Buckley Space Force Base may soon go nuclear.
The military recently chose the base in Aurora as the potential host of a nuclear microreactor to produce always-on electric power for the facility, home to Space Base Delta 2 and the Mission Delta 4 missile-warning system.
The proposed compact nuclear fission reactor at Buckley, which would produce less than 10 megawatts of electric power and would not be connected to the larger electric grid, could be up and running by 2030, the Department of the Air Force says.
“There is a growing need for energy independence and access to uninterruptible power supplies for national security,” the department, which oversees the U.S. Space Force, said in a statement to The Denver Post this week in response to emailed questions. “Microreactors provide steady, reliable, and high-density energy that is less susceptible to grid failures and system outages caused by disruptions like natural disasters or cyber-attacks compared to other energy sources.”
Buckley was one of to be part of the military’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program. The other two are Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana and in Texas.
It’s not the first time the use of a small nuclear reactor has been pitched in Colorado. Last summer, Denver International Airport generated headlines when it said it would explore the possibility of locating such a reactor on airport land to help meet growing demand for electricity while reducing the use of carbon-emitting power.
Less than a week after that announcement, DIA put plans to commission a feasibility study on hold after Denver City Councilwoman Stacie Gilmore questioned why the airport didn’t first consult the community and residents around DIA.
The Buckley proposal has drawn increasing attention in the weeks since it was quietly announced.
City spokesman Joe Rubino said Aurora city leaders were aware of the military’s plans at Buckley but said any questions would need to be directed to the Department of the Air Force. Aurora City Councilwoman Amy Wiles, whose ward encompasses Buckley, said she has heard some concern from constituents about having a nuclear power source so close to neighborhoods.
Some have questioned whether waste from the reactor could pose a hazard, she said.
“Because it is in a ward surrounded by homes, I would like to know what the safety and notification plan is if something were to happen,” Wiles said.
The Air Force department said it would engage with local leaders and the public once its plans were firmed up, including holding public town halls featuring experts from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy.
One critic of the plan is Chris Allred, the nuclear guardianship coordinator with the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. He said the reactor proposal at Buckley “is a key example of how nuclear energy is connected to militarism.”
“We are experiencing a nationwide propaganda campaign trying to sell nuclear energy to the public as clean energy that will help to mitigate the climate crisis,” he said.
But, Allred said, nuclear energy requires “massive quantities of water” — problematic for a state hobbled by a historic drought — and leaves behind an intractable waste problem.
“We should be allocating water toward organic agriculture and regenerative projects that help us to live in harmony with the environment, not investing further in nuclear technology and militarism,” he said. “We advocate for nuclear abolition because there is no long-term plan for management of radioactive waste.”
But Thomas Albrecht, the director of the Nuclear Science and Engineering Center at the Colorado School of Mines, said microreactors use nowhere near the amount of water that traditional and much bigger nuclear power plants require.
Most modular reactors, he said, can fit on the back of a semitruck.
“The water supply issue is a nonissue,” he said.
While there are no modular reactors up and running yet in the United States, Albrecht said some of those in the design phase will use molten salt, helium or liquid metal to help cool the fission process, obviating the need for large amounts of water.
And because microreactors are portable, Albrecht said, the entire unit can be removed and the waste processed or recycled by the private-sector contractor that provides the technology to the base. In Buckley’s case, the Department of the Air Force chose last month as its partner company on the initiative.
Modular nuclear reactors have more “up time” than wind or solar energy sources, Albrecht said, and they wouldn’t be subject to the emergency power shutoffs that Xcel Energy and other utilities have imposed to prevent wildfires during high-wind events.
“A military base can’t tolerate that,” he said. “It needs really stable, really reliable power.”
Still, the professor said, the military will need to bury and heavily fortify the microreactor to guard against terrorist attacks and ensure it can survive natural disasters. To that end, Aurora last year signed an agreement with the military and the FBI to prevent drone operators from flying unmanned aircraft systems over the base.
“They dig a hole or have a bunker in place, and they go underground,” Albrecht said. “The reactor has to be protected so that even in the event of something catastrophic, they are not accessible.”
The Department of the Air Force responded The Post’s questions through an unidentified spokesperson. The representative said any microreactor the military deploys “must follow strict federal nuclear safety regulations and environmental review processes.”
It would need an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or authorization from the Department of Energy before it could go online.
“This includes development and expert review of detailed safety and emergency response plans — from reactor design to decommissioning,” the department said.
