You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
Chicago-based Clean Core is set to announce a pilot deal to manufacture thorium-based fuel.

Thorium bulls are rare. Of all the competing visions for what kind of technology should dominate a global nuclear renaissance, thorium-fueled reactors have remained avant garde even as other once-experimental concepts such as high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and molten salt reactors found their champions.
But unlike its proponents, thorium itself is not rare. In fact, it’s as much as four times more abundant than uranium, the fuel used in every one of the 415 commercial reactors in operation worldwide today.
Back in the 1960s, when the rapid growth of the world’s fleet of atomic power stations spurred fears that uranium would run out, scientists in the U.S., Germany, and India began experimenting with thorium reactors. Then the post-war electricity demand surge spurred by next-generation electric appliances and booming factories eventually plateaued, curbing the need for more reactors — just as the meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl reduced public support for the industry. Following a brief resurgence in the early 2000s, thorium fever mostly subsided. That is, until this past fall, when China made a major breakthrough in developing a thorium-fueled molten salt reactor.
India, meanwhile, stayed set on transitioning to a thorium-fueled fleet, which, given its large deposits of the metal and virtually nonexistent reserves of uranium, would give the subcontinent greater energy independence.
Now an American startup — which last year became one of the first U.S. companies granted permission to export nuclear materials to India — is taking a major step toward helping India realize its 72-year-old thorium dream. On Thursday, Chicago-based Clean Core Thorium Energy plans to announce a pilot manufacturing deal with the Canadian National Laboratories, Heatmap has learned.
“This is the biggest advance toward commercializing thorium in recent history,” Milan Shah, Clean Core’s chief operating officer, told me.
Thorium is “fertile” but not “fissile,” meaning it cannot sustain a chain reaction on its own, which creates an obvious challenge. But when exposed to neutron radiation, the material converts into fissile uranium-233. Rather than build a new type of reactor designed to run on thorium, as the Chinese government is now doing, Clean Core blends thorium fuel with a small amount of high-assay, low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, the type of fuel many next-generation reactor companies aim to use, which kicks off the reaction.
The proprietary fuel assemblies Clean Core manufactures are made to be used in the reactors that make up the bulk of the Indian and Canadian nuclear fleets without any upgrades or changes needed to go from enriched uranium to this new material. While the company waits for the units — they’re expected to be ready to go sometime around the second quarter of next year — it has begun talks with utilities in Canada, Romania, South Korea, and India about taking one of the assemblies for a test run.
Combined, Canada and India operate more than three quarters of the world’s pressurized heavy water reactors. Heavy water absorbs far fewer neutrons than the light water used in most reactors, resulting in a better “neutron economy” that allows the chain reaction to continue using lower concentrations of fissile uranium. That’s a big part of the reason why Canada chose the technology for its pioneering CANDU reactor, one of the world’s first widely built PHWRs, as the reactors are known. Using heavy water as a coolant makes it possible to burn up raw, natural uranium instead of the enriched fuel most reactors use, allowing Canada to divorce its CANDU fleet from the mid-century industrial complex pumping out atomic weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s data shows 46 PHWRs operating in the world today: 19 in India, 17 in Canada, three each in Argentina and South Korea, and two each in China and Romania.
“We’re looking at Canada, Romania, South Korea, and India — in that order,” Mehul Shah, Clean Core’s founder and chief executive (and Milan’s father), told me. That ranking, he said, is according to the perceived priorities of the U.S. government. Canada is a natural place to test Clean Core’s material because it’s right over the border; the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission works closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and much of the world’s PHWR fleet is based on Canuck technology.
At a moment when HALEU is rare, the Canadian government is providing the material to Clean Core for its debut fuel bundles. But the U.S. has made Romania a high priority for nuclear exports, facilitating several high-profile deals with American vendors such as Westinghouse and GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy and offering federal financial support.
While Canada has some of the world’s richest reserves of uranium, India’s push for thorium means that it is likely the biggest near-term market for Clean Core. The elder Shah’s connections have helped win strong support. Anil Kakodkar, the former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, was his mentor. The country’s regulators have already embraced Clean Core’s technology.
Demonstrating that the fuel bundles work effectively and safely in a full-scale reactor is “the last step to commercialization,” Mehul Shah said.
If successful, Clean Core’s effort could have geopolitical ramifications for an industry that — by dint of its unique global regulations, and the fact that it’s dominated by the adversarial superpowers such as Russia, China, and the U.S. — is always subject to the travails of foreign affairs.
For one thing, the company’s technology represents one of, if not the most serious gamble in the democratic world on the future of thorium after China’s experimental reactor successfully converted thorium into fuel in a reaction. The Swiss startup Transmutex has promised to build a thorium reactor, but hasn’t announced anything significant in the past year. A rival developer, Copenhagen Atomics, has pledged to build its own thorium reactor, but has — aside from a modest European Union award — has announced little progress in the past year and is based in a country that still bans nuclear energy and only started officially reconsidering atomic power this year. Thor Energy, an early-stage Norwegian venture, has said it plans to follow Clean Core’s path in devising a thorium-based fuel for existing reactors. But the company’s website shows it hasn’t issued a press release since 2018, and a government commission in Norway just advised against pursuing atomic energy in the hydropower-rich Nordic nation.
For another, Clean Core could chart a path for other American companies into India. For years, India was effectively closed off to foreign nuclear companies due to a law that was written to avoid a scenario like the 1984 Bhopal disaster, where an accident at the Union Carbide plant killed thousands while the American corporation largely avoided liability. With that much liability on the vendors, however, the only overseas nuclear vendor willing to roll the dice was Russia’s state-owned Rosatom. But in December, as I wrote over in the Heatmap AM newsletter at the time, India passed legislation to reform the liability law and open the market for American, European, and Asian reactor developers.
If Clean Core can make India’s thorium ambitions a reality, American reactor exporters may have a new reason to start taking the fuel seriously again.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
‘Our entire company was built for this purpose.’
After decades of stagnation, the nuclear industry has drummed up all kinds of ideas meant to revive the prospects for building reactors in the United States. Make the reactors smaller. Micro, even! Cool them with helium or molten salt instead of water. Invite the Koreans or Canadians to come teach us how to construct atomic power stations again.
Yet the startup bold enough to name itself The Nuclear Company launched in 2024 on a simpler thesis: Just go with the large-scale reactors we have built before, and construct them in bulk to bring down costs.
Essentially, do what the Chinese did.
While the U.S. struggled for 15 years to complete its first two Westinghouse AP1000s, the 1.1-gigawatt units designed at the dawn of this century to be America’s flagship nuclear technology, China built four in the same time period. Beijing then reverse-engineered the technology to make its own version with an entirely domestic supply chain. China now has 10 operating Hualong One reactors and at least 37 more on the way. The U.S. ultimately completed its first two AP1000s at Southern Company’s Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia right around the same time.
The Nuclear Company was formed by hiring former managers who oversaw the Georgia project. Despite the Trump administration’s pledge to finance construction of at least 10 more large nuclear reactors, the only projects that have broken ground are new, first-of-a-kind small modular reactors that skeptics fear will face the same billion-dollar cost overruns that the AP1000s faced at Plant Vogtle — but without the same output of electricity to balance out the expenses.
On Wednesday morning, The Nuclear Company announced its most significant attempt at a Chinese-scale buildout yet. The firm unveiled plans to build 6.6 gigawatts of new, large-scale reactors at a greenfield site in Kentucky, along the Ohio River. Dubbed Prosperity One, the project would be located in Lewis County, on property once assembled for a coal-fired station that was later abandoned. The site sits half a mile from a 765-kilovolt transmission line that connects to PJM Interconnection, the nation’s second-largest and arguably most stressed grid system.
“Our entire company was built for this purpose,” Joe Klecha, The Nuclear Company’s chief nuclear officer and a former manager on the Plant Vogtle buildout, told me. “We recognize that this is different and unique in our country. We believe it’s very much needed.”
The project will begin with two reactors at a time; the Kentucky site has room for up to six. The Nuclear Company is already negotiating potential offtake agreements with electricity buyers to help finance construction, and it expects deals by next year. The company told me it has not yet decided whether it will run the Prosperity One as an independent power provider or sell the facility to a utility or another plant operator. “We are preserving all options and will make that decision as we pull the other partners onboard formally,” Klecha said.
Since its inception, The Nuclear Company has focused on the AP1000 as the most promising design in the U.S. That’s particularly true after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified the Vogtle Unit 4 design last week as the permanent, settled schematic for future AP1000s.
But Klecha left open the possibility of another technology. “The AP1000 is our basis for the site at this point, but we’ll continue to evaluate other options as we get through the site characterization,” he said. He expects that process to wrap up in “the first half of next year.”
The company’s options are limited, though. Last month, as I reported, South Korea agreed to help the U.S. build up to six new AP1000s at an as-yet-unspecified site in addition to constructing at least two APR1400s — that is, essentially the Korean version of the American technology. In theory, The Nuclear Company could build APR1400s, too. But it’s highly unlikely, since Westinghouse accused the state-owned Korea Electric Power Corporation of ripping off its technology for the APR1400 in 2022. That led to a yearslong lawsuit and settlement that gave the American company the right to demand royalties and keep Seoul out of markets where Westinghouse aims to compete.
The only other viable option is the ABWR. The world’s first so-called advanced reactor, the ABWR was built with General Electric’s boiling water reactor technology, which is used across about a third of the U.S. fleet. It serves as the second-most popular design after Westinghouse’s pressurized water reactor model. Japan successfully built four ABWRs over a decade from 1996 to 2006, and Taiwan nearly completed two before killing the project in a bid to phase out nuclear power altogether. The NRC certified the ABWR for construction in the U.S., but a project in southern Texas that aimed to build the first in the U.S. was scrapped about a decade ago.
“The ABWR has an impressive pedigree of construction success as well as experience being built to U.S. standards that is hard to find outside of the Vogtle project,” Brett Rampal, a veteran nuclear consultant who advises Deloitte and Veriten, told me. Still, he said, the AP1000 is the leading contender for the Kentucky site.
Rampal said Prosperity One represents a welcome break from how large-scale reactors have been planned in recent years. While most of the industry remains focused on small modular reactors, research I covered last month indicates the technologies could face worse cost problems than large-scale units, and the emerging consensus on building AP1000s focuses on expanding existing nuclear plants.
Indeed, The Nuclear Company’s first major deal was to help Brookfield Asset Management, which owns 51% of Westinghouse, complete a thwarted AP1000 project at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. But other potential sites considered for new AP1000s included expansions of Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bellefonte nuclear station in Alabama, or even adding another two units to Plant Vogtle.
“A lot of the thoughts around AP1000s and large reactors have always been around existing or already-licensed sites,” Rampal said. “It’s very interesting to see TNC’s first project buck the trend of what folks have been talking about around the large reactor story in this country."
At least one thing is certain about The Nuclear Company’s approach: It will settle on one design. The company is animated by the need to avoid one of the U.S. nuclear industry’s biggest financial mistakes, known simply and derisively as “Whoops.” In 1983, the Washington Public Power Supply System — WPPSS — triggered what was then the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history after its buildout of several different reactor designs at once fell apart in a major boondoggle.
Building different reactors at Prosperity One “really goes against our mission, our vision, and our thesis as a company,” Klecha confirmed.
The key is repeating the same design over and over again so the project managers sort out the fastest, most efficient ways to build and workers hone skills in actually constructing the design. “Six AP1000 units on one site creates the scale and repetition needed to drive down costs and sends a strong signal to the supply chain,” Lin Yuan, the senior advisor at the Nuclear Scaling Initiative, a non-profit collaboration working to create the enabling commercial and policy conditions for safe and secure nuclear energy scaling, told me in an email. “Manufacturers and craft labor need to see a sustained order pipeline to invest in capacity, factory expansion, and training.”
Vogtle Unit 4 came online in 2024 roughly 30% cheaper and faster than Vogtle Unit 3, completed a year earlier. Klecha said that’s the minimum cost reduction The Nuclear Company expects for the first two reactors built at Prosperity One.
“The 30%, I would say, is the floor on the savings from the first unit to the second unit,” he said. “How do we capture those lessons? Obviously, our team’s experience. We have a pretty rigorous ‘lessons learned’ document.”
Soon, he hopes, there will be even more lessons learned — in concrete, rather than on paper.