We spent the last few weeks exhibiting and talking to people about the energy ecosystem and Aalo. So after a few thousand conversations, here are our reflections from the deep trenches of the data center, energy, and technology world: 1. Robust power ecosystem. Energy is a highly focal subject among commercial, investor, policy, and professional audiences and there is an enormous volume of resources, attention, and manpower going into the full stack of energy production and consumption. We take this as given but it is a radical shift from recent history. 2. Nuclear is near-unanimously viewed as the future among stakeholder groups. The most common initial remarks we heard about nuclear power are that it is the future and we should build more now, and nuclear shutdowns were a bad move (most people this view is contrarian, when it is (now) mainstream). While there is obviously selection bias here, this is the exact group shaping policy, investments, and commercial agreements, so it is a very credible and important signal. 3. People view nuclear energy as one category. This is wrong: just like anything else, different products are made for different markets. A 1 MW reactor for military bases is not competing with a 50 MW modular system for data centers, which is not competing with a 1 GW, 20-year, state-funded plant development. Just because its energy does not mean product-market fit is not a thing. 4. The #1# question is timeline to commercial generation. No surprise here given statement (1), but it is notable that the first question is not about cost or cleanliness of power. People are power-hungry, now. 5. These were the product advantages people cared the most about: first, our coolant choice (sodium) as making sites much physically smaller by unpressurizing the system, second, our modularization/factory approach as radically shortening build/deployment time, and third, our commercial agreement structure as easing upfront cost. 6. Data center community engagement is a shared priority. I think of concerns in two buckets: one, "spec" concerns like water usage, pollution, and rate impacts, and two, a more fundamental concern about change and artificial intelligence. Some concerns in some cases are legitimate, others are completely unfounded, my net note is there is a lot of change working its way through the system via active discourse and experimentation. 4 rapid-fire: 7. Power demand is additive. It’s not solar or nuclear or nat gas, it’s nuclear + solar + etc. 8. Support for nuclear power is overwhelmingly bipartisan. This derisks commercialization roadmaps. 9. Media is *highly* effective for reaching people. Cool to meet so many Aalo followers in person! 10. Government is rethinking how to prompt private industry. Programs like the RPP were so effective that many of the folks who hold the government checkbooks are starting to think more outside the box. This is good! so those are my thoughts now a CTA is warranted, you should follow @AaloAtomics

the second atomic age is here and america is innovating on reactor designs again. coolant is *the* most important design choice for a reactor liquid sodium (not salt!) is counterintuitively the strongest choice to unlock safe reactor mass production:

We are hiring creatives at @AaloAtomics. This team does media, storytelling, and partnerships for Aalo (and in part, the nuclear industry). If you want to operate on the front line of a technological revolution and capture a category-defining product with independence to lead projects that inspire and push you, this is for you! And a great time to join with a very exciting roadmap coming up for Aalo: massive factory expansion, pilot power plant, reactor assembly lines, & more. Lots (lots!!) of meaningful work to be done. If you’re interested, we’d love to meet - send me a message on any platform with prior work (video, photo, copy). & hosting some events on this front in Austin, also message for info.

.@AaloAtomics @MattLoszak is trying to manufacture nuclear power plants as repeatable products instead of building every plant as a one-off megaproject. Its proposed commercial Aalo Pod combines five 10 MWe sodium-cooled reactors into a 50 MWe plant designed for data centers.

It took me a while even while working in the space to appreciate the power requirements of data centers and what it means to design power for them (in our case, nuclear power!). Easy to think that more energy, LCOE, etc. do all the work. I intuit the case on the ground as some “allowable” band of performance across a few dimensions: project risk, cost, speed, and power output. You have some leniency in the specifics of each (say, if marginal risk drops expected cost, or increases speed, you may make that tradeoff), but operators overall need a “goldilocks”: a happy medium across the four, without any “spike” (disqualifier) in risk, cost, timeline, or output. It is these spikes that defeat traditional nuclear categories as ideal (not passable in some situations, but ideal) power sources for data centers. Existing categories may be defined as microreactors, SMRs, and large plants. Microreactors “spike” in the output category: to power a 100 MW data center with 1 MW units (much less a 1 GW system!), you would need to build 100 plants. Having to build this volume of reactors cascades across the other categories (risk, timeline, cost) and invalidates the whole lot. Traditional SMRs are the best for data centers versus microreactors/large-scale plants (depending on your definition of "SMR"), but are not so small in practice: the core problem being that 10 MWe is the rough order of scale that can be manufactured in a factory and transported on normal trucks and road, without specialized (and extremely expensive) transport. So a single reactor producing 100 MW, much less 300 MW or 500 MWe, exists without the economies of scale provided by gigawatt-scale plants, but also without the speed and lack of capital risk provided by micro-scale reactors. They are still a little too hot for Goldilocks and not a “worst”, but mediocre-of-all-worlds situation. Large plants, finally, spike effectively in all categories. Even if we forget about the past two decades of American new-plant cost and timeline overruns and assume projects stay on schedule, they represent such a massive time horizon and capital investment that projects simply cannot match the rate at which data centers incrementally construct and turn on the plant, while presenting a degree of financial risk that freezes financing and insurance. Even if projects did not run over schedule and cost, they would delay data center developments by years. These being the disqualifiers for traditional nuclear, I've skipped over some important hard constraints, namely baseload and the thing actually being able to turn on. Baseload (intuitively, the variance of power output and whether it ever drops below some minimum) matters because you can't just have a data center turn off if it's, say, powered by a wind farm and the wind stops. It must be 24/7. This disqualifies or complicates lots of wind/solar projects for on-site data center developments. Implied in baseload is a high capacity factor: you can’t have the thing turn off or radically diminish its output for maintenance, refurbishing, or due to error. The other mentioned hard constraint that meshes with baseload in an interesting way is the fact that you do actually need the power. This sounds like a given, but alas, fails in the most common of solutions to just getting some power: connecting to the grid, evidenced by many a data center impeded for months (if not years) or canceled per the strain of permits, local pushback, and building grid interconnect and infrastructure. Policy like the Ratepayer Protection Act is formalizing this conclusion: data centers needing to bring their own power to sites. Combining these two hard constraints explains why fuel cells and combined cycle nat gas plants have grown incredibly valuable (love you Bloom!): one, you can readily deploy them, and two, they provide steady, 24/7 power to meet baseload. Few other generation sources fit these requirements as cleanly and nat gas has that happy medium of cost, risk, and size. Nuclear is one of the few other generation sources that meets these hard constraints, and maybe the sole source that fits them more cleanly than gas: 24/7 baseload availability, reactor and turbine redundancy, and no grid interconnect required. Its massive problem to date, going back way before data centers, has been that Goldilocks problem of risk, cost, and speed. This is functionally the approach we're taking: use the inherent advantages of nuclear power, then balance the scales. I’ll tackle them in order: Power Output. We’ve established our rough minimum and maximum bounds: anything that’s clearly a microreactor or near it is below the minimum, and anything SMR-scale (per reactor) or up is over the maximum. Instead, you want something that matches how a data center actually gets built and turned on, regardless of whether it requires 50 MW or 5 GW: incremental completion and operation of individual buildings or server halls over the course of months to years on the wider project campus. These buildings or server halls exist on a rough order of 10 MW to 100 MW. Building on the bottom end of that scale is still too inefficient with regard to capital and space, while the higher end takes too long to build. We also know the maximum power output for individual reactors to make them manufacturable in mass and transportable is roughly 10 MWe. This all produces a “Goldilocks” medium of a 50 MWe modular nuclear plant built on 10 MWe reactors. Having multiple reactors (beyond the 10 MWe constraint) solves the baseload reliability constraint, as they ensure the 50 MWe plant is never completely offline, while 50 MWe is a much better fit for the power needs of data centers. Shifts past 10 MWe per reactor or under 50 MWe as a modular unit to stack harms the economics of the happy medium. So, we get “lego blocks” of modular power units: 10 MWe reactors compiled in 50 MWe plants, with plants added in 12-month increments to match the pace of data center construction. Taking power output as the given for our first constraint, we may evaluate the others: Project Risk. With orders taking just 12 months to turn-on and incrementally scaling up to meet data centers as they turn on, project risk gets massively reduced, which eliminates those financing and insurance disqualifiers present for large-scale developments. So, our chosen output medium also stays in that qualifying bound for risk. Project Speed. The structure of the output – 10 MW reactors that can fit on trucks and be manufactured easily – is what unlocks the workable deployment speed. Going over this 10 MWe bound would induce a step-change decrease in speed and increase in cost. Power Cost. Speed is the unlock for cost: if you can build and deploy lots of modular, on-site power plants fast, the cost will be there, and schedule and cost overruns won’t. This all in mind, you get a fundamentally new category of reactor product that doesn’t fit into the microreactor, SMR, or large-scale plant categories: this is what we call the XMR, or extra modular reactor, and the 50 MWe product it unlocks in a manner that is designed from the ground-up for data centers. Reactors are sized for the factory, plants are sized for the data center. The XMR is the only nuclear product not disqualified in any way for data center usage. Now, I previously touched why natural gas is such a match for data center power needs, as it’s basically the same list as nuclear: baseload, onsite without requiring grid interconnect, and affordable, fast, and low-risk. So why use nuclear at all, and not just natural gas? A few reasons here: to point out the obvious, the supply of turbines is backed up for years. It's less of a this-or-that question because there is simply so much demand that all supply which meets customer criteria will be brought on at scale – it's the supply problem for all possible solutions. Nuclear has the direct benefit versus natural gas of being clean (both zero-carbon and no airborne pollutants), having minimal fuel price exposure, reaching a high (90%+) capacity factor, and not requiring continuous fuel lines. Net: having one big advantage as a power source is nice, but not having a disqualifying attribute is the baseline. Nuclear fits within that model, but requires a new product category: XMRs.

We are HIRING at Aalo in Austin and elsewhere. 50+ open roles across: - Mechanical Engineering - Nuclear Engineering - Manufacturing Engineering - Electrical, Controls & Robotics - Systems Engineering - Simulation & Analysis - Testing & Validation - Materials & Fabrication - AI & Software - Quality - Supply Chain & Operations - Regulatory & Government Affairs - Commercial - Marketing & Communications

After an 8 month sprint to meet the July 4th deadline, the @AaloAtomics team officially pulled it off on America's 250th birthday! This was a commercial scale advanced nuclear reactor built and operated from an empty plot of land in 8 months. It means the @POTUS's goal for nuclear - 3 criticalities by the 4th - has been surpassed. What a story and what a day - enjoyed in-person at the Aalo Live event by a few hundred employees and VIPs. This was a full-stack effort and commitment - design, manufacturing, regulatory, QC - and could not have been possible at this scale of reactor, operations, and construction if **any** one of those pieces had not been put into place and executed upon succesfully through a lot of hard, careful work. Now we move to the next stage of our pipeline to deploy commercial power: our full-scale experimental power plant, Aalo-X. We announced today that all groundwork for this site has been completed! Video soon on this. After Aalo-X, we deploy our first commercial pod - 50 megawatts of power purpose-built for AI data centers. Then more licenses, factories, deployments, and grinding down the cost curve of nuclear. There's a lot of storytelling we've withheld to focus on criticality. Over the next few weeks you'll see some of this. And, on the order of the next ~1 year, you'll see some of our bigger projects sharing the unique story that's played out over the past 2 years: criticality from start to finish and the nuclear resurgance in America. Stay tuned for what's coming and thanks to everyone who has supported us! We appreciate it.

We are a GO for startup! At our Aalo-X site today, Matt and I stood with @SecretaryWright as he signed off on approval to turn on our Critical Test Reactor. This clears us to load fuel and begin operations. The Aalo team worked hard to get us here and I’m incredibly grateful to the teams at the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office and Idaho National Laboratory for their dedication and support. On to July 4!

NEW VIDEO At Aalo, we're using AI to build nuclear faster. And the more nuclear we deploy to power data centers, the better AI will get. A positive reinforcement loop is incoming. A few ways we're using AI: ➡️ Aalo Bot attends every meeting, listens, and soon will be able to talk. We'll ask it questions like "would this design change work given all the constraints you've heard from other teams?" or "what are the most pressing blockers for the company right now, stack ranked?", and more. ➡️ We're using AI to write software across the entire company. Not just replacing SaaS, but AI is also currently writing the code to automate physical robotic work done in our factory, including welding. This will unlock a scale of production and consistency of quality beyond what’s been possible in nuclear in the past. The video below features Gregory Wildes and Russell Rowland, along with some of the work Rob Kessler has been doing behind the scenes. Enjoy!

Great to meet everyone here. If you want a temperature check on how far the industry has come in a few years, here it is! A good reminder of our common flags: safety first & energy abundance to unlock critical technologies and raise quality of life. We brought these inscribed state cutouts as a reminder of this common target & the RPP as a step toward scaled, commercial deployment that raises the generation share of nuclear.