Department of Energy Celebrates Second Advanced Reactor Achieving Criticality

Today, as part of the U.S. Department of Energy Reactor Pilot Program, Valar Atomics’ advanced reactor design, Ward 250, successfully completed a zero-power fueled criticality demonstration.

Energy.gov June 18, 2026

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today celebrated another historic milestone in America’s nuclear renaissance. DOE Reactor Pilot Program participant Valar Atomics’ advanced reactor design, Ward 250, successfully completed a zero-power fueled criticality demonstration. The experiment took place at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab in Emery County, Utah, and marks the first DOE authorized reactor built outside of a national laboratory.

“Today marks another historic moment for America’s nuclear renaissance,” said U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright. “From the first-ever airlift of a small reactor aboard a U.S. military C-17 to successful zero-power criticality testing, Valar Atomics is delivering achievements that mark a revolutionary moment for advanced nuclear in this country. The Trump administration is proud to support the rebirth of America’s nuclear industry, ensuring Americans have access to affordable, reliable and secure energy for generations to come.”

Ward 250 is the second of multiple advanced reactors anticipated to go critical by the July 4th deadline set by President Trump in his May 2025 executive order. Criticality demonstrates that Ward 250 can sustain a controlled nuclear chain reaction, which must be achieved before the reactor can generate power. Earlier this month, Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 reactor achieved criticality at Idaho National Laboratory.

“Nine months ago, this was an empty site. Today, there’s a critical reactor on it, built and operated by the Valar team,” said Isaiah Taylor, Founder & CEO of Valar Atomics. “We met the milestone the executive order set. This reactor was built to make power, and that’s exactly where we’re headed. I’m grateful to the Department of Energy, the State of Utah, the local community, and the many people who got us here.”

The Department’s Reactor Pilot Program has catalyzed rapid innovation and progress in furthering American advanced reactor designs. The Reactor Pilot Program leverages DOE authorization to expeditiously certify and construct first-of-a-kind advanced reactor designs for demonstration. Building on the Reactor Pilot Program’s success, DOE recently established the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad to further accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.

Learn more about the Reactor Pilot Program.

###

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.
4.6 11 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
58 Comments
June 19, 2026 6:44 pm

Fort St Vrain.
‘Nuff said.

June 19, 2026 6:48 pm

I put this exact question to Google’s AI bot:
“How many different reactor designs have achieved criticality but never became commercial?”

And got this response:
“Over the last 80 years, well over 300 to 400 distinct nuclear reactor designs have achieved criticality but were never commercialized. This vast number stems from thousands of military propulsion units, hundreds of government-funded physics experiments, university research reactors, and dozens of modern advanced concepts still in testing.”

So, I’m supposed to be excited and amazed by the self-serving PR blurb from the US DOE given in the above article?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 19, 2026 7:13 pm

Most if not all the reactors mentioned by Google AI were never intended to become “commercial.” I gather that the power the Ward 250 “was built to make” is intended to be economical. With different leadership, however, it will suffer the same burden as many other designs, “How do we load on enough overhead to make it politically useful?”

Reply to  R Taylor
June 19, 2026 7:54 pm

“. . . were never intended to become ‘commercial’.”

So you say.

However, I put this direct question to Google’s AI bot:
“Were any of Westinghouse commercial nuclear reactors derived from designs first intended for military use?”

And got this response:
“Yes, almost all early commercial pressurized water reactors (PWRs) developed by Westinghouse, including the foundational Shippingport Atomic Power Station, were directly derived from designs created by Westinghouse for the U.S. Navy’s nuclear submarine program.”

As  philosophers and behavioral scientists have often pointed out: “Intentions are hard to infer and easy to lie about. Outcomes are observable”.

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 4:14 am

Facts. They are not your friends, PLS.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 20, 2026 6:23 am

“Facts. They are not your friends, PLS.”

Yet, in your reply to my comment, you are the one that fails to provide any facts. Curious.

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 21, 2026 3:32 am

You get what you earn, PLS, ridicule and derision. And I am happy to ram both right up your a$$.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 21, 2026 8:54 am

“And I am happy to ram both right up your a$$.”

So, you admit to having experience in this field . . . I’ll take that as your admitted fact . . . oh well, should I care?

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 22, 2026 10:04 am

Clearly you do, otherwise you would simply stop spewing lies and walk away, so more ridicule and derision is coming your way.

Denis
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 5:07 am

Of some interest, the Shippingport station was designed, built and operated by the very same Navy group responsible for the reactor plants in US Navy nuclear powered ships and submarines. The last Shippingport core was the Light Water Breeder Reactor, also developed by the US Navy. It operated for few years and was fully successful as it made more fissile fuel than it started out with.

enginer01
Reply to  Denis
June 20, 2026 6:17 am

Project PELE (nuclear reactor and 1.5 MWe Turbogenerator can be shipped as four 20 ft standard containers and is partly developed by BWXT, who are VERY familiar with nuclear submarines. Shipment to test site, later 2026. “Commercialization” (at military bases) Sept. 2028.

Reply to  enginer01
June 20, 2026 6:52 am

(deleted due to accidental repeat of the same comment)

Reply to  enginer01
June 20, 2026 7:10 am

Well, according to Google’s AI bot:

“A 1.5 MWe (1,500 kW) portable or mobile generator typically costs between $150,000 and $300,000 for a used or refurbished unit, while brand-new rental-grade units range from $350,000 to $700,000+. These are heavy-duty systems, usually mounted on trailers or in ISO shipping containers for transport.”

This is related specifically to fossil-fuel (typically diesel fuel) powered electrical generators that can be purchased or rented TODAY . . . no testing needed, no need to wait to Sept. 2028, or even longer for potential approval for non-military use.

Note that the PELE reactor is based on the use of TRISO fuel pellets which in turn use fissile Uranium-235 enriched to 5-20% concentration in the pellets, and likely will never be approved for “commercial use” due to restrictions on the spread of enriched uranium.

Beyond this, anyone think that a commercial PELE-type portable nuclear reactor and turbogenerator would cost $700,000 or less? Or that the political, NIMBY aspect of having a “nuclear reactor” sited within, oh, 10 or so miles of a person’s residence can be ignored?

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 21, 2026 3:33 am

And yet more proof of your inbred stupidity, posting aibot slop.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 21, 2026 9:00 am

And your facts supporting that claimed “proof” are . . .?

(referencing your post above of June 20, 2026 4:14 am)

ROTFL.

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 22, 2026 10:02 am

Sweety? You could be on fire in the middle of the street screaming “I’m on fire!” and it would be a lie. Why? Because you say it.

MiloCrabtree
Reply to  Denis
June 20, 2026 7:02 pm

Don’t feed the stinking troll.

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 8:06 am

In your opinion, because some of the early commercial reactors were based on military designs, all military designs were intended to become commercial.

As usual, you are twisting the facts to support your preconceived beliefs.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2026 8:21 am

“In your opinion, because some of the early commercial reactors were based on military designs, all military designs were intended to become commercial.”

Well, please re-read—more importantly understand—that I never offered such an opinion, but instead posted the reply from Google’s AI bot in response to my specific question.

As is often the case, IMHO you are careless in understanding what others are actually posting.

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 11:03 am

I’m reading you correctly, it’s just that you don’t have the courage to stand by what you wrote.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2026 11:46 am

I stand by, and confirm the verbatim accuracy, of both my question and Goggle AI’s response as I posted them.

Courage is required to state the truth, but only to those who abhor hearing it.

There.

Gums
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 12:53 pm

Salute!
Reason those early small, mobile reactors were and are still being successfully used for their purpose was their development and employment was not encumbered by EPA, OSHA, Sierra Club lawsuits, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and on and on……..
Gums sends…

Reply to  Gums
June 20, 2026 6:04 pm

“Reason those early small, mobile reactors were and are still being successfully used for their purpose was . . .” 

Hmmmm . . . there are currently around 95 commercial, large size (1.0–1.4 GWe) nuclear fission reactors operating across the United States, the exact number varying by the reporting agency. They are distributed across 57 distinct nuclear power plants in 28 states, and are being successfully used for their purpose.

Each and every one of these commercial reactors has had their development, construction and operation encumbered by complying with regulations from the EPA, OSHA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and on and on . . .

So, does size matter?

TYS sends arrivederci.

MiloCrabtree
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 7:05 pm

Get lost, troll.

Reply to  MiloCrabtree
June 21, 2026 9:07 am

For your benefit: not a chance because you have mistaken me for being a troll.

Why does this not surprise me?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 22, 2026 9:34 am

It was not a mistake. It is a perspective created by you.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 19, 2026 8:37 pm

Pavlovian response to the stimulus word “Trump” in the article.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 20, 2026 6:57 am

And your degree in remote, armchair psychoanalysis came from what university or college . . . that is, presuming it isn’t a “paper mill degree” that hangs on your wall?

ROTFL.

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 21, 2026 3:35 am

Trump. Trump. Trump.

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 4:13 am

You cement your position as Peak Lie Spewer by posting yet more aibot slop. Good job, moron.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 20, 2026 6:58 am

And your degree in remote, armchair psychoanalysis came from what university or college . . . that is, presuming it isn’t a “paper mill degree” that hangs on your wall?

ROTFL.

P.S. It’s easy to claim someone is lying when you are unable to supply any FACTS to support your position. Now, you were saying something about morons . . .

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 21, 2026 3:36 am

Post some more aibot slop, lies are all you got, and now you prove you are too stupid to come up with your own lies.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 21, 2026 9:13 am

Your repeated vitriol is running thin here on WUWT.

Care to try something else?

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
— attributed to Socrates

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 22, 2026 10:01 am

Slander requires it to be false, yet you keep spewing lies, so not slander. Go ahead, spew some more lies, it is all you got.

Denis
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 5:00 am

Toldyouso has a point, although unstated. The Anteres reactor which went critical a short while ago was not a machine designed or built to make electricity. It was just the core and criticality control mechanisms with no heat removal capability and no electricity making capability. It achieved initial criticality but fortunately did not make any measurable heat since there was no way to remove it. It was a publicity stunt to meet President Trump’s “criticality” deadline. It may be somewhat more useful that the criticality experiments conducted during the Manhattan Project of the early 1940s with two lumps of uranium and a screwdriver but no more wondrous. Nature with no human intervention at all has done it before in natural Uranium deposits with the right concentration of Uranium and the right geometry.

Is the Ward 250 “criticality” any different? Is it a complete machine which can start making electricity soon? I don’t know. Perhaps the President should have set a “first watt” criteria which would have required a complete or nearly complete reactor plant with all the fixings needed to make electricity. As toldyouso observed, there have been hundreds of screwdriver-equivalent criticalities over the years.

MarkW
Reply to  Denis
June 20, 2026 8:09 am

The design used in the test is the same design that is intended for commercial development. Just because that one unit was not intended to produce power is not relevant.
The purpose of the test was to prove the design and it did.

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 8:04 am

Your own example states that the “vast number” were military designs and physics experiments.
Obviously none of these were ever intended to be sold commercially from the get go.
As usual you seek the information to confirm what you want to believe.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2026 8:28 am

“Obviously none of these were ever intended  . . .”

And I repeat again, since you apparently overlooked it or didn’t understand it in my reply above to R Taylor:

“As philosophers and behavioral scientists have often pointed out: ‘Intentions are hard to infer and easy to lie about. Outcomes are observable’.”

2hotel9
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 21, 2026 3:39 am

Yep, and the outcome with you is easily observable. Post some more aibot slop, prove again how stupid you are.

MiloCrabtree
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 20, 2026 7:00 pm

Go away, stinking troll.

Reply to  MiloCrabtree
June 21, 2026 9:16 am

My, my, Milo . . . what a big nose you have.

Phillip Chalmers
June 19, 2026 9:49 pm

(At Energy.com there was no header making out that this was about “ENERGY DOMINANCE” with the announcement. Thumbs down to whoever attached it here at WUWT)
FIVE STARS FROM ME
I want to celebrate the news unequivocally. Excellent. Well done. Keep it up.
The victory which it signifies is defeating the cowardly, superstitious and ignorant nuclear phobia commenced by the decadent baby-boomers and perpetuated down into the new millennium.
NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PHOBIA DEFEATED is my hope and prayer.

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 19, 2026 11:41 pm

Far-left and stupid government needs to get over their phobia of CO2 and coal !

Denis
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 20, 2026 5:52 am

I agree with your goal. However criticality of Ward 250 is not a test of much merit. It is to be a sodium-cooled reactor meaning that the heat of fission is transferred to a boiler by way of liquid sodium. Liquid sodium is flammable in air, very corrosive to many materials and becomes intensely radioactive with the formation of Sodium 24 during reactor operation. Sodium 24 has a 15 hour half-life and emits strong beta particles and gamma rays upon decay. Its presence in a reactor requires waiting for its decay over a period of some days before maintenance can be done on the machinery. Additionally, liquid sodium is flammable in air so it is hard to drain it to do maintenance on broken parts. The US Navy succeeded in building the first sodium cooled power reactors, the S1G prototype and the S2G reactor which propelled the USS SEAWOLF (SSN 575), christened in 1957. It was not successful because of material failures and maintenance difficulties. It was removed from SEAWOLF after only 21 months of operation and replaced with a pressurized water reactor as was the S1G prototype reactor. All further Navy reactor development concentrated on pressurized water designs because of their durability and maintainability. A few liquid sodium power reactors have been built but they have never become mainstream in the power reactor business because of the many problems. Has Ward 250 solved them? Perhaps we will see.

June 20, 2026 12:17 am

The thermal efficiency of a electrical power plant using a nuclear reactor is 33% whereas the thermal efficiency of a electrical power plant using CCGT technology is 64%. Since the US has abundant supplies of natural gas, we don’t need any power plants using nuclear reactors.

How of much government grants, subsidies and tax credits are there for researching and building these advanced-design nuclear reactors?

Reply to  Harold Pierce
June 20, 2026 4:50 am

Many of the SMRs in development are high temperature designs that would allow secondary heat recovery generation or cogeneration that would rival CCGT thermodynamic efficiency. That race at the commercial level is only just beginning, so it is too soon to know if any high temperature designs will reach commercial roll out.

In the meantime, CCGT is by far the best thing going and is already deployed widely and scalable. When I was at Duke energy in the late 1990s, we were already rolling them out as fast as the turbine manufacturers could make them. I did the environmental assessment and permitting for one such project that went from greenfield siting, design, licensing, construction, and startup in only 18 months. Unlike useless wind and solar power, it was built at a compact site close to the users.

Reply to  pflashgordon
June 20, 2026 7:29 am

Thank you for the info. We have to convince Mad Ed to get some of the systems for the UK since there is much nat. gas in North Sea and that the CO2 released will enhance the growth of barley for use in the production of beer and Scotch whisky.

George Thompson
Reply to  Harold Pierce
June 20, 2026 10:51 am

Oh, by all means tend to that production…I like a light single and a very cold beer as a chaser. But then, I’m an American and am used to being called a barbarian

enginer01
Reply to  Harold Pierce
June 20, 2026 6:27 am

“A Small Modular Reactor (SMR) paired with a supercritical CO2 ) Brayton cycle typically achieves a net thermal efficiency between 45% and 53%. [1]
This is significantly higher than traditional light-water SMRs using steam Rankine cycles, which usually hover around 30% to 33% efficiency. The exact efficiency depends directly on the core outlet temperature of the advanced reactor type being used. (MIT) [edited]”

Higher efficiencies with higher temperatures require helium, because at those temperatures sCO2 results in coking even in Baker Hughes (BKR) super-efficient turbogenerator-compressors.

Should be cheaper than CCGT with less water use!

Reply to  enginer01
June 20, 2026 7:30 am

I saw a report on the TV news that the Iranians destroyed at nat. gas plant in Qatar that supplied ca. 25% of the current world production of helium.
The plant produced much sulfur from the H2S in the nat. gas. Those Iranians are bad guys and Trump should have taken out the mad mullahs.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
June 22, 2026 7:27 am

I never realized that helium and sulfur were as critical to the world’s economy as is petroleum.

However, in today’s world, those are certainly sufficient grounds for engaging in international war, and trying to force regime changes that are preferred by one country. /sarc

Reply to  enginer01
June 20, 2026 8:41 am

“A Small Modular Reactor (SMR) paired with a supercritical CO2 ) Brayton cycle typically achieves a net thermal efficiency between 45% and 53%.”

This, of course, has been demonstrated by all those “typical” SMRs paired with a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle that have been in operation since (when?).
/sarc

Reply to  enginer01
June 22, 2026 7:28 am

It is apparent that some readers just don’t know the following, as offered by by Google’s AI bot (and very likely other independent AI sources as well):

No operational Small Modular Reactor (SMR) has been permanently paired with a supercritical CO₂ (sCO₂) Brayton cycle for commercial electricity generation. While the pairing offers massive theoretical benefits—including efficiency boosts, greater compactness, and superior dry-cooling capabilities—the technology remains in the experimental, testing, and prototype phases.” [my bold emphasis added].
This AI answer links to https://www.energy.gov/sco2-power-cycles-nuclear for further details.

2hotel9
June 20, 2026 4:16 am

Again, until the frivolous lawsuit jackasses are driven out of America’s judicial system no advances will be made in nuclear power systems.

MarkW
Reply to  2hotel9
June 20, 2026 8:12 am

Or anywhere else

MiloCrabtree
June 20, 2026 7:14 pm

All,
toldyouso is a stinking troll. It is a parasite that engorges itself every time it provokes a reply. Ignore it and stamp out the infection.

Reply to  MiloCrabtree
June 21, 2026 9:20 am

You did not correctly capitalize my user name . . . but I’ll just ignore that.

Advice: you probably should double up on that blood pressure medication. /sarc

Sparta Nova 4
June 22, 2026 9:43 am

The significance is the restart of nuclear reactor development.

Google AI:

If you are referring to a nuclear reactor criticality test (the moment a reactor splits atoms in a controlled, self-sustaining chain reaction), the United States achieved this milestone on June 4, 2026. This was the first time in over 50 years that a novel, privately-developed advanced microreactor design (the Antares Mark-0) achieved zero-power criticality at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Note: 50 years.
Note: Privately-developed.

This is the second.