Environment & Energy

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2025, 06:07 PM - Edit history (2)

Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology was not exactly “abandoned” by the U.S. military, but it faced multiple suspensions and cancellations due to practical, logistical, and strategic challenges. Here's a breakdown of the key reasons:


---

⚠️ 1. Safety and Security Risks

Mobile SMRs, especially for forward-deployed military use, posed serious security concerns:

Vulnerability to enemy attack or sabotage

Difficulty in securing radioactive fuel and waste in hostile zones

High-value targets that would require constant defense




---

🧰 2. Logistical and Deployment Complexity

SMRs were marketed as “modular” and “mobile,” but:

Heavy shielding and containment made even small units massive and hard to transport

Required specialized crews, cooling infrastructure, and fuel logistics not viable in austere environments

Site preparation times were longer than expected




---

💸 3. Cost and Budget Realism

SMRs turned out to be far more expensive than originally promised

High R&D costs, long development timelines

No significant cost advantage over diesel in short- or mid-term deployments


The DoD found that diesel and renewables with storage were more immediately scalable



---

🕒 4. Program Terminations and Pullbacks

Examples:

Project Pele (2020s) – a mobile microreactor initiative by the DoD

Progressed to prototype but still not field-deployed as of 2025


Earlier programs (1950s–1980s) like PM-3A in Antarctica or Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) were:

Expensive, hard to support, and shut down due to cost, complexity, and risk




---

🧭 5. Strategic Shift

Military energy doctrine shifted toward:

Distributed renewable energy with battery storage

Mobile hydrogen systems

Improved diesel hybrid microgrids


These systems are:

Faster to deploy

Less politically sensitive

Safer and more resilient to attack or disaster




---

✅ Summary

> The U.S. military did experiment with SMRs, but abandoned or sidelined them due to security risks, high costs, logistical burdens, and better alternatives. While research continues (e.g., Project Pele), SMRs have not proven field-ready or strategically superior for current military needs.

https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/the-u-s-army-tried-portable-nuclear-power-at-remote-bases-60-years-ago-it-didnt-go-well
.
Military SMRs remain theoretical and aspirational, not proven solutions. No model to date has demonstrated the safety, deployability, and cost-efficiency required to replace current energy systems in military operations.