US conducts first air transport of nuclear microreactor in bid to show technology's viability

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

February 16, 2026 12:10 AM EST Updated 6 hours ago


HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah, Feb 15 - The U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense on Sunday for the first time transported a small nuclear reactor on a cargo plane from California to Utah to demonstrate the potential to quickly deploy nuclear power for military and civilian use. The agencies partnered with California-based Valar Atomics to fly one of the company’s Ward microreactors on a C-17 aircraft — without nuclear fuel — to Hill Air Force Base in Utah.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffey were on the C-17 flight with the reactor and its components, and hailed the event as a breakthrough for U.S. nuclear energy and military logistics. “This gets us closer to deploy nuclear power when and where it is needed to give our nation’s warfighters the tools to win in battle,” Duffey said. President Donald Trump's administration sees small nuclear reactors as one of several ways to expand U.S. energy production.

Trump last May issued four executive orders aimed at boosting domestic nuclear deployment to meet growing demand for energy for national security and competitive AI advancements. The Energy Department in December issued two grants, opens new tab to help accelerate development of small modular reactors. Proponents of microreactors also have touted them as energy sources that can be sent to far-flung and remote places, offering an alternative to diesel generators which require frequent deliveries of fuel.

But skeptics have argued that the industry has not proven that small nuclear reactors can generate power for a reasonable price. "There is no business case for microreactors, which — even if they work as designed — will produce electricity at a far higher cost than large nuclear reactors, not to mention renewables like wind or solar," said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-conducts-first-air-transport-nuclear-microreactor-bid-show-technologys-2026-02-16/

---

I heard this on the radio early this morning!

[riversedge]

1. It says a C-17 was used. I am curious if other planes-maybe the military also flew along side

of this plane that was transporting nuclear material??? Costs.???

I do not have access to the article. Sorry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. It says in the OP "without nuclear fuel"

I think the idea is to show the reactor itself is small and light enough to be transported by air (the C-17 can operate from fairly short runways, though I see that the Wikipedia article notes the weight the runway can take is also an issue).

The article goes on to say

Fuel for Valar's reactor will be transported from the Nevada National Security site to the San Rafael facility, Wright told reporters.

though it notes there isn't necessarily a plan for how radioactive waste from the site will be handled.

[riversedge]

5. Thanks. I did not read carefully --

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. From the first paragraph:

The agencies partnered with California-based Valar Atomics to fly one of the company’s Ward microreactors on a C-17 aircraft — without nuclear fuel — to Hill Air Force Base in Utah.

I think title 10 of the CFR describe requirements for nuke fuel transport.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. "I do not have access to the article. Sorry." - Sometimes I can find the msn repost of Reuters articles at post time

but not always as they might get published later that day.

There is one now though - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-conducts-first-air-transport-of-nuclear-microreactor-in-bid-to-show-technologys-viability/ar-AA1WqQsL

(I deal with Reuters by clearing their cookies on my Firefox browser)

[orangecrush]

2. What could go wrong?

[LiberalArkie]

3. There is no business case for microreactors, --- Yes there is..

Think of islands where right now they burn oil for electricity. Very rural areas. even American Indian areas where it is cost prohibitive to build out high energy transmission lines.

Not everyone lives in metro areas.

[Bengus81]

16. Good idea if someone could show facts as to it being cheaper energy

Got a Nuke plant in Kansas. Operating since late 80's. It didn't lower our energy bills it sent them sky high.

[reACTIONary]

17. There is one other very strong use case....

.... power generation for military operations in remote, degraded and underdeveloped regions. That is why this is being pursued. It also could have value (with significant modification) for a moon base.

[Hugin]

7. Looks like the AI bros want to make a wasteland of scattered RTGs and ADRs like the Soviets did.

Sure flying around uncharged units is a snap, but once they are activated. Nobody is going to want to touch them for 10,000 years.

This is one of the worst legacies of the Soviet Union.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

[hunter]

10. This is not a radioisotope thermoelectric generator.

It's a nuclear reactor that's about the size of a shipping container.

A complete power plant can be assembled from components that can be delivered anywhere an ordinary shipping container can.

The dangers of nuclear waste are comparable to other non-nuclear hazardous wastes modern industry generates. Many of these dangerous non-nuclear wastes have a half life of forever. After a few hundred years used nuclear fuel has about the same total radioactivity of the ores that it was mined from. Some of the radioactive elements in this used fuel are more mobile in the natural environment than those in natural ores but it's not a huge technical problem to contain them. This used fuel can also be recycled into new fuel and other useful elements.

Of course the most dangerous energy wastes humans produce come from fossil fuels. The most dangerous fossil fuel by far is natural gas because many people think it's clean (or at least better than coal) and it supports their renewable energy follies. We are well trained to completely dismiss natural gas accidents which kill people every year, accidents that smother people with carbon monoxide, explode entire buildings, or incinerate entire neighborhoods. What's far, far worse are the greenhouse gasses dumped recklessly everywhere as combustion products and methane leaks.

Natural gas will be the energy resource that destroys the natural environment as we know it and possibly cause the collapse of our current civilization.

[Hugin]

11. A few hundred years...

The US is only barely making 250 years and the seams are splitting. Contracts only last an average of three years. Who’s going to pay to watch over and maintain these reactors for a few hundred years?

If only one of them falls into the wrong hands during that time, a few hundred years. I guess it’s our great grandchildren who will find out.

[hunter]

13. Any of our great grandchildren who survive will be cursing us for our addiction to fossil fuels.

Nuclear waste will be a lesser concern, even in post-apocalyptic societies that have lost their heavy industries.

Nuclear waste won't be a concern at all in 10,000 years, whether or not humans still exist.

[EarthFirst]

8. I am not tremendously confident in this administration to test the viability of this energy solution...

The gross incompetence and regulatory drawdowns is generally terrifying.

[pecosbob]

12. Dear leader has been reading comics again and wants a nuclear air force

This is 1950's technology just like the ramjet and hyper-cruise missile.

[hunter]

14. Bell Laboratories demonstrated the first practical photovoltaic cell in 1954.

The USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered submarine, was launched in 1954.

Definitely comic book stuff.

[DougBee]

15. The cost of the nuclear waste is billions

According to the 2024 US GAO
“The U.S. Government Accountability Office projected the 100-year Net Present Value (NPV, i.e., the 100-year cost discounted by the cost of funds) for interim storage at $109,341 to $211,393 per MTHM (Metric Tons of Heavy Metal) for centralized storage and $94,762 to $318,651 per MTHM for reactor-site storage.

This would imply that 100 years of interim storage for existing spent fuel in the US would cost $20-27 billion, with an additional liability of $200-600M created each year.

Add that to your electrical bill plus overhead from your power provider since it will maintain the monopoly they have over the rate payers.

[reACTIONary]

18. Every one of our nuclear submarines ....

... is powered by what is essentially the same sort of portable nuclear device. There may or may not be commercial applications, but that is not the goal. The goal is power generation for military operations in remote, degraded and underdeveloped regions. That is why this is being pursued. It also could have value (with significant modification) for a moon base.