A quiet energy revolution is underway in the heart of West Texas. Abilene, a small town on the edge of the Permian Basin—America’s largest oil-producing region—is now home to the first Small Modular Reactor (SMR) under construction in the United States. In a moment laced with irony and historical significance, the energy stronghold known for oil and gas is pivoting, not away from its roots, but toward a bold expansion into nuclear power. And not just any nuclear, but advanced molten salt technology, designed to redefine safety, scalability, and reliability in power generation.
This project, outlined in Ed Ireland’s Substack post, is more than a technical novelty. It represents a critical litmus test for the future of American energy policy, offering a real-world alternative to the centralized planning disasters of Net Zero dogma. Instead of subsidized solar farms and wind turbines cluttering up the grid with unreliable power, we are seeing investment flow into nuclear innovation that operates on real physics and genuine potential.
As Ireland explains:
“A small West Texas town on the east edge of the Permian Basin, Abilene, Texas, has become the epicenter of a groundbreaking development in the United States’ energy landscape by building the nation’s first Small Modular Reactor (SMR).”
https://edireland.substack.com/p/the-first-smr-small-modular-reactor
In September 2024, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued its first construction permit for a research reactor in decades, giving the green light to Abilene Christian University (ACU) to begin building the SMR on its campus. Andrea Veil, NRC’s director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, said:
“This is the first research reactor project we’ve approved for construction in decades, and the staff successfully worked with ACU to resolve several technical issues with this novel design.”
https://edireland.substack.com/p/the-first-smr-small-modular-reactor
That kind of bureaucratic clarity and execution is practically unheard of in the sluggish world of regulatory politics—a refreshing development, even if long overdue.
SMRs like the one being built in Abilene are fundamentally different from the massive, billion-dollar nuclear plants of the past. According to the post:
“SMRs are compact, factory-built systems designed to produce between 50 and 300 megawatts of electricity—enough to power tens of thousands of homes. Their modular design allows for faster construction, lower upfront costs, and enhanced safety features.”
https://edireland.substack.com/p/the-first-smr-small-modular-reactor
What makes the Abilene project unique is its focus on molten salt technology. The design features passive safety systems—meaning if something goes wrong, it shuts itself down without needing human intervention or external power. In a world obsessed with “climate resilience,” that sounds like a genuinely useful feature.
In contrast to the typical parade of government grants and green subsidies, this SMR project is being bankrolled the old-fashioned way: through private capital, particularly from the oil patch itself. Ed Ireland writes:
“The initial funding for the Abilene SMR project came from wealthy West Texas oilmen. Natura’s founder and longtime Texas oilman, Douglas Robison, donated over $30 million to ACU to create the advanced nuclear lab.”
https://edireland.substack.com/p/the-first-smr-small-modular-reactor
That’s right—oilmen, not climate activists, are leading the charge for nuclear. Why? Because they understand energy and risk, unlike the bureaucrats trying to force-feed us inefficient wind and solar under the guise of sustainability.
The research backbone of this project is impressive. The team is not just tinkering in a lab—they’re backed by the NEXT Research Alliance, which includes heavyweights like the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M, and Georgia Tech. This alliance has secured a $30.5 million research agreement to support licensing and infrastructure.
In a country that has talked itself into believing that green jobs and wind farms are our future, this project is a refreshing case of energy realism:
“After years of hype about SMRs reviving nuclear power in the US, it is encouraging to see a project finally being built.”
https://edireland.substack.com/p/the-first-smr-small-modular-reactor
Indeed, and it’s not just being built—it’s being built well, privately, and with a clear mission: to provide reliable, scalable, and safe power without the delusions of utopian carbon accounting.
The greatest irony—gently noted by Ireland—is that this innovation is happening in the shadow of the Permian Basin:
“The whiff of irony is that the first SMR in the US is being developed in the backyard of the largest oil and gas field in the US… But if production in the Permian Basin ever starts declining… the region now has a backup plan—being the SMR capital of the world!”
https://edireland.substack.com/p/the-first-smr-small-modular-reactor
This isn’t about replacing oil or bowing to climate alarmism. It’s about building redundancy and resilience—principles sorely lacking in the top-down vision of energy policy emanating from the climate summit circuit.
If anything, the Abilene SMR represents a throwback to American ingenuity and a potential pivot toward energy pluralism: oil, gas, and nuclear working in concert—not competition—to meet the needs of a nation that still runs on power, not press releases.
In the final analysis, this is a project to celebrate—not because it checks some ideological box, but because it works. It’s funded privately, regulated rationally, and constructed in a community that understands energy. That, in today’s climate of technocratic fantasy, is a rare and welcome development.
H/T Paul Homewood
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s about bloody time.This makes my day. 👍😎😊
Dont quit the day job yet.
Molten salt is not a walk in the park.
Agreed, but at least we are starting on the way to the park. So much better than the stasis since the late 60’s
Agreed, but at least we’re putting the leash on the dog.
The Green Blob will, of course, try to inflict lawfare on the project.
I’m amazed this was approved by the NRC so quickly after Trump was inaugurated again. Their policy up to January 20 2025 was to not issue any permits for new nuclear reactors, period. In fact, the guy who ran the Radiation Laboratory at University of Maryland told me some time ago that they had been trying to get their TRIGA reactor relicensed for the past 25 years. Look up the General Atomics TRIGA reactor. It was designed to be operated by students (undergraduates), and is absolutely bulletproof – there is no safer fission reactor on Earth. Oddly, UofM was able to still operate the reactor under an interim license of some kind, but I believe there were some limitations.
This bodes well for the future of electric power in the USA.
Hope at last !!!
Operational in 2026?
I had the same question,
thinking, how long until we have a (real, not estimated) cost,
and, what happens to the cost of local electricity 5 years after completion?
2026 seems a bit ambitious.
From ACU website timeline for 2026: “The Molten Salt Research Reactor, the first deployment of the Natura MSR-1, will go critical on the campus of Abilene Christian University.“
Going critivcal is the easy bit…
Definitely!
I have reservations about MSR’s, but I do think it is a good thing to build a research reactor to get real data on MSR operations. It’s possible that MSR’s will at least partially live up to their hype (not holding my breath). We will at least learn something.
Even better if it’s not on the governments dime.
An excellent idea. I personally am a skeptic about Small Modular Reactors. They seem to me to be somewhat utopian. But I’d really like to be wrong about that. And we’re really not going to know that until we’ve built and operated a few for a while.
Why am I skeptical? It seems to me that a 60MW SMR has to be one 17th the cost of of 1000MW conventional plant. And 17 times safer. And 17 times as easy to permit/site. And to produce 17th or less long term nuclear waste. And to require only 1/17th the staff of a large reactor. I doubt they will prove to be all those things. And they may not be any of them.
But we won’t know til we build some.
Haven’t you ever heard about AI? I’m sure it will manage the whole thing just fine.
That and robots. 🙂
A suggestion appropriate to this scale:
Try ‘U.S. Nuclear Navy’ (submarines, carriers, icebreakers etc.)
And stop worrying about short-term cost, when Security is the paramount issue.
I was taking RADAR classes in Vallejo California in 1965-66, not too long after the first nuclear sub was put in action. There were entire classes of sailors gong through Nuclear training, so it’s been a long time coming. This should have been happening at least 20 years ago. I’m glad it is happening now, but these things take time, so we won’t see real results for awhile.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/uss-nautilus-commissioned
….went to Nuc school there in 1970 …
😉
Class 70-2, S1W, SSN-660, STE, retired 1995
Yes to your sentiment. It took 50 years for the “China Syndome” generation to age out of town hall meetings in suburban USA.
I’ve said this before, but ironically, the feared “event” that occurs when the not-being-tested-as-it-should component fails in the movie turns out to be a nothingburger, since the plant’s safety mechanisms step in and put an end to it without any meltdown or disaster.
I remember *talking* with friends about the much ballyhooed “China Syndrome” about the time when the movie came out, but later when I actually saw the movie, it was all hype and, in even the movie’s “reality,” a non-event.
Well I get 1/17th of the cost.
I don’t see why it has to be 17x safer, since western nuclear plants are already the safest electric generation there is. A mere 2x or 3x as safe as “really, really safe” should be more than sufficient.
As of ease of permitting/siting, I would think that once a modular design has been tested and accepted, a standard set of any required “conditions” for siting can then be established, for which “permitting” can then be accepted on a “standardized” basis, making it infinitely easier to permit and site compared with massive, one-off designs that must each be considered as unique projects.
Waste and staff considerations should be minor once the waste of costly “specialized” engineering, cost overruns and endless eco-nazi “challenges” are dispensed with.
Ripper Rita and now Canberra in Oz can be the first user pays net-zero lab rat for us all with their battery backed fickles or whatever. You get the whole of ACT borders for a stand-alone net-zero demonstration grid as the first phase while the second phase kicks in whereby any new or interstate transfer vehicle must be an EV. Call us when it’s all cranking out the weather.
There is worldwide advancement of SMRs – just search it. Thorium liquid salts cooled reactors can produce abundant cheap safe electric power.
Upon completion.
After a decade of ironing out the issues.
Still, it’s a start
Been hearing “can produce” for decades. Show me the Watt Hours.
Navy ran one for a year back in the 60’s. If they can, we can with the improved process controls and better understanding of metallurgy.
Which one is that, please?
Listen skeptic it’s like the cheaper inflammable everlasting battery that can add 1000kms EV range in 5 minutes when HELE coal power aint sexy anymore.
Bill Gates and his TerraPower company are also building their first 4th generation nuclear reactor in Wyoming.
TerraPower: What We Know About Bill Gates’s Nuclear Power Plant In Wyoming
So, as we enter the era of 4th generation nuclear power technologies, I hope that it will become harder for the climate alarmists and Green Blob to keep justifying wind turbine and solar farms. Nuclear leaves wind and solar far behind in the dust with the far superior energy density of the former. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
KILL WIND TURBINES, NOT AVIAN AND MARINE WILDLIFE (ESPECIALLY EAGLES).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower
Yes, on paper it looks great. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Geez I loathe creepy Bill.
Bill Gates is a mixed bag with me.
On the downside, he believes the climate alarmist narrative and wants to engage in geoengineering in an effort to cool the Earth. He also is producing artificial meat in labs.
On the upside, he is putting some of his money into the development of 4th generation nuclear technologies which I support and mentioned above.
If he would dump the climate change narrative and forget about geoengineering the climate, my opinion of him would go up a few points.
Bill Gates needs to retire and enjoy his money. Ever since he sold the “blue screen of death” crap to the world he has been an under performer and will get no support from me.
Instead of subsidized solar farms and wind turbines cluttering up the grid with unreliable power
… and the environment…
Story Tip
High-income groups disproportionately contribute to climate extremes worldwide
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02325-x
It’s Nature.
It’s based on models and attributions.
The good news is it points out the hypocrisy of the climate elitists.
Seems this Texas site may be on the better cutting edge.SMRs Currently OperatingAs of 2025, there are several small modular reactors (SMRs) currently in operation, mainly in Russia, China, and India. These include:
As of 2022, there were only three small modular reactors operational globally, located in Russia, China, and India.
There are a bunch of SMR’s onboard submarines and some surface vessels since 1954.
No argument on data. Wondering:
Why is Siberia not counted as Russian?
Hip – hip – hooray!
About damned time!
I am cautiously optimistic and not prepare to declare victory at this point.
Let the demonstration continue. Once we see the results, we can regroup and then have the celebration.
Downer. Just the fact that nuclear energy is being considered is a win. 🙂
While the point is valid, consider decades ago when SV and WTG were considered a win and not because of climate alarmisms.
I fully expect it to work. I fully expect the economics to prove out.
In my work, verification is vital, so let the demonstration project proceed.
Then we can verify it. Then we can celebrate.
This project is really a university test reactor. It only produces 1MW thermal energy and will produce no electricity. It has two salt loops one circulating the fuel, with the second taking heat from the primary and circulating it through an air-cooled heat exchanger. It basically dumps all the heat generated to the air on campus.
Baby steps, you have to walk before you can run. Lots to work out and optimize in the design, metallurgy, configuration, etc. Hopefully it will generate some good design data to scale up to a standardized system. Maybe in a decade? Maybe a little faster.
Lots of nice words of hope . . . please get back to me when the Abilene-sited SMR has produced a year’s worth of commercial-scale power at an average cost per kWh that is competitive with standard uranium-fueled power plants, let alone competitive with CCGT power plants.
I can wait.
A down vote for skepticism. Shameful.
I agree. Full speed ahead, but the sailors do not get to celebrate until the ship returns to port.
. . . and assuming their ship doesn’t sink on the journey.
Show us a wind farm or solar farm that can – including ALL COSTS of providing it in a dispatchable fashion 24/7 for the whole year.
Uhhhhh . . . the topic was innovation/roll out of a SMR, nothing to do with wind or solar energy.
Thanks for the invite, but I’ll decline as is appropriate in this case.
Please, good people who are WUWT readers, do not get too panic stricken about the prospect of some new little reactors in the US. Please, do not forget the 80 or so ships in the US fleet that run on nuclear, day in, day out, with scarce a mention. These reactors are extremely simple in concept, quick and easy to build and largely trouble free.
If there is a problem with hooking a small reactor to the front end of a turbine/generator, it is a wealth of excellent options that paradoxically seems to slow down manufacture because all and sundry onlookers insist on every little part being best available technology. Simple designs that are less than perfect would still sit down and hum their way to success.
So, readers, please do not join the Nervous Nellie mob stopping and delaying what they can in case it is not global best known.
As an analogy, society overall would love to be owners of Rolls Royce or Cadillac cars but they are mostly priced out of the market. A Ford pickup is not merely adequate for many in the US, it is far better than the bicycle that folk in poorer countries aspire to. Be happy with the bird in the hand, don’t get anxious about the two in the bush. Reject nuclear opposition ideas as much ado about nothing. Mix your metaphors with gay abandon – and just get on with the job. It’s a cinch. Geoff S
When you need good, reliable power and the ability to haul heavy loads of goods or people, the simple Ford truck is a winner, hands down. The Rolls Royce and Cadillac are only good for showing yourself off with oppulance, NOT for carrying heavy loads!
With vehicles, I always start with the premise that they\re basically a tool.
So you buy the tool that best fits your specified personal transport and goods movements needs.
Anything you choose to buy beyond that with your own money is a personal indulgence.
Which as always you are quite entitled to do with your own money.
Same here.
Mr. Scott put it aptly. “The right tool for the right job.”
Two examples. One shows the right way. The other shows how to do it wrong.
The F-16 was produced in blocks. The birds in a block had the same technology, simplifying logistics, maintenance, and so forth. If a new technology emerged it was a side project developed for a block upgrade. It worked very well. It was a form of continuous product improvement.
In the mid-80s a new bird (not mentioning specifics) I was indirectly involved in. At that time the concept of “Spiral Development” came into play. It was grossly misapplied. What was supposed to happened is what was done on the F-16. Instead, when a new technology, such as a more powerful microprocessor, emerged, the affected subsystem was reset to insert the new technology. So, instead of having first flight in 2-3 years, first flight was delayed until after the 10th year. Cost overruns were enormous and the worst of it is, instead of having an air fleet of these birds, we got a couple of squadrons.
So, readers, please do not join the Nervous Nellie mob stopping and delaying what they can in case it is not global best known.
Correct.
Sounds good. Don’t hold your breath though. And in the meantime, bring back coal power. And no more useless and expensive bird and bat choppers and fryolators.
Agreed -the US is The Saudi Arabia of Coal, and shouldn’t be bashful about using it.
Coal and nuclear are the best “baseload” power, since fuel for both can easily be stockpiled. Unlike gas, which is dependent on continuous pipeline supply flow.
More good news. Now let’s get going on the next one and the one after that and the one after that.
SMRs are nice, but small. The US needs about 1000 one TWe nuclear power plants. The price of nuclear Gen III+ passive cool-down reactors was regulated out of sight to suppress construction. That can change with Trump, if someone asks. Gen III+ reactors can co-produce, increasing their efficiency, and with use of process heat, can reach 60-70 % efficiency. That is impossible with intermittent renewable energy (IRE),which produce no useful heat, only global warming. Full Cost of Electricity, FCOE, shows that gas, nuclear, and coal are all cheap compared with IRE. Ask anyone in Europe, after the Iberian Event, how energy secure they feel. Those wind and PV industry types asserting differently are protecting their own pocketbook at the expense of everyone else.
What is being built is a 1 megawatt thermal molten salt cooled reactor to further explore the feasibility of building molten salt cooled power reactors. It is a small research reactor. It will produce no electricity whatsoever. It is not a “Small Modular Reactor” meaning a nuclear reactor that produces electricity. A molten salt test reactor was first built in the 1960’s which operated for about 4 years at no more than half power and revealed several problems with the concept most notably the incompatibility of the materials of construction with the salt coolant. This article is gibberish.
There are also some fusion test projects underway. Tech demo in NJ (I think) and small scale in VA.
Should we call the race between fusion and SMR the “Preakness” or something more relevant?
Much better to take small steps in investigating a technology to find as many problem areas as possible. I would like to think that progress has been made on material incompatiblities since the the MSRE at Oak Ridge. There are some very nice features about MSRs that make this research worthwhile.
Having said that, it’s possible the the problems with MSRs are not solvable.
Fantastic news!
I sincerely hope this venture does for SMR technology what Space X has done for rockets and space travel.
Example of a government monopoly creating an undersupply despite “unlimited” resources then getting passed by unserved demand.
If governments could put humans in space 70 years ago, it would be absurd if private business could not do it now.
The bureaucrats will try and find a way to stop it! It removes their power over us.
Trump trumps the bureaucrats…. for the next 4 years anyway.
Huh? The project is probably government funded.
Is ACU’s physics department running this?
“The project, spearheaded by a collaboration between Abilene Christian University and local stakeholder Natura Resources, marks a pivotal moment in the transition to advanced nuclear energy deployment in the US.”
If ACU is Abilene Christian, the answer is yes.
The true pivotal moment for SMR’s on the North American continent will happen in the early 2030’s if and when Ontario Power Generation’s first 300 MW GE Hitachi BWRX-300 reactor comes on line at Darlington after having been delivered on cost and on schedule.