The U.S. Department of Energy, (DOE) is dressing up old nuclear technology in hot pants and strutting it down the street. The DOE wants you to believe that somehow, the new designs are “advanced” technology, but in reality, it’s the same old stuff in a shiny new bag. These “new” reactors are dangerous and filthy. They will increase the threat of nuclear terrorism, and contribute to the proliferation of more nuclear bombs.
According to a June 4, 2026 press release, the DOE is claiming to be “celebrating” the first “Mark-O” Advanced Nuclear “micro” Reactor after it achieved “criticality.” In the nuclear bomb and energy business, the term “critical” and “criticality” signify a sustained nuclear reaction.
“Criticality” can take the form of a bomb, as it did at Hiroshima on June 6, 1945, or it can take the form of a slow burn at a nuclear power plant, where the heat produced by the nuclear reaction is used to boil water to turn a turbine that generates electricity.
According to publicity, “The Mark-0 is the first of multiple advanced reactors anticipated to go critical by the July 4th deadline set by President Trump in his May 2025 executive order.”
Donald Trump’s “Bold Leadership”
According to U.S. Energy Secretary, and Trump sycophant, Chris Wright:
“It is fitting that on the eve of our nation’s 250th anniversary, we are witnessing a historic moment for American energy,” said Wright. “For the first time in more than four decades, a new privately developed non-light-water reactor has reached criticality in the United States. Thank you to President Trump for his bold leadership and thank you to the bold scientists and entrepreneurs at Antares and Idaho National Laboratory who helped make this moment possible. I look forward to seeing continued progress in the American nuclear renaissance.”
Advanced Nuclear isn’t a “renaissance”
It is a return to the Dark Ages of 20th Century when humans worshipped blindly at the altar of nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
According to this Congressional Report, there are scores of reasons why “Advanced Nuclear” is a bad idea.
1) It is the deadliest stuff on earth
Nuclear fuels, including “Spent Nuclear Fuel” are highly radioactive and deadly for thousands of human generations.
2) Nuclear weapons proliferation
Uranium and plutonium, which are produced and used in abundance by “Advanced Nuclear” are also the key components for nuclear warheads. For unstable nations that are seeking “First World” status, the acquisition of nuclear bombs and missiles is perceived as necessary step for ensuring equal footing with their enemies.
3) Terrorist threats
A nuclear power plant or nuclear waste repository are prime targets for terrorists. Terrorists can use weapons grade uranium or plutonium to make bombs or poison their enemies. In addition, every nuclear power plant and nuclear waste storage site is a potential target for terrorist seeking to turn a nuclear site into a massive dirty bomb.
4) Higher safety risk and lower quality control
Advanced reactors are harder to inspect and monitor for safety. Some of the designs are “cooled” by molten salt or molten metals, such as lead, which the industry is touting as “safer.” In this 2017 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which ironically promotes “Atoms for Peace,” said that some of the characteristics of advanced reactors make them difficult to monitor and safeguard.
5) Enriched fuels will enrich nuclear bomb builders
Highly enriched fuels create additional proliferation risks. HALEU reactors (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium), for example, require such highly enriched uranium, that the fuel can can be used to make nuclear bombs without further enrichment. HALEU enriched uranium is desirable for nuclear weapons merchants.
6) There will be a thriving nuclear black market
More “Advanced Nuclear” power plants will pave the way to a deadly nuclear waste black market. If US policy is to put “Advanced Nuclear” power plants into every city and neighborhood, it means that each power plant becomes a potential distribution center for weapons quality uranium and plutonium. Every single phase of the product cycle must be monitored to prevent theft. From uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication to ensuring safe transport, and also fuel reprocessing.
7) A powerful lure for criminals
Some advanced reactor technologies must rely on reprocessing and recycling to make them cost-effective. The refined weapons quality materials makes them irresistibly attractive to thieves who could build radiation dispersal bombs, or use the materials to make weapons.
Summary
Most of the low-enriched (3 to 5%) uranium fuel that is currently used in U.S. reactors cannot be used to make bombs without further enrichment. What’s more, the USA does not have commercial facilities for chemical separation of plutonium.
Many advanced reactor designs are smaller than the existing fleet of LWRs and are designed for modular installation of each generating unit. Because the number of modules may be altered to meet the power and heating needs of the site, SMRs are intended to accommodate a range of sizes and types of uses, including those that may have been considered too small in the past. SMRs and microreactors have potential applications in providing power to remote and isolated areas, on-site heating for industrial or municipal clients, and heat or power to mobile or temporary clients (e.g. remote construction sites and temporary military stations). DOD has expressed interest in using SMRs to power remote bases. As noted above, DOD announced in June 2022 that BWXT had been selected to build the first advanced nuclear microreactor under “Project Pele.” The reactor is to produce 1-5 MW and be operational by 2024.129 SMRs have also been described as potential replacements for coal-fired generating units, which are generally far smaller than existing large reactors.130 For example, the TerraPower Natrium demonstration plant in Wyoming is replacing a closing coal-fired power plant that has units of similar size.
The 2018 MIT study cautioned that small size alone would not necessarily give advanced reactors a market edge:
The industry’s problem is not that it has overlooked valuable market segments that need smaller reactors. The problem is that even its optimally scaled reactors are too expensive on a per-unit-power basis. A focus on serving the market segments that need smaller reactor sizes will be of no use unless the smaller design first accomplishes the task of radically reducing per-unit capital cost.131