Currently, in a practical context, “nuclear energy” refers to the fission or fission of heavy particles to create large energy charges. The goal is to eventually move to a compound that combines two lightweight particles to also produce greater power, but at a lower environmental cost.
Each fossil fuel alternative generally has its own characteristics its share of detractors and ongoing issuesbut the debate over nuclear power is one of the most prominent, at least in terms of publicity. However, nuclear power is undoubtedly a powerful, high-risk industry with rapid growth. Governments often get involvedand balance between innovation and security is always a significant problem.
At this time, the current leadership seems enthusiastic on increasing America’s nuclear power capacity, including initiatives to bring microreactors— small, portable nuclear reactors—to U.S. grids in remote locations, military bases, and commercial operations. Microreactors are not necessarily new; they were thought out 1939 for military use and NASA demonstrated A small, lightweight nuclear system for spacecraft in 2018.
But the push to bring them to civilian settings gained traction with the Department of Energy (DOE) last year Dome is an initiative with pilot projects It is planned to start in the spring of 2026. So we’ll be hearing more about microreactors soon.
In this Secret Survey, we asked various experts and stakeholders to help us understand the state of microreactors. Will their benefits really outweigh their costs? What are some real advantages of microreactors? Or perhaps more importantly, what are the risks? Should we be irritated or angry?
The answers below may have been lightly edited and shortened for clarity.
Ralph Kaiser
Experimental nuclear physics, International Center for Theoretical Physics; Former head of physics research at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Nuclear reactors have not seen much technological progress for a long time. Small modular reactors (SMRs) offer a way to bring safer and more modern technologies to market. So that’s a good thing. The original idea for SMRs was also to mass-produce them and deliver them sealed, operate them for several decades, and then simply replace the entire reactor. Although most relevant, when approaching application, SMR concepts no longer follow this idea. I still think it’s a good idea.
SMRs can also be used for applications other than electricity generation, such as process heat in industry. Small reactors can also be used for marine traffic – replacing diesel engines for large container ships. Microreactors are also very important for future bases in space, i.e. on the Moon or Mars.
Edwin Lyman
Director of Nuclear Safety, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Surely we should all fear microreactors. Why? Because like so many other worthless or dangerous products introduced to the public by the out-of-control tech industry, this is an “innovation” that nobody wants and nobody needs. Microreactors are wildly uneconomical, and if deployed anywhere on the scale their boosters hope they will raise energy prices for everyone.
Worse, because microreactors will be so expensive, their developers are trying to cut corners in every way possible at the expense of public health, safety, and environmental protection. If approved by the appropriate regulators, these reactors will not have the backup cooling systems, radiation shielding and containment structures of conventional reactors. They could be located closer to populated areas and would be staffed by skeleton crews (if any) of operators and security personnel. And with little or no protection, in the wrong hands a microreactor can become a powerful terrorist weapon.
Fortunately, there’s no need to panic: microreactors aren’t likely to be coming to your neighborhood anytime soon. The unrealistic development timelines that microreactor companies are trying to meet will virtually guarantee that the first generation will be weak and unreliable at best and too dangerous to operate at worst. Any microreactors that are deployed will likely remain a curiosity—more of a hindrance than a help to any customer in need of reliable and affordable power.
John Jackson
National Technical Director of the US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Microreactor Program.
What makes microreactors really attractive is their relative simplicity and versatility. You can transport it by truck or railcar, bringing reliable power to places that have historically had high energy costs or are difficult to access, such as military installations, remote rural communities, disaster recovery bases or industrial sites. They are designed to run for several years without refueling, self-regulate, and be completely factory built and installed on site. It’s a very different value proposition than traditional nuclear, and it opens up access to energy that we didn’t have before.
That is, there are real barriers to work. Initial costs are a bit high, but as more units are built, the manufacturing processes will mature and should bring them down significantly. With Idaho National Laboratory actively testing and validating new designs, strong federal support, and demonstrations expected over the next year, I think there’s real reason to be excited about where this technology is headed.
Carlos Romero Talamas
Founder and CEO, Terra FusionA Maryland-based nuclear power startup.
The answer depends on whether you are talking about fission or fusion microreactors. Fission faces serious safety issues throughout its life cycle, from mining and processing to waste disposal. The radioactive fallout from fission can be highly toxic for thousands of years, and the same equipment used to clean fuel can be used to make weapons-grade material. In addition, fission cores contain enough fuel to last for months or even years.
Even if they are built in such a way that the core will not go supercritical (ie, a meltdown will not occur), the stored potential energy is enormous, and there is a chance of radioactive contamination that could affect large areas in a severe accident scenario. Reliably end-of-life remains an unsolved problem for fission systems, regardless of system size.
Fusion energy microreactors, on the other hand, do not yet exist, but will be extremely safe. Reactors will only store a few seconds worth of fuel in the core during operation, so the potential energy stored is several times less than in the case of fission. Even if these systems carry enough fuel to last for years, the fuel can easily be isolated in reserve tanks.
First-generation systems will use deuterium and tritium, both of which are isotopes of hydrogen, but only tritium is radioactive (and deuterium is naturally present in water…we drink it every day!). Lithium can be used to produce tritium in a microreactor, so the primary fuel supplies are non-radioactive and can be transported in conventional cargo (no need for armed guards!). The byproduct of combining deuterium and tritium is helium, which is harmless and not a greenhouse gas.
Tritium’s decay energy is low enough that when it goes into a container (such as an industrial gas bottle), you won’t even know it’s radioactive. Some components of fusion systems may be radioactive during operation, but their decay is relatively quick: after a “cooling off” of a few years to a few decades, these components can be safely recycled.
Either way, demerger or merger, we need to have an appropriate regulatory framework and oversight for the entire life of the systems, but merger will definitely be safer and easier to manage. You can be cautiously optimistic about fission systems, but definitely enthusiastic about fusion microreactors!
