https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/energy-department-says-advanced-nuclear-reactor-first-to-reach-critical-milestoneWASHINGTON (AP) — The Energy Department says a small nuclear reactor under development at a national lab has reached a crucial milestone that could allow it to produce electricity within a few years.The microreactor being developed by Antares Nuclear Inc. at the Idaho National Lab reached "criticality" on Thursday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said. The milestone occurs when a nuclear reactor achieves a self-sustaining chain reaction capable of producing a steady release of energy.Antares is the first private company to bring an advanced reactor to criticality under a pilot program begun last year by the Trump administration meant to supercharge nuclear energy production in the U.S. The demonstration was conducted in partnership with the Energy Department and other contractors with support from the U.S. Army."We are very excited by this news today," Wright said Friday on a call with reporters. "I think June 4th will be a historic day in the American nuclear renaissance."
Antares and its partners "have shown America can do bold things," Wright added. "America has great technology, great entrepreneurs that are ready to drive energy innovation to power our future, lower energy costs and make our country more powerful."Trump administration pushing to ramp up nuclear powerThe achievement shows that the Trump administration's push to remove regulatory barriers is helping to advance new nuclear technologies, Wright said.President Donald Trump signed executive orders in May 2025 intended to speed up the development of nuclear power, including steps that grant Wright authority to approve some advanced reactor designs and projects. Trump's orders limit some authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent safety agency that has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades.Skeptics warn that nuclear energy poses risks and say microreactors may not be safe or feasible and have not proved they can meet demand for a reasonable price.While the Antares system is years away from commercial use, achieving criticality is a notable step. The California-based company, which is initially targeting military applications, said it expects to begin producing electricity by late 2027 and see its systems deployed in the field by the end of 2028, CEO Jordan Bramble said Friday."Nuclear in America has been defined for too long by delays, by companies that said they would and then didn't," Bramble said in a written statement.At a briefing on Friday, Bramble said achieving criticality "is the first step on a roadmap toward producing electricity ahead of deploying this technology for customer sites.""Microreactors are a technology that's here today," he added. "2026 is the year where microreactors are becoming real. We're months to years out from being able to start deploying this technology to military installations."July 4 goal for test reactors
The Trump administration has set a goal of achieving the criticality milestone in at least three test reactors by July 4 — the nation's 250th anniversary.Officials have selected 11 advanced reactor projects, including Antares, to move their technologies toward deployment.In February, the Pentagon and the Energy Department for the first time airlifted a small nuclear reactor from California to Utah, demonstrating what they say is the country's potential to quickly deploy nuclear power for military and civilian use. The nearly 700-mile flight transported a 5-megawatt microreactor manufactured by Valar Atomics in southern California to Hill Air Force Base in Utah.The reactor — which did not have nuclear fuel — eventually will be able to generate up to 5 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 5,000 homes, said Isaiah Taylor, CEO of Valar Atomics. The company hopes to start selling power on a test basis next year and become fully commercial in 2028, he said.Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the transport flight, which attracted significant news coverage, was little more than a publicity stunt.He offered a similar response to the claims by Antares and Wright."This stunt is a rudimentary first step that has absolutely no bearing on whether the Antares reactor will be safe or commercially viable," Lyman said in an email Friday.The Energy Department's statement that the test "confirms that the reactor can operate safely" is false, Lyman said, adding that more testing of the reactor is needed.The administration has not resolved how nuclear waste will be disposed, although Wright has said the Energy Department is in talks with Utah and other states to host sites that could reprocess fuel or handle permanent disposal. States including Tennessee, Nebraska and Idaho have expressed interest in handling nuclear waste.
>>1518415Good. Nuclear power is the way we should've gone instead of wasting so much on wind and solar that doesn't meet demands. Now watch as this fact I stated summons the /news/-windsimp that's going to sperg out and claim there's a massive nuclear waste storage in Brazil that's out of control, that for some odd reason he can never provide a legit source for.
Given this is a conservative run operation, I can't wait to find out what corners they cut and safety concerns they ignored when the first reactor suffers a meltdown
Meanwhile, a games company is now so rich, they can afford to fund research into fusion reactors. Perhaps they'll be the first to perfect such, then mass produce these reactors thus making fission power obsolete.Tech Otakus Saving the World indeed
>>1518421>the party largely responsible for pushing the same nuclear energy we rely on today, for multiple decades, is going to cause a meltdown>any day now... give it two weeks...Every damn time we have this thread.
>an orange weiner whines in court about alternate power generation systems near his golf course three times>Scotland's courts tell him to go fuck himself three timesYou love to see it.
>>1518420>wasting so much on wind and solar that doesn't meet demandsNo one really cares about billionaire demands against cheap power they can't monopolize except retarded esl shills
>>1518423>Three mile island didn't happen>Also they can't be even corruptOkay
>the risk of meltdown>Three Mile Island>Chernobyl>FukushimaOnce is too many.
>>1518428This is what they do every fucking time we have a thread about nuclear energy on /news/. Every fucking time.>durrrrrr whatabout muh three mile islands>durrrr muh chernobyls durrrYou mean the worst nuclear incident in America's history where nobody died or got injured? And even then we doubled our safety measures by copying Admiral Rickover's methods in the US Navy that has never had a reactor accident in history?And you didn't bring up Chernobyl, yet, but I know it's coming, like it always does. The nuclear program under the same communism you Mamdani/Sanders-supporting faggots simp for. >Also they can't be even corruptLike they are in Minnesota? Oh wait, there aren't any Republicans there.
>>1518429>>ChernobylI FUCKING CALLED IT! Every time!
1. Trump always fails2. Speed running a Nuclear Plant is priming for failure anyways3. Idaho is a mess of retarded MAGA accelerationist militiasTrump accidentally nuking Idaho is actually a good thing though
>>1518430>Trying to totally change the subject from three mile island>Having a meltdown over thatHmmm
>>1518433>>Trying to totally change the subject from three mile island>my post talks about three mile islandhmmm
>>1518434Maybe don't have a nuclear melt down like 3 mile island
>Three Mile Island in US before that in Ukraine>1518431 has a meltdownCalled it.
>Joint European Torus in UK>games company in Shanghai funds research into the same>France sustains a test run for 22 minutesNever mind a new space race between NASA & CNSA, of greater importance is a fusion race.Just as UK, Cuba & China are at the forefront of Gene Therapy research: which, when perfected could make trillions for those countries concerned, fusion becoming successful is where the smart money is. That's the future, certainly financially.
>>1518435Yeah that terrible tragedy where nobody got hurt. That we haven't had since and will never happen again. And this is why retarded dems spend so much on the largest wind farm in the country, in southern California, which costs billions to make, millions to maintain, and doesn't come close to meeting the energy demands of Los Angeles. In fact, it produces less than half the power of a shitty coal plant built in the 70s in Missouri. This is why energy is so ridiculously expensive in SoCal; because California is the largest importer of energy of all 50 states. It depends on the same nuclear energy from neighboring states that democrats despise.
>a method of energy generation that pisses off TrumpAnd one millionth of an inch beyond the US Embassy in London, there's less than fuck all Trump can do about that near his golf course in that part of UK.There's even less than fuck all he can do about that in Scotland, as their legal system is separate to/different to England's. Not even the Parliament just down the river where the US Embassy is also situated can do anything to affect legislation in that part of the country, even if they wanted to.Those wind turbines near that golf course in Scotland which piss off Trump, who can impotently do nothing about such is a source of schadenfreude for dems.Fuck your feelings, rightists.
>>1518429Anyone comparing Three Mile Island and Fukushima to Chernobyl only demonstrates they have no idea what you're talking about.>>1518430>Like they are in Minnesota?Anon, no...you were doing so well...
>>1518442>Anon, no...you were doing so well...Don't want to hear it. Ilhan Omar is scamming her fucking ass off while everyone on /news/ defends that little Somalian pirate whore. Y'all can miss me with this bullshit about Republican corruption - especially this fantasy that Republicans are going to be corrupt and cut corners on the same nuclear safety standards that they've helped push for decades.
>>Now watch as this fact I stated summons the /news/-windsimp that's going to sperg out and claim there's a massive nuclear waste storage in Brazil that's out of control,I totally agree with you on this point.I even put a patent in for an idea to get rid of the radioactive waste.we built a giant ramp from the summit of Mount Everest to the bottom.unlike other systems that use solid rocket fuel and a maglev system, My idea is to use the radioactive waste to heat water which shoots out the back and use the steam as the propulsion system.we haul the radioactive waste up to the top of Mount Everest and put it on a rocket sled and shoot it down and it gathers such momentum that it shoots it into deep spacthere is a small danger of the well encased radioactive material falling into the ocean but t this can be retrievedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_sled_launchhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=avtQ8elxL-o
>>1518439Unhinged dRummpf rant.Liggerals are simply 100% mentally ill.That's why they lie like little piggies.
Unhinged migger meltdown by 1518454Miggers are simple and 100% mentally ill.That's why miggers such as this lie.
>>1518456Silence, piggy.
>>1518429>Once is too many.Now do oil spills
>>1518438>No one died so let's double downConservatives always taking the wrong takeaways from their fuck ups
>>1518438>And this is why retarded dems spend so much on the largest wind farm in the country, in southern California, which costs billions to make, millions to maintain, and doesn't come close to meeting the energy demands of Los AngelesNuclear is literally the most expensive form of energy. Yes, you need more wind farms to equal a nuclear plant in terms of power capacity, but if you actually build out those fucking wind farms, they will be cheaper than the equivalent nuclear plant.The largest nuclear plant in the USA cost about $76.3 billion to build. The largest on shore wind farm in the USA cost about $2.875 billion to build. The largest nuclear plant produces about 33,871 GWh per year. The largest wind farm produces 3,189 GWh per year. If you spent as much building out copies of that wind farm as it cost to build that plant, you'd end up with about 26.5x as many with a combined annual output of 84,633 GWh, or almost 3 times as much fucking GWh as the fucking nuclear plant for the same fucking cost.Excuse me, the same cost before fucking operating and maintenance costs, which is a fuckton higher for nuclear plants than wind farms, which is why wind is one of the cheapest forms of energy and nuclear is the most fucking expensive.
1518471 the lying migger is having a melty.
>>1518483>The largest nuclear plant in the USA cost about $76.3 billion to build. The largest on shore wind farm in the USA cost about $2.875 billion to build.Now show me the cost of maintenance over a decade long period.
>>1518485>Now show me the cost of maintenance over a decade long period.It's a fucking nuclear plant. Operating costs for a wind farm in the USA average about $40/kW. Operating costs for a nuclear plant average about $179/kW. This is per the DoE. These do not factor in decommission costs, just operating and maintenance. No, a nuclear plant is not cheaper to decommission than a bunch of wind farms either.I repeat, nuclear is the most fucking expensive form of energy. Its selling point is that it's greener than fossil fuels and that you can freely control the output making it highly reliable, not that it's fucking affordable. It isn't.And you can just fucking solve the reliability issue of wind with fucking battery networks integrated with the fucking farms. And no, doing that doesn't make wind suddenly more expensive than nuclear with modern battery tech even if you had to drain the batteries 24/7, which you wouldn't.
>>1518483You left out the part where nuke plants get a much better return on investment compared to other forms of energy, once you get past the initial cost of construction. As anon here alluded to >>1518485Also we don't have an infinite amount of space. The largest wind farm you mentioned is about 32,000 acres. We would need ten times that to match a nuclear plant. And I can only imagine how much of a fucking logistical nightmare it would be to drive trucks in and out of that field for maintenance and replacements. The irony in all of this is that those wind farms are not clean energy when you consider what's needed to maintain them.
>>1518486>Just build 200 square miles of wind farms in every city across the country bro
>>1518486You’re overpaid
>>1518493>You left out the part where nuke plants get a much better return on investment compared to other forms of energy, once you get past the initial cost of constructionNo, I didn't, and, no, they don't, you dumb cunt.See>>1518486>Also we don't have an infinite amount of spaceFirst of all, we functionally do. Second of all, wind farms aren't giant blocks of cement. They're fucking loosely collected turbines. Seriously, there's only like 12 per square mile. There's fuck all stopping you from sticking other shit in between them. Which is why you see wind farms, solar farms, and actual farms all sharing the same fucking space nowadays. The idea that we don't have enough fucking space to house a few hundred thousand wind turbines is nonsensical. Especially factoring in off shore farms which are even more fucking efficient.>>1518496How many square miles of *actual farms* do you think support each city across the country? You think we can't put wind farms on that shit? Hell, how many square miles do you think the country is? Also 200 square miles of wind farms for every city across the country would be way WAY more energy than we need even if we only built wind. Even just 200 square miles of wind farms for cities with populations greater than 100k would cover the energy needs for the entire country and then some.Man, I don't even fucking like on land wind. Solar is more efficient, more consistent, and requires less maintenance. But you all are acting like dumbfucks.>>1518497If green energy had enough paid shills to hit sites like this shithole, fossil fuels would have been phased out by now.
With free electricity via solar panels powering both a building with batteries & charging an electric car, this person phases out wrong opinions:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzHhU4EorOM
>>1518511> Solar is more efficient, more consistent, and requires less maintenance.The flow of energy they produce ebbs and flows with seasons and weather. The energy sector needs to produce lighter batteries with larger storage capacity for your green energy dream to become a reality.
>>1518415Is picrel? Wtf happened there
>>1518520It's 2026. Grid storage is already 40% cheaper than nuclear and the price is cratering, dipshit.
>>1518486>Operating costs for a wind farm in the USA average about $40/kW. Operating costs for a nuclear plant average about $179/kW. This is per the DoE.Can you post a link to this DoE source? I'm not finding it anywhere. In fact I found something that said the opposite.https://www.nei.org/getContentAsset/47fa8caa-9b0d-4029-932c-07f902e82f4f/8d8ff8d6-b2ae-401b-a63c-f6b108e809d2/2024-Costs-in-Context-final.pdf?language=en-US>In 2024, the average total generating cost for nuclear energy was $33.74 per megawatt-hour (MWh). >>1518511See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY>First of all, we functionally do.No we fucking don't, because if we did the entire Tehachapi Pass would be filled with these already. So what's stopping California from doing this?>If green energy had enough paid shills to hit sites like this shithole, fossil fuels would have been phased out by now.You had the largest paid shill ever to exist: Biden. How did his green energy executive orders go again? Oh yeah, he accomplished fuck all besides raping our economy. Now everyone watch as this anon blames covid for all of his decisions the entire term.
>>1518421see. this is why trump gets things done. no other president can both cut basic science funding across the board and bring forward a nuclear reactor design in under a year by waving his magic sharpie. ignore the naysayers that say this is all part of a pump and dump scheme. they just jelly.
>>1518534>he accomplished fuck all besides raping our economyyou've been btfo every time you try to defend thatirrationally hating wind farms because trump does is cringy tds shit, you need help
>>1518534>https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/NZW09%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Cost%20Estimates%20for%20Net%20Zero%20World%20Initiative.pdf>Table 2. NEI report US fixed (operations) and variable (capital and fuel) nuclear O&M cost breakout>>1518534>So what's stopping California from doing this?Nothing. Why the fuck do you think there are new green energy projects all over the fucking country? Capacity is being built out, dumbfuck.
>>1518538>>Table 2. NEI report US fixed (operations) and variable (capital and fuel) nuclear O&M cost breakoutAnd? I'm not seeing the $179/kW figure anywhere, in this .pdf or anywhere online. I DID find the $179/kW figure being cited from copilot AI, but the report it cites from world-nuclear.org doesn't show that figure anywhere in it's report.So where did you get this $179/kW number from?
>>1518539>Table 2. NEI report US fixed (operations) and variable (capital and fuel) nuclear O&M cost breakoutLearn2read
>>1518540Where did you get this $179/kW number from? Show me the actual quote.
>>1518541It's a table. What are you expecting me to quote? Search for $179 or the table name.
>>1518537>irrationally hating wind farmsnot irrational. when the guy writing the check says make windfarms go away, that's what you do.
>>1518542And the table doesn't show this. So... Again... Where did you get this $179/kW figure from?
>>1518545The table? It's under the word Base because I gave the median estimate. Optimistic was $154 and Conservative was $223.Stop using AI summaries and just fucking CTRL+F.
>>1518546>Operating costs for a nuclear plant average about $179/kW. This is per the DoE. >No it isn't. Where did you get that?>uhhhhhhh.....Exactly. You made it the fuck up. This is why I love /news/. >It's under the word Base because I gave the median estimate. Optimistic was $154 and Conservative was $223.Then why did you give the number 179 and not 188.5? Your lying math doesn't add up, anon. >Stop using AI summaries>from the guy who got caught using AI summarieslol>and just fucking CTRL+F.>ctrl + f>179>zero resultslmao
>>1518543>guy writing the check says let me shit in your mouth, thats what you do
>>1518523>cheaperI didn't say anything about cost. Solar, wind etc are genuinely not viable because they depend on the weather. Nuclear power is a constant stream of steam powering turbines. It never stops for the weather unless someone is retarded enough to build them on the Ring of Fire or something.
>Solar, wind etc are genuinely not viable because they depend on the weather.some people actually believe this
>>1518547>and just fucking CTRL+F.>ctrl + f>179>two resultsNTA, anon, but you’re either somehow fucking up a ctrl+f or just blatantly lying and hoping nobody actually checks.
>>1518549Grid storage doesn't depend on the weather.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_energy_storage_system
>>1518547>Then why did you give the number 179 and not 188.5?188.5 isn't the median of 154, 179, and 223.Also, see>>1518551Holy fuck, the shills are real.
>>1518554>Holy fuck, the shills are real.don't pretend you're any smarter than the retards you're moggingmost of the cost in a nuclear reactor isn't in the cost per kwh, its in upfront equipment costsSolar/Wind is still a better investment, lol
>>1518561>most of the cost in a nuclear reactor isn't in the cost per kwh, its in upfront equipment costsI said that in the first place with price comparisons there too. They bitched about operation and maintenance costs as if that would save their argument somehow.
>>1518522Are you blind? A homosexual hot wracked by God during Tribulations.>zoomer edomcashum
>hot wracked by God>hot wracked>homosexualWell, Jesus had two daddies, so...!...and every time a rainbow appears, it proves that God is having really gay sex
