Energy

Modular next-gen US nuclear reactor goes critical

Modular next-gen US nuclear reactor goes critical
The reactor is cooled by steel tubes filled with sodium
The reactor is cooled by steel tubes filled with sodium
View 3 Images
The new reactor is modular
1/3
The new reactor is modular
The reactor is cooled by steel tubes filled with sodium
2/3
The reactor is cooled by steel tubes filled with sodium
Diagram of the Antares reactor
3/3
Diagram of the Antares reactor
View gallery - 3 images

Nuclear energy in the West took another step forward as the first privately developed, non-light-water reactor to go critical in the United States in more than 40 years reached a major milestone when the Antares Nuclear Mark-0 test reactor came online at Idaho National Laboratory.

The milestone, achieved on June 4, 2026, was what is known as "initial criticality" or "zero-power fueled criticality," which means the reactor was only brought to the minimum power level required to start a nuclear chain reaction. The goal is to validate the reactor's computational physics models, core geometry, control rod performance, and initial neutronic behavior without generating significant thermal energy or requiring active coolant flow.

That may sound a bit like the equivalent of getting a car engine to turn over for the first time, and the analogy is not a bad one. But the important part is that it directly fulfills a mandate under the US Department of Energy's Reactor Pilot Program that challenged the US nuclear industry to bring at least three advanced reactor designs to criticality by July 4, 2026.

The new reactor is modular
The new reactor is modular

The initiative is intended to help jump-start the US nuclear sector, which largely stagnated after the 1970s due to shifting public opinion, political pressure, and increasingly stringent regulations that prioritized safety above all else. The result was an approval process so complex and costly that it was almost impossible to navigate without going bankrupt. Launched in 2025, the Reactor Pilot Program seeks to fast-track a new generation of reactors by using the DOE's independent safety authorization and oversight process at federal laboratory sites rather than the standard Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commercial licensing pathway for early-stage technology validation.

One of several program candidates, the planned Antares R1 reactor and its zero-power testing predecessor, the Mark-0, are high-temperature, solid-state microreactors designed to generate between 100 kW and 1 MW of electricity. Their modular design allows the reactors to built in factories and then shipped to where they are needed for activation, while additional modules can be added to meet growing power demands.

The Antares reactors are fueled by High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) formed into Tri-structural Isotropic (TRISO) fuel particles roughly the size of millet seeds. These contain uranium formed into uranium oxycarbide that's been enriched to 19.75% and then encapsulated in layers of carbon and ceramic before being pressed into cylindrical compacts and loaded into the reactor's core blocks.

Diagram of the Antares reactor
Diagram of the Antares reactor

This configuration helps make the nuclear reactor inherently self-regulating and highly resistant to meltdown, even at extreme temperatures. In addition, the pebbles can be fed into the top of the hopper-like reactor core and then removed when spent at the bottom, making refueling relatively easy.

But what sets the Antares reactors apart is that they are cooled by liquid-sodium heat pipes. These sealed steel tubes contain no pumps or moving parts. Instead, heat from the reactor causes the sodium to vaporize and travel to a heat exchanger, where it condenses before returning to the core via capillary action through an internal wick structure. According to the company, this passive system can continue cooling the reactor even during a complete loss of electrical power.

Another advantage of the Antares design is that it was developed to meet the stringent requirements of military deployment for the US Army and Air Force. As a result, it has already been selected for installation at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, by 2028.

"Today’s achievement is a historic moment for American nuclear energy," said U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright. "By bringing the first American non-light water privately developed reactor to criticality in more than four decades, Antares has shown what is possible when American innovation is unleashed. The Trump administration is proud to support the rebirth of America’s nuclear industry and ensuring Americans have access to affordable, reliable and secure energy for generations to come."

Source: Department of Energy

View gallery - 3 images
7 comments
7 comments
Jim B
The closed loop Brayton cycle turbine using Nitrogen is cool. The Graphite Moderator which will crack under neutron radiation is more of a concern. Graphite cracking is why the UK's Advanced Gas Reactors had to shut down after only a few decades of running, unlike water cooled and moderated reactors which might be able to run for 100+ years. The sodium heat pipes mean it is probably not possible to scale this design up much to higher powers. And the TRISO fuel makes the fuel source more expensive than natural gas. Overall I cannot see this becoming and economically viable reactor.
Deployable energy has a helium cooled, water moderated reactor which uses standard 5% enriched uranium. The coolant helium gas and moderating water are separated by an insulator (in the CANDU reactors this is low pressure helium gas). This is a design that could potentially scale up, although there is no mention of this on Deployable's website yet.
Deployable's fuel is standard ceramic uranium oxide, which builds up radioactive fission product gases during operation which can be released in an accident. It would be interesting to see these switched for Moltex Energy's idea of molten salt fuels in fuel pins (that isn't pumped around) and which reacts with the fission products to produce non volatile salts which aren't released in an accident.
Kiffit
Safety is a major consideration with nuclear energy. We have seen two major civil nuclear disasters and they were both hideous at the time and very long term in their effects.
Cost is always a problem for nuclear industries. The instrumentalities themselves are extremely complex and have form for massive cost and construction time blow outs, and produce massively expensive electricity.
Security is a major problem for nuclear industries right across all aspects of their operations. The war in Ukraine for instance has the Russians regularly lobbying shells/drones into the Zaporizhya nuke plant.
Waste is an unsolved problem for the nuke industry. Nobody has worked out a safe way of storing radioactive material for tens of thousands of years.
Organizational and state integrity is a problem for nuke industries. The late Soviet radioactive meltdown at Chernobyl was largely a result of the breakdown of the overall Soviet system of governance and economic viability.
Exceptional natural forces are a problem for nuclear industries. The Fukushima disaster was the result of engineers not adequately designing against the size of the tsunami that hit the place in 2011. The exclusion zone peaked at over 800 km2 and now is down to a more 'comfortable' 371 km2. Estimates of the cost run from 150-500 billion US dollars.
Renewables + storage equals a far less expensive, quicker to build, more reliable (Yes more reliable) more secure (decentralized) more natural forces disaster proof and will continue to work well even if Western societies fall to bits. Nuclear is a 20th century boondoggle
Loc
Nuclear energy is central to energy production and has been since after World War two. Japan and france have used it for decades. We run subs, carriers for decades without any issue worth mentioning. It is well past time to place nuclear as the center piece of power generation. Renewable will not get it done and overall creates more pollution long term. Just don't place them on top of earth quake prone and flood prone area's. Simple things that only require thinking a little ahead of time.
Busa10
Jim B... You seem to know good technical points of these new reactors. Tell us what your thoughts are of the Bill Gates-backed nuclear firm TerraPower who is constructing the Natrium advanced nuclear reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming.
BeinThayer
Kiffit, Well designed Nuclear build well is quite safe. Chernobyl was designed with significant safety flaws and run in a way that exacerbated those flaws beyong the point of failure. The nuclear culture at the time in the USSR practically guaranteed a disaster would eventually developed. Fukushima has serious problems in their nuclear culture and in the build out of their safety systems. Engineers brought the flaws in the buildout to the attention of management and were subsequently fired for it. This was a disaster of willful ignorance/ profit driven negligence. Contemporary designs are far more safe and safe culturen must be instilled. Even with these ctastrolphes Nuclear is more economical when the cost of necessary nattersly backup is included with renewables. Nuclear is also cheaper on a Gigawatt per human death basis than wind or solar. Nuclear also has a very small physical footprint. Some people worry about the waste of nuclear, but thia isn't a problem it is an advantagr. What other source is collecting all the waste? Most other sources of power would not be economically viable if requieed to keep and contain all their potential waste. Think solar panels are safe? Think about broken glass and the metals like cadmium leaching into the soil. Consider that the typical Coal fired plant emits yearly per Gigawatt roughly 7 tons of thoriuma and 5 tons of uranium in ultra fine fly ash into the enviorment. The peaking power planta that keep reneables viable today run on natural gas. Natutql gas leaka like a seive into the environemenr throughout the supply chain and islt is an invrwdibly potent greenhouse gas. The world needs to not be steered by sensationalist media tactics that paint nuclear as a terror. It is the only way forward that doesn't lead to skyrocketing energy prices and debilitating unreliability. We get better at things with practice, not dispair.
Ponobill
interesting, unlikely to be significant. The nuclear industry like any other large scale endeavor requires infrastructure and supply chains that simply don't exist in the USA currently. When there were a large number of BWRs and PWRs in the works, there was a large researchprogram working on waste disposal, recycling, and alternative fuel cycles. That's all gone and is unlikely to be restarted. The long construction and implementation cycle for nuclear demands a persistent political environment that overcomes fears and populist movements--feasible in Europe and Asia, not so much in the USA. Hell, we're too stupid to manage public health, how are we going to manage a technology that feeds unreasoned fears and requires a fundamental understanding of physics to be considered rationally. I just don't see it happening. Nice that folks are trying, and I wish them well. But we aren't even doing rational, simple things like building a LOT more solar and wind power. Cheap, quick, and not a lot of push back. The politics suck since big oil owns the federal government.
Ferdi Louw
Jim B, thanks for mentioning the nitrogen loop and all the other interesting facts. Yes, cost is going to be the major obstacle. Scalability is not a factor since the whole idea of modular, is to keep it small. Kiffit, yes, nobody has worked out a safe way of storing radioactive material for tens of thousands of years, but the storage problem is totally blown out of proportion. Damage and pollution from fossil fuels has an impact NOW and is way worse than what we could reasonably ever expect from the small amount of radioactive waste. Busa10, yes I want to see who is going to bring the first successful serie-produced modular source to the market!