The path to market for new nuclear reactors

Spurred by a suite of executive orders and investments from the federal government, new nuclear reactors are coming soon. Or the announcements are at least. The advanced nuclear sector has found itself in the spotlight as companies race to acquire licenses and permits aimed at achieving "criticality.” But what do these milestones signify? And is hitting the deadlines even feasible? In this episode, Shayle talks to Katy Huff, former assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the Department of Energy and current associate professor at the University of Illinois. They unpack the wave of new nuclear announcements, the realities of navigating an arcane regulatory gauntlet, and what Katy considers a realistic timeline for new nuclear deployment. Shayle and Katy cover topics like: The NRC’s “murky” pre-application process The differences between various licensing pathways Why Katy views the DOE’s goal to have three reactors reach criticality by July 4th as “an extremely aggressive milestone” Upcoming revised guidance on nuclear radiation dose rates The challenges facing the DOE amidst a staff shortage Katy’s assessment of a feasible timeline for getting new reactors operational Why Katy doesn’t think microreactors are economically scalable…yet Catalyst: The US nuclear groundswell Open Circuit: Inside Meta’s massive nuclear push Latitude Media: The self-inflicted hurdles facing Trump’s nuclear orders Latitude Media: The Department of Energy’s 2026 playbook⁠ Credits: Hosted by Shayle Kann. Produced and edited by Max Savage Levenson. Original music and engineering by Sean Marquand. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor. Catalyst is brought to you by Uplight. Uplight activates energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy—improving grid resilience and energy affordability while accelerating decarbonization. Learn how Uplight is helping utilities unlock flexible load at scale at ⁠uplight.com⁠. Catalyst is brought to you by Antenna Group, the public relations and strategic marketing agency of choice for climate, energy, and infrastructure leaders. If you're a startup, investor, or global corporation that's looking to tell your climate story, demonstrate your impact, or accelerate your growth, Antenna Group's team of industry insiders is ready to help. Learn more at ⁠antennagroup.com⁠. Catalyst is brought to you by EnergyHub. EnergyHub helps utilities build next-generation virtual power plants that unlock reliable flexibility at every level of the grid. See how EnergyHub helps unlock the power of flexibility at scale, and deliver more value through cross-DER dispatch with their leading Edge DERMS platform, by visiting⁠ ⁠⁠energyhub.com⁠.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:02Speaker 00

  Latitude Media, covering the new frontiers of the energy transition.

• 0:07Shayle Kann?

  I'm Shayle Khan, and this is Catalyst.

• 0:10Speaker 02

  I think the NRC is under a great deal of pressure to move faster, but they also have a number of deadlines that they're facing that are likely taking up a great deal of staff time. Furthermore, they have fewer staff than they did before this administration began.

• 0:29Shayle Kann?

  Coming up, what to watch out for from the wave of new nuclear reactor designs pushing toward commercialization.

• 0:43Speaker 00

  Demand flexibility is now an essential part of the data center's speed to power playbook. But how do data centers actually curtail load? GridBeyond is the end-to-end solution for flexible energy management. GridBeyond's advanced DRMs and VPP platform is tailored to what data centers care about most: maximizing reliability, intelligently meeting curtailment obligations, reducing costs, and managing all your distributed resources in one place. Ready to transform your distributed energy management? Get started at gridbeyond.com. Catalyst is brought to you by Antenna Group, the communications and marketing partner behind the most influential companies in energy, climate, and infrastructure. For three decades, Antenna has helped ambitious companies stand out,

• 1:25Speaker 00

  build market leadership, and become category-defining brands. From breakthrough startups to global industry leaders, their team brings the expertise, relationships, and track record to accelerate your momentum. Learn more at antennagroup.com.

• 1:40Speaker 03

  The power plant for the modern grid isn't a building, it's a network. Energy Hub's DRMs platform connects batteries, EVs, thermostats, and commercial and industrial sites into virtual power plants that over 230 utilities dispatch as reliable grid capacity day in, day out. VPPs deploy in 60 to 100 days at 40% to 60% less cost than traditional infrastructure, and they perform like conventional generation from day one. Learn about the flexibility platform for the modern grid at energyhub.com.

• 2:15Shayle Kann?

  I'm Shayle Khan. I lead the early-stage venture strategy at Energy Impact Partners. Welcome. Well, the new nuclear reactors are coming, or at least I think they are. There's a whole host of private companies who are advancing these new reactor designs and hoping to push them through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the NRC. They're trying to do so generally in the next couple of years, or at least this decade, and the DOE seems to be on board. In fact, the Department of Energy launched a program last year where they picked 11 of the, I'd say, earlier-stage companies in the space and gave them the challenge of getting at least three of them to reach, quote, "criticality" by July 4th of this

• 2:55Shayle Kann?

  year, 2026. We're also seeing increasing cadence of announcements from companies on all sorts of different milestones they've hit or are targeting, whether technical or regulatory or commercial. So you get this sense that the momentum is building in this space. But I'd say for anyone who's not steeped in nuclear world, I think it's also pretty hard to separate the signal from the noise and figure out the significance, or the lack thereof, of each of these announcements. So let's see if we can untangle it. For this one, I brought on Katie Huff. Katie was the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy and is now an associate professor at the University of Illinois. Here's Katie. Katie, welcome.

• 3:34Speaker 02

  Thanks. It's great to be here.

• 3:36Shayle Kann?

  I'm very excited for you to help me understand what's actually happening out there in the world of new nuclear reactors. Let's start with actually just walking through the process. If I'm a company who wants to go commercialize a new nuclear reactor in the United States, just high level, like, what are the key milestones in my process?

• 3:57Speaker 02

  Yeah, well, fundamentally, you're going to have to start with a design and a site and some pre-application engagement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

• 4:08Speaker 02

  And then you're going to do a lot of safety analysis and put together a site report and a safety analysis report for your reactor design. You're going to have to put together plans for how to operate that reactor, how to train operators for that reactor, how to ensure its safety in certain design basis accidents, et cetera. All of those documents go into the NRC in different forms and the NRC takes those documents and gives you first a construction permit ideally and then an operating license, though there is a pathway that does those two things in parallel. In the meantime, there's public meetings and hearings and, you know, a lot of back

• 4:53Speaker 02

  and forth with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the form of technical white papers, technical reports, you know, reports that then get reviews by NRC and responses from NRC and then responses to the responses will come out of your company and into the NRC. And all of that is just in the context of licensing because in addition to all that, you also have to have a financial plan, which the NRC also reviews. But generally speaking, there's a couple of different pathways for licensing. One's called Part 50 of TNCFR, the Federal Register Code. One's called Part 52 recently. There's now one called Part 53 that's for advanced reactors, but no one's really using it yet. So that, you

• 5:37Speaker 02

  know, Part 50 process is where you do the two steps, the construction permit and the operating license separately. That Part 52 process is where you combine these two things and do them in parallel. But that's, that's more or less the process and it can take years.

• 5:53Shayle Kann?

  Yeah, well, when you say it can take years, it does take years, right? Like it never doesn't.

• 5:58Speaker 02

  That's right. That's right.

• 5:59Shayle Kann?

  Yeah. Okay, one thing that I think is different about this process than what you might imagine on the outside is that it's much more iterative and it's like, it seems to be done in conjunction with the NRC, more so than what you could imagine in some parallel universe, which is like you prepare your application, you file it to the NRC, the NRC maybe comes back with some comments, or maybe says thumbs up or thumbs down. But it seems like actually the process is much more collaborative, may or may not be the right word, actually, you can tell me. But as an example, I mean, a lot of what I want to help clarify is that there are all these new reactor companies who are trying to commercialize new reactor designs. And one of the things that you will see them announce sometimes is, we had a

• 6:42Shayle Kann?

  really productive design review session with 50 people from the NRC and our company, and that is, you know, indicative of progress. But I have no idea whether that's indicative of progress, right? Like, does that happen every single time? Is it always positive? Do people get rejected somewhere in this process? Like, what is it like in that murky, that murky early ground where there's all this iteration and work being done before you submit your formal construction permit?

• 7:11Speaker 02

  Yeah, absolutely. I would say that while it is an indicator that things are happening in the company and an indicator that the NRC is not in the dark about what's happening in that company, at no point sort of in that process is NRC really issuing official decisions of any kind. In the pre-application activities, you do have to submit kind of a letter of intent, you have to submit, you know, billing information so that the NRC can start billing you for their time. And you do things like a regulatory engagement plan gets put together and you tell the regulator how you want to, like, go about the process of engaging with

• 7:51Speaker 02

  them. And then there's usually public kickoff meetings and readiness assessments as a part of that, including public outreach meetings. And all of that is before you submit your application. Once you submit your application, NRC then decides whether or not to accept that application and start actually doing the review. People do get rejected at the acceptance of application stage, for example, if it just doesn't reflect the level of technical depth that NRC is going to need to do the review. That is certainly a thing that happens. And sometimes it's, you know, years after you've started your pre-application activities.

• 8:27Shayle Kann?

  You mentioned this like two-phase process of construction permit, then operations permit. Is there something before a construction permit that's like design license?

• 8:35Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 8:35Shayle Kann?

  So I, as an example, I remember, I know NuScale is the first SMR company to receive design license approval. I think also there have been companies like, Oaklow was rejected at some point. Was that for its design license application? Is that distinct from a construction permit?

• 8:51Speaker 02

  Yeah, so the, it's technically called a design certification, but yeah, it's, it's, it's a certification independent of the site. And so it is really hyper-focused on the reactor. It's hyper-focused on making sure that everything within the boundary of the site is going to go well, regardless of what site you put it on. And then separate sort of site-specific questions will be asked as part of the rest of the construction permit. But what you can then take that design certification and not have to sort of re-review the reactor every time you have a new place you want to put it. So the idea there is you're sort of certifying

• 9:32Speaker 02

  the reactor as safe, assuming the rest of the questions about particular sites are safe, right? And that allows you then for your subsequent license applications to be focused on site-specific questions about how safely that reactor behaves in the context of your, like, site. So new sites, et cetera. So the thing that NRC denied is the combined license application. So they submitted an applica-

• 10:05Shayle Kann?

  This is for Oaklow, you mean?

• 10:06Speaker 02

  Yeah, so Oaklow. So the thing that NRC denied for Oaklow was that they, they submitted a combined license application. So this is for that parallel step where you don't do a separate design certification. You sort of submit a combined operating license and construction permit application. And it was rejected largely because it contained information gaps in terms of its potential accidents and classification of safety systems and components and stuff.

• 10:39Shayle Kann?

  Okay. So-

• 10:41Shayle Kann?

  Lots of steps and iteration and this is kind of like messy process. I guess in principle, I would imagine that the first, if I think of the three big steps as being getting your design certification, getting a construction permit and getting an operating license, I guess I would intuitively think that the design permit is maybe the hardest and longest, and then the construction permit is second to that. So you could imagine it being like a three years, two year, one year for the three different steps or something like that. Just in terms of the order of time and complexity and difficulty, do I have it right? Or is it actually like harder to get a construction permit than a design certification?

• 11:25Speaker 02

  Well, the statistics are small here, right? And there's great variation per reactor. And so it's very challenging to say specifically like, oh yeah, it's always going to be more time spent on the reactor. Actually, what we have seen, and there is some interesting statistics on, is the amount of environmental review time that also happens in parallel because in terms of that site application, you are sort of really highly focused on NEPA. And so the environmental impact assessment process can be a long pole in that tent. And it sort of has very little to do with the reactor design itself. And so actually you might see places where the site permit and construction permit are

• 12:07Speaker 02

  subject to environmental impact assessments and whatnot that aren't safety assessments and that those can rival both in length of the report and in time that it takes to review it, the kind of reactor review.

• 12:23Shayle Kann?

  What if anything has changed at the NRC in this new administration, which is pro-nuclear pretty openly, at least rhetorically, but then also we've had DOGE during that period. So like, is the NRC moving faster, moving slower, more equipped, less equipped? Like, is there any difference right now?

• 12:44Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think the NRC is under a great deal of pressure to move faster, but they also have a number of deadlines that they're facing that are likely taking up a great deal of staff time. Furthermore, they have fewer staff than they did before this administration began. And so the staffing issue certainly is one to keep in mind. They have had the support through the last, you know, in the Biden administration as well with things like the Advance Act, which, you know, is sort of bipartisan. That bipartisan support has indicated ways in which the NRC can accelerate licensing,

• 13:24Speaker 02

  engage in international memorandum of understanding, for example, to, you know, share information about reactor designs that one country is licensing and use that information in our own licenses, for example. It's given some authorization to the NRC to consider, you know, what it looks like to cite a reactor on a former fossil site, like a coal plant site. Many of those sites are already quite contaminated, even radioactively contaminated because of the heavy metals in coal. And so, you know, the way to approach those reviews in an accelerated way is sort of, there's a nice open door for that.

• 14:04Speaker 02

  The Advance Act was passed in the Biden administration and the NRC now is sort of taking some of those instructions and going forth with some of the recommended activities from the Advance Act to accelerate licensing. They also now have a full commission. For the first many months of this administration, they did not, there were firings and, you know, a stepping down of major commissioners. There should be five commissioners at the head of the NRC. And now, as of like a couple of weeks ago, there are again, but for a while there weren't. A lot of those things, including the government shutdown. Have slowed things down at the NRC, frankly.

• 14:45Speaker 02

  Add to that some of the sort of external requirements that the administration has placed on the NRC. And you get a situation where they've been very busy with fewer staff and not as much leadership as they ordinarily ought to have. Those kinds of deadlines and timelines, I've been a little vague about, but basically there were there were a fleet of executive orders associated with regulation. One in February of last year that applied to every independent regulatory commission in the country that said these these commissions shouldn't be independent and they should, you know, align all of their decisions with the White House, et cetera. And it covered everything, the FEC, the FCC, et cetera, but also the NRC.

• 15:26Speaker 02

  And there was a lot of question whether anyone would execute, you know, a desire to capture politically the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It turns out in May, a number of executive orders were issued indicating precisely how the Office of the President would like to see the NRC behave. And that includes some renovation of the way that they think about dose rates. And there are deadlines with regard to rulemaking that NRC is facing. Just a month from now, February 23rd, they'll have to release room like guidance, uh, rulemaking on how they have either changed or not changed those dose rates without any real new data,

• 16:09Speaker 02

  just because the administration has declared that they ought to.

• 16:12Shayle Kann?

  Okay. So my takeaway from all this is that there's pressure for the NRC to move faster. There's not evidence that the NRC is moving faster and it may be difficult for the NRC to move faster, given a bunch of other constraints have been placed upon it.

• 16:26Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think that's true. I think it is certainly the case that the NRC has made a couple of good moves recently. Certain applications are going really well and quickly with decisions kind of moving rapidly. The ones that were already in progress, like X Energy's reactor and Kairos's reactor and stuff have had some nice announcements recently associated with their, you know, um, license progress. But yeah, I mean, one would expect that it's probably harder to move faster right now with fewer staff.

• 17:00Speaker 00

  For data centers, connecting to the grid quickly means two things: building distributed energy and having a plan for demand flexibility. GridBeyond helps with both. GridBeyond's DERMs and VPP platform unlocks the potential of distributed assets and dispatches flexibility into the right market at the right time. And this is more than software. GridBeyond supports developers every step of the way. From modeling your highest ROI energy mix to orchestrating the full set of assets around a data center. The track record speaks for itself. GridBeyond manages over 1,400 sites and more than 3.7 gigawatts of load across Europe, the UK, and the US. Learn more at gridbeyond.com or click the link in the show notes. If you work in energy or climate,

• 17:44Speaker 00

  you already know the company's Antenna Group has helped build. For three decades, they've been the communications and marketing partner behind the industry's breakout companies, category creators, and market leaders. Today, their team is working across the most consequential areas of the energy economy, from data centers and grid modernization to nuclear, geothermal, storage, critical materials, and next-generation technologies. Antenna helps ambitious companies become the names everyone in the market knows, trusts, and wants to work with. They build reputation, elevate executives, drive demand, and turn momentum into market leadership. If your company is ready to lead its market, Antenna is ready to help you get there. Visit antennagroup.com.

• 18:26Speaker 03

  When you harness the power of millions of DERs in a VPP and put artificial intelligence behind the dispatch, the outcomes exceed conventional generation. Energy Hub's DERMs platform has been trained on years of real dispatch data from over 2.6 million DERs, so utilities can plan with confidence. That means consistent load reduction across a four-hour event window, even during the widest, most uncertain peak periods. Utilities target, shape, and verify capacity down to the meter. Unlock flexible capacity that costs 40% to 60% less to deploy than traditional infrastructure in a fraction of the time it takes you to break ground on a peaker plant. Learn more at energyhub.com.

• 19:10Shayle Kann?

  You mentioned good announcements recently on progress from X Energy and Kairos. What are the potential forthcoming big decisions? Are there, could X Energy and Kairos get construction permits shortly? What it should be looking like, Terra Power, all the names that have sort of further along in this process, like what could be coming soon?

• 19:30Speaker 02

  Yeah, absolutely. It's going to be construction permits that you want to look out for. Kairos has test reactors ahead of their final commercial design. Those have already received some construction permits from the NRC in the 2023, 2024 timeframe, and they're continuing to see kind of rapid progress with NRC on, you know, continued, you know, final safety evaluations for those reactors. So that's great. And we'll see, you know, construction permit applications like either being submitted or approved for a lot of the other reactors. And that's where you really start to get excited. Some such reactors have received construction permit, early, early construction permission, even before they have technically a construction permit.

• 20:14Speaker 02

  They can start working on digging out those sites without building anything nuclear. That's a, a nice feature that the NRC allows folks to sort of start laying the land at their own risk without promising that the construction permit will be approved. They can say, ah, yeah, well, we know enough to say you can probably start doing the non-nuclear construction. That's happened. Yeah, so those are really great signs.

• 20:38Shayle Kann?

  Okay, so I want to talk about this DOE pilot program. So this is last year, the DOE announced this nuclear reactor pilot program. They picked 11 companies who have new reactor designs and they set a goal, they're working with all of them, and they set a goal for at least three of them to achieve criticality on test reactors by July 4th of this year. Not a coincidence that it's July 4th. What does it mean for a test reactor to achieve criticality? And like, how important a milestone is that?

• 21:10Speaker 02

  So I think it depends on what kind of criticality we're talking about. For example, there's something called a zero-power criticality test, which means that you are multiplying neutrons, even if it's three or four neutrons, right? This is happening, this happens easily without making real necessarily engineering progress on either the fuels or the reactor design. And so I would be careful to sort of keep an eye out for some of the caveats about how those were really accomplished. For example, Valor Atomics announced that they had reached criticality at Los Alamos. But you know, it's an experiment that Los Alamos already had running. It is with a fuel similar to Valor Atomics fuel. But it was a zero-power criticality test. So it's basically sort of at what we call cold zero power,

• 21:55Speaker 02

  which is to say they're not taking this like fuel up to the kinds of power densities that we would actually see in the reactor. They're simply checking whether or not you can multiply neutrons inside that fuel, which generally speaking, we know from lots of experience and simulation from most reactor fuels. So I would be careful not to sort of buy into the hype of any kind of criticality tests that sort of are caveated by things like zero power, cold zero power. I want to see myself criticality at what's called hot full power. And that kind of thing takes time. In fact, in the history of building research reactors, the kind of median time for how long it takes from pouring concrete to getting to that hot, hot full power

• 22:39Speaker 02

  criticality is much longer. It's two years or so, right? And there's a nice report out of Oak Ridge by Gail Hock and others that kind of goes through that history. But you know, even if you include the Wild West days when they're, you know, the pre-NRC, when everything was Atomic Energy Commission, you know, it took years from concrete to criticality when you're thinking about things in terms of that real criticality. So I would be careful about that. And I don't think a lot of reactors really are on pace for that July 4th milestone because it's an extremely aggressive milestone. And I think it's a little unfair to the nuclear industry actually to sort of set these very aggressive milestones

• 23:20Speaker 02

  when the reality is that it's a, these are extremely high-precision machines. They don't happen overnight.

• 23:28Shayle Kann?

  So actually, I'm not clear on whether the DOE's stated intention is for three reactors to reach zero power criticality or full power criticality or something in between. Were they specific enough to be prescriptive on that or is it left open-ended?

• 23:42Speaker 02

  They were not, and I think that allows these companies probably to declare victory, even if it's not as meaningful as we would like to see, right?

• 23:51Shayle Kann?

  Okay, so that's like criticality as one milestone that has various meanings. This is reminding me of infusion world, right? Reaching Q equals one, reaching energy breakeven. There's another level of detail you need to understand to determine how important it is when somebody says that they've done that. Sounds similar with achieving criticality on a test reactor.

• 24:14Speaker 02

  It is precisely similar. The question of Q equals one in physics world is very different from Q equals one in engineering world, like whether or not you can actually capture energy of it. It's very much exactly the same sort of question.

• 24:26Shayle Kann?

  What about just in terms of other milestones that I see startups announcing? As an example, Radiant, which is doing microreactors, which by the way, I want to ask you about microreactors in the context of the NRC pathway. Is there any difference in terms of the NRC licensing process for a new light water reactor versus an SMR versus a microreactor? Are they all exactly the same?

• 24:49Speaker 02

  So right now, the options before them are pretty much the same. There is a new licensing pathway called 10 CFR Part 53 that was intended to be more supportive of advanced reactors, including microreactors. But right now, it's not obvious that it would be that much faster for most companies. So a lot of them are still choosing 10 CFR Part 50 or 52. And what you do instead is just have certain waivers for changed guidance that is specific to your reactor type, right? You just have a different way to evaluate that same requirement that's in the regulation. And so it may go faster, and in fact, NRC has done a really good job of looking into

• 25:30Speaker 02

  certain things that are very unique to microreactors, like whether or not the emergency planning zone needs to be any larger than the fence line is a question that NRC, you know... Wrangled with for a little while and came out with a really, I think, reasonable sort of idea about how to approach that. And it will be totally reasonable if NRC decides that some of those microreactors have, you know, emergency planning zones that don't go any further than the reactor site itself, which is great.

• 25:59Shayle Kann?

  Got it. Okay. So then back to the milestones. So Radian, as an example, has, I think on their website that they say in 2026, Kallitos, which is the name of their reactor, will be the first new commercial reactor designed to achieve a fueled test in over 50 years. What does it mean to achieve a fueled test? And how does that relate to criticality, for example?

• 26:18Speaker 02

  Yeah, so that would be that kind of hot, full power test that I was describing earlier. It's in a long set of tests that we call ITAC. But there's a whole bunch of things you need to do before you start up a reactor to make sure that everything's working, all the pressures are right, all the temperatures are right, and the fuel is working and things of this nature. It means you put fuel in that reactor core vessel, you close it up, and you turn it on, you at least get up through some of these like multiplication levels that we are talking about that are sort of at real power. Fueled tests are critical before you can start. Well, they're critical in the criticality sense, but they are also really important

• 27:03Speaker 02

  because you have to start working on figuring out, you know, whether or not all of your simulations and modeling match precisely the kind of approach to criticality with fuel inside the reactor that you were expecting.

• 27:17Shayle Kann?

  Any other milestones that you see companies announce or haven't announced yet? But like, what are the things, what's the, what is the phrasing that we should be looking out for that we should take to mean something substantial? I find that because this is so complex and because there's so many steps in the process, you get a lot of announcements. And because all these companies are raising a lot of money and need to raise a lot of money, they make a lot of announcements about various things. And it's like hard to separate signal from noise. So like, what would, what would be signal to you?

• 27:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think the lightest signal is we've submitted a letter of intent to the NRC. That's a company that actually intends to engage the NRC and nothing more. We've submitted a construction permit application to the NRC. Now, that's a company that has engaged with the NRC, gotten sort of good feedback on their regulatory engagement plan and have a plan for like a construction permit. They, they might submit a safety analysis report to the NRC. That is sort of associated with the safety of their reactor. That's serious and submitting those things to the NRC is the bulk of the work that you're looking at. When the NRC accepts those applications, that's also a good sign, but it is not quite as good

• 28:33Speaker 02

  as when the NRC actually approves the construction permit or approves the design certification or approves the operating license. The operating license is last or in the process that's parallel, it is together with the last step. That operating license requires the folks put together their like operating license plan and training plan and everything else. Once that's submitted, that's again a real step where like real documents have been submitted and they're about to be reviewed. And so I would say there are certain documents, the construction permit application, the safety analysis report, the operating license application. Those things, once they're submitted, those are really big signs. Once they're approved, obviously, those are really big, big signs, right?

• 29:15Speaker 02

  And then I would also say on the utility side, there's a sort of question about like where you're putting these plants. And if a utility is really partnered with an early site permit application for a reactor that has process underway with the NRC, then that's also worth considering in seriousness, much more than like, say, an MOU with a community where the utility is saying, oh, we think we're going to site a reactor in your particular location. It's much different once you've submitted an early site permit application like on behalf of that utility vendor partnership. That is a much more serious indicator that something will eventually be built on that site, though it's certainly not a guarantee. There are many early site permits that have been supported that.

• 30:02Speaker 02

  Still don't have a reactor built on them that were sort of decades old. So one other thing that I would say, just from a like micro reactor standpoint is I'm waiting for the reactor factory, right? Microreactors in particular do not make sense economically until you're building them in a factory with a plan for shipping those reactors fueled and receiving those reactors, defueling them, those sorts of things. A company that has a big, physical footprint factory with a lay down in their plant for how that process is going to work, that that company is ahead of the game in the microreactor world.

• 30:46Speaker 02

  Right now, in the small modular reactor space, you know, Holtek is a good example. They have had a factory for a very long time, building other things, spent nuclear fuel casks in particular. And so they're a little bit ahead of the game there, but you know, I'd be looking carefully at which companies have a factory to fabricate their fuel and which companies have a factory to fabricate their reactors.

• 31:06Shayle Kann?

  How much does a plan for the spent nuclear fuel, for the waste, matter? I mean, we never built Yucca Mountain, so we're still doing lots of onsite storage for all the spent nuclear waste from all the existing reactors. Like, how much do all these new companies with new reactors have to contend with, what are we going to do with the waste?

• 31:24Speaker 02

  Yeah, part of the NRC's licensing process is something called waste confidence. They have to, in the licensing that says you can turn this reactor on and start operating it, there has to be some level of confidence that there will eventually be a plan for the waste. Historically, there's been some litigation back and forth about whether this waste confidence can simply rely on the federal process if we aren't successfully pursuing a Yucca Mountain type activity.

• 31:52Speaker 02

  All of that is to say that at the moment, companies do need to include some plan for how they're going to manage in the interim their spent nuclear fuel onsite until the federal government takes ownership of it. And so that has to be a part of their application to the regulator. And for a lot of companies, that means spent nuclear fuel is cooled either in pools or in small containers in the circulated air and ideally eventually put into dry cask storage while it waits. For some companies, this may mean an active recycling facility right there onsite with the reactor or at the reactor factory.

• 32:34Speaker 02

  All of that needs to be considered if that's in fact part of the plan. And I think a lot of companies maybe are leaving that to that second phase of the operating license application. But I would love to see them being a little clearer about precisely what their plan is for interim storage in the meantime before the federal government has a consolidated interim storage facility or a final repository plan.

• 32:58Shayle Kann?

  All right. So putting this all together, do you have a bet or a guess as to when we will see the first new reactor built, I guess, operating? And will we see one get through that gauntlet five years before the next? Or are we going to see a wave of them all around the same time?

• 33:23Speaker 02

  Yeah, well, I think right now, a lot of companies are sort of neck and neck for construction permit decisions for real commercial reactors. You know, late this year, 2027, right? If NRC is able to follow some of their really short turnaround hopes for construction permit review, a few companies like Terra Power and X Energy and Kairos are really close to that. Here at Illinois, we have a research and test reactor application going in for a microreactor onsite. That goes through a slightly different process intended for things that contribute to the public good, like research reactors. But it'll produce real power for our campus once it's built and it'll probably be on

• 34:08Speaker 02

  a similar timeline. And I think those first reactors will take a while to be constructed. That's part of the challenge is that once you have that construction permit, now the real work of constructing it and fueling it begins. And so I'm pretty bad at making predictions, but I would be surprised if by 2032, we haven't seen real new advanced reactor electrons on the grid. There may not be many and it'll probably be just one reactor. But it'll shortly thereafter be followed by, you know, a second or third. And then that reactor that's first onto the grid, I expect will have entropy kind reactors sort of coming in right behind it.

• 34:50Speaker 02

  There could be a serious gap if there's a lot of delay in construction, which will reduce confidence from the investors that want to buy more reactors and probably slow down the whole process.

• 35:02Shayle Kann?

  All right, Katie, this was very informative and I feel substantially better at being able to interpret all the announcements that I see in this space. So thank you so much for the time.

• 35:12Speaker 02

  Yeah, thanks for having me.

• 35:15Shayle Kann?

  Katie Huff is an associate professor at the University of Illinois. She formerly served as the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy in the United States. This show is a production of Latitude Media. You can head over to latitudemedia.com for links to today's topics. Latitude is supported by Prelude Ventures. This episode was produced by Max Savage Levenson. Mixing and theme song by Sean Marquand. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor. I'm Shayle Khan and this is Catalyst.