Welcome to Nuclear Update, the only newsletter that knows the difference between uranium conversion and uranium enrichment.

This is what I’ve got for you this week:

• ⚛️ Facebook To Build 8 Natrium Reactors

• ⚡ DOE Targets 5 GW in Reactor Uprates

• 🌍 The EU Admits Abandoning Nuclear Was a Strategic Mistake

• ✍️ Guest Post: One Persons Nuclear Journey

But first: this week’s trivia question:

Last week, I asked: 

What is the maximum number of electrons the first electron shell can hold?

You said:

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 2 (67%)

⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️ 4 (6%)

🟨⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️ 8 (17%)

⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️ 16 (10%)

Before we continue, one quick note:

Washington is now spending $169 million on fluorspar, because without fluorine chemistry, uranium never reaches enrichment.

It sounds obscure, but fluorspar sits upstream of hydrofluoric acid, UF₆, and ultimately reactor fuel itself.

In case you missed last week’s sponsored feature, it explains why the Pentagon suddenly cares about fluorspar, and how CleanTech CTV is trying to rebuild U.S. supply from the historic Illinois–Kentucky district.

👉 https://nuclearupdate.com/p/pentagon-pays-169m-for-nuclear-supply-chain

Now, let’s dive into the good stuff! 💥

⚛️ Facebook To Build 8 Natrium Reactors

Facebook is famous for adding friends, now it’s adding reactors.

Facebook’s parent company Meta has signed an agreement with TerraPower to deploy up to 8 Natrium reactors in the U.S.

Last week I reported that Kemmerer 1, also a Natrium unit, became the first reactor in nearly 10 years to receive a construction permit in the U.S.

And just as Washington reopened the door to building again, one of the world’s largest tech companies showed up ready to start planning an entire reactor fleet.

The first phase covers 2 units, equal to 690 MW, with rights to 6 more later. If all 8 are built, total capacity reaches roughly 2.8 GW, and up to 4 GW during peak demand using Natrium’s integrated molten salt energy storage.

Unlike a conventional reactor that delivers fixed output, Natrium stores excess heat in molten salt and can release it later, allowing each 345 MW reactor to temporarily ramp up to around 500 MW for several hours when electricity demand spikes.

In practical terms, it behaves partly like a reactor and partly like a giant thermal battery.

The timeline is long by tech standards, but short by nuclear standards.

Kemmerer 1 is expected online around 2030, and Meta’s first 2 units would likely follow the same early-2030s window if permitting and siting move smoothly.

Meta is positioning itself for the next decade of AI infrastructure.

⚡ DOE Targets 5 GW in Reactor Uprates

The U.S. Department of Energy this week launched a new initiative called UPRISE, short for Uprate Partnership for Innovative, Reliable, and Enhanced Nuclear Energy, with the goal to get more electricity out of reactors that are already running.

The target is 5 GW of additional nuclear capacity by 2029, roughly equal to adding 5 large reactors, without pouring concrete for 5 large reactors.

Instead of waiting a decade for entirely new plants, the plan focuses on uprates, technical upgrades that allow existing reactors to safely produce more power from the same infrastructure.

That can mean turbine replacements, generator upgrades, improved cooling systems, or changes inside the plant that increase thermal efficiency.

Some uprates are small, just a few extra megawatts. Others are large enough to materially change output across an entire fleet.

The Department of Energy says the first 2.5 GW could arrive before the end of 2027, with another 2.5 GW following within 2 years after that.

Sometimes the fastest nuclear build is teaching an old reactor new tricks.

🌍 The EU Admits Abandoning Nuclear Was a Strategic Mistake

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, admitted that turning away from nuclear was a strategic mistake.

She made the comment at the Nuclear Energy Summit in Paris this week, while also backing new support for nuclear innovation and Europe’s SMR push.

For years nuclear inside the EU often sat in an awkward political category, tolerated by some member states, resisted by others, and rarely defended from the top.

If you recall just a few weeks ago, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Germany’s nuclear phaseout was a “serious strategic mistake”, which suggests more than a one-off comment: a broader political reappraisal in Europe.

For countries that kept their reactors, this sounds like vindication. For countries that closed them, it sounds like a very expensive lesson.

The newly unveiled SMR strategy aims to bring Europe’s first SMRs online in the early 2030s, with a coordinated push across member states, regulators, investors, and supply chains to avoid the usual European problem: fragmented national efforts moving at different speeds.

Check out the clip, sometimes a video says more than a thousand words:

✍️ Guest Post: One Persons Nuclear Journey

By Bob Birley

Upon nearing the end of my formal, or perhaps not so formal, education in electricity, I found myself pondering my life’s purpose. Opportunities abounded, and nuclear happened to be one of them. After careful consideration, and deliberation with the guys down at the local service station, the application was submitted and my venture into nuclear power began.

In July 1969, I entered the guard house of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) and never looked back. Eleven of us newbies began employment as part of a staffing initiative in preparation for the startup of Unit 2 and 3, 1030 MWe BWRs. Initially, I was assigned to the Unit 1, 40 MWe HTGR prototype reactor as a generating station helper.

In 1972, as one of the initial operating crew at PBAPS Unit 2, I obtained my Reactor Operator (RO) license and eventually my Senior Operator (SRO) license.

By 1984, I was performing consulting duties at various BWR units throughout the U.S.

As 1988 came to a close, I found myself back at PBAPS in the training department, ultimately retiring as Operations Training Manager in 2001.

Follow along with me on my trip down memory lane.

The Early Days (1969–1979)
Generating stations were operated very much the same regardless of the source of energy used to produce the steam. Online time and plant efficiency were the goal, and by and large they ran quite well. Nuclear power’s future was bright and many large units were under construction all over the U.S. These large plants are the future, “they said”. Electric will become too cheap to meter, “they said”.

The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was the federal regulator, and they were by and large our friend, rarely visiting the station except for photo ops. Reactor Operators (ROs) and Supervisors (SROs) were trained largely by the station’s engineering staff, with reactor general fundamentals being taught by small vendors or the reactor manufacturer.

This period in time was the Golden Age of commercial nuclear power.

The Dark Days (1979–1982)
Events that happened during the early hours of March 28, 1979 changed nuclear power, and my life, forever. As operators, we found it very difficult to wrap our heads around what had occurred, and we became somewhat defensive when blame started to be cast.

Early on, the AEC, Harold Denton, came to the station and briefed personnel on the damaged reactor’s status and recovery plans. This briefing was conducted in the Main Control Room, as it was in all operating plants in the U.S.

In the aftermath of TMI, new plant construction was delayed and or cancelled. Plant modifications were many, and the changes to operator training programs were dramatic, to say the least. Acronyms such as NIMBY came into prominence. Nuclear technology is dead, “they said”. All nuclear power plants are dangerous, “they said”.

The AEC became the NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and became a foe. NUREG 0737 became the industry’s “bible”, and we all, some reluctantly, adapted to this new culture and way of doing business.

The Rebuilding Days (1982–early 2000s)
The NRC Resident Inspector program was instituted, requiring each site to have at least one Resident Inspector available at all times. INPO, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, was formed by the nuclear industry to improve safety and was staffed by professionals from throughout the existing nuclear power plants.

Most plants endured long outages to perform modifications mandated by 0737, and all training programs were reworked and became objective-based.

Just as the industry was recovering from TMI, another disaster occurred halfway around the world. On April 26, 1986, again during the early hours, Unit 4 at the Chernobyl plant suffered an explosion and a massive release of radioactivity. Thankfully, the impact on the U.S. nuclear industry was not severe because of the radically different reactor design (can you say positive reactivity coefficient) and because our plants were equipped with primary and secondary containments.

The Current State of the Plants (early 2000s onward)
While the number of operating plants has decreased over time due to retirements, those that continue to operate do so at performance levels never experienced in the past. Many currently operating units continue to set online records, with efficiency levels (capacity factors) exceeding the initial designs.

Most operating plants have undergone significant modifications such as fuel design changes, steam generator replacement, turbine and generator replacements etc. that has boosted the electrical output. Some units that were shut down for economic reasons are being restarted due to the electricity demand being created by data centers.

In essence, the nuclear power industry has come full circle since the early days of 1969.

💪Review of the Week

DISCLAIMER: The content in this article is for informational and educational purposes only and is not financial advice. It should not be interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Markets move quickly, opinions can change, and outcomes are uncertain. Always consult a licensed professional before making any investment decisions. Nuclear Update and its authors are not responsible for any gains or losses arising from the use of this information.