First American Nuclear (FANCO) has announced plans to relocate to Indiana and establish their first energy park featuring EAGL-1 small modular reactors (SMRs). The company revealed this significant development on November 4, 2025, forecasting the creation of approximately 5,000 jobs in the state. While the headquarters will be situated in Indianapolis, the exact location for the nuclear plant and energy park remains undisclosed.
Indiana lawmakers have actively pursued the introduction of SMRs, with several bills put forth during the 2025 legislative session aimed at attracting such technologies. SMRs are designed to be smaller than conventional power plants, potentially allowing utility companies to better align energy production with community needs. Despite their potential benefits, many residents express concerns regarding the implications of hosting a nuclear facility nearby.
Understanding the mechanics of traditional nuclear power plants can help illuminate why some community members are apprehensive. Like coal, natural gas, and geothermal plants, nuclear facilities operate by heating water to produce steam, which then turns a turbine to generate electricity. However, unlike these other energy sources, nuclear reactions are at the core of the process.
In conventional nuclear plants, water serves a dual purpose: it generates steam and cools the reactor, preventing the escape of radiation. The cooling water is housed in specialized, high-pressure systems to prevent boiling, while another water system produces steam for turbine operation. Historically, significant nuclear incidents have stemmed from failures in these cooling systems.
Three notable nuclear disasters often come to mind: the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and the Fukushima Daiichi incident in 2011. In the case of Three Mile Island, a valve malfunction led to a partial meltdown, releasing radioactive gases into the environment. Fortunately, no fatalities occurred, and government assessments indicated no detectable health effects for the surrounding population.
The Chernobyl disaster was far more catastrophic, with a power surge causing explosions that resulted in a complete reactor meltdown. This incident led to 28 immediate deaths and forced the evacuation of around 200,000 people. Ongoing health and environmental issues have plagued the area since then.
Fukushima’s situation arose from a natural disaster; a powerful earthquake and subsequent tsunami disabled the power supply necessary for coolant circulation. Despite automatic reactor shutdowns during the quake, the loss of backup generators ultimately led to a meltdown. Official reports attribute only one death to radiation exposure, although the broader consequences of evacuation remain difficult to quantify.
Technological advancements over the decades since these disasters provide some reassurance. The EAGL-1 reactors are designed with safety as a priority, employing lead-bismuth as a cooling agent instead of water. This choice may seem unconventional, as lead is a toxic metal, but it offers advantages when managing the high temperatures typical of nuclear reactions.
Lead-bismuth melts at around 255°F, which, while not extraordinarily high, is sufficient for nuclear applications. Its melting characteristic allows it to flow naturally without the need for pumps, ensuring that cooling systems remain operational even during power outages. Furthermore, the absence of high-pressure conditions reduces the risk of catastrophic explosions, such as those witnessed in Chernobyl.
Lead’s ability to block radiation adds another layer of safety. Similar to the protective aprons used during dental X-rays, lead can effectively contain radiation within the reactor, enhancing operational efficiency by maximizing fuel usage. The EAGL-1 is engineered to consume its own waste fuel and that of conventional reactors, significantly reducing the amount of nuclear waste produced.
Despite these advancements, critics remain cautious. The Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) has raised concerns regarding the economic implications of nuclear power. While the reactors can generate substantial electricity, the construction of nuclear plants often involves multi-billion dollar investments. The first newly constructed reactors in the United States were completed in Georgia in 2024 at a cost of approximately $35 billion.
Although SMRs are touted as a more cost-effective solution, the technology is still in its infancy, with only three operational units worldwide. Critics argue that the initial reactors may be among the most expensive to construct, leading to potential financial burdens for utility customers. They advocate for investments in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, which may prove to be faster and less costly alternatives.
Kerwin Olson, president of the Citizens Action Coalition, expressed skepticism about FANCO’s announcement, stating that SMRs are not currently cost-competitive with other energy sources. He underscored the uncertainty regarding their commercial viability and their ability to meet growing energy demands.
FANCO has committed to investing over $4 billion for the establishment of its headquarters and the construction of the nuclear facility. Details regarding any potential subsidies or tax incentives provided by the state of Indiana remain unclear. As the state moves forward with this initiative, the debate over the safety, economic feasibility, and environmental impact of nuclear energy continues to unfold.