You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The vibes are bad — but the data is great.

If you’ve read about electric vehicles in the news lately, you know the vibes are bad. Over the past few weeks, the media has fixated on the idea that consumer demand for EVs is “slowing,” “chilling,” or “losing its charge.”
But are sales even slowing? Has federal policy failed to spark the EV transition? Is there any cause for panic? The data shows none of that is true.
The best (and only) quantitative evidence presented for the dominant media narrative is data from Cox Automotive, as presented in a recent Wall Street Journal article, showing that dealers are taking more time and resorting to bigger discounts to move EVs off their lots. That’s true, but does it really indicate that EV sales are “slowing”?
First, this data excludes the space’s biggest player by far — Tesla — as well as other EV-only makers like Rivian who don’t use dealer networks, so this is really a story about traditional automakers (Ford, GM, Volkswagen, etc). And with high interest rates making a new car more costly to finance or lease, dealer discounts are trending steadily upwards for all vehicles in recent months, not just electric models, according to the Cox data.
Second, if we take a look at actual sales data, there’s no sign the growth in EVs is flagging. In fact, sales of battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in the third quarter of 2023 exhibited the strongest year-on-year growth since the fourth quarter of 2021.
Putting aside plug-in hybrids, which have shorter electric range and retain a gasoline engine, sales of purely electric vehicles have been steadily increasing at a roughly 60 percent annual growth rate for each of the last six quarters. That’s fast enough to double EV sales every 14 months!
Overall, year-to-date sales of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in the U.S. topped 1 million in September for the first time and are on pace to exceed 1.4 million by year’s end.It’s hard to square the actual data with the bad vibes.
The main story here is not of cooling consumer interest in EVs or a slow-down of the electric transition, but rather the confluence of two other major factors — Tesla’s defensive price war and rising interest rates — which have forced some incumbents to rethink their strategies.
For most of the last decade, Tesla has basically had the EV market to itself. As a result, they priced even their mass-market models, the Model 3 and Model Y, as if they were in competition with Audis and BMWs not Corollas or CRVs. Tesla’s long head start also gave them ample time to bring down manufacturing costs. High price points and falling production costs sent Tesla’s profit margin soaring to a peak of nearly 30% in March 2022, compared to the single digit margins more typical of a high-volume auto manufacturer.
Then, as soon as traditional automakers got serious about the EV business and new start-ups like Rivian and Lucid started scaling, Tesla aggressively slashed prices. The base Model 3 cost over $48,000 last year. Today, it costs around $38,000, a 20% drop. Prices for the Model Y have fallen by a similar magnitude.
Yes, price cuts have eaten into Tesla profitability, but they appear to be an effective defensive weapon that hit their rivals at exactly the same time the Fed was ratcheting up interest rates, substantially increasing the cost of financing or leasing any new vehicle.
In 2021 and 2022, as traditional automakers were launching new flagship EVs, it seemed like they could easily sell every EV they could produce at premium-prices, all while dealers charged big markups.
But just as the market was flooded with new electric offerings, high interest rates made buyers more cost conscious and Tesla’s price cuts took all the fat out of the market. The EV market of 2023 is cutthroat, and aggressive pricing is king.
These shifting market realities seem to have caught several legacy automakers off guard and forced a major refocus on reducing cost of production.
Indeed, if we dive into the data, it’s clear that the ominous headlines about the “slowing” EV market are more a story about Ford and GM in particular, than anything else.
Sales of Ford’s Mach-E have indeed flatlined this year, likely due to competition from Tesla’s now-discounted Model Y. Noting that reducing sticker price on electric vehicles would be their top priority, Ford CEO Jim Farley recently announced adjustments to F-150 Lightning and Mach-E production ramps and delayed some capital spending.
GM’s EV ambitions are stuck in neutral too, but their woes can hardly be attributed to a lack of customer interest. The company is struggling with serious difficulties assembling the Ultium batteries meant to power their next generation of electric SUVs and pickups. As a result, GM shipped only 2,316 of their Cadillac Lyriq crossover and 65 electric GMC Hummers in the first half of this year, a slower pace than 2022. Less than 200 of their Chevy Blazer and Silverado EVs found their way to American homes through September. Amidst these production troubles, GM pushed back the launch of the Chevy Equinox EV and full-scale production of their electric pickups by several months. Meanwhile, sales of the one EV they do have on the market, the affordable Chevy Bolt, are going gangbusters. Unfortunately, GM plans to stop producing the Bolt by year’s end as it focuses on modernizing the venerable model.
(Stellantis, the parent company of Chrysler, Jeep and Ram, has yet to launch any all-electric vehicles in the United States, though their plug-in hybrid Jeeps are selling strongly this year).
Still, contrary to recent headlines, none of the major automakers are scrapping plans for huge investments in electric vehicles. Fresh details on the recent deals struck between the UAW and the Big Three (GM, Ford, and Stellantis) show the automakers all continue to plan multi-billion-dollar investments in new EV factories and models.
“Our commitment to an all-EV future is as strong as ever,” GM CEO Mary Barra told analysts on a conference call last month. The company plans to be 100% electric by 2035.
Ford is “not moving away from our second generation [EV] products,” the company’s CFO also said in October.
Meanwhile, Hyundai Motor Group (parent to Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis brands) continues to launch new electric models and its executives told investors the company isn’t pausing EV plans as they “believe EV sales will grow longer term.” In fact, the Korean auto group vaulted ahead of GM and Ford to snag the #2 spot for total U.S. EV sales this year.
Volvo’s electric sales more than doubled over the past year to reach 13% of total sales for the brand, and the company reported a healthy 9% profit margin on its electric models.
Upstart Rivian is going strong too. Sales of its R1 series tripled over the last year, and the firm just increased its 2023 production estimates by 4 percent to 54,000 vehicles as it continues to move towards profitability with a focus on reducing costs and ramping up production.
The upshot of all this is that EVs are getting more affordable, which is the key to future growth. Prices are falling. Dealer markups are gone. And the price of an average EV in September was $50,683 (before tax credits), barely higher than the average for all new vehicles ($48,000).
In January, the personal EV tax credit will be available to buyers at the point of sale for the first time too, effectively turning it into a rebate. Already, intense competition is forcing dealers to pass the credit through as a down payment that cuts the monthly cost of leasing a $40,000 EV nearly in half.
Next year will also see the more affordable Volvo EX30 and Chevy Equinox EV hit the market, joining the Tesla Model 3, Hyundai Kona, and Kia Niro and Ioniq 6 in the under $40k segment.
In 2024, Tesla’s extensive Supercharger network will also open up to non-Teslas, virtually all automakers will adopt NACS chargers natively in model year 2025 vehicles and beyond, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure grants will finally start to flow in earnest to build out chargers.
So while Ford and GM are facing real challenges, the overall state of the electric vehicle market is healthy.
As GM’s Barra said: “As we get further into the transformation to EV, it's a bit bumpy.” But that doesnt mean the journey is slowing. Sales of EVs keep growing rapidly, new models are expanding the market, and competition is making it all more affordable. Doesn’t that deserve some good vibes for a change?
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Alphabet and Amazon each plan to spend a small-country-GDP’s worth of money this year.
Big tech is spending big on data centers — which means it’s also spending big on power.
Alphabet, the parent company of Google, announced Wednesday that it expects to spend $175 billion to $185 billion on capital expenditures this year. That estimate is about double what it spent in 2025, far north of Wall Street’s expected $121 billion, and somewhere between the gross domestic products of Ecuador and Morocco.
This is a “a massive investment in absolute terms,” Jefferies analyst Brent Thill wrote in a note to clients Thursday. “Jarringly large,” Guggenheim analyst Michael Morris wrote. With this announcement, total expected capital expenditures by Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta for 2026 are at $459 billion, according to Jefferies calculations — roughly the GDP of South Africa. If Alphabet’s spending comes in at the top end of its projected range, that would be a third larger than the “total data center spend across the 6 largest players only 3 years ago,” according to Brian Nowak, an analyst at Morgan Stanley.
And that was before Thursday, when Amazon told investors that it expects to spend “about $200 billion” on capital expenditures this year.
For Alphabet, this growth in capital expenditure will fund data center development to serve AI demand, just as it did last year. In 2025, “the vast majority of our capex was invested in technical infrastructure, approximately 60% of that investment in servers, and 40% in data centers and networking equipment,” chief financial officer Anat Ashkenazi said on the company’s earnings call.
The ramp up in data center capacity planned by the tech giants necessarily means more power demand. Google previewed its immense power needs late last year when it acquired the renewable developer Intersect for almost $5 billion.
When asked by an analyst during the company’s Wednesday earnings call “what keeps you up at night,” Alphabet chief executive Sundar Pichai said, “I think specifically at this moment, maybe the top question is definitely around capacity — all constraints, be it power, land, supply chain constraints. How do you ramp up to meet this extraordinary demand for this moment?”
One answer is to contract with utilities to build. The utility and renewable developer NextEra said during the company’s earnings call last week that it plans to bring on 15 gigawatts worth of power to serve datacenters over the next decade, “but I'll be disappointed if we don't double our goal and deliver at least 30 gigawatts through this channel by 2035,” NextEra chief executive John Ketchum said. (A single gigawatt can power about 800,000 homes).
The largest and most well-established technology companies — the Microsofts, the Alphabets, the Metas, and the Amazons — have various sustainability and clean energy commitments, meaning that all sorts of clean power (as well as a fair amount of natural gas) are likely to get even more investment as data center investment ramps up.
Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith described the Alphabet capex figure as “a utility tailwind,” specifically calling out NextEra, renewable developer Clearway Energy (which struck a $2.4 billion deal with Google for 1.2 gigawatts worth of projects earlier this year), utility Entergy (which is Google’s partner for $4 billion worth of projects in Arkansas), Kansas-based utility Evergy (which is working on a data center project in Kansas City with Google), and Wisconsin-based utility Alliant (which is working on data center projects with Google in Iowa).
If getting power for its data centers keeps Pichai up at night, there’s no lack of utility executives willing to answer his calls.
Current conditions: The snow squalls and cold air headed from the Ohio Valley to the Northeast are coming with winds of up to 55 miles per hour • A “western disturbance,” an extratropical storm that originates in the Mediterranean and travels eastward, is set to arrive in India and bring heavy snow to the Himalayas • Tropical Storm Basyang made landfall over the Philippines this morning, forcing Cebu City to cancel all in-person classes for public school students.
Vice President JD Vance delivered a 40-minute speech Wednesday appealing to 54 countries and the European Union to join a trading alliance led by the United States to establish a supply of critical minerals that could meaningfully rival China. The agreement would create a “preferential trade zone” meant to be “protected from disruptions through enforceable price floors.” The effort comes in response to years of export controls from Beijing that have sent the prices of key minerals over which China has near monopolies skyrocketing. “This morning, the Trump administration is proposing a concrete mechanism to return the global critical minerals market to a healthier, more competitive state,” Vance said at the State Department’s inaugural Critical Minerals Ministerial in Washington.
Under the Biden administration, the U.S. attempted to coordinate a network of trading partners, to make up for the minerals American mines no longer produced. The Treasury Department allowed automakers that sourced battery minerals to countries with which the U.S. had a free trade agreement to benefit from the most valuable version of the landmark electric vehicle tax credit reserved for power packs made with domestically-sourced metals. The White House worked with Republicans in Congress to eliminate the tax credit last year, demonstrating what Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin referred to as the “paradox” of Trump’s push for more domestic mining: A push to increase supply while eliminating one of the biggest sources of demand. The on-again, off-again tariff wars with allies haven’t done much to rally the spirit of camaraderie among America’s traditional trade partners either. Since then, as I have covered repeatedly in this newsletter, Trump has gone on a shopping spree for equity stakes in mining companies, shelled out grants through the military to mineral startups, and, most recently, created a $12 billion federal stockpile. Yet it’s come with plenty of missteps, as a former Department of Energy official told our colleague Robinson Meyer in his latest Shift Key podcast. Still, Congress is backing up the mining push. The House voted 224-195 Wednesday to approve legislation meant to speed up mining on federal lands.
Despite President Donald Trump’s threats to eliminate its funding, Congress has spared the long-running federal program that helps low-income Americans pay for heating and electric bills. The budget deal the president signed Tuesday to fund most federal agencies through September added $20 million to the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, bringing the total funding to just over $4 billion. It’s a full reversal of Trump’s position in May, when the administration asked Congress to completely eliminate the funding, Utility Dive reported. A second appropriations package Trump signed last month also included a small increase in funding for a separate program that subsidizes weatherization projects and other energy efficiency renovations for low- and moderate-income households.

Last week, I told you about copper prices soaring to a record — and seemingly unsustainable — high. While Goldman Sachs analysts expected the price for the metal needed for virtually anything electric to fall, it was still forecast to level off well above the average for the past few years. Well, that’s good news José Antonio Kast, the far-right leader scheduled to be inaugurated president of Chile next month. His incoming finance minister told the Financial Times the government plans to deliver economic growth rates of 4% and balance the country’s budget by 2029. If that proves possible, it’s only because Chile is the world’s largest producer of the red metal.
The U.S., meanwhile, is seeing early fruits of its global mineral diplomacy. The federal government’s International Development Finance Corporation said Wednesday that a U.S.-backed venture will begin shipping 50,000 tons of copper from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The export package comes a month after the same Congolese project pledged to send 100,000 tons to the U.S. The lending agency’s chief executive, Ben Black, said the partnership between Washington and Kinshasa “ensures valuable critical minerals are directed to the U.S. and our allies.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Newcleo, the best-known European nuclear startup promising to build fourth-generation small modular reactors, just netted $85 million in its latest financing round, bringing its total fundraising for the past 12 months to more than $125 million. The financing round includes venture funds Kairos and Indaco Ventures, asset manager Azimut Investments, the CERN pension fund, and industrial giants such as steelmaker Danieli, concrete manufacturer Cementir Holding, and components producers such as Walter Tosto and Orion Valves. The money will “accelerate our expansion into the U.S.,” a nascent effort that has included brokering a partnership with fellow next-generation reactor startup Oklo. Unlike the California company, whose microreactor design uses liquid sodium instead of water as a coolant, Paris-based Newcleo has proposed building a lead-cooled unit. The design has already gained approval in the United Kingdom. “Our ability to deliver impactful low-carbon energy solutions for energy-intensive firms is proving an attractive investment rationale for both industrial and financial investors,” said Newcleo CEO Stefano Buono.
Last week, I told you about the trouble brewing for the controversial wood-pellet giant Drax, which built its business on government subsidies predicated on the idea that burning felled trees for electricity could somehow provide a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. Facing overdue scrutiny of its green credentials, the British company had hoped Japan, the world’s No. 2 importer of wood pellets, would provide a growth market. But Tokyo indicated it’s cutting off the subsidy spigot. Then, two days ago, I told you that a former Drax employee admitted the company misled the public when claiming it wasn’t felling old-growth trees to make its wood pellets. Now the union that represents its British workers, Unite, has blasted Drax for the “shameful betrayal” of threatening to cut as many as 350 jobs. That could total up to 10% of the workforce. “It is shameful that a firm making billions such as Drax is choosing to target its staff,” Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said, according to Energy Voice. “It is morally wrong that workers, their families, and local communities pay the price for corporate greed.”
Over at The Washington Post, billionaire owner Jeff Bezos’ management team just gutted the newspaper's Pulitzer Prize-winning climate desk. The paper sent layoff notices to at least 14 climate journalists, newsroom sources told veteran beat reporter Sammy Roth for his Climate-Colored Goggles newsletter. The pink slips included eight writers and reporters, an editor, and several video, data, and graphics journalists. I’ll echo Sammy’s sentiment with the highest compliment I can give: I was routinely jealous of the top-notch reporting the climate team published at the Post. Losing that nuanced, complex reporting, at this particular juncture in the history of our nation and our atmosphere, is devastating. It’s also infuriating when you read the back-of-the-napkin math New York Times reporter Peter Baker posted on X yesterday: “Last reported annual losses of Post: $100 million,” he wrote. “Number of years Bezos could absorb those losses with what he makes in a single week: 5.”
Take a guess who wrote this on X yesterday morning: “Solar energy is the energy of the future. Giant fusion reactor up there in the sky — we must rapidly expand solar to compete with China.” Go ahead, I’ll wait. Whomever you were going to name, you’re probably wrong. The answer, astonishingly, is Katie Miller, the right-wing influencer wife of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller. A regular feature of White House social media content, Katie Miller posted her praise for an industry her husband’s boss has done much to stymie in response to an Axios article on a poll that found strong support for solar among GOP voters. The survey, commissioned by the panel manufacturer First Solar, comes as the solar industry says that the administration is throttling its permitting. While Trump seems unlikely to let up on wind, it could be a sign of a brighter future for America’s fastest-growing source of electricity.
Microreactor maker Antares Nuclear just struck a deal with BWX Technologies to produce TRISO.
Long before the infamous trio of accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, nuclear scientists started working on a new type of fuel that would make a meltdown nearly impossible. The result was “tri-structural isotropic” fuel, better known as TRISO.
The fuel encased enriched uranium kernels in three layers of ceramic coating designed to absorb the super hot, highly radioactive waste byproducts that form during the atom-splitting process. In theory, these poppyseed-sized pellets could have negated the need for the giant concrete containment vessels that cordon off reactors from the outside world. But TRISO was expensive to produce, and by the 1960s, the cheaper low-enriched uranium had proved reliable enough to become the industry standard around the globe.
TRISO had another upside, however. The cladding protected the nuclear material from reaching temperatures high enough that could risk a meltdown. That meant reactors using them could safely operate at hotter temperatures. When the United States opened its first commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactor in 1979, barely three months after Three Mile Island, the Fort St. Vrain Generating Station in Colorado ran on TRISO. It was a short-lived experiment. After a decade, the high cost of the fuel and the technical challenges of operating the lone commercial atomic station in the U.S. that didn’t use water as a coolant forced Fort St. Vrain to close. TRISO joined the long list of nuclear technologies that worked, but didn’t pencil out on paper.
Now it’s poised for a comeback. X-energy, the nuclear startup backed by Amazon that plans to cool its 80-megawatt microreactors with helium, is building out a production line to produce its own TRISO fuel in hopes of generating both electricity for data centers and heat as hot as 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit for Dow Chemical’s petrochemical facilities. Kairos Power, the Google-backed rival with the country’s only deal to sell power from a fourth-generation nuclear technology — reactors designed to use coolants other than water — to a utility, is procuring TRISO for its molten fluoride salt-cooled microreactors, which are expected to generate 75 megawatts of electricity and reach temperatures above 1,200 degrees.
Then there’s Antares Nuclear. The California-based startup is designing 1-megawatt reactors cooled through sodium pipes that conduct heat away from the atom-splitting core. On Thursday, the company is set to announce a deal with the U.S. government-backed nuclear fuel enricher BWX Technologies to establish a new production line for TRISO to fuel Antares reactors, Heatmap has learned exclusively.
Unlike X-energy or Kairos, Antares isn’t looking to sell electricity to utilities and server farms. Instead, the customers the company has in mind are the types for whom the price of fuel is secondary to how well it functions under extraordinary conditions.
“We’re putting nuclear power in space,” Jordan Bramble, Antares’ chief executive, told me from his office outside Los Angeles.
Just last month, NASA and the Department of Energy announced plans to develop a nuclear power plant on the moon by the end of the decade. The U.S. military, meanwhile, is seeking microreactors that can free remote bases and outposts from the tricky, expensive task of maintaining fossil fuel supply chains. Antares wants to compete for contracts with both agencies.
“It’s a market where cost matters, but cost is not the north star,” Bramble said.
Unlike utilities, he said, “you’re not thinking of cost solely in terms of fuel cycle, but you’re thinking of cost holistically at the system level.” In other words, TRISO may never come as cheap as traditional fuel, but something that operates safely and reliably in extreme conditions ends up paying for itself over time with spacecrafts and missile-defense systems that work as planned and don’t require replacement.
That’s a familiar market for BWXT. The company — spun out in 2015 from Babcock and Wilcox, the reactor developer that built more than half a dozen nuclear plants for the U.S. during the 20th century — already enriches the bulk of the fuel for the U.S. military’s fleet of nuclear submarines, granting BWXT the industry’s highest-possible security clearance to work on federal contracts.
But BWXT, already the country’s leading producer of TRISO, sees an even wider market for the fuel.
“The value is that it allows you to operate at really high temperatures where you get high efficiencies,” Joseph Miller, BWXT’s president of government operations, told me. “We already have a lot of customer intrigue from the mining industry. I can see the same thing for synthetic fuels and desalination.”
BWXT isn’t alone in producing TRISO. Last month, the startup Standard Nuclear raised $140 million in a Series A round to build out its supply chain for producing TRISO. X-energy is establishing its own production line through a subsidiary called TRISO-X. And that’s just in the U.S. Russia’s state-owned nuclear company, Rosatom, is ramping up production of TRISO. China, which operates the world’s only commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactor at the moment, also generates its own TRISO fuel.
Beijing’s plans for a second reactor based on that fourth-generation design could indicate a problem for the U.S. market: TRISO may work better in larger reactors, and America is only going for micro-scale units.
The world-leading high-temperature gas reactor China debuted in December 2023 maxes out at 210 megawatts of electricity. But the second high-temperature gas reactor under development is more than three times as powerful, with a capacity of 660 megawatts. At that size, the ultra-high temperatures a gas reactor can reach mean it takes longer for the coolant — such as the helium used at Fort St. Vrain — to remove heat. As a result, “you need this robust fuel form that releases very little radioactivity during normal operation and in accident conditions,” Koroush Shirvan, a researcher who studies advanced nuclear technologies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me.
But microreactors cool down faster because there’s less fuel undergoing fission in the core. “Once you get below a certain power level,” Shrivan said, “why would you have [TRISO]?”
Given the military and space applications Antares is targeting, however, where the added safety and functionality of TRISO merits the higher cost associated with using it, the company has a better use case than some of its rivals, Shrivan added.
David Petti, a former federal researcher who is one of the leading U.S. experts on TRISO, told me that when the government was testing TRISO for demonstration reactors, the price was at least double that of traditional reactor fuel. “That’s probably the best you could do,” he said in reference to the cost differential.
There are other uranium blends inside the TRISO pellets that could prove more efficient. The Chinese, for example, use uranium dioxide, essentially just an encased version of traditional reactor fuel. The U.S., by contrast, uses uranium oxycarbide, which allows for increased temperatures and higher burnups of the enriched fuel. Another option, which Bramble said he envisions Antares using in the future, would be uranium nitride, which has a greater density of fuel and could therefore last longer in smaller reactors used in space.
“But it’s not as tested in a TRISO system,” Petti said, noting that the federal research program that bolstered the TRISO efforts going on now started in 2002. “Until I see a good test that it’s good, the time and effort it takes to qualify is complicated.”
Since the uranium in TRISO is typically enriched to higher levels than standard fuel, BWXT’s facilities are subject to stricter safety rules, which adds “significant overhead,” Petti said.
“When you make a lot of fuel per year in your fuel factory, you can spread that cost and you can get a number that may be economic,” he said. “When you have small microreactors, you’re not producing an awful lot. You have to take that cost and charge it to the customer.”
BWXT is bullish on the potential for its customer base to grow significantly in the coming years. The company is negotiating a deal with the government of Wyoming to open a new factory there entirely dedicated to TRISO production. While he wouldn’t give specifics just yet, Miller told me BWXT is developing new technologies that can make TRISO production cheaper. He compared the cost curve to that of microchips, an industry in which he previously worked.
“Semiconductors were super expensive to manufacture. They were almost cost prohibitive,” Miller said. “But the cost curve starts to drop rapidly when you fully understand the manufacturing process and you know how to integrate the understanding into operational improvements.”
He leaned back in his chair on our Zoom call, and cracked a smile. “Frankly,” he said, “I feel more confident every day that we’re going to get a really, really cost driven formula on how to manufacture TRISO.”