Who made the demo list for Trump's fast-track nuclear reactor scheme? America's Department of Energy (DoE) has named ten companies it will work with to test advanced atomic reactor projects outside of the agency's world-famous national laboratories, in line with President Trump's Nuclear Reactor Pilot Program. The DoE announced the program in June, following a Trump Executive Order that revised …
What a good idea....one small tinsey, winsey potential problem, how many of the countries below hasn't the Primate Of The United States pissed off.
"While the US has domestic uranium resources, it relies heavily on imports from Canada, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Australia. Specifically, in 2022, the U.S. imported about 27% from Canada, 25% from Kazakhstan, 12% from Russia, and 11% from Australia."
@The Oncoming Scorn
"What a good idea....one small tinsey, winsey potential problem, how many of the countries below hasn't the Primate Of The United States pissed off."
Australia isnt on the list of pissed off, the US is in a joint program for helping Aus with nuclear subs. Russia probably isnt on the list as Trump is one of the few in the west working towards peace. The US can also reprocess nuclear material if I remember right.
Hell it was Obama and Biden who pissed off Russia if you remember.
"Australia isnt on the list of pissed off, the US is in a joint program for helping Aus with nuclear subs."
This is true, but one of Trump's underlings has been questioning the value of the AUKUS deal on the grounds that the US cannot afford to let the Aussies have a nuclear sub, because the US need them all to face down China.
Given that a large point of the AUKUS deal is to ensure that Australia can provide a useful addition to the US Navy if it has to face down China, because it will have compatible nuclear powered attack submarines. the argument for the US pulling out of the AUKUS deal does seem rather poor.
However, experience shows that there is no limit to the level of stupidity that politicians (of any/every nation) cannot achieve (see for example Starmer giving British territory to Mauritius, probably in breach of international law with respect to the rights of colonised people (the Chagossians) to determine their own fate, then paying many billions of UK taxpayers' money to Mauritius to rent 1 island back..and them promising to tell Mauritius ahead of time if the US want to use it to launch a military attack from that island).
If the US do pull the plug on AUKUS (which I do not actually think they will do), I suspect that that would piss off Australia quite severely.
"If the US do pull the plug on AUKUS (which I do not actually think they will do), I suspect that that would piss off Australia quite severely."
I don't expect the US to pull out of AUKUS but I expect them to slow walk it to extract the maximum contributions from Australia.
It will be a very long time before Australia gets any nuclear subs.
@ChodeMonkey
"Madam, your typing is garbled. (More than is usual.) Are you having an attack of the vapours ? Or too much morning-gin ?"
I kinda understand people trolling to an extent, but what I dont understand is how trying to look severely incapable became the standard for trolling. I guess its the lowest common denominator thing where you dont (cant) think.
Either way stay on the beer and your comprehension may improve (you must be near rock bottom already).
@Casca
"Yes, lets reward the attacker. Excellent idea..."
I guess you are disagreeing with the secretary general of NATO Mark Rutte? If they are planning to come to a diplomatic end they probably will need to surrender territory. The only alternative I can think of is for NATO to actually declare war on Russia and fight them out of Ukraine. What do you think? I am assuming you have your own opinion on how to end this war? Do you?
Except none of these reactors are going to need Uranium, none of them are ever going to be build.
This is purely pork-barreling combined with a fuck-you to renewables (ironically since even most Greens now support nuclear )
The main "danger" is that it's going to paint SMR with the same Trump con that Trump-Coin did (perhaps rather more deservingly) to crypto
"While the US has domestic uranium resources, it relies heavily on imports from Canada, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Australia."
Those imports are due to the US banning or making it too costly to do any mining in-country anymore. Politicians are mostly attorneys so what would they know about manufacturing? Part of the problem with manufacturers going off-shore has been the collapse of a supply chain in the US. When I had a manufacturing company, the steel we used came from South Korea mainly. There was no domestic source I could find that would even talk to me as I wasn't an auto manufacturer. There's a very high end part I never got into production but might make now as a low-volume high margin product and the steel for that would come out of Germany as its never been made in the US and there isn't anything even close. If I do that, it might make sense to have the components machined in Europe so I'm not shipping all of the chips that will come off the lathe. Since I'm already getting parts shipped from elsewhere, I should see if there is anything else I need and can use to help fill up a container at a time to save on shipping. With steel parts, I expect that there will be lots of room left in the container for very light things as weight limits are approached. One can see how needing to outsource just one or two things starts to snowball. China started with raw materials and moved up the value chain to being one of the most sophisticated manufacturing centers of the globe. Now they aren't so keen to sell much in the way of raw material. Australia should use that as a lesson and find a way to slow ore exports and increase shipments of more value added products. The talent is there to do it, just not the framework or investment.
No one needs China as an example that finished goods export is preferable over raw materials; it's ECON 101. You just have to have the right conditions to be able to competitively finish the products. Soon enough, China will start exporting manufacturing to Africa. And Trump thinks we can go back to the '50s with our manufacturing. No, we need to concentrate on what we do best, education, innovation, and entrepreneurship. But he's doing his best to screw over our unis the best he can and destroying our position as the destination of choice for bright, young people to get educated.
"No one needs China as an example that finished goods export is preferable over raw materials; it's ECON 101."
And how many politicians have taken ECON 101? Counting money is where are their math skills are applied.
A tangible example is important as even people that have degrees will say "oh, that's just theory" too often.
There's lots of unexploited raw materials in Africa that remain due to political issues and a serious lack of infrastructure. China will start exporting the lowest value material creation or the most polluting to Africa over time and ship refined materials and "rough castings" to China for high-value work to be done.
@AC
"Reduced oversight and self regulation. How's that working out for Boeing?"
Boeing were regulated and still had however many problems. You cannot remove risk entirely.
"Now imagine safety problems with nuclear reactors"
Why? Even when reporting the Fukushima power plant imaginations ran riot and reality was nothing like it at all. We can all imagine the worst possibilities such as lightning giving people superpowers when struck by, or it causing computers to become sentient. Or alien attacks etc. We imagine all kinds of horrors but what does that have to do with reality. The world needs power generation, we have had decades of hope in technologies with very limited success at great expense. What is wrong with looking for better options.
The FAA delegating too much to Boeing, which is precisely the risk with nuclear oversight if standards are relaxed.
Are your Fukushima points even relevant?
Have you been there and seen the impact of a radiological disaster?
Your post reads like a wild hallucination rather than a response to anything. Are you okay?
@AC
"The FAA delegating too much to Boeing, which is precisely the risk with nuclear oversight if standards are relaxed."
Did the regulations change to make it easier on Boeing or did it just happen regardless of regulation. As far as I know it was the latter.
"Are your Fukushima points even relevant?"
Extremely. Fukushima is an example of an extremely bad nuclear power gone wrong event and the most recent! And it was not the big light show anyone expected, it was the overreaction to it that killed people and the expectation is not much to come of it. Of an old design that was destroyed due to an extreme catastrophe that actually did kill a lot of people and cause a lot of destruction.
"Have you been there and seen the impact of a radiological disaster?"
Where? No I havnt been to Japan. Is that relevant or just a hope of somehow discrediting because I havnt set my feet on that ground?
"Your post reads like a wild hallucination rather than a response to anything. Are you okay?"
If answers to your questions sound like a wild hallucination you may wish to check what is in your coffee, its been spiked.
"Fukushima is an example of an extremely bad nuclear power gone wrong event and the most recent! "
Somewhere I have a video presented by Jim Al-kalili where he did a good job breaking down the issues at Fukushima. It wasn't so much "bad nuclear" as bad company. Nobody knew what it looked like for the passive cooling system to be operating. There was some strange mandate to switch the passive cooling on and off rather than leaving it engaged after the reactors were switched off. Batteries and generators were housed below grade on a coast that is no stranger to tsunamis. A method of adding water using a fire truck didn't work as there was a design/build flaw that diverted back-fed water into the base of the cooling towers rather than the reactor core and was confirmed by building a model of the system from the as-built plans.
An interview of a reactor manager in the US had them standing underneath the exhaust ports for the passive cooling system and the manager said you'd know it was engaged with no mistake and they couldn't be standing there without being deafened and possibly scalded. That system is tested each time the reactor is taken offline for refueling. At Fukushima, the controllers had never seen it and couldn't tell if it was on or off (it was off). As with most accidents involving complex things, it wasn't just one issue that caused the disaster. In Japan, there's also the culture of never questioning a superior. There's some sense in that somebody arguing every instruction in an emergency is bad, but, conversely, not singing out when you are certain you've been given a bad order is also a problem.
See, for example: https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/14/cisa_begs_ot_admins_to/
"CISA is urging companies with operational technology environments to set a better cybersecurity posture, and not just by adopting some new best practices and purchasing some new software.
Operational technology (OT) refers to any technology that deals with physical processes, be it manufacturing equipment, energy distribution, oil and gas production, or some other industrial duty. Long isolated from the public internet but more frequently connected in our modern era, OT systems remain an afterthought for many security teams."
I wonder what the record on security is for those happy companies selected for this project.
....are already at the proving stage. Well, I can't say that about all of them, but I've read about a few of these companies, and I expect the rest to be in the same ballpark.
What we don't need is skimping on safety regulations. It wasn't a lack of safety regulations that got us TMI, it was bribery and fraud. We need to Model T these reactors, and stop handcrafting each site with fine Corinthian leather. Maybe get regulators in earlier on the design to try and head off problems. The SMRs we have coming are closer to the Model T than we've had. Now, if plant operators have the safety culture of the Rickover NNPP we'd in good shape.
Now, if plant operators have the safety culture of the Rickover NNPP we'd in good shape.
Yes, you're right. And some of them might be. But really, you have to know that if the world is paved with small nuclear reactors, most will be run by bean counters and MBAs. And those guys will no doubt blow the damn things up with dreary regularity.
Seriously, I doubt they'll build anything in one year other than maybe a mockup and perhaps some test jigs. We're talking nuclear here. The real reactor probably needs some specialized parts made from exotic materials. That likely means long lead times. And they probably can't order the parts until the design is locked in.
> microreactors small enough to fit on truck trailer
OMG. I'm so happy I don't live near any major road...
Not that I won't be hit by fallout when the accident happens, but I might at least get the time to assemble some personal items before having to evacuate for the next 20-30 years...
"See this: "
To be so lazy as to buy one of these things. I just got a food freeze dryer and I'm itching to make some meals, dry them and package them up. Mostly so I have things I can just pour water on and heat up when I don't feel like cooking. I'll stack some of it in my backpack kept decades from my Boy Scout days where I have a whole kit all ready to go. I'll add some to my bag in the car with my change of clothes, water, first aid kit, etc. It's a good idea to have some emergency supplies in your car in case you get trapped someplace which might be a long road closure behind a bad accident. The cops will be more interested in seeing the carnage themselves than getting cars turned around to the nearest detour. Even if you aren't caught in something like that, it could mean there aren't any tow trucks available if you have a breakdown not too far away.
DIY and save a load of dosh. You don't really own anything you can't carry in both hands at a dead run. Better if it's on your back and your hands are free for other things.
None of those 10 firms sound like the kind of people I'd want anywhere near nuclear but out of that ten, Atomic Alchemy, Deep Fission, Last Energy are tech bro "hurhurhur me so smart and funny" names but Radiant Industries should be given a restraining order to keep them at least ten miles or an island away from a reactor because hell no, the last thing I want from a reactor is for it to be radiant.
Don't forget "Valar Atomics"
I mean, what the F do the "gods" of the First Age Quenya (Tolkein's "High Elves" - yeah, we all know what "pipeweed" is) know about nuclear (or, in Dubya speak, Nuke-uler) reactors?
Or, is this another one of those "the Gov't 'trusts' companies with names ripped off from Tolkein" (I'm looking (back) at you, Palantir!) so, Venture Capitalists bend over backwards during funding rounds" examples?
Tolkien Fans (i.e. "Nerds") all facepalm time.
It's about time! We need at least 200 new nukes in the US alone to run all these power sucks. Those EVs and data centers aren't going to run off sunshine and unicorn farts anytime soon, especially since data center power usage by itself is growing faster, and accelerating, than solar panel and windmill production put together are.
The only plus here is when AI implodes and takes cloud computing with it, we'll have more juice capacity than we know what to do with.
"Those EVs and data centers aren't going to run off sunshine and unicorn farts anytime soon"
EV's are a different argument. Power is already being used to refine crude oil into transportation fuels so it's a matter of using that power to charge batteries instead. The data centers are new so need to be added to the load since they aren't replacing anything (Yes, there's is a little bit of that in both instances since more people learn to drive each day and get a car so it's not a completely zero-sum calculation)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
