In the words of Gen. David Petraeus, energy is the “lifeblood of our warfighting capabilities.” But this “lifeblood” is not oriented for the fight of the future.
In the civilian world, distributed energy resources, like solar and batteries, are increasingly bypassing expensive and brittle electrical infrastructure by placing power generation near the point of consumption. By not relying on the grid for power, they save money, improve reliability and resilience, and unlock flexibility.
For our military, decentralized power generation is similarly advantageous, elevating our tactical capabilities to better match modern needs. Logistics wins wars, and military logistics today means moving fuel — a lot of it. Advanced nuclear microreactors, in particular, offer immense strategic value, replacing vast fuel supply chains with on-site, reliable power. They can revolutionize warfare and save lives.
Our armed forces may dedicate more than half of their logistics tonnage to transporting fuel for planes, trucks, warships, and bases. This is of constant concern to strategists. Without fuel, you can’t fight. But getting energy to the frontlines can be incredibly costly and dangerous. After leading campaigns in the Middle East, Gen. James Mattis pleaded to the Department of Defense to “unleash us from the tether of fuel.”
In fact, the United States military is the world’s single largest consumer of petroleum, running largely on diesel and kerosene. Historically, the military has commonly used fuel in two ways: to power an engine, or to run an electric generator to operate infrastructure (like a base). Recently, though, the battlefield has seen a surge in power-hungry electronics, drones, radar systems, computers, and other advanced technology, not to mention broader electrification efforts.
The problem with our reliance on fossil fuels to meet this demand becomes clear when you consider the supply chain. A typical journey for a gallon of diesel headed to a base in Iraq often begins in Texas’ Permian Basin. Extracted crude oil is piped to Houston for refining, then might be transported to Naval Air Station Norfolk in Virginia, and shipped through the Suez Canal to Kuwait, or perhaps directly to Umm Qasr Port in Iraq. Finally, to reach a forward operating base, fuel is commonly delivered by a convoy of tankers, trucks, and armed personnel across dangerous territory.
From 2003 to 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel comprised approximately 80% of cargo for trucks operating in the region. Such vehicles were critical targets for insurgents — over 3,000 American soldiers and contractors in these convoys were killed during this period.
In a major Pacific conflict involving tough amphibious campaigns, logistics officers would face new, likely harsher challenges. Any winning strategy would almost certainly consume incredible amounts of energy, and delivery to the front lines amid modern surveillance, submarines, and autonomous systems is worryingly uncertain.
But there is an alternative to continuing this extreme reliance on fuel shipments: On-site power generation via nuclear energy. The technology, capital, and demand for advanced nuclear energy exist today — we can unleash the military from the tether of fuel. And it is encouraging that the House Armed Services Committee has emphasized distributed nuclear power in the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act.
A typical forward operating base requires between 1 to 5 megawatts (MWe) of continuous power for critical systems and regular operations. A nuclear microreactor, like our portfolio company Radiant’s Kaleidos, is ideally suited for such a task. It’s designed to be power-dense, easily fortified, and able to be rapidly transported by truck or aircraft (they are the size of a shipping container). Once on-site, a reactor can generate power for years without refueling. Need more power, bring in a second reactor.
More broadly, the United States operates over 700 bases globally with varying power demands — all of which should be energy resilient and capable of prolonged, independent operation from local power grids. Modern bases need radar to track incoming drones, runways need lights. A base without power is a base without life. Nuclear, alongside solar and batteries for less critical applications, significantly outperform the power infrastructure currently in place.
Nuclear detractors commonly make two salient points: safety and cost. Let’s dispel these arguments.
On safety, modern power reactors are designed to withstand 9/11-style aircraft impacts and are composed of numerous passive systems and fuel types, like TRISO pellets, that are blast- and meltdown-resistant (even so, Three Mile Island’s meltdown in 1979 was handled well and resulted in no injuries). Moreover, concerns about “nuclear waste” are unfounded; it is neither waste nor a real issue. The military is also uniquely experienced at handling and protecting nuclear technology — the U.S. Navy maintains over 100 nuclear-powered vessels, not to mention our vast nuclear weapon stockpile. The safety of these systems is unrivaled.
On cost, the U.S. military already incurs wildly high energy delivery costs. A 2005 Department of Defense study estimated that delivering fuel to the front lines can cost up to $600 per gallon, or up to $54,000 per megawatt-hour of electricity. This is significantly higher than even the most conservative economic estimates for advanced nuclear power, which, despite potentially higher upfront expenses, avoids such extreme supply costs.
Even if nuclear power were more expensive, the strategic advantage of resilient energy is worth a premium. For example, our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would be cheaper to operate on diesel, but that would hinder their operational capabilities. These floating fortresses are willing to pay up in order to remain untethered from port. Just as nuclear-powered propulsion cemented American naval dominance in the 20th century, nuclear-powered bases will extend our supremacy into the 21st.
While vast fuel-moving logistics networks are manageable in times of supremacy in information, air, and sea, they become untenable against near-peer rivals where logistics are highly contested. Consider the consequences if Taiwan is starved for energy in a blockade. America would immediately lose 92% of leading-edge chip supply, severely weakening both our economy and ability to assist militarily. With no imports, Taiwan’s energy stockpiles would begin to dwindle in weeks, and even the most critical systems would have less than 60 days of reserves. Without decentralized energy, resistance is futile.
America, and our allies, can choose to untether now willingly, or risk having our logistical lifelines severed in a crisis. The nature of warfare adapts to the technology at hand, and strategies that worked in the past might prove remarkably ineffective, if not dangerous, the next time around.
