The Microreactor Race Is On

By Duggan Flanakin

For the past half century, successive Presidential administrations and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have thwarted the development of advanced reactor designs that might fulfill President Eisenhower’s vision for the “peaceful uses of atomic energy.”

That all changed last May, when President Trump issued four executive orders aimed at reinvigorating the U.S. nuclear energy industry. The Trump orders addressed advance reactor technologies – from microreactors to small modular reactors all the way up to advanced tech versions of the water-cooled reactors that power every active U.S. nuclear power plant.

Trump also pledged to revamp the NRC to cut costs and timeframes for bringing new nuclear energy facilities – of all sizes – into production. This revolutionary move ended decades of bureaucratic overkill that choked off what could have long been a preeminent energy driver.

Nine months later, multiple private companies are racing to become the first to bring their advanced design reactors to market, and several are already moving toward pilot plants in conjunction with governmental or academic institutions and funding.

The Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program, which is fast-tracking the testing of advanced reactor designs, selected 10 companies to compete to reach criticality (a state where nuclear fission reactions become stable and self-sustaining) by the nation’s 250th birthday celebration on July 4. The hope is that at least three of the 11 projects will meet that milestone.

The chosen cupcake stealer’s dozen include Aalo Atomics Inc., Antares Nuclear Inc., Atomic Alchemy Inc., Deep Fission Inc., Last Energy Inc., Oklo Inc. (two projects), Natura Resources LLC., Radiant Industries Inc.,  Terrestrial Energy Inc., and Valar Atomics Inc. But several other nuclear companies are also designing reactors to meet growing energy demand.

The Defense Department’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations (ANPI) program began in 2024, but last April the DOD selected eight companies to work to provide microreactors for U.S. military installations. Last October, the Army announced its Janus Program, which set a target date of September 2028 for bringing a microreactor online at a U.S. military base.

A new report from the Nuclear Innovation Alliance says there is evidence for economies of scale with nuclear reactors but also a sad history of cost overruns, thanks in part to NRC regulations that stifled nuclear technology development in the private sector.

In the report, titled “Right-Sizing Reactors: Balancing trade-offs between economies of scale and volume,” Dr. Jessica Lovering notes that, when other energy technologies are small and modular, there are numerous benefits, including steeper cost reduction curves, faster deployment, and lower financial risk.

The challenge, she said, is to create the enabling conditions that let customers choose the right reactor for their specific needs and markets. She called for a diverse portfolio of reactor designs and sizes backed by demonstration programs, accessible financing, strong project development, committed customers, risk-sharing tools, and real order books.

If, she concluded, industry, government, investors, and civil society can build that kind of enabling environment, the potential is great for cost declines on the scale of what solar and wind have achieved. And nuclear has reliability advantages over both.

Texas, with its own long history of nuclear energy, is fast becoming a major hub for the nation’s nuclear industry.

The newly created Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office is working to promote and develop these advanced nuclear reactor projects. Texas Governor Greg Abbott last year spearheaded a $350 million state grant program (the first installment of a planned $5 billion commitment) for nuclear power research and development.

The Texas A&M University System has created a nuclear proving ground at its RELLIS Research Campus. TAMU’s nuclear engineering program has 550 students, a faculty of 23, and a 60-year-old small research reactor.

Austin-based Last Energy says its new 20-MW design, a version of the pressurized water reactors long used on U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, will begin splitting atoms in July. But Last, aiming to be first, is planning to build a 5 MW version for the DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program.

Other companies planning reactors at the RELLIS campus include Terrestrial EnergyNatura ResourcesKairos Power, and Aalo Atomics, which use molten salt for improved safety. Designers say these advanced reactors will shut down on their own without releasing radiation.

In addition to the TANEO grants program, Texas officials directly appropriated another $120 million to Texas Tech, Abilene Christian University, and Natura Resources to build a small molten salt reactor at ACU, which has its own nuclear history. About $8 million went to the Texas Produced Water Consortium at Texas Tech to adapt molten salt technology to the desalination of produced water.

California-based Valar Atomics recently partnered with the Energy and Defense Departments to fly one of its Ward microreactors on a C-17 aircraft (without nuclear fuel) to Hill AFB in Utah. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and DOD Under Secretary Michael Duffey joined the reactor on the flight, which demonstrated that these portable reactors can be quickly deployed on both military and natural disaster battlegrounds.

Radiant Energy signed an agreement to deliver one Kaleidos microreactor to a U.S. military base in 2028 and inked a deal with data center operator Equinix to supply dozens to power its facilities. Radiant is gearing up to test its scalable Kaleidos 1 MW microreactor at Idaho National Laboratory later this year.

Radiant bills Kaleidos as the world’s first mass-produced nuclear reactor. Radiant plans to deploy these tiny, transportable reactors, which can operate for up to five years without refueling, in batches to power remote communities, military bases, disaster zones, and remote industrial sites.

Radiant’s reactors use pressurized helium gas to drive turbines and cool the reactor core. Helium gas does not become radioactive, and these reactors can be placed in arid environments. Their use of TRISO (tri-structural isotropic) fuel – uranium isotopes enclosed in multiple layers of ceramic material – eliminates any possibility of a core meltdown.

While the U.S. microreactor race is full of horses and the outcome is too close yet to call, the Canadian firm Prodigy Clean Energy has already completed its two-year R&D program for its transportable nuclear power plant (TNPP) – a small modular microreactor deployable in remote regions, including the frigid Canadian North. The effort was aided by a Canadian government investment of CAN$2.75 million.

Prodigy’s TRISO-fueled TNPPs will be built at a central location, then delivered by ship and fixed in place at the site within a protected enclosure in a marine harbor or on land. Fueling and final commissioning will be done before startup. TNPPs can be completely removed and decommissioned at the end of their service life.

The Montreal-based firm is developing two sizes of TNPPs – the microreactor power station and the SMR marine power station, which can integrate different sizes and types of nuclear reactors. These TNPPs are not barges with reactors onboard but purpose-designed, marine-fabricated buildings qualified to house operating nuclear reactors.

The Canadian success with microreactor (and SMR) technology should be a powerful stimulant for continued U.S. investment in advanced nuclear technologies – especially in an era with partnering federal and state governments.

Nuclear opponents remain well organized, but its actual (rather than perceived) safety record and its increasing versatility and reliability make nuclear an increasingly attractive option.

That’s why this well-funded race is on.

Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 14 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Johnson
February 28, 2026 6:36 pm

Why not nuclear-powered locomotives, and ultimately autonomous semi-tractors?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Tom Johnson
February 28, 2026 6:44 pm

No where does it mention the required mass of these things, even at micro-reactor size. How much shielding do they still need?

Graeme4
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
February 28, 2026 11:31 pm

Look at the recent photos of the microreactor being transferred by air recently. Gives a good idea of its size.

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
March 1, 2026 3:08 pm

And more to the point, there is seldom mention of the fact that proposed modular nuclear reactors will be around 25% thermally efficient, meaning they will need to dump about three times the amount of power they supply as electricity as “thermal waste” power into the environment.

Consequently, In terms of any single SMR providing electrical power in excess of about 30 MW, that’s not going to be accomplished by using just a large array of cooling fans with ambient air temperature . . . it will require access to a water source for liquid cooling.

Mobile nuclear reactors providing any significant electrical output? . . . forget about it!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
March 2, 2026 5:48 am

Opinions vary. Let the demonstrations prove the concept one way or another.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 2, 2026 8:30 am

Not just an “opinion” . . . instead, based on fundamental thermodynamics and engineering calculations.

But sure, wait on the “demonstrations” if you wish.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
March 2, 2026 8:38 am

I guess I need to clarify my last sentence above to specify I was talking about mobile nuclear (micro) reactors as might be used on a aircraft, train, bus, or automobile . . . obviously not the relatively large seawater-cooled military nuclear reactors used on submarines and aircraft carriers starting in 1954.

Colin Belshaw
Reply to  ToldYouSo
March 2, 2026 9:31 am

Forgive me, but it sounds like you have no idea what you’re talking about – there is no way the nuclear technology used for ship/submarine propulsion would ever be used in a civilian setting.

Colin Belshaw
Reply to  ToldYouSo
March 2, 2026 9:26 am

Have a look at LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors), and where the only generation trial on the planet is underway – the Gobi Desert. Not much water there.
And so far so good – a few months ago they refueled without having to shut down.
And that’s the point of these things – molten salts.
It is the Chinese intent that, should the current trial prove successful, the next step is a 370MW unit.
And Copenhagen Atomics intend to have their LFTR trial up and running next year, their aim being to house their factory production-line modular 100MW rigs in units no larger than a 40ft container.
Several years down the track, for sure, but once LFTRs (or similar molten salt-type reactors) are commercially deployable, the idiocy and profligacy of the wind and solar industry will be instantly destroyed . . . which I seriously look forward to.

Reply to  Colin Belshaw
March 7, 2026 9:01 pm

You didn’t mention—perhaps because you just don’t know—that the Chinese liquid fluoride thorium prototype reactor (TMSR-LF1) in the Gobi Desert (Wuwei, Gansu Province) is rated at only 2 MWt, at that size probably producing less that 500 kWe if it produces any electrical output at all, being a prototype.

The waste heat from 2 MWt at ~25% conversion efficiency can easily be dumped into ambient air using cooling fans . . . a very large array of cooling fans.

Please get back to me about “micro reactor” cooling when the rated electrical output power levels are 30 MW or higher.

JamesB_684
Reply to  Tom Johnson
February 28, 2026 6:51 pm

Nano Nuclear Energy has a reactor that might be small enough.

Reply to  Tom Johnson
March 1, 2026 5:25 am

Why not an atomic-powered bus with non-stop service from New York to Denver?

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Brian
March 2, 2026 7:17 pm

A friend and former colleague of mine, now deceased, was a PhD nuclear engineer. He was a jovial, personable, keenly intelligent guy with a unique sense of humor. We first met in 1989, professionally, as a consequence of the cold fusion kerfuffle. At some point, the “Big Bus” came up. My whole family had seen it when it first ran, and found it hilarious. That’s when we became friends. It turns out, all of the nuclear engineering PhD candidates were big fans of “The Big Bus.”

sherro01
Reply to  Tom Johnson
March 1, 2026 6:46 am

The historic bureaucratic choice: No nuclear powered trains allowed until electric trains powered by solar panels on the carriage roofs are given first bite of the cherry. Still working on breakthrough battery sources for nights. Geoff S

Reply to  Tom Johnson
March 1, 2026 2:51 pm

Yes, exactly, not to mention modular nuclear reactor-powered aircraft, automobiles and homes. If you buy into the current (IMHO absurd) marketing claims, “the sky’s the limit”.

Red94ViperRT10
February 28, 2026 6:49 pm

…mass-produced nuclear reactor.

This is where the SMR and micro-reactors really show their advantage… They’ll be built in a factory, under factory Q.C., which means any particular design needs only ONE approval to produce thousands, or even millions, of identical reactors, not a separate approval for each construction as is currently the case with the current single approved design type!

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
March 1, 2026 6:57 am

The problem is that these don’t cause just a “little bit” of inconvenience when they fail. We mass produce, for example, refrigeration compressors, that are hermetically sealed from the environment, sturdily built, operating at known design loads….and yet they fail, mostly due to lack of maintenance or control system failure. Consequence…warm beer.
Having a hundred thousand SMR’s scattered wherever is close to multi-megawatt power consumption sites, just cuz everyone says they are safely factory produced, sounds like many possible 3Mile, Chernobyl, Fukushima variations.
Steam boilers, once upon a time, used to blow up and kill people. Many regulations and inspection and code requirements were put in place for boilers in public places….yet once in while, over a century later, it still happens….and a boiler out of control is limited by how fast fuel can be fed to it, while a reactor can double its output every 10 seconds or so….

Randle Dewees
Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 1, 2026 9:59 am

Getting lots of down votes, but I think you have some reasonable points. Saying that “Approved Design with Factory QC” somehow eliminates any risks is clearly not borne out by technological history. I would bet a considerable sum that a mass produced unit, especially an early model, would be subject to some failures that then lead to “recall”. I think this is an enviable problem, but the development of this capacity is still desirable and necessary.

sherro01
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
March 1, 2026 10:23 am

Mass-produced nuclear reactor?
Nukes work by Mass Reduction, converting mass to energy, e=mc^2
Geoff S

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
March 1, 2026 3:09 pm

Dream on.

In reference to your word “identical”, ever heard about factory recalls for automobile production defects?

Randle Dewees
Reply to  ToldYouSo
March 1, 2026 4:01 pm

Or jet airliners?

February 28, 2026 6:52 pm

When I was growing up in the 1980s, this was still a dream. Why not utilize the energy found in nuclear bonds? There’s more there than in conventional chemical bonds. It’s always been a safety issue, and getting around the “nuclear boogeyman” mindset.

Bob
February 28, 2026 9:45 pm

Moving forward.

Michael Flynn
February 28, 2026 10:04 pm

. . . several are already moving toward pilot plants in conjunction with governmental or academic institutions and funding.

That sounds about right – when the subsidies run out, so do the “entrepreneurs”.

According to one website –

a Portable Nuclear Microreactor that Replaces Diesel Generators

Complete with pictures, glowing descriptions of the benefits, claims of mass production etc. only one minor problem – they don’t exist.

Diesel generators do.

Andrew St John
March 1, 2026 1:19 am

The Americans are powering forward with all these innovative designs.
The ability to power remote areas for literally years without re-fueling is going to be a boon.
But not in Australia – where the idiotic Green-Labour Govt has power.
Of course, we don’t need it – we have renewables. And Batteries.
And holes in our head where our brains flow out.

Reply to  Andrew St John
March 1, 2026 4:31 am

“innovative designs”

Including how to fight wars.

sherro01
Reply to  Andrew St John
March 1, 2026 7:00 am

The laws to ban new Australian nuclear reactors were actually passed by the Conservative Morrison government via a grubby deal for greens to add their vote for another matter if more nukes were banned in return. Elections followed, the Socialist Labor Party is now in power and loving the electoral appeal of No New Nuke policy.
This is absolutely disgusting politics. Shame on me who used to like the style of Conservative politician Julie Bishop was has guilt on her hands and confesses to it.
There has to be a lesson. Sunset clauses on new legislation might be an answer. As it is, Australia is handicapped by laws made in a brief throw away deal with no debate, no formality, no public wishes canvassed. This type of politics stinks. It is increasing with increased numbers of females entering politics. Men are not good with babies, women are not good with nukes. Geoff S

March 1, 2026 4:50 am

I can’t wait until they start carrying these at Home Depot.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Sailorcurt
March 1, 2026 10:01 am

But Kalifornia won’t allow them.

The Expulsive
March 1, 2026 10:00 am

Ontario is building a small modular reactor for the electrical grid, at Darlington, and there is talk of 7 more. That is what America needs for electricity as well.

Reply to  The Expulsive
March 1, 2026 3:19 pm

What “America needs for electricity” is a reality check, not hyperbolic advertising of unproven technology.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
March 2, 2026 5:52 am

Agreed. That said, they are merely following the model used to promote “green” energy technology. And you rarely complain about that.

Point is valid. Upvote applied.

March 1, 2026 2:46 pm

From the above article’s fourth paragraph:

” . . . multiple private companies are racing to become the first to bring their advanced design reactors to market, and several are already moving toward pilot plants in conjunction with governmental or academic institutions and funding.”

Ah yes.

1. It’s always a good idea to have a pilot demonstration of a new technology before sinking billions, if not trillions, of $USD into such.

2. Why am I not at all surprised that the “multiple private companies” are racing . . . racing “in conjunction with governmental or academic institutions and funding.“? Yeah, private companies not willing to risk their own funds/stockholder money in what they purport to be a good deal, when in fact taxpayer monies are made available for such. Same old, same old.

/sarc

Sparta Nova 4
March 2, 2026 5:43 am

” the potential is great for cost declines on the scale of what solar and wind have achieved”

Economy of scale is one thing. But absolute cost is another and solar and wind SYSTEMS do not make the cut.

Michael S. Kelly
March 2, 2026 6:55 pm

I wonder if any of these are accelerator driven reactors. That’s a class of fission reactors that are never natively critical, but are driven to criticality as a system by neutrons created by a particle accelerator which, after startup by an external power source, is run off of the reactor/generator output. Designs for these have been around for 60+ years, and they’re perfectly feasible – and arguably the fail safest type possible.