AI data centers may run on nuclear reactors from retired Navy aircraft carriers and submarines

[midian182]

Forward-looking: As more AI data centers are built and power demands increase, companies are looking toward unconventional means of supplying the required juice. One firm has proposed using the nuclear reactors from retired US Navy aircraft carriers and submarines to power an AI data center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

Texas-based HGP Intelligent Energy has sent a proposal to the US Department of Energy about using two former US Navy reactors to provide between 450 and 520 megawatts of constant power.

The Navy uses A4W reactors made by Westinghouse Electric Co. for its Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers (CVNs), and S6G-class units made by General Electric for the Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). The USS Nimitz is on its last deployment before entering retirement, while almost a third of Los Angeles-class SSNs have already been decommissioned.

The proposal claims that repurposing the reactors would cost around $1 million to $4 million per megawatt, which is still a fraction of what it would cost to build a nuclear power plant or a small modular reactor. HGP says that the reactors could be adapted to provide electricity as the grid struggles with rising demand and prices driven by AI use.

Bloomberg reports that HGP's plan would involve a revenue-sharing scheme with the government. The company would also create a decommissioning fund.

The entire project is expected to cost $1.8 billion to $2.1 billion, and the company plans to file for a loan guarantee from the Energy Department.

HGP also argues that reusing naval reactors could dramatically shorten deployment timelines compared to building new nuclear facilities from scratch, which often take more than a decade to permit and construct. Because the reactors were already designed, built, and operated under strict military standards, the company believes regulatory approval could be faster, though it would still require extensive oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy.

The reactors would be removed from decommissioned vessels and installed in a hardened, land-based facility near Oak Ridge, an area with deep nuclear expertise and existing infrastructure. HGP claims the setup could deliver decades of stable, carbon-free baseload power – an increasingly valuable commodity as AI data centers push grid demand to new highs.

The idea is raising some concerns. Critics point to challenges around transporting and refitting aging reactors, managing nuclear waste, and ensuring long-term safety and security. There are also political and public perception hurdles, particularly around repurposing military nuclear assets for commercial use.

Permalink to story:

AI data centers may run on nuclear reactors from retired Navy aircraft carriers and submarines

 

[yRaz]

While I hate data centers, I see nothing wrong with this. It might even be a good idea

 

[AlexIL]

While I hate data centers, I see nothing wrong with this. It might even be a good idea

It will be hilarious when one of these reactors decides to engage warp 5.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It will be hilarious when one of these reactors decides to engage warp 5.

These reactors are not Soviet Chernobyl quality. Even then Chernobyl requires insane levels of hubris to occur.

 

[yRaz]

It will be hilarious when one of these reactors decides to engage warp 5.

People are only hating on this because it's happening under Trump. While solar and wind are great, they can't replace coal and gas, just supplement it. We've been in a nuclear slump for at least 40 years, likely much longer. Nuclear fuel can be recycled at a rate of over 90% in many new reactor designs. The latest disaster, Fukashima, wasn't a bad reactor. It was the *****s who thought building one by the ocean on an active fault line was a good idea.

 

[Mercury Joe]

Never going to happen.

They are secret for a reason and repurposing one to use in a civilian operated plant will expose too many operational perameters to the public domain.

Redesigning the plant to remove/obscure these operational items will radically change the design, operating procedures and safety margins.

Some of the safety systems REQUIRE it to be used in a naval setting (I.e. in the water) that can not be replicated in a shore side facility without again requiring extensive redesigns negating any potential savings.

This is only the start of the reasons it is not going to happen discussion. There are a lot of other reason that would take a while to explain

 

[ThomasTECH]

We really need to stop wasting Uncommon Earth Elements and Rare Earth Elements!, power production should use common materials to do the exact same task. Electric cars use uncommon and rare materials to do the same thing as gasoline and diesel; which are common!, to get from A to B with passengers and load. We use the uncommon and rare elements to do what the common elements can do and when we need uncommon and rare elements for only what they can do we will be out or very low. No need to use Rare Earths to heat the water to power the steam turbines, just use coal or similar. Nuclear reactions to generate electricity is unnecessary. Best way is actually to use gravity to spin the turbines, hydroelectricity for example. There is no clean or green way to do it, there is only a wise way and a wasteful way.

 

[AnilD]

Nice. So the pitch is basically: these reactors powered floating cities and stealth submarines for decades, now they’ll be used to generate slightly better autocomplete.

 

[AlexIL]

These reactors are not Soviet Chernobyl quality. Even then Chernobyl requires insane levels of hubris to occur.

Three Mile Island incident happened on US soil with US reactor and only pure luck didn’t turn it into 3 Chernobyls. It happened in 1979, full 7 years ahead of Soviet reactor meltdown.

 

[Knot Schure]

Three Mile Island incident happened on US soil with US reactor and only pure luck didn’t turn it into 3 Chernobyls. It happened in 1979, full 7 years ahead of Soviet reactor meltdown.

That’s a wild comparison.

Three Mile Island did experience a serious incident, but the safety systems functioned as designed: the reactor shut down, containment held, information was reported, and the situation was brought under control. No mass evacuation, no long-term exclusion zone, no catastrophic release.

Chernobyl was the opposite. A fundamentally unsafe reactor design, a reckless test, disabled safety systems, denial at every level of authority, delayed evacuation, and state propaganda while radiation spread across Europe. The scale and consequences weren’t even in the same universe.

Trying to equate the two is *pure whataboutism*. One was a contained industrial accident; the other was a systemic failure compounded by secrecy and mismanagement.

If you treat them as comparable / similar events , then I've a litany of insults and judgements awaiting against you, that I'll withhold from this forum.