
Enabling humanity to flourish with atomic energy. Managing Partner (VC) at https://xitter.cf/t.co/LWzFdU54BL. Join us in investing in #advancednuclear
Trinity, FL
Joined March 2008
- Tweets71.3K
- Following2.6K
- Followers22.1K
- Likes7.3K
Entrepreneurs like @MattLoszak and @yasir_fission of @AaloAtomics are changing our world. They and others like them are invigorating the nuclear industry, which was born with extreme potential but has been languishing for decades.
I support them. You should too.
I'll always remember the moment I decided to quit my job and go all-in on company building.
I was working at a small engineering firm in the far West-end of Toronto. It was 2012, and I'd been considering quitting for months, ever since my first day.
But one day, on the drive home, I saw a billboard that looked like this (made with AI obviously but based on memory).
I still have no idea what they were advertising, but it said in plain white text on a pure black background: "Never wait for the ideal time to take a risk". I'm not making this up. I spoke to my boss the next day and told him I was leaving.
It's been a long journey. My first startup failed, and the next one we were able to sell, but I never cared much about the product we created. Aalo is the culmination of all my interests. It's the company that I've always dreamed of creating (but didn't think was possible, since I graduated right after Fukushima).
This same billboard message was still relevant In 2021 when I was considering if the time was right to start Aalo. It wasn't obvious. Countries were shutting down GW-scale nuclear plants globally. The odds of success seemed low. But I decided I'd much rather try and fail, than not try at all.
Building this company has been the most fun I've ever had in my life. There's nothing more fulfilling than working on super hard challenges with very smart people. I hope I can spend the rest of my life working on ever more challenging problems, with an even broader group of incredible and inspiring people.
If you're interested in joining us or considering getting into nuclear, or thinking about going off and taking a risk to start something new, don't wait for the perfect time. Just do it.
I love supporting dedicated visionaries like @AaloAtomics’s @MattLoszak and @yasir_fission. They’re changing our world, but they aren’t alone.
I'll always remember the moment I decided to quit my job and go all-in on company building.
I was working at a small engineering firm in the far West-end of Toronto. It was 2012, and I'd been considering quitting for months, ever since my first day.
But one day, on the drive home, I saw a billboard that looked like this (made with AI obviously but based on memory).
I still have no idea what they were advertising, but it said in plain white text on a pure black background: "Never wait for the ideal time to take a risk". I'm not making this up. I spoke to my boss the next day and told him I was leaving.
It's been a long journey. My first startup failed, and the next one we were able to sell, but I never cared much about the product we created. Aalo is the culmination of all my interests. It's the company that I've always dreamed of creating (but didn't think was possible, since I graduated right after Fukushima).
This same billboard message was still relevant In 2021 when I was considering if the time was right to start Aalo. It wasn't obvious. Countries were shutting down GW-scale nuclear plants globally. The odds of success seemed low. But I decided I'd much rather try and fail, than not try at all.
Building this company has been the most fun I've ever had in my life. There's nothing more fulfilling than working on super hard challenges with very smart people. I hope I can spend the rest of my life working on ever more challenging problems, with an even broader group of incredible and inspiring people.
If you're interested in joining us or considering getting into nuclear, or thinking about going off and taking a risk to start something new, don't wait for the perfect time. Just do it.
Large reactors and SMRs can be good neighbors.
The notion is heresy here, where there is a continuing battle between those who believe the only useful reactors are very large and those who believe that reactors of varying sizes provide better product-market fit.
The idea is on its way to being tested in Uzbekistan, where Rosatom is planning to supply four reactors in the Forish district of the Jizzakh region. The station will include two VVER-1000 (1000 MWe each) and two RITM-200 (55 MWe each)
Any good ideas why this combination might work?
Now that I think of it, @holtecintl is taking a similar route by adding two of its SMRs to the Palisades site in Michigan where it is nearly finished with the restart of the existing large unit.
Rod Adams retweeted
Proud to announce what we've been working on: Prosperity One.
Site control on 4 thousand acres of extraordinary land.
It includes ultra high voltage transmission, rail, and the mighty Ohio River, and a welcoming county, making for one of the best places for nuclear on earth.
Rod Adams retweeted
Dispatches from Idaho! ⚛️
Earlier this month, we joined our partners at @HornbeckOffical to kick off our Nuclear Energy Launch Pad USA Maritime Demo, marking an exciting step forward in bringing advanced nuclear energy to maritime applications.
🤖 Made with AI
Rod Adams retweeted
Yesterday was the kind of day the climate plan is built around. Mild, 60s everywhere, no furnaces, no air conditioners, a holiday Monday with many offices dark. If renewables are ever going to carry New York, it is on a day like this one.
Here is what the day did. Gas supplied 44% of the state’s electricity and 51% of the peak hour. Solar supplied 5% of the day and 0% of the peak. Its best hour reached 18% of the state, against 28 to 31% on last week’s sunny days, because Syracuse sat under drizzle until dark and Albany didn’t see sun until early afternoon. The utility-scale fleet topped out at 700 MW.
And the Champlain Hudson Power Express, the 1,250 MW line sold to the city as its clean-power backbone, delivered nothing. Not a low number. Zero, all 24 hours, with NYISO’s limit on the line set to zero, which is the signature of an outage rather than a quiet day. It is still at zero this morning. On Sunday it ran for four hours. Meanwhile New York exported an average of 546 MW to Quebec on the old tie beside it, all day.
The peak came at 7 PM, after dark, at 18.0 GW. Gas ran 9.2 GW. The four reactors ran 3.3 GW, the whole fleet, flat for 24 hours. Niagara and the pumped-storage plant at Blenheim-Gilboa pushed hydro to 3.5 GW. Imports were 6%, with the backbone contributing none of it.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review efficiencies are improving.
A recent example is the Fermi America Environmental Impact review.
The project is large and unique, requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as opposed to an Environmental Impact Assessment or a Generic EIS.
Fermi America submitted an application in June 2025.
The NRC issued its draft EIS for public comment last week.
It expects to issue the final EIS in December 2026. That's 18 months for a process that formerly took closer to 45 months.
This kind of responsiveness bodes well for an accelerating nuclear capacity buildout.
@NRCgov
Rod Adams retweeted
SpaceX alums are distributing themselves throughout the advanced nuclear energy industry. It's hard to remember the last time I reviewed a pitch deck for a nuclear start-up whose team did not include at least one former SpaceX member.
This trend excites me and gives hope for continuing improvements.
@multiplanet1 offers an explanation supporting my optimism.
A retired NASA engineer who had worked on the Space Shuttle program for 25 years was hired by SpaceX at age 62. He described the first week as the most disorienting experience of his professional life.
At NASA, a design change required 3 meetings, 2 committees, a review board, and 6 to 18 months of documentation. At SpaceX, his new supervisor said "if it works, build it. If it doesn't, change it by Friday."
He sat at his desk after the first day and called his wife. He told her he felt like a man who had been swimming with ankle weights for 25 years and someone just cut them off. He could move. He could decide. He could build something in the morning and test it in the afternoon. The constraint that he had accepted as the nature of aerospace engineering turned out to be the nature of bureaucracy.
Within 6 months he had contributed to more design iterations than he had completed in his last 5 years at NASA. Not because he was working harder. Because the time between having an idea and testing the idea collapsed from months to hours. The same brain. The same knowledge. A different operating system.
He described a specific moment where he proposed a modification to a Raptor engine component. At NASA, the proposal would have entered a queue. At SpaceX, the modification was machined by the end of the day and tested by the following morning. He watched his idea become a physical object in 18 hours. At NASA, 18 hours would not have been enough to schedule the first meeting to discuss whether to schedule a meeting.
He told an interviewer: "I didn't get smarter when I went to SpaceX. I got faster. The intelligence was always there. The system was in the way."
The difference between SpaceX and NASA is not talent. NASA has extraordinary talent. The difference is the time between a thought and a test. SpaceX compresses it. NASA elongates it. The same engineer produces 10x more at SpaceX than at NASA because the bottleneck was never the engineer. It was the meetings about the meetings about the work.
SpaceX alums are distributing themselves throughout the advanced nuclear energy industry. It's hard to remember the last time I reviewed a pitch deck for a nuclear start-up whose team did not include at least one former SpaceX member.
This trend excites me and gives hope for continuing improvements.
@multiplanet1 offers an explanation supporting my optimism.
A retired NASA engineer who had worked on the Space Shuttle program for 25 years was hired by SpaceX at age 62. He described the first week as the most disorienting experience of his professional life.
At NASA, a design change required 3 meetings, 2 committees, a review board, and 6 to 18 months of documentation. At SpaceX, his new supervisor said "if it works, build it. If it doesn't, change it by Friday."
He sat at his desk after the first day and called his wife. He told her he felt like a man who had been swimming with ankle weights for 25 years and someone just cut them off. He could move. He could decide. He could build something in the morning and test it in the afternoon. The constraint that he had accepted as the nature of aerospace engineering turned out to be the nature of bureaucracy.
Within 6 months he had contributed to more design iterations than he had completed in his last 5 years at NASA. Not because he was working harder. Because the time between having an idea and testing the idea collapsed from months to hours. The same brain. The same knowledge. A different operating system.
He described a specific moment where he proposed a modification to a Raptor engine component. At NASA, the proposal would have entered a queue. At SpaceX, the modification was machined by the end of the day and tested by the following morning. He watched his idea become a physical object in 18 hours. At NASA, 18 hours would not have been enough to schedule the first meeting to discuss whether to schedule a meeting.
He told an interviewer: "I didn't get smarter when I went to SpaceX. I got faster. The intelligence was always there. The system was in the way."
The difference between SpaceX and NASA is not talent. NASA has extraordinary talent. The difference is the time between a thought and a test. SpaceX compresses it. NASA elongates it. The same engineer produces 10x more at SpaceX than at NASA because the bottleneck was never the engineer. It was the meetings about the meetings about the work.
Hyperscalers involved in AI have often been described as having strong balance sheets with high margins and lots of cash to spend.
What happens to debt markets when those companies increasingly turn to massive debt instruments to fund capital expenditures that greatly exceed their cash hoards?
My prediction: The economic "laws" governing the balancing of supply and demand through pricing changes will come into play. Prices for borrowed money – interest rates – will need to increase to encourage more money to be available to lend.
(Of course, lending markets have heavy footed intervenors, so my prediction is on shaky ground.)
Regarding small and advanced nuclear reactors, journalists of a certain bent often write:
"a still largely untested and unproven technology in the United States"
I have my own slant.
"a rapidly developing technology that is being systematically tested and proven ready for commercial markets"
Something new has happened in the growing set of Small Modular Reactor companies that have gone public.
Executive leaders at @newcleoenergy, a European company that was already well-capitalized before going public in the US via a SPAC, believe their shares are selling for a bargain price.
Their reaction was to ask their shareholders for permission to buy some of them back during the next five years. Their shareholders overwhelmingly approved, by a 99.8% majority vote, to approve the company's capital buyback plan.
Sounds like newcleo leaders and shareholders believe shares in their company are "on sale" at a price where buying is more logical than selling.
Türkiye President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s son-in-law Selcuk Bayraktar is the chairman of Baykar, a successful drone company. He is also the owner of TMRS Energy.
For the past couple of years, TMRS Energy has been quietly preparing to enter the SMR industry by developing the capability to manufacture small modular reactors.
The transition from drones to SMRs sounds vaguely familiar.
I also wonder if the family relationship to the President has anything to do with Türkiye's efforts to establish a new regulatory regime for Small Modular Reactors.
Indian Point opponents promised that hydro power from Quebec would supply as much electricity as one of the units.
That new source of supply needed a transmission line. After many delays, the line is now in service - roughly 5 years after the last electricity from Indian Point NPP was supplied to the grid.
But…. Hydro Quebec is supplying something less than 20% of the promised power. The deal approved by NYSERDA includes many loopholes that allow Hydro Quebec to keep its “abundant” power whenever it needs it.
"One project alone [the Champlain Hudson Power Express] could provide 1,000 megawatts of hydropower – 50 percent of Indian Point's capacity – and that project has all its approvals."
- Paul Gallay, Riverkeeper president, January 2017
Yesterday, CHPE delivered zero.
It wasn't an outage. NYISO listed the line as available at its full 1,250 MW for all 24 hours, and Hydro-Québec scheduled nothing across it. The last time that happened was July 28. The drop came fast: CHPE carried 15–20 GWh a day from Sept 28 to Oct 1, then 7.6 GWh on Oct 2, about 3 GWh on Oct 3 and 4, and nothing on Oct 5.
Is that allowed? Yes. Hydro-Québec's contract with NYSERDA has no daily or hourly delivery requirement. According to the PSC order approving it:
The only floor is seasonal. Hydro-Québec has to deliver 40% of its promised annual amount in each six-month period.
That floor isn't enforced yet. It's measured over three seasons and doesn't start counting until the third, so the first real test is around summer 2027.
Outages shrink it. It's reduced whenever the line is down, and for curtailment and force majeure.
Hydro-Québec is paid only for what arrives. A zero day costs ratepayers nothing, and also delivers nothing.
The promise was much bigger than the floor. Hydro-Québec bid 10.4 TWh a year. When the PSC approved the contract, it said that number showed the "objective to fill the CHPE line to maximum capacity for 95% of the year." Since June 1, CHPE has delivered 0.68 TWh, about 19% of that pace.
Over the entire day: New York used 378 GWh. Gas supplied 36%, nuclear 20%, hydro 18%, solar 9%, wind 9% and imports 8%. Demand peaked at 18.0 GW at noon, and NYC's highest-priced hour hit $97/MWh.
Nuclear industry leaders - like NEI - should be reminding everyone that “bailouts” that keep useful plants running have paid huge financial dividends to customers.
Competitors? Not so much.
When Illinois saved its nuclear plants it was characterized as a “bailout”.
Since passage, the “bailout” has returned $2.7 billion to ratepayers.
ipa.illinois.gov/carbon-miti…
The Tennessee press is reporting on a planned ceremony today as TVA receives its construction permit to build a BWRX-300 at the Clinch River site near Oak Ridge TN.
Tennessee Governor Bill Lee and U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn are expected to attend.
This will be the 2nd advanced reactor construction permit issued by the US NRC.
(The first was TerraPower's Natrium plant in Kemmerer, WY.)
When the NRC first accepted TVA's Construction Permit Application, it expected to issue the CP in December 2026. IOW, it cut 3 months from the initial schedule.
Rod Adams retweeted
This article provides an example of how politicians and the news media effectively suggest to the public that everything nuclear is uniquely dangerous. The truth being the opposite. Article link in reply.
Idaho's governor, who is negotiating with the DoE about hosting a nuclear lifecycle innovation campus to Idaho, says that it will not will not be sited anywhere near Idaho's main aquifer. He said "he will not jeopardize the health of the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer or the health of Idahoans."
An Idaho legislator characterized storage of used nuclear fuel as a “forever decision”. Suggesting that nuclear has the only waste stream that will never go away.
Again, the opposite of the truth. It's one of the only waste streams that disappears over time (exponential decay). Many other waste streams, from coal and even solar have toxic elements (like mercury, arsenic, and cadmium, that last forever (do not decay over time). Such non-nuclear waste streams are also vastly larger in volume, are much more prone to dispersal, and are disposed with far less care. They pose a much greater public health risk, now and in the future.
This is what leaders should be telling the public. They should also tell the public that nuclear power waste has never harmed the public (over ~60 years of operation). A much better record than other energy sources and industries.
But alas, they feel a need to make such statements to assure the public that they will be safe, because the public is (already) afraid of all things nuclear. But these very assurances are affirming the public's belief that nuclear is uniquely dangerous. It's a viscious cycle.
How do we get out of the circle? Stop digging and start telling the public the truth. That nuclear's risks are uniquely SMALL.
















