Uncapped with Jack AltmanWhy the US Needs Nuclear Energy | Jordan Bramble, CEO of Antares | Ep. 11
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 0:22
From boom to stagnation: the US reactor build-out in one statistic
A striking comparison frames the episode: the US built roughly 100 reactors from ~1950 to the early 1970s, but only a handful since. This sets up the central question of what changed—and what might restart nuclear momentum.
- •Rapid US reactor deployment in the mid-20th century
- •Post-1970s slowdown: only a few new grid reactors turned on
- •Why this historical discontinuity matters for today’s energy needs
- 0:22 – 1:59
Origins of nuclear: Chicago Pile, Manhattan Project, and early government-led programs
Jordan traces nuclear’s roots to the first human-made reactor (Chicago Pile, 1942) and its wartime motivation. Early reactors quickly evolved from academic proof-of-concept into plutonium production for weapons.
- •Chicago Pile (1942): first artificial reactor and basic design approach
- •Manhattan Project context: fission research tied to weapons development
- •Plutonium-production reactors at Savannah River and Hanford
- •Nuclear’s early DNA: state-led, mission-driven R&D
- 1:59 – 3:21
The nuclear navy as the template for commercial power (Shippingport and early plants)
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program drove reactor engineering maturity and vendor ecosystems. Commercial nuclear power in the US emerged as a direct offshoot of naval reactor designs, starting with Shippingport.
- •Rickover’s Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program as a formative institution
- •Nautilus (water-cooled) vs Seawolf (sodium-cooled) and why water won
- •Shippingport: early civilian power reactor derived from naval designs
- •Early commercial plants were relatively small vs modern gigawatt-scale units
- 3:21 – 6:50
Atomic aviation and space nuclear: NERVA, SNAP-10A, and Soviet orbital reactors
Beyond submarines and the grid, the US explored nuclear thermal rockets, nuclear jet concepts, and even space reactors. The episode highlights how much was tested mid-century—and how the Soviet program far outpaced US space-reactor launches.
- •NERVA nuclear thermal rockets and the promise of faster Mars transits
- •Nuclear-powered aircraft concepts: ground tests and reactor-carrying flights
- •SNAP-10A (1965): the only US space reactor launched; still in orbit
- •Soviet RORSAT: dozens of low Earth orbit fission reactors for radar missions
- 6:50 – 10:51
Why nuclear development collapsed after the 1970s: regulation + economics + shrinking federal R&D
Jordan argues the decline wasn’t caused by one factor but by multiple forces hitting at once. A key emphasis is macro-financial and budget shifts: reduced government R&D intensity, higher interest rates, and weaker demand undermined sustained build capacity.
- •Atomic Energy Commission era: builder + regulator, later split into DOE and NRC
- •New regulatory regime coincided with falling demand and rising project friction
- •Federal R&D as a share of budget fell sharply after the early 1970s
- •High interest rates and financing costs amplified nuclear’s capital-intensity
- •Loss of program continuity eroded workforce and execution capability
- 10:51 – 14:01
Why the tide is turning: climate, growth, and data-center power demand
The conversation pivots to today’s renewed nuclear interest and what’s different now. Jordan groups the drivers into major categories, emphasizing that fission is deployable today and increasingly seen as essential for reliable, high-density power.
- •Climate: net-zero narratives increasingly assume substantial nuclear expansion
- •Fission vs fusion: fusion’s benefits vs “always 30 years away” technical hurdles
- •Energy and prosperity: GDP per capita correlates with energy consumption
- •AI/data centers: demand surge forces a rethink of power generation and transmission
- •Big tech interest (Meta, Amazon, Google) in nuclear partnerships
- 14:01 – 20:52
National security and space weaponization: energy resilience as strategy
Jordan explains how great-power competition refocuses attention on resilient power for critical assets. He also connects space weaponization and directed-energy concepts to the need for compact, high-output power sources—often implying nuclear.
- •Homeland mission assurance: cyberattack and grid outage scenarios now central
- •Critical defense sites (ICBMs, interceptors, launch facilities) need off-grid power
- •DoD funding as an active catalyst for tech maturation vs private hype alone
- •Space Force’s evolution: from resiliency-in-numbers to openly discussed offensive capabilities
- •Directed energy (lasers/microwaves/particle beams) drives demand for high power in orbit
- 20:52 – 24:52
Small modular reactors vs microreactors: definitions, economics, and where they fit
Jordan defines SMRs and microreactors by power range and explains why “smaller” is not automatically cheaper. He argues microreactors can win in markets where resilience and unique capability outweigh commodity electricity pricing.
- •Working definitions: SMR (~≤100 MW); microreactor (often ≤10–20 MW)
- •Antares target: ~200–300 kW (kilowatt-scale system)
- •Factory fabrication goal vs construction-heavy large plants
- •Cost structure shift: microreactors have far higher fuel share vs grid-scale
- •Focus on high-value ‘expensive power’ use cases (resilience, mission effects)
- 24:52 – 27:19
Antares’ go-to-market: defense-first, distributed power, and missile-defense use cases
Jordan outlines why Antares prioritizes DoD and mission-critical facilities first, rather than commodity grid markets. The company targets distributed, point-of-need power where diesel logistics are costly and reliability is paramount.
- •Dual-use positioning, but near-term emphasis on DoD (Earth + space)
- •Distributed loads on bases: multiple 100s-of-kW units can outperform centralized approaches
- •Missile defense as a core cluster of use cases (launch readiness, radars)
- •Arctic and remote operations: replacing diesel at very high electricity cost
- •Scale potential: indexing DoD assets suggests thousands of units over time
- 27:19 – 30:11
Reactor architecture choices: heat-pipe cooling and scaling limits
Jordan explains Antares’ heat-pipe cooled design, originally invented for space nuclear at Los Alamos. He describes how heat pipes move energy without pumps, why that aids iteration, and where the approach hits scaling constraints.
- •Heat pipe basics: phase change, wick-driven return flow, no active pumping
- •Heritage: invented for space nuclear; now ubiquitous in electronics
- •Iteration advantage: simpler hardware enables faster prototyping cycles
- •Scaling constraint: more metal absorbs neutrons; core size grows inefficiently
- •Scaling options: switch coolant architecture or bank multiple small units
- 30:11 – 43:42
Selling into the DoD and building a hard-tech culture: urgency, merit, and LA’s ecosystem
The episode turns to execution: navigating fragmented defense buyers, shaping demand, and building a fast-moving culture in slow industries. Jordan also explains why LA has become a hard-tech hub, citing workforce, industrial zoning, and deep aerospace/nuclear history.
- •Defense buying reality: end users aren’t the buyers; budgets/policy/Congress all matter
- •Approach: start with the mission problem, build credibility before the tech is finished
- •Strategy tradeoff: chase existing budget lines vs create transformational new demand
- •Culture for hard tech: constant urgency, milestone breakdowns, “just make it happen”
- •Multidisciplinary decision-making: avoid “priest class,” prioritize idea merit over rhetoric
- •Why LA works: aerospace/defense lineage (Hughes, Boeing), machinist base, industrial real estate, port logistics, historical nuclear activity
- 43:42 – 45:53
Scaling after first criticality: reliability learning loops and manufacturing ramp
Jordan closes by distinguishing “turning it on” from achieving utility-grade uptime and scaling production. He frames early units as learning vehicles that reduce cost and timeline for subsequent builds, enabling a venture-financeable path to volume.
- •Customer expectation: nuclear-like uptime (capacity factor) won’t happen immediately
- •Plan: build multiple test reactors to iterate reliability and performance
- •Microreactor advantage: successive prototypes are feasible on venture-scale capital
- •Manufacturing ambition: eventually 100+ units/year (volume high, power per unit small)
- •Closing reflections on ambition and timeline (target: reactor on by end of 2027)
