Invest1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
Applied Atomics now holds exclusive US and Canada rights to BWXT's mPower SMR. The engineering has sat dormant nine years; the economics that shelved it have not improved.
The Investor · Invest desk

Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
What changed hands on June 17 is a paper trail and a set of test rigs. The mPower facilities in Lynchburg, Virginia were preserved after the programme stopped [7], and the design carries roughly $400 million of completed engineering [3], which comes to about $2.05 million per rated megawatt of prior spend [3]. Against originating a light-water SMR from a blank sheet, that is cheap. But mPower did not stop because the engineering ran out. BWXT and Babcock and Wilcox shelved it in 2017 under cost overruns and a regulatory environment they could not price [4], and by the source's own account the construction cost environment has only got worse since [12]. A license moves the drawings. It does not move the cost of pouring concrete.
The schedule is where the deal gets interesting. First commercial operation is targeted for around 2031 [10], roughly five years from the signature [4], and it would be the first SMR design to reach full commercial operation in the United States [9]. The regulatory clock is the awkward input. The design was partway through NRC review nine years ago and does not resume from where it stopped [13], so the nine dormant years [5] bought preservation of hardware, not of standing.
The physics on offer is deliberately ordinary. At 575 MW thermal and 195 MW electric [5], mPower converts at about 34 percent [2], which is what a light-water cycle does. And 195 MWe is 19.5 percent of a conventional 1,000 MW plant [6][1]: five and a bit units to match one big station [1]. That ratio is the whole siting argument. It is also five and a bit sets of licensing, construction and operating overhead, which is the part modular economics has to eat.
The floating plant study with Core Power says more about the founders' read on the bottleneck than any engineering claim does. The stated rationale is permitting, on the theory that international waters and purpose-built offshore zones may move faster than the land-based NRC route [11]. That is a jurisdictional argument, not a reactor argument, and it is a fairly direct concession about the domestic path. The only operating precedent is Russian: the Akademik Lomonosov, in service since 2019 [14].
The aerospace pitch, per Kellie, is that SpaceX-grade manufacturing discipline applied to a design that already works on paper closes the gap [8]. Manufacturing repeatability matters at unit five, not unit one, and the first unit is the one that has to clear a regulator and a construction bid. Meanwhile the field remains crowded with ambition and short of finished plants [16], and US civilian nuclear still has no permanent waste answer, which no operator resolves on its own [15]. Buying a shelved design is a sensible way to skip the cheapest part of the problem.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
On June 17, 2026, Applied Atomics signed a licensing agreement with BWXT giving it exclusive commercial rights to the mPower small modular reactor design across the US and Canada.
Applied Atomics was founded in 2025 by Ben Kellie and Paul Keutelian, both former SpaceX engineers, with the goal of routing a proven but abandoned reactor concept's output directly to AI data centers.
The mPower design burned through roughly $400 million in investment before being shelved, and that prior development work is effectively a head start baked into the licensing deal.
BWXT developed mPower with partner Babcock and Wilcox using significant federal and private support; the project was quietly shelved in 2017 under the weight of cost overruns and a difficult regulatory environment.
mPower is a Generation III+ light-water small modular reactor rated at 195 megawatts electric, or 575 megawatts thermal.
A single large conventional nuclear plant typically generates around 1,000 MW electric.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Single republished secondary source
Every fact in the cluster rests on one item, itself credited 'Via interestingengineering.com'. Dates, ratings, and the $400M figure are internally specific and consistent, which supports basic reportability, but there is no BWXT statement, license text, NRC docket, or second outlet. Derived figures are arithmetic on that same single source, so they add precision without adding independent evidence.
Paper rights, zero operating capacity
Observed adoption consists of one contract signature and one pre-decisional feasibility study. No unit is built, no site is named, no customer or offtake is disclosed, and the source states no SMR design has reached full commercial operation in the US. The only operating floating-plant precedent is Russian and unrelated to this design.
Revival framing outruns the record
The headline framing ('revive', 'second life', proven design, AI-era buyer) implies momentum that the underlying facts do not yet carry: a five-year gap to a self-declared 2031 target, a nine-year dormancy that resets NRC review, cost structures the source concedes have worsened since 2017, and unresolved waste storage. The gap is moderate rather than extreme because the same article states these objections plainly instead of burying them.
Founder pitch relayed by an aggregator
Two directional incentives are visible in the material itself: a 2025-founded company holding newly exclusive commercial rights has every reason to publicize a proven-design narrative and an aerospace-rigor thesis, and the publisher is republishing another outlet's piece, which favors reach over verification. Not scored higher because the article still foregrounds cost, regulatory, and waste objections against interest.
Low: one source, no primary confirmation
The internal facts are specific and mutually consistent, and the article's own skeptical section aligns with the cluster's derived findings, which keeps confidence above the floor. But single-publisher, republished sourcing with no counterparty statement, filing, or customer disclosure caps how much weight any conclusion can bear, and the forward-looking 2031 element is unverifiable from the supplied material.
product
A barge, a berth lease and a standards deal: how nuclear gets back into California1 distinct publisher
invest
Harvard's $2.2 billion SpaceX position is half its disclosed US equity book1 distinct publisher
build
Starlink retires Global Roam on August 17, and ocean crews get the metered price list1 distinct publisher
invest
IPO proceeds tripled to $205.1B, but the deal count barely moved1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
cryptobriefing.com
1 article · August 21, 2026