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.
By neutering the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the Trump administration cements the country’s dependence on oil and liquid fuels.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday news digest written by our executive editor.
President Trump’s big fuel efficiency rollback is here. This afternoon, the Department of Transportation significantly weakened the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the federal government’s rules that encourage new cars and trucks to get gradually more fuel-efficient over time. Instead of mandating that new cars and trucks hit a target of more than 50 miles per gallon, as the old Biden-era rules had required, new vehicles sold in the U.S. will now need to average only 34.9 miles per gallon.
That target is below the level that most automakers have already achieved in their vehicle fleet. (For reasons too obscure to recount here, the regulatory standard of 34 miles per gallon aligns to real-world gas mileage in the mid-to-high 20s — something my 15-year-old hatchback manages to achieve without much straining.) The new rules also retroactively rewrite the standard back to 2022, meaning that automakers whose fleets once broke the law may now be in the clear.
These changes, in other words, render the fuel economy law, first enacted in 1975, is now moot. But Republicans in Congress had arguably already achieved this last year, when they zeroed out all of the law’s fines for automakers as part of the president’s tax and spending bill. These two changes, taken together, mean that the Trump administration has successfully neutered the U.S. fuel efficiency rules.
We are digging into the rule-making here at Heatmap, and I hope to have more on the documents in the days to come. But one of the lasting ironies of President Trump’s approach to fuel efficiency will be that his own presidency demonstrates its strategic inadequacy.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy law, after all, did not originate as an environmental policy — climate change had scarcely emerged as a pressing issue in the mid-1970s — but as a national security and economic sovereignty measure. In the aftermath of the oil embargo, American politicians realized that the U.S. economy was far too dependent on oil for its long-term good. This set off a scramble to find new energy sources, prompting a dash back to coal in the electricity sector and a surge in federal R&D spending on alternative energy. (This funding boost eventually created the modern solar, wind, battery, and fracking industries.)
It also led to a successful push to regulate gas mileage. Crucially, this effort did not limit emissions from any one type of vehicle, as the Environmental Protection Administration’s toxic air pollution rules aim to do. Rather, it targeted the average fuel efficiency of cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States in each model-year. The point was not to regulate any one type of vehicle out of existence, but to increase the country’s overall fuel efficiency over time.
That decades-long effort was never perfect. It created in American statute, for instance, a lasting distinction between cars and trucks, which has bedeviled regulators as SUVs have taken up a larger portion of the new vehicle fleet. But it has also inarguably succeeded: The United States ekes far more value out of every barrel of oil today than it did half a century ago.
Yet the time is ripe to keep making progress. President Trump’s administration has illustrated the persistence of our oil dependence — and the political and strategic problems that it can still engender. Even though the United States has since become the world’s largest producer of oil, the linked and globalized nature of fuel markets means that a supply shock anywhere leads to price hikes everywhere. When an oil crisis arrives — even a largely self-inflicted one, as in the case of the Iran war — then the price of moving things and people rises, the economy suffers, and the president’s popularity falls. Countries can protect themselves from these shocks on a short-term basis by stockpiling oil (as the United States, in fact, does), but they can avoid them only by switching to a far more efficient and electrified transportation system.
President Trump, in other words, may regret the current oil and refining crisis. But by gutting the fuel economy standards — and waging war on electric vehicle incentives more broadly — he is increasing the likelihood that America will face many more crises like it in future years. Consider it his particular gift to his successors.
The cofounders of The Impact Project have a three-step test for voters.
In November 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a $40 billion Google investment in his state and declared, “Texas is the epicenter of AI development, where companies can pair innovation with expanding energy.” At a campaign stop in East Texas seven months later, he had a different message: “We must prohibit them from building AI data centers in rural Texas neighborhoods.” Last week, Abbott instructed Texas’ environmental agency to stop issuing permits to data center projects until the state’s grid operator completes an audit of all data centers in the interconnection process.
Abbott is not alone. In the past week, three other candidates for governor moved toward limits. On September 23, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, signed an executive order tying state incentives for large projects to a new review process, pledged that “the state will not go around a local community’s ‘no,’” and announced that he would ask lawmakers to repeal the state’s data center tax exemption, passed in 2020. The same day, Kansas Democratic nominee Cindy Holscher, who voted for data center tax incentives as a state senator and now backs a moratorium, said she “certainly would vote differently based on the information we have now.” Teri Ann Hourihan, Arizona’s No Labels candidate, also promised a “Day 1” moratorium on new data centers.
These shifts represent a pattern we’re seeing across party lines during an election season dominated by conversations about data centers and artificial intelligence. At The Impact Project, we track where the candidates for governor stand on data centers: 143 candidates in 36 states and three territories. By our count, 69 of the 78 major party candidates have voiced positions on data centers. Thirty-eight candidates have staked out restrictive positions on data centers, while 31 are supportive, ranging from unequivocal support to reluctant support with significant safeguards and concessions. Importantly, we counted a candidate as supportive if they champion data center development, even if they want a pause or a moratorium to take a closer look first.
Across party lines, candidates appear to be trying to balance environmental and social concerns with economic and technological priorities. At least 30 support a pause, halt, moratorium, or ban, including 20 Democrats and 10 Republicans. In five states — Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas — the Democratic and Republican candidates both clearly back a pause. Among sitting governors up for reelection, a quarter back a pause; among major party candidates newly seeking the job, 43% do. The 65 third-party and independent candidates lean further toward restriction: We documented positions for 32 of them, including 19 who back a pause, moratorium, or ban. Today, we are making our research publicly available.
Candidates appear to be following voters, whose opinions have shifted rapidly. In September 2025, Americans were evenly divided over whether they would support a data center being built near their homes. By August, 75% opposed one. In Virginia, the share of voters comfortable with a new data center in their community fell from 69% in 2023 to 35% in 2026 in 2026. In May of this year, seven in 10 Americans told Gallup they oppose AI data centers in their area, with the strongest opposition in the Midwest and the South. Voters’ complaints are concrete, concerning water use, air pollution, persistent noise, rising utility bills, and projects negotiated under nondisclosure agreements without neighbor consent.
Candidates should be responsive to their constituents’ priorities, but the electorate is naturally skeptical when candidates shift their positions so dramatically during an election year. These pivots invite questions about whether some candidates’ new skepticism of the data center boom will last beyond November.
In Nevada, Democratic nominee Aaron Ford co-sponsored the 2015 law that created the state’s data center tax abatements. He now promises to pause them. His Republican opponent, incumbent Governor Joe Lombardo, once called data centers the state’s new “gold rush.” On September 18, less than two months before the election, he signed an executive order curbing the tax breaks. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, told lawmakers in January that she voted for the state’s data center tax exemption as a legislator, and that she now wants to eliminate it. Wisconsin’s Republican nominee, Tom Tiffany, called data centers “exciting new technology” in January. His campaign now says, “[w]e are America’s Dairyland, not America’s Dataland.”
Pennsylvania’s Republican nominee, Stacy Garrity, was even more blunt: Last summer she praised data center deregulation and expansion. This June, Garrity announced that “we pause for as long as we need the pause.” Garrity’s opponent, incumbent Democrat governor Josh Shapiro, has similarly flipped: Last year, Shapiro celebrated fast-tracking permitting for data center and AI development. This year, Shapiro signed an executive order proposing limits on data centers and has spoken about developers “running roughshod” over communities. In Ohio, billionaire Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called his state’s data center boom “great” in 2025. Now he promises an executive order pausing construction.
Candidates, of course, are allowed to change their minds, and these changes may be sincere. Our understanding of the burdens of data centers is growing along with the industry. The vast AI hyperscalers being built today are not the server farms of 2015, which is how Nevada’s Ford explained his shifting position.
Are we witnessing political convenience or a real change of heart? No one can see inside a candidate’s head. Voters can, however, check three things.
First, does a candidate’s promise come with a plan? Many of the loudest pledges are for a “Day 1” executive order. Executive orders are the easiest policy to make and the easiest to undo, and a pause is hollow without regulatory action to follow it up. We can ask what bill language the candidate would support, what it would require, and what happens the day a proposed pause ends. We can also question whether the candidate can deliver. Utility rates are set by public utility commissions, not governors, and tax incentives are written into law. A governor can stop new deals, but signed deals keep running. Lombardo’s order, for instance, applies only to companies seeking new tax breaks.
Second, does the plan require disclosure? We cannot regulate what we cannot measure. Many candidates describe their pause as time to study the problem. Maryland’s Republican nominee, Dan Cox, wants a moratorium “so that we can study this.” A study needs data, and data centers developers and operators are famously opaque. As data is so infrequently available directly from data centers, journalists, activists, and researchers have resorted to techniques as varied as satellite imagery, public records requests, thermal drone footage, tax document sleuthing, and human tips to collect data and break news about data centers. Yet fewer than a quarter of candidates who call for a pause call for mandatory disclosure. A pause without reporting requirements ends where it started: without the facts needed to regulate.
Third, what did the candidate do before this was popular? Votes, signed deals, and ribbon cuttings are public record. A candidate who switched should be able to say what changed and what they got wrong. One who cannot is asking voters to trust the new position on faith.
After November, voters can keep score. Watch the first legislative session and the first budget. Do data center incentives come back under a new name? Does a “Day 1” pause end with rules, or does it simply end? Communities have already shown what accountability looks like locally, where residents have recalled officials and replaced council members who approved unpopular projects. Governors deserve the same attention.
What voters want is reasonable. When a Michigan poll asked about a data center within 25 miles of home, 55% said they were not open to it, 11% were not sure, and only 33% said they were open to it. After hearing a set of protections, including no rate hikes, no tax incentives or secret deals, and closed-loop cooling, 49% said they would be open to one. What most voters oppose is data centers without rules.
Americans are demanding change, and data centers are top of mind. Candidates who mean what they say will make good on campaign promises by writing rules and passing them. The rest will let their hollow promises lapse and hope no one is counting. We all should be.
The renewables developer is expanding its business to serve “our nation’s growing energy needs.”
Two years ago, Arevia Power marketed itself as a renewable energy development powerhouse founded by solar industry veterans.
Today, the company is now also building data centers and gas turbines, Arevia chief development officer Ricardo Graf confirmed in a statement to me.
“Arevia is an energy company that delivers reliable and affordable electricity to the communities and utilities we serve,” Graf told me via email, acknowledging that “in some cases, that energy may be solar; in others, it may be gas.” He added that “yes, we also develop data center projects, but ones with accompanying power solutions to ensure ratepayers are not impacted by the data center’s energy needs.”
I’ve been keeping a close eye out to see whether any renewable energy developers, faced with the Trump administration’s squeeze on federal permits, will bet on diversifying their businesses. Maybe if they couldn’t build a solar farm on federal lands or access ample federal tax credits for constructing new projects, they’d invest in other sorts of large infrastructure projects instead.
We’ve definitely seen large U.S. energy developers such as NextEra and Invenergy take Trumpian tacks towards supplying data centers with new gas power under. Over the summer I broke the news that Clearway Energy asked the Bureau of Land Management to change a five year-old application for solar farm permits with “a proposed data center and natural gas facility.” After those plans were made public, Clearway told me in a statement to me that it was nixing the idea because it did not comport with their business strategy. “As a clean energy developer and operator, our focus in Nevada remains solar and battery storage.”
In mid-September, D.C. news outlet The Washington Sun first reported that Rhea Data, a subsidiary of Arevia Power, was behind the proposal for a giant data center and energy complex in Idaho including thousands of acres of federal land. On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management sent me a statement confirming key details such as the inclusion of a 450-megawatt on-site gas facility. The next day, a Nebraska public radio station reported that Arevia and Graf were connected to prospective early-stage data center project site evaluation outside the city of Lincoln.
When I asked whether the company was reorienting itself toward data centers and the gas energy business, Graf acknowledged how things looked. “While this may be perceived as ‘pivoting,’ it is just a product of the evolution of our nation’s growing energy needs, which solar alone cannot satisfy,” he said over email on Friday. “Our company takes an all-above approach to helping our nation meet its increasing power demands.”