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:
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.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Chatting about win-win solutions with the Abundance Institute’s Ryan Norris.
This week’s conversation is with Ryan Norris, senior fellow for energy policy at the Abundance Institute. The libertarian-leaning institute — whose name cleverly shortens to AI — is a new-ish entity with increasing relevance in energy and tech spaces. As Norris and I discussed, it’s starting to help shape policy on data center development and the generation that’ll power it all, especially in Republican circles. Norris himself previously worked with Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing political organization. I reached out to him and asked if we could chat because I wanted to know more about the institute’s work within the energy space. He wound up saying a lot more than I expected. So let’s dive into it.
The following conversation was lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
So let’s start with what you’re working on. What’s on your desk these days?
Here at Abundance, we sit at the juncture of emerging technology and the energy they need to bring that new technology to bear to impact life positively. We are always in a constant state of learning and researching what the latest thoughts and feelings are around certain policies, particularly around AI and data centers, and then energy technology. How do they feel about nuclear? Geothermal? Solar and battery arrays?
A lot of what I’m working on is Project Gigawatt, a body of policy that fits into permitting, generation, the grid, transmission, and then market and demand. Policies that we believe will generate more, transmit more, and as much of a free market approach as possible. Knowing that a lot of states have regulated utilities, when the state utility can’t produce what the state can potentially actually generate or would need to in order to accommodate large loads, we think there needs to be other opportunities to either bring that power or purchase it in a different way.
When it comes to this policy set, how are you taking into account the intensifying backlash to data center and AI infrastructure, as well as the energy attached to it?
As everyone can sense, things are moving rapidly, and there is a natural inclination to question how fast we’re going. I think these concerns need to be addressed seriously and respectfully. You can’t just say negative things about people who care about water quality or impacts to their local economies. Those are valid. I’ve lived through those. I come from a rural place in Arkansas that had oil and gas plays. And I’ve seen there needs to be conversations with people living in those areas too.
We cannot discount the backlash. When you take the legitimate concerns and pair them with the opportunities coming, I think there’s actually a chance to set up win-win solutions. It shouldn’t be a win-lose scenario here. They have skepticism about AI in the short and long term — that’s a natural inclination and not a negative, per se. But educating people and policymakers about data centers, that’s important.
What is your approach to the rise in land use regulation around data centers and energy infrastructure, moratoria and restrictive ordinances?
As much as possible, you want the infrastructure and cost allocation to be borne by the business causing it. That’s the motivation behind a lot of colocation partnerships happening right now, like the Kilby project in Texas, with natural gas powering a Microsoft hyperscale.
To us, it’s about setting up the opportunity for private property owners to sell to those hyperscalers and those generating the energy. Setting up situations where you’re not stopping people from benefiting. A lot of the “bring your own power” concept, we really like that. Maybe having it where power purchase agreements are more in the mix, things along those lines. That’s where I see things.
The energy increases to our utility bills, people are concerned about it, and that’s a bread and butter issue. That’s the approach: We know we need grid upgrades and want to have the most cost effective versions of those as possible, but you want those needing the power paying for it and not putting it on the backs of residents.
I’m curious, what’s you and your organization’s approach to the rise of gas infrastructure built for AI and the potential impacts that could have on climate change?
I don’t discount the issue of climate change.
Let’s say we’re not able to decarbonize enough to reverse the effects of warmth. We know we’ll have to create energy. We know we have other options for energy that need to be in the mix — more nuclear, which now even some of those who are climate-minded understand is an abundant energy source. I’m also interested in new technologies in geothermal where it can be viable in more places than we thought. You can drill down and tap hot rocks, a basin of water, turn a turbine, and that’s more acceptable for those who care about the climate. And states are looking at it, including my state of Arkansas. I bring these up because I also care about sources that provide firm, consistently available power.
We attended the American Legislative Exchange Council, and one of the things we do, we’re voting members on the energy, environment, and agriculture task force. We’re pro letting the market decide what they need. So we took opposite stances from what people typically consider normal standards on the center-right about banning “net-zero” for local governments. It did pass as model legislation but if we believe “all of the above” is the approach, we also want to be principally correct to ourselves that it doesn’t mean banning wind or solar where it’s viable.
My last question: What’s your thought on the future of politics around AI infrastructure and energy generation for it?
There’s definitely headwinds to those in that industry. I think the sense is, they understood what they wanted and didn’t see any barriers to the way they’d go about it. That’s causing ripple effects in our politics at the local level, including here in Arkansas, where I live in Pulaski County. I think it’ll stay important particularly as it connects to affordability concerns around energy. We know we need more energy, but we want it at the lowest cost possible to the residential side. If people are feeling like data centers are driving the demand for the energy and aren’t on the hook for it, that’s going to position them to be more negative towards the technology.
But we have to expand the conversation. There are folks out there talking about 3D printing for homes, using proprietary cement mixes to build homes in a few weeks when they took months. Agriculture is using robotics in lieu of pesticides and herbicides. Advanced manufacturing is improving the quality of medical equipment. No one completely understands the end goal of new energy to fuel the data centers and AI to get us where there’s a net benefit to them.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Shelby County, Alabama — The Trump administration’s widening effort to intervene in rural energy project fights is facing an early test: What happens if companies don’t take it seriously?
2. Ozaukee County, Wisconsin — Speaking of walls, we just saw the political power of the data center resistance hit one in the Badger State.
3. Everywhere in Texas — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is getting a lot of love for his data center standards, with major developers rolling out press statements claiming they’ll comply.
4. Herkimer County, New York — Something weird is going on in upstate New York with a monastery, a wind farm, and the Trump administration. I’m not sure what to make of it yet.
Renewable and pipeline companies alike have come out against the administration’s attempt to leverage an obscure Cold War-era law.
The Trump administration is considering changing its interpretation of an obscure law related to farmland ownership to transform it into a national security instrument with profound impacts for U.S. renewables projects — and fossil fuels. U.S. energy developers and their trade groups are ringing alarms about the plan, arguing that Trump may be about to undermine their relationships with international investors in allied nations.
For the past week, I’ve been hearing anxious rumbling from contacts in D.C. about a proposed regulation from the Agriculture Department published on June 26. The plan has gotten little attention so far outside of energy trade publications and wonk analysis. Pay no mind to the relative quiet — anyone working in energy development needs to know what’s at stake. Explaining why this is sending D.C. energy lobbyists into a tizzy gets complicated quickly, so bear with me. But the easiest way to sum it up is a fear of death by a thousand cuts.
The administration’s proposal would morph USDA’s approach to the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978, often referred to in legal circles by the acronym AFIDA. This Cold War-era statute created a system for collecting information on farmland owned by people or entities born, headquartered, or otherwise governed by laws outside of the United States, requiring people or companies labeled “foreign persons” to disclose land holdings and transactions to the federal government.
As I reported Monday, Senate Democrats claim the department is proposing to expand the definition of “agricultural land” to include all solar and wind projects, as well as pipelines. I’ve since confirmed this is true, as stated in a supplemental document released by USDA. But there’s a lot more causing companies headaches. The plan would drastically expand the pool of entities and people required to report to USDA by lowering the minimum foreign investment threshold for reporting, compel information on rights of ways when it wasn’t asked for before, and force companies to do detailed geospatial mapping of farmland.
You may not have heard of AFIDA, but security hawks in D.C. and the most affected multi-national companies have been agitating to reform the law for years. Their concerns have focused primarily on Chinese firms and the agriculture sector. In 2022, Republicans in Congress anxious about Chinese companies purchasing farmland near military bases requested an independent Government Accountability Office audit of AFIDA compliance. Two years later, the watchdog office found the law was falling significantly short of its stated objective to track relevant land transactions.
Representatives from the energy sector tell me the actual proposed changes would create a severe red tape headache for developers of all stripes.
Over the past week, almost every major industry trade group in renewables and fossil fuels has filed a comment excoriating the plan, with even some oil and gas allies such as the Western Energy Alliance calling for it to be thrown onto the trash heap. The American Petroleum Institute and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America told the USDA that the plan would “chill foreign investment in U.S. energy infrastructure and increase the cost of capital for pipeline projects with no benefit to national security.”
Meanwhile, renewable energy industry representatives seemed particularly frightened by the proposal given existing financial relationships with investors, parent companies, and business partners in U.S.-aligned nations. American Clean Power said it would burden “good faith, low-risk filers from allied countries,” while the Solar Energy Industries Association said the proposal warranted “a full withdrawal” as it had “unintended national security consequences and [would] unnecessarily expose business sensitive information.”
So far, only one large publicly-traded renewables company has commented with criticisms of the proposal: EDP Renewables North America, a subsidiary of a Portuguese company. “We respectfully urge USDA to carefully weigh the compliance burdens imposed by each proposed change against the incremental national security benefit it provides,” wrote Tom LoTurco, an executive vice president for EDP Renewables North America.
Those calling for reform have wanted to streamline the filing process, not add even more bureaucracy. “Solar and wind, they’ve long been considered agricultural land users. But under this rule, costs are going to go way up,” Jeff Hunter, an attorney with Kelley Drye and Warren LLP, told me. “It’s going from a manageable material cost to something that’s going to have a meaningful effect on the bottom line.” Hunter represents the AFIDA Modernization Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of companies that routinely file under the law. Hunter said the coalition includes founders Invenergy and Doral Renewables, both of which have substantial renewables investments in the U.S. as well as investment originating from other countries.
“It’s going from a manageable material cost to something that’s going to have a meaningful effect on the bottom line.”
Many large renewable energy companies have substantial foreign investment because of the European trend towards ESG-minded financing practices, Hunter added. The law was already on developers’ radars, but this proposal presents a wholly different regime.
As Trump re-entered office, it was reasonable to expect his administration would attempt to “protect farmland” from renewable energy development given the issue’s salience in deep red rural pockets of his supporter base. Still, when the Agriculture Department last May released a “National Farm Security Action Plan” stating that it would change AFIDA regulations, I didn’t think much of it. The plan didn’t mention the energy sector at all.
In December USDA solicited public comments on ways to change the rules, but it was a sleepy affair with little conflict involving renewables or anything else. Even the Center for Regulatory Freedom, a conservative policy shop created by the political organization CPAC, sought changes while emphasizing the “United States benefits from foreign capital in agriculture, renewable energy, and rural development, and AFIDA should not become a blunt instrument that discourages lawful and economically beneficial transactions.”
All this is to say, nobody seemed to anticipate the bomb USDA suddenly dropped on the energy industry.
The plan may change between proposal and implementation. But so far only one organization I know of is focused on ensuring that solar and wind are targeted under the new rulemaking: the America First Policy Institute, a Trump-aligned think tank co-founded by Brooke Rollins, the current Secretary of Agriculture. In comments filed by AFPI’s Adam Savit, the conservative think tank recommended the government preserve “the inclusion of solar and wind generation on agricultural land” because it “prevents the conversion of reportable land into unreportable land through a change in use.” The group’s comments did not address the rule’s references to pipelines.
I asked AFPI to ask if it had any additional comment on the rulemaking, and specifically if it had any view on the new definition for agricultural land. In a statement provided by the think tank, its senior director for China policy Piero Tozzi told me that “the proposed change is necessary to address who owns the land and what control it gives the owner.”
“The current reporting framework for foreign acquisition of American farmland before land was understood as a potential strategic perch for foreign adversaries,” Tozzi said.
The Agriculture Department rarely comments on public input received on proposed rulemakings and did not respond to a request for comment for this story. On Monday, the agency sent me the following statement in response to the Senate Democrats’ claims: “As Secretary Rollins has noted before, the regulations governing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 are extremely outdated and need to be updated to better reflect today’s conditions. USDA looks forward to considering all public comments before finalizing the rule.”