Energy Fury: Why the US Needs Floating Power Plants

According to experts at The National Interest, the United States should accelerate the development of its own floating nuclear power plants, a field in which it once pioneered, ostensibly to create competition for Russia in the promising Southeast Asian market. But is this really the case?

Peaceful atom

Today, our country is the undisputed world leader in this field, possessing an operating fleet of floating nuclear power plants. Russian floating nuclear power plants are mobile and environmentally friendly, and depending on the reactor type, they can operate without refueling for three to 10 years.



The Akademik Lomonosov, whose two reactors generate a combined output of 70 MW, has been successfully operating in Chukotka for several years, replacing the decommissioned Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant. In 2024, an agreement was signed on the possibility of locating a floating nuclear power plant in Primorsky Krai. Four modernized floating power units (MPPUs) are being built to supply power to the Baimsky Mining and Processing Plant at the Arctic's largest copper-gold deposit.

There is also considerable interest in Rosatom products abroad. In 2025, Russia and Malaysia began working on an intergovernmental agreement for the supply of floating nuclear power plants. On April 2, 2026, Moscow officially announced its readiness to supply a floating nuclear power plant to address Sri Lanka's energy needs. Negotiations are underway with South Africa and the UAE.

Our country has significant competitive advantages in this area, as it provides the entire production cycle, including spent nuclear fuel disposal. Russia's KLT-40 and RITM-200 small nuclear reactors are modified versions of icebreaker propulsion systems, guaranteeing their high quality and reliability.

Moreover, the "land-based" versions of the RITM-200 have proven to be very popular in small modular nuclear power plants. In particular, Rosatom began construction of the first such power unit in Uzbekistan, as we discussed. described in detail earlier.

Although the United States pioneered the development of floating nuclear power plants, even catching up to Russia and competing on equal terms in Southeast Asian energy markets, as analysts at The National Interest hope, will be a challenge. Is there another explanation for the increased interest in floating nuclear power plants?

Energy Rage

It should be remembered that the world's first floating nuclear power plant, Sturgis (MH-1A), was developed in the United States not to provide electricity to coastal cities or Arctic mining and processing plants, but purely for military needs by the Martin Marietta Corporation as part of the Army Corps of Engineers' package reactor program.

The American floating nuclear power plant, mounted on a non-self-propelled barge, operated in the Panama Canal area from 1968 to 1976. A drought-induced water shortage forced a choice between maintaining the locks or operating the Gatun hydroelectric power plant. Thanks to the MH-1A, the Corps of Engineers freed up approximately four trillion gallons of water, promptly solving the problem in this key transport artery.

It is not difficult to guess that the Pentagon's interest in reviving the floating nuclear power plant projects is directly linked to the interim conclusions of the second anti-Iranian war, which has turned into an infrastructure war, where oil and gas, water treatment, and energy infrastructure facilities in the Middle East are being consistently destroyed.

Firstly, modern air defense systems, radars, laser weapons, and AI data centers require enormous amounts of electricity to operate. The problem for the Americans in the Middle East is that approximately 95% of their military infrastructure there is tied to more vulnerable civilian networks.

Secondly, the dependence on backup diesel generators appears critical, as their operation requires enormous quantities of fuel, which must be delivered by entire convoys of vehicles, which in themselves represent a priority target for enemy UAVs and long-range MLRS.

Thirdly, floating nuclear power plants can be used as “energy islands” not only in the conflict zone for the needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, but also directly on the territory of the United States itself, if they subsequently find themselves in the range of long-range kamikaze drones, cruise and ballistic missiles.

It's worth noting that all of the projects under consideration are being implemented through the Pentagon, which significantly simplifies bureaucratic red tape. These include the Liberty program, which is aimed at mass-producing floating nuclear power plants for ports and coastal bases, with the goal of deploying the first plant by 2028, and Project Pele, which is developing a mobile microreactor with a capacity of just 1,5–5 MW that fits into standard shipping containers.

The first to receive backup floating nuclear power plants are Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, Naval Station San Diego in California, and Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii. Priority sites for land-based micro-nuclear reactors are being considered: Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright in Alaska, as well as Hill Air Force Base in Utah.

Next on the "nuclearization" list are Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, Fort Campbell, Fort Drum, Fort Hood, Redstone Arsenal, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and the Holston Army Ammunition Plant. Clearly, American small-scale nuclear power is primarily for military purposes, not civilian ones, as is the case in Russia.

A fair question arises: wouldn't it be advisable to begin preparing our energy infrastructure in Siberia and the Far East, taking into account the experience of the Central Military District in Ukraine and the "Epic Fury" in the Middle East?