For much of the past half-century, nuclear energy in the United States has occupied an uneasy space between a technology of the past and a technology of the future — but not quite one of the present. That is beginning to change, and Alaska is part of that shift.
A couple of months ago, Project Janus, an initiative led by the Department of the Army, identified Fort Wainwright as one of nine candidate sites for deploying a new generation of small, advanced nuclear reactors. Janus is designed not only to support the energy security of military installations, but also to move advanced nuclear from isolated pilot projects toward repeatable deployments, where costs are expected to become more predictable and decline over time relative to first-of-a-kind efforts.
This follows on the heels of a June 2025 announcement that Oklo Inc. was selected to move forward on a planned microreactor deployment at Eielson Air Force Base. Taken together with other demonstrations and commercial proposals now moving through testing and licensing, these projects point to a broader shift: new nuclear is no longer hypothetical — it is beginning to move into real-world deployment.
Nuclear power in the United States generates roughly 20% of the nation’s electricity — about the same share as all renewable sources combined — yet it is often perceived as static and outdated. While wind, solar, and battery storage have seen rapid, highly visible innovation and have dominated conversations about the energy future, nuclear has largely been associated with aging plants, long development timelines, and high costs.
From time to time, talk of a nuclear renaissance has resurfaced. But for years, that renaissance seemed perpetually just out of reach — always promised, but not delivered.
For many observers, the question became not whether nuclear power could work, but whether it still made sense in an energy landscape increasingly shaped by shorter build times and greater flexibility in how capacity is sized and deployed. Wind, solar and natural gas plants can often be built quickly, with far less up-front capital and can be scaled incrementally. Against that backdrop, large, conventional nuclear projects increasingly appeared obsolete.
This new generation of nuclear technologies is not trying to solve old problems by building better versions of the same systems. Instead, it represents a fundamental rethinking of how nuclear power is designed, built and used. New designs emphasize smaller-scale, standardized systems that can be factory-assembled and rapidly deployed to a site. This shift reflects an effort to adapt nuclear technology to the practical realities of today’s energy landscape.
A major focus of this new wave of nuclear innovation has been safety. Traditional nuclear plants rely on multiple engineered systems, layers of redundancy, and highly trained operators to manage risk. By contrast, many advanced reactor designs place greater emphasis on inherent or passive safety: Both the reactor and its fuel are designed to remain stable under extreme conditions.
These more accident-tolerant approaches are being put into practice. A major milestone occurred a few months ago, when the first fuel shipment designed specifically for these advanced reactors arrived at Idaho National Laboratory. The fuel, known as TRISO, is configured differently from conventional nuclear fuel. In TRISO fuel, uranium is encapsulated within multiple ceramic layers designed to withstand extreme heat and physical stress. As a result, a significant portion of the safety function is built directly into the fuel itself.
This initial production run will support the first advanced reactors to be tested at Idaho National Laboratory in several decades. Commercial demonstrations are expected to follow, with multiple vendors seeking access to the laboratory’s limited testing infrastructure, including Oklo Inc.
Surveys conducted by Strategies 360 on behalf of the Alaska Center for Energy and Power at UAF over several years show that Alaskans across a broad spectrum of communities and political views consistently favor greater diversification of the state’s energy systems. Respondents support expanding hydroelectric, solar, and wind resources while reducing reliance on gas and coal.
Views on nuclear energy remain more mixed, though they are evolving. In the most recent poll, a slim majority of respondents said they would be open to greater use of nuclear energy in Alaska, while the share of those strongly opposed has dropped below 10%. Support increases when respondents are provided with additional information: Those who report greater familiarity with nuclear energy tend to be more supportive overall, and among less familiar respondents, interest rises substantially after hearing a brief, neutral description of advanced nuclear technologies.
Taking stock: where are we now?
While progress is encouraging, we still have a way to go before these technologies are available off the shelf. Even the vendors closest to market remain in design, licensing, or early demonstration phases. New nuclear is no longer purely theoretical, but it is still far from an established technology.
There are also important unresolved questions: how these systems will perform over time; how they will be financed, owned, and operated; how regulatory frameworks will adapt; and how issues such as waste management and emergency planning will be addressed. These questions can only be answered through experience — by moving projects from concept to operation and learning from them along the way. And that’s exactly what’s happening.
One reason this moment feels different is the level of sustained federal involvement and investment — an area of rare continuity in U.S. energy policy. Support for advanced nuclear has continued across both the Biden and Trump administrations, enabling momentum in addressing long-standing barriers that have kept these technologies from moving beyond paper studies and early prototypes.
Alaska is already playing an important role. Through defense-led demonstrations, research activities, and early commercial proposals, it is reasonable to expect continued discussion and activity in the coming years. While decisions about how far Alaska ultimately leans into a new nuclear era will rest with Alaskans themselves. In the near term, the state clearly has a seat at the table.
The Alaska Center for Energy and Power at the University of Alaska Fairbanks is hosting a free, online workshop Jan. 27-18, bringing together national experts and Alaskans to explore where nuclear energy actually stands today — technically, regulatory-wise and programmatically. The goal is not to advocate for a particular outcome, but to ensure Alaskans have access to clear, current information as these conversations continue. For more information, visit uaf.edu/acep/news.
