier said in an email.

Frasier, who wasn't part of the study released Monday, published a post-spill study in 2024 looking at Gulf of Mexico whales and dolphins, finding population drops as high as 83%.

“It’s shocking how a single failure in a drilling rig can have this vast and sustained impact over thousands of square kilometers, with little visible recovery over 13 years after the spill,” said Dalhousie University marine scientist Boris Worm, who wasn't part of the study. “It is important that we see this, because for the longest time these consequences were completely out of sight and out of mind.”

Worm and Colwell said this damage should be kept in mind as the world talks about deep-sea mining and increased oil drilling in deep waters.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME