The Reactor Pilot Program: The Collision of AI, Policy, and Nuclear Physics

1. Introduction: Ambitious Nuclear Policy Changes Beginning in 2025

The year 2025 has emerged as a singular inflection point in the history of American energy, defined by a collision of political will, technological desperation, and geopolitical maneuvering that has not been seen since the height of the Atomic Age in the mid-20th century. The United States, under the returned administration of President Donald Trump, has embarked on a radical restructuring of its nuclear energy policy, a shift that is characterized less by gradual evolution and more by a forced, rapid industrial mobilization.¹ This phenomenon, widely termed the "Nuclear Rush," is driven by a stark realization: the existing electrical grid is fundamentally incapable of sustaining the projected energy demands of the artificial intelligence revolution while simultaneously meeting national security objectives.³

The catalyst for this acceleration was a series of executive actions taken in early 2025, culminating in a directive that sent shockwaves through the regulatory and engineering communities: a mandate to have at least three new nuclear reactors achieve criticality by July 4, 2026—the nation’s 250th anniversary.⁴ This deadline, ambitious to the point of audacity, has forced a confrontation between two distinct philosophies of governance. On one side stands the established order of civilian safety oversight, embodied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which prioritizes methodological rigor and risk aversion. On the other stands a newly empowered coalition of Silicon Valley technologists, venture capitalists, and "energy dominance" policymakers who view regulation as an impediment to survival in a competitive global landscape.⁶

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this pivotal moment. It explores the mechanisms of the "Reactor Pilot Program" that seeks to bypass traditional licensing; it details the physics and engineering of the specific machines—from helium-cooled cores to sodium heat pipes—that are racing to meet the deadline; and it examines the profound risks associated with dismantling the safety protocols that have governed the atom for fifty years.

The Political and Economic Engine

The backdrop to this technical acceleration is a reshaped Department of Energy (DOE). Following the blueprints laid out in "Project 2025," the administration has pivoted the agency’s focus toward a more aggressive deployment of nuclear assets, appointing leadership explicitly tasked with "unleashing" American energy.² This policy is not operating in a vacuum; it is fueled by hundreds of billions of dollars in capital expenditure from the technology sector. Hyperscalers such as Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta, facing an existential need for reliable baseload power to run their AI data centers, have effectively become the underwriters of the next generation of nuclear reactors.⁸

The resulting landscape is one of intense friction and frantic activity. In laboratories in Idaho and deserts in Utah, engineers are rushing to assemble reactor cores that use exotic fuels and novel cooling systems, attempting to condense a decade of development into eighteen months.¹⁰ Meanwhile, in Washington, legal scholars and safety advocates are raising alarms about the erosion of independent oversight, warning that the rush to "criticality" may come at the cost of safety culture.¹¹ The story of 2025 is the story of this gamble: a wager that American innovation, when stripped of bureaucratic constraints, can solve the energy crisis before the physics of a hurried reactor catches up with the politics of speed.

2. The Regulatory Rupture: DOE vs. NRC

To understand the magnitude of the changes occurring in 2025, one must first understand the historical architecture of nuclear regulation in the United States, and how the current administration is attempting to fundamentally alter it.

The Legacy of the Atomic Energy Commission

For the first half of the nuclear age, the United States managed nuclear power through the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), established in 1946. The AEC bore a dual, conflicting mandate: it was responsible for promoting the growth of the nuclear industry while simultaneously regulating its safety.¹² By the early 1970s, it became increasingly apparent that this structure was untenable; an agency could not impartially police the safety of a project it was actively trying to sell to the public. In 1974, Congress passed the Energy Reorganization Act, which split the AEC’s functions. The promotional and developmental responsibilities were eventually absorbed by the Department of Energy (DOE), while the safety and licensing authority was vested in a new, independent body: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).¹³

For fifty years, the NRC has maintained what is often called the "Gold Standard" of nuclear regulation. Its independence from the White House and the DOE was designed to ensure that safety decisions were insulated from political pressure or industrial timelines. However, this rigorous process is also notoriously slow and expensive, often taking years and costing applicants hundreds of millions of dollars before a shovel can break ground.⁴

The 2025 Executive Override

The "Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the DOE" Executive Order, signed in May 2025, effectively seeks to bridge the chasm created in 1974, utilizing a specific legal interpretation to restore a degree of self-regulating authority to the DOE.⁴ The administration’s legal theory rests on Section 110 of the Atomic Energy Act and subsequent provisions that allow the DOE to authorize the construction and operation of reactors that are built "for the account of the Commission" (i.e., the DOE) and are not intended for "commercial suitability" demonstration.¹⁴

The "Reactor Pilot Program" exploits this provision. By classifying the initial wave of reactors—intended for the July 2026 deadline—as "research and development" prototypes rather than commercial power plants, the DOE argues it can authorize them internally, bypassing the NRC entirely.¹⁵ This allows companies like Valar Atomics and Antares Nuclear to construct their devices on federal land (such as the Idaho National Laboratory or the Nevada National Security Site) under the oversight of DOE officials rather than NRC inspectors.¹⁷

The Dissent: A Crisis of Independence

This strategy has provoked fierce opposition from the nuclear safety community. Allison Macfarlane, a former chairperson of the NRC, has been a vocal critic, arguing that the executive order "flies in the face" of the foundational principle of independent regulation. In her analysis, subordinating the regulatory process to a department (DOE) that is politically mandated to promote the technology creates a dangerous conflict of interest reminiscent of the failed AEC model.¹¹

The concerns are multifaceted:

• Opacity vs. Transparency: The NRC process involves mandatory public hearings, published safety evaluation reports, and a transparent docket of technical queries. The DOE’s authorization process, by contrast, is largely internal, treated as a contractual matter between the agency and the vendor. Critics argue this lack of transparency prevents independent peer review of novel reactor designs.⁴

• The "Commercial Fiction": While the pilot reactors are legally classified as "research," the companies building them are private, venture-backed entities with explicit commercial goals. Critics argue that utilizing the research pathway for what are essentially commercial prototypes is a "legal fiction" designed to evade scrutiny rather than a genuine scientific endeavor.¹⁴

• Workforce Capability: The NRC has spent decades building a workforce of inspectors trained to evaluate commercial safety culture. The DOE, while technically proficient, focuses on weapons maintenance and unique scientific experiments. Doubts exist regarding the DOE's capacity to oversee the safety of multiple fast-tracked reactor builds simultaneously.¹⁹

Despite these objections, the administration has proceeded, arguing that the "exigent circumstances" of the energy crisis and national security competition require a more "agile" regulatory framework. The pilot program is framed not as an evasion of safety, but as a necessary "sandbox" to generate data that will eventually speed up NRC licensing for future commercial fleets.²⁰

3. The Silicon Valley Gigawatt Hunger

While political machinations opened the regulatory door, the force rushing through it is the technology sector. The year 2025 solidified the symbiotic, if uneasy, relationship between Big Tech and nuclear power.

The AI Energy Paradox

The driving force is the computational intensity of Artificial Intelligence. Unlike the previous era of cloud computing, which focused on storage and retrieval, the Generative AI era is defined by inference and training—processes that are exponentially more energy-intensive. A single query to a large language model consumes vastly more electricity than a standard search engine request. As models grow larger, their training runs require hundreds of megawatts of continuous power for weeks or months at a time.³

Crucially, this demand is "flat." Solar and wind power are intermittent; they generate electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows. Data centers, however, operate 24/7. To run a data center on renewables requires massive, expensive battery storage. Nuclear power, which runs continuously (baseload), offers a perfect match for the load profile of a data center. By 2025, companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta realized that nuclear was the only scalable, carbon-free solution to their power crunch.²¹

The "Gigasite" and Behind-the-Meter Economics

This realization triggered a spending spree in 2025 that reshaped the power market.

• Microsoft and the Crane Clean Energy Center: In a deal valued at over $16 billion, Microsoft signed a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Constellation Energy to restart the Three Mile Island Unit 1 reactor. This reactor, which had been shuttered for economic reasons, was brought back online solely to feed Microsoft’s grid requirements. The deal demonstrated that tech companies were willing to pay a premium—well above the market rate for wholesale electricity—to guarantee carbon-free reliability.²²

• Amazon and the Susquehanna Conflict: Amazon Web Services (AWS) pursued a more direct approach, purchasing a data center campus directly adjacent to the Susquehanna nuclear plant in Pennsylvania from Talen Energy. The plan was to wire the reactor directly to the data center ("behind the meter"), bypassing the regional transmission grid. This sparked a regulatory firestorm at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as utility companies argued that Amazon was effectively "stealing" baseload power from the grid and leaving other ratepayers to cover the transmission costs.²³

• Meta and the SMR Bet: Meta took a longer-term view, signing deals with SMR developers like Oklo and TerraPower. Unlike the Microsoft and Amazon deals, which utilized existing 1970s-era technology, Meta’s investments were aimed at bringing the new generation of reactors to market. This capital injection was critical for startups that had struggled to find financing in the high-interest-rate environment of the mid-2020s.⁹

These deals validated the business model known as the "Gigasite"—the concept of clustering multiple small reactors or utilizing a large existing reactor to power a massive industrial facility directly. This model insulates the tech companies from grid instability and provides the nuclear operators with a guaranteed, high-paying customer, breaking the economic stagnation that had plagued the industry for decades.¹⁷

4. Physics of the New Wave: The Reactor Technologies

The machines at the center of the 2025 rush are fundamentally different from the Light Water Reactors (LWRs) that currently power the grid. The current fleet relies on pressurized water to cool the core and slow down (moderate) neutrons. The new "Generation IV" designs utilize different coolants, fuels, and physics principles to achieve higher efficiencies and, theoretically, greater safety.

4.1 Valar Atomics: The Helium-Cooled Renaissance

Valar Atomics, a major participant in the DOE Pilot Program, is developing the "Ward 250," a High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR).

• Helium Coolant: Instead of water, Valar’s reactor circulates helium gas through the core. Helium is an inert noble gas; it cannot burn, explode, or become radioactive. In a traditional reactor, if the water boils away, the fuel can melt. In a helium reactor, the coolant is already a gas, eliminating the possibility of a "phase change" accident (like a steam explosion). The use of helium allows the reactor to operate at much higher temperatures (over 700°C), which improves the efficiency of electricity generation.¹⁷

• Graphite Moderation: The reactor uses graphite (carbon) blocks to hold the fuel and moderate the neutrons. Graphite has an immense thermal capacity; it acts as a "heat sponge." If the reactor loses cooling, the graphite absorbs the excess heat for hours or days, preventing the fuel from overheating rapidly. This gives operators a massive window of time to respond to accidents.¹⁷

• TRISO Fuel: The safety case for the Ward 250 rests on TRISO (Tristructural-isotropic) fuel particles. Each particle is a tiny sphere, about the size of a poppy seed. It consists of a kernel of uranium surrounded by layers of porous carbon, pyrolytic carbon, and silicon carbide. The silicon carbide layer is extremely hard and heat-resistant, acting as a miniature containment vessel for each individual grain of fuel. It effectively traps radioactive fission products inside the particle, even at temperatures exceeding 1,600°C. This means that even if the reactor containment building were breached, the radioactivity would remain locked inside the fuel pebbles.¹⁰

In late 2025, Valar achieved "cold criticality" (a self-sustaining chain reaction at zero power) with their NOVA core at Los Alamos. This test validated their neutronic models—confirming that their calculations of how neutrons would bounce off the graphite and split the uranium atoms were correct.²⁶

4.2 Antares Nuclear: Heat Pipes and Microreactors

Antares Nuclear is pursuing a different philosophy: extreme miniaturization and ruggedness. Their "R1" and "Mark-0" designs are microreactors, intended to produce single-digit megawatts of power for military bases, remote mining, or space exploration.

• Solid Core Monolith: The Antares design is described as a "solid core." Instead of fuel rods rattling inside a vessel, the fuel and moderator are integrated into a solid block. This makes the reactor mechanically robust, capable of withstanding the vibrations of a rocket launch or transport on a C-17 military aircraft.²⁷

• Sodium Heat Pipes: The most innovative feature is the cooling system, which uses heat pipes instead of pumps. A heat pipe is a sealed metal tube containing a small amount of working fluid (in this case, sodium). When the reactor gets hot, the sodium evaporates at the hot end (the core), travels as a vapor to the cold end (the heat exchanger), condenses back into a liquid, and flows back to the core via a wick structure. This process is driven entirely by thermodynamics; there are no moving parts, no pumps to fail, and no external power required to circulate the coolant. This provides a high degree of passive safety.²⁸

• Brayton Cycle: The heat from the reactor drives a closed-loop nitrogen turbine (Brayton cycle). This is similar to a jet engine but uses heated nitrogen instead of burning jet fuel. It is compact and efficient, suitable for generating electricity in locations without access to water for cooling.²⁹

Antares is racing to build its Mark-0 test reactor by the July 2026 deadline, leveraging its partnership with the DOE to secure fuel and testing space.³⁰

4.3 Oklo and the Liquid Metal Fast Reactor

Oklo’s "Aurora" design is a modern iteration of the liquid-metal fast breeder reactor, specifically drawing lineage from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II).

• Fast Neutrons: Unlike Valar (which slows neutrons down with graphite), Oklo’s reactor uses "fast" neutrons. Fast neutrons are more efficient at splitting certain heavy isotopes (like Plutonium-239) and can be used to burn up long-lived nuclear waste. This "spectral shift" allows the reactor to extract more energy from the uranium.³¹

• Liquid Sodium Coolant: The reactor uses liquid sodium as a coolant. Sodium boils at a very high temperature (over 800°C), which allows the reactor to operate at atmospheric pressure. In a traditional water reactor, the water is under 2000 psi of pressure to keep it from boiling; if a pipe breaks, that pressure blasts the water out. In a sodium reactor, there is no high pressure to drive a leak, reducing the risk of a loss-of-coolant accident.³²

• Fuel Recycling: A core part of Oklo’s business model is the potential to use recycled fuel. By utilizing "pyroprocessing" (an electrochemical method of separating fuel from waste), they aim to turn the nation’s stockpile of nuclear waste into a fuel source, theoretically closing the fuel cycle.³³

5. The Fuel Cycle Crisis: HALEU and the Enrichment Bottleneck

The Achilles' heel of the 2025 nuclear renaissance is the fuel. Almost all advanced reactor designs—including Valar, Antares, and Oklo—require High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU).

The HALEU Deficit

Standard nuclear power plants use uranium enriched to approximately 3-5% of the fissile isotope Uranium-235. Advanced reactors, to achieve their smaller sizes and longer operating cycles, require uranium enriched to between 5% and 20% (HALEU). For years, the global supply of commercial HALEU was effectively a monopoly held by TENEX, a subsidiary of the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom. Following the geopolitical rupture with Russia over the Ukraine war, U.S. companies were cut off from their primary fuel source.³⁴

This created a crisis: the U.S. was rushing to build reactors for which it had no fuel. In 2025, the DOE launched an emergency program to stand up domestic enrichment capacity.

Domestic Enrichment Efforts

• Centrus Energy: As of 2025, Centrus was the only U.S. company licensed to enrich uranium to HALEU levels. Operating a cascade of advanced AC-100M centrifuges in Piketon, Ohio, Centrus delivered its first 900 kilograms of HALEU to the DOE in late 2025. While a significant milestone, this amount is a fraction of the metric tons required for a commercial fleet. The DOE extended Centrus’s contract to ensure fuel availability for the pilot program.³⁵

• Urenco USA: Urenco, operating in New Mexico, received NRC approval in 2025 to enrich uranium up to 10% (known as LEU+). While not the full 20% required for some designs, LEU+ is a critical intermediate step. Urenco is expanding its capacity with new centrifuge cascades, aiming to serve as the feedstock provider for future HALEU enrichment.³⁷

The Proliferation Debate

The shift to HALEU has reignited a dormant debate over nuclear proliferation. In 2024, a controversial article in Science magazine argued that HALEU, particularly at enrichment levels nearing 20%, poses a significant weaponization risk. The authors suggested that a 20% enriched uranium core is far easier to convert into a crude nuclear explosive than previously believed, and that the widespread distribution of this fuel to SMR sites (some remote or lightly guarded) could invite theft or diversion.³⁹

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) responded vigorously, arguing that the Science article relied on theoretical worst-case scenarios that ignored the practical difficulties of handling radioactive fuel and the robust "Safeguards by Design" being implemented. Nonetheless, the proliferation concern remains a point of friction, particularly regarding the export of these technologies to unstable regions.³⁹

6. Safety, Waste, and Environmental Impact

The 2025 rush is frequently justified on environmental grounds—nuclear energy as the solution to climate change. However, the specific technologies and deployment strategies involve complex environmental trade-offs.

The Waste Paradox

A common selling point of SMRs is that they reduce nuclear waste. However, a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists challenged this, suggesting that SMRs might actually produce more volume of waste per kilowatt-hour than large reactors. This is due to "neutron leakage"—because the core is smaller, more neutrons escape the fuel and bombard the surrounding steel and concrete, making those structural materials radioactive. This results in a larger volume of low-to-intermediate level waste that must be disposed of during decommissioning.⁴¹

Furthermore, the "fuel recycling" promised by companies like Oklo is not a silver bullet. Pyroprocessing creates its own difficult-to-manage liquid waste streams, which are chemically reactive and challenging to vitrify (turn into glass for storage). The lack of a national repository (with Yucca Mountain still politically dead) means that this new, more diverse stream of waste will likely remain stranded at the reactor sites indefinitely.¹⁹

Water and Thermal Pollution

While gas-cooled reactors like Valar’s consume less water than light water reactors, the "Gigasite" model poses local environmental challenges. A data center coupled with a gigawatt of nuclear capacity generates immense heat. If the site uses "once-through" cooling (taking water from a river and returning it), it can raise the temperature of the local waterway, harming aquatic ecosystems. If it uses cooling towers, it consumes vast amounts of water through evaporation—a critical issue in the water-stressed American West where many of these projects (like the Utah test site) are located.⁴²

The "Sodium Fire" Risk

The use of liquid sodium in reactors like Oklo’s and Antares’s introduces a chemical hazard. Sodium burns spontaneously if it touches air and explodes if it touches water. While engineers argue that passive safety systems mitigate this, the history of sodium reactors is littered with leaks and fires (such as at the Monju plant in Japan or the Fermi 1 reactor in Michigan). Critics warn that rushing to deploy these reactors near population centers or critical data infrastructure, without the lengthy vetting of the NRC, invites a "high consequence" event that could set the industry back decades.⁴³

7. Geopolitical and Military Dimensions

The 2025 nuclear push is not solely a domestic energy strategy; it is a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy and defense strategy.

The Great Power Competition

The executive orders of 2025 explicitly frame nuclear export as a national security imperative. For a decade, Russia (Rosatom) and China (CNNC) have dominated the international nuclear market, using reactor exports as a tool of diplomatic leverage in Africa, the Middle East, and South America. The U.S. views the SMR as its counter-move. By developing small, modular, exportable reactors, the U.S. aims to offer developing nations an alternative to Chinese infrastructure. The activity in Ethiopia, which established a Nuclear Energy Commission and is exploring options with both Russia and the U.S., is a microcosm of this geopolitical contest.⁴⁴

The Military Microreactor

The Department of Defense (DoD) is arguably the most motivated customer for the new wave of reactors. Through the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and the "Project Pele" and "ANPI" programs, the military is funding companies like Antares and X-Energy to develop reactors for forward-deployed bases. The strategic goal is "energy resilience." In a potential conflict, diesel supply lines (which currently power bases) are vulnerable to attack. A microreactor that can run for years without refueling eliminates that logistical tail. The Antares design, with its solid core and air-transportability, is specifically tailored to this military requirement.²

Space: The Nuclear Frontier

The technologies developed for the 2025 terrestrial deadline have direct applications in space. NASA and the Space Force are actively soliciting nuclear power solutions for lunar bases and deep-space propulsion. Antares Nuclear’s partnership with ExLabs to build nuclear-powered spacecraft is evidence of this dual-use synergy. The high-temperature heat pipes and autonomous control systems refined in the DOE Pilot Program are exactly the technologies needed to power a colony on the Moon or a probe to Neptune. The "July 4, 2026" deadline thus serves a dual purpose: demonstrating power for the grid and proving technology for the stars.⁴⁶

8. Conclusion: The Gamble of Acceleration

The nuclear landscape of late 2025 is defined by a high-stakes wager. The Trump administration, emboldened by the "Energy Dominance" mandate and bankrolled by the existential needs of the AI industry, has bet that the only way to save the American nuclear sector is to break it—to break the regulatory stasis, to break the construction cost curve, and to break the psychological barrier of the "decadal timeline."

The "Reactor Pilot Program" is the manifestation of this wager. By creating a regulatory bypass around the NRC, the administration has undoubtedly injected speed into the system. It is highly probable that, by July 4, 2026, a reactor will achieve criticality at a DOE site, fulfilling the symbolic mandate of the Executive Order. This will be hailed as a triumph of American dynamism over bureaucratic ossification.

However, the risks lurking beneath this acceleration are profound. The erosion of independent safety oversight creates a fragile precedent; if a "fast-tracked" reactor suffers a safety failure—a sodium leak, a fuel defect, or a digital control error—the public trust in nuclear energy, already tenuous, could be shattered for another generation. Furthermore, the economic viability of these machines remains unproven. The tech giants are paying premiums today, but for nuclear to scale, it must compete with gas and renewables on the open market, a hurdle that physics and economics have not yet cleared.

As the United States races toward its semiquincentennial, it does so with a reinvigorated atomic ambition. The silos of the Cold War have been replaced by the server farms of the AI age, but the fundamental question remains: can the Promethean fire of the atom be tamed by the schedule of a political mandate? The answer lies in the graphite cores and sodium pipes currently being machined in the quiet corners of American industry, waiting for their moment of criticality.

Table 1: Key Reactor Startups and Technologies in the 2025 Pilot Program

Company	Reactor Name	Type	Coolant	Fuel	Key Feature
Valar Atomics	Ward 250	HTGR	Helium Gas	HALEU TRISO	Collocation "Gigasite" model; achieved cold criticality late 2025.
Antares Nuclear	R1 / Mark-0	Microreactor	Sodium Heat Pipes	HALEU TRISO	Solid core; air/space transportable; military focus.
Oklo	Aurora	Fast Reactor	Liquid Sodium	Metal Fuel (HALEU)	Uses recycled fuel; waste-to-energy capability; fast spectrum.
Kairos Power	Hermes	FHR (Salt)	Fluoride Salt	TRISO Pebbles	Low pressure cooling; extensive testing in Tennessee.
X-Energy	Xe-100	HTGR	Helium Gas	TRISO Pebbles	Continuous refueling (pebble bed); Dow Chemical partnership.

Table 2: Comparison of Regulatory Pathways

Feature	NRC Licensing (10 CFR Part 50/52)	DOE Authorization (Pilot Program)
Primary Authority	Independent Commission (NRC)	Department of Energy (Executive Branch)
Mandate	Safety & Security (Public Health)	Research, Development & Demonstration
Timeline	Years (typically 3-5+ years)	Months to Years (Target: <2 years)
Transparency	Public hearings, published dockets	Internal review, limited public access
Applicability	Commercial Power Plants	Gov't use, R&D, "Non-Commercial" Demos
Constraint	"Gold Standard" rigor; high cost	"Conflict of Interest" concerns; lesser scope

Works cited

1. Promises Made, Promises Kept | Department of Energy, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/articles/promises-made-promises-kept

2. 2025: The year in nuclear, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/article-7661/2025-the-year-in-nuclear/

3. Allison Macfarlane, PhD - UBC News - The University of British Columbia, accessed January 16, 2026, https://news.ubc.ca/expert/allison-macfarlane/

4. Trump's rush to build nuclear reactors across the U.S. raises safety ..., accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2025/12/17/trumps-rush-to-build-nuclear-reactors-raises-worries/

5. Fact Sheet: President Trump's Nuclear Energy Executive Orders, accessed January 16, 2026, https://nuclearinnovationalliance.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20President%20Trump%20Nuclear%20Energy%20EOs%20-%20NIA.pdf

6. Big Tech embraces nuclear, but who will pay the price?—The US turns back to nuclear power, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Big-Tech-embraces-nuclear-but-who-will-pay-the-price-The-US-turns-back-to

7. Will policies outlined in Project 2025 affect nuclear much?, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/2025-03-31/article-6817/will-policies-outlined-in-project-2025-affect-nuclear-much/

8. META Taps Nuclear Energy to Fuel AI Expansion: Buy or Hold the Stock?, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.tradingview.com/news/zacks:3ee8e3b89094b:0-meta-taps-nuclear-energy-to-fuel-ai-expansion-buy-or-hold-the-stock/

9. Meta Signs Deals With Nuclear Energy Companies, accessed January 16, 2026, https://aibusiness.com/data-centers/meta-signs-deals-with-nuclear-companies

10. UT: Valar Atomics Breaks Ground on Test Reactor at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.tradeandindustrydev.com/region/utah/news/ut-valar-atomics-breaks-ground-test-reactor-utah-34981

11. Trump's executive order puts nuclear safety at risk, experts warn - POLITICO Pro, accessed January 16, 2026, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/02/24/trumps-executive-order-puts-nuclear-safety-at-risk-experts-warn-00205546

12. History - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/history

13. U.S. Federal Oversight of Nuclear Reactors by NRC, DOE, and DoD, accessed January 16, 2026, https://nuclearinnovationalliance.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/U.S.%20Federal%20Oversight%20of%20Nuclear%20Reactors%20by%20NRC%2C%20DOE%2C%20and%20DoD%20%2811-25%29.pdf

14. How federal agencies are exercising reactor authority without the NRC - Hogan Lovells, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/how-federal-agencies-are-exercising-reactor-authority-without-the-nrc-

15. DOE opens pilot program to authorize test reactors outside national labs, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/2025-06-20/article-7125/doe-opens-pilot-program-to-authorize-test-reactors-outside-national-labs/

16. DOE Roles and Responsibilities: Reactor Authorization. - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1524/ML15245A685.pdf

17. Valar's NOVA Core hits first criticality - Nuclear Engineering International, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.neimagazine.com/news/valars-nova-core-hits-first-criticality/

18. A Review of Recent DOE Updates to Its Reactor Authorization Process | NIA, accessed January 16, 2026, https://nuclearinnovationalliance.org/review-recent-doe-updates-its-reactor-authorization-process

19. Report: New recommendations for nuclear waste, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/article-7679/report-new-recommendations-for-nuclear-waste/

20. Making DOE's Nuclear Reactor Pilot Program Work - The Breakthrough Institute, accessed January 16, 2026, https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/nuclear-energy-innovation/making-does-nuclear-reactor-pilot-program-work

21. 10 Major Nuclear Energy Developments to Watch in 2025, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.nuclearbusiness-platform.com/media/insights/10-major-nuclear-energy-developments-to-watch-in-2025

22. Meta strikes 6.6 GW nuclear deal to fuel its AI ‘supercluster’, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/meta-strikes-6-6-gw-nuclear-deal-to-fuel-its-ai-supercluster/

23. The top 10 states of nuclear -- ANS / Nuclear Newswire, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/article-7645/the-top-10-states-of-nuclear/

24. Illinois AG files objections to ComEd data center agreements at FERC, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/illinois-ag-files-objections-to-comed-data-center-agreements-at-ferc/809576/

25. Los Alamos National Laboratory and Valar Atomics Announce Project NOVA Criticality Milestone in Nevada, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.valaratomics.com/docs/Project-Nova

26. RELEASE: Valar Atomics Achieves First Criticality in DOE Pilot Program, accessed January 16, 2026, https://thebreakthrough.org/press/valar-atomics-achieves-first-criticality-in-doe-pilot-program

27. Nuclear Energy Today and into the Future, accessed January 16, 2026, https://ndlegis.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/committees/69-2025/27.5037.02000presentation935.pdf

28. 3 Microreactor Experiments to Watch Starting in 2026 | Department of Energy, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-microreactor-experiments-watch-starting-2026

29. Antares, accessed January 16, 2026, https://antaresindustries.com/

30. Torrance Firm Antares Raises $96 Million Series B Round for Nuclear Reactor Development, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.latimes.com/b2b/latest-deals/story/antares-nuclear-torrance-first-reactor-criticality-2026

31. Oklo, Inc., Principal Design Criteria for the Aurora Powerhouse - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2522/ML25220A128.pdf

32. Passively safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool - Nuclear Engineering Division, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/hn/logos-winter02-psr.shtml

33. Technology - Oklo Inc., accessed January 16, 2026, https://oklo.com/technology/

34. US seeks pilot production lines for advanced reactor fuel - World Nuclear News, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/us-seeks-pilot-production-lines-for-advanced-reactor-fuel

35. DOE extends Centrus's HALEU production contract by one year - American Nuclear Society, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/2025-06-25/article-7134/doe-extends-centruss-haleu-production-contract-by-one-year/

36. Centrus Reaches 900 Kilogram Mark for HALEU Production | Department of Energy, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/centrus-reaches-900-kilogram-mark-haleu-production

37. Urenco USA advances U.S. nuclear fuel supply with new capability and capacity, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.urenco.com/news/global/2025/urenco-usa-advances-u.s-nuclear-fuel-supply-with-new-capability-and-capacity

38. Urenco USA gets OK to enrich uranium up to 10 percent - American Nuclear Society, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/2025-10-02/article-7424/urenco-usa-gets-ok-to-enrich-uranium-up-to-10-percent/

39. PR: American Nuclear Society challenges recent claims on HALEU fuel in Science magazine, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/article-6344/pr-american-nuclear-society-challenges-recent-claims-on-haleu-fuel-in-science-magazine/

40. NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby Issues Statement on Understanding and Assessing the Risks Associated with HALEU | Department of Energy, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-administrator-jill-hruby-issues-statement-understanding-and-assessing-risks

41. "Advanced" Isn't Always Better | Union of Concerned Scientists, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ucs.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better

42. Small modular reactors may have climate benefits, but they can also be climate-vulnerable, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2024/holding-page-vitalys-blog-smrs-and-climate-vulnerability

43. What Challenges Does Fast Reactor Deployment Face? - Energy → Sustainability Directory, accessed January 16, 2026, https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-challenges-does-fast-reactor-deployment-face/

44. Ethiopia Eyes First Nuclear Power Plant Within 10 Years, Say Reports, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.nucnet.org/news/ethiopia-eyes-first-nuclear-power-plant-within-10-years-say-reports-1-3-2026

45. Antares raises funds for microreactor development - American Nuclear Society, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ans.org/news/2025-12-04/article-7594/antares-raises-funds-for-microreactor-development/

46. ExLabs, Antares to develop nuclear-powered spacecraft, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/exlabs-antares-to-develop-nuclear-powered-spacecraft