The Texas A&M University System has selected four companies to explore developing advanced nuclear reactors on its Rellis research campus in Bryan, university officials announced Tuesday morning.
Each of the four companies — Kairos Power, Natura Resources, Aalo Atomics and Terrestrial Energy — could potentially build at least one commercial reactor on the Rellis Campus, company executives said.
The announcement comes after Texas A&M sought an early site permit from federal regulators in November to offer land to nuclear companies. If approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Texas A&M would be the only higher education institution in the country with a commercial nuclear reactor site license.
Ultimately, the goal is to create an “energy proving ground” at the Rellis Campus that can serve as a test bed for cutting-edge energy technologies, Texas A&M Chancellor John Sharp said in an interview. A&M would offer companies its nuclear engineering expertise, as well as a site to demonstrate commercial viability of their technology to kickstart further development, he said.
Texas A&M’s leaders want to host what are known as small modular reactors, which are supposed to be smaller, easier to build and safer than traditional nuclear plants. Thus far, only three SMRs are operational in the world, none in the United States. One U.S. attempt sputtered to an end in 2023 after cost estimates tripled to $9.3 billion.
“We hope that at the end of it, we can show the rest of the country that SMRs are a viable, safe, reliable option to make sure we don’t run out of power in this country,” Sharp said.
He cited projections of surging demand for electricity nationwide largely to accommodate power-hungry data centers, particularly those hosting artificial intelligence computing systems.
The demand is there, we know that much. I’ll take this over bringing coal plants back online, for sure. Maybe this doesn’t work out the way they’d like, but it’s worth the effort. If legislative Republicans could find a way to be a little less stupid about wind and solar energy right now, we’d be much better positioned going forward.
1) Aren’t they being pretty stupid putting test reactors near a bunch of peopke. Wht not in the middle of nowhere on a ranch in West Texas.
2) Waste? Have they figured that out or are they just glossing over the problem?
Throughout history, nuclear energy kills less people than wind energy. I don’t hear you or anyone asking whether wind farms should be built in the middle of nowhere.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
In over 70 years of civilian nuclear energy, spent nuclear fuel, or what you call nuclear waste, has injured, sickened or killed precisely 0.00 humans. And it has negatively impacted 0.00 ecosystems.
So, yes, I’m sure the university with the nation’s leading nuclear science program thought of that.
Facts = good
Apparently, he hasn’t heard of Chernobyl (or in denial mode)
Following the explosion, which killed two engineers and severely burned two others, an emergency operation began to put out the fires and stabilize the reactor. Of the 237 workers hospitalized, 134 showed symptoms of acute radiation syndrome (ARS); 28 of them died within three months. Over the next decade, 14 more workers (nine of whom had ARS) died of various causes mostly unrelated to radiation exposure.[8] It is the only instance in commercial nuclear power history where radiation-related fatalities occurred.[9][10] As of 2005, 6000 cases of childhood thyroid cancer occurred within the affected populations, “a large fraction” being attributed to the disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster