WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.—When the Chevrolet Bolt debuted in 2017, the electric hatchback stood out: Here was an electric vehicle with more than 200 miles of range for less than half the price of a Tesla Model S. The Bolt had its ups and downs, though. A $1.8 billion recall saw the automaker replace the battery packs in more than 142,000 cars, which wasn't great. COVID delayed the Bolt's midlife refresh a little. It got a price cut—the first of several—plus new seats, infotainment, and even the Super Cruise driver assist, plus a slightly more capacious version called the Bolt EUV.

Along the way, the Bolt became GM's bestselling EV by quite some margin, even as the OEM introduced its new range of more advanced EVs using the platform formerly known as Ultium. But as is often the way with General Motors, a desire to do something else with the Bolt's assembly plant saw the car's cancellation, as GM wanted to retool the Orion Township factory as part of its ill-judged bet that American consumers would embrace full-size electric pickups like the Silverado EV. And thus, in 2022, GM CEO Mary Barra announced the Bolt's impending demise.

This was not well-received. Even though Chevy promised an almost-as-cheap Equinox EV, Bolt fans besieged the company and engineered a volte face. At CES in 2023, Barra revealed the Bolt would be brought back, with an all-new lithium iron phosphate battery in place of the previous lithium-ion pack. When GM originally designed the Bolt, it was the company's sole EV, but now there's an entire (not-) Ultium model range. The automaker also has a giant parts bin to pick from, so the Equinox EV donates its drive motor, plus there's a new Android Automotive OS infotainment system.

But you could have read all that ages ago. Chevy announced some specs and pricing last October, including the news that there would be a sportier RS trim in addition to the LT version. Then, in January, we learned its 262-mile (422 km) range and the fact that it can DC fast-charge at up to 150 kW, using a NACS socket instead of CCS1. Now, we've had a chance to spend some time behind the wheel of the 2027 Bolt, and here's what we found.

Spec sheets can be misleading

As before, the Bolt's electric motor drives its front wheels. The drive unit generates 210 hp (157 kW), a 4 percent bump on the old car. But its torque output is just 169 lb-ft (230 Nm), well down on the 266 lb-ft (360 Nm) of the earlier Bolts. This had me worried: near-instant and effortless torque practically defines the EV driving experience, and the thought of missing nearly 40 percent of that thrust sounded like it would make for a radically different driving experience.

In fact, the 2027 Bolt is actually slightly zippier than the old car. The motor's torque output might be less, but with an 11:59:1 final drive ratio, you would never, ever guess. Zero to 60 mph (97 km/h) takes 6.8 seconds, 0.2 faster than before. The new motor can spin faster than the old one, and so even at highway speed there's sufficient acceleration when you need it.

The new powertrain is also more efficient. Even though much of our drive route was on challenging—and hilly—roads like Mulholland Drive down to Malibu, and mostly in Sport mode, I still saw around 4 miles/kWh (15.5 kWh/100 km). So that 262 mile range estimate from the 65 kWh battery pack sounds spot-on.

Perhaps the old Bolt's biggest weakness was how slow its DC charging was—almost an hour to 80 percent at a maximum of just 55 kW. Now with NACS, things are a lot better. I tested recharging a Bolt LT from 19–80 percent using a Tesla V4 Supercharger, which took 25 minutes and added an indicated 211 miles of range. The charge curve is much flatter than before, starting at ~110 kW before gradually beginning to ramp down once the state of charge passed 65 percent. Like other batteries, the LFP pack will charge much more slowly once it reaches 80 percent, but unlike lithium-ion, you're encouraged to charge the car to 100 percent as often as possible.

For most charging networks, recharging is as simple as plugging in and letting the car and charger talk to each other using plug and charge (ISO 15118); this is still being implemented for Tesla Superchargers, but you can initiate a charge from the Bolt's charging app. A word of caution though: The charge socket is on the driver's side of the car, which means you'll have difficulty using a V3 Supercharger—which only features a short cable—without blocking more than one stall, something that may enrage any Tesla owners hoping to charge simultaneously.

Fast-charging is actually fast now. Credit: Jonathan Gitlin

And before you ask, no, it wasn't possible to relocate the charge port; this would require a significant redesign to the car's unibody as well as its powertrain layout, at vast expense.

Drives like a Bolt should

Although the new $32,995 RS trim has a sportier appearance inside and out than the $28,995 LT, both trims use identical suspension tuning. The ride is more than a little bouncy over the expansion gaps of LA's highways, but a look at previous reviews reminds me that old Bolts also did this. The effect was much less noticeable on the back roads, where the car proved nimble if not exactly captivating to drive: I would very much like to try one on performance tires. The range would suffer a little, but cornering grip would be much improved. That said, the low-rolling resistance tires have more grip and are less likely to break traction than, say, the Toyota bZ we just reviewed.

There's a new power-steering actuator, and a new rear-twist axle, but the suspension and steering geometry should be the same as older Bolts.

However, if you're familiar with the old Bolt, you'll notice a few changes. The cabin has a lot more storage nooks and cubbies than before, and both the main instrument panel and the infotainment screen are larger than in a 2023 Bolt. You use a stalk mounted on the steering column to select D/R/N/P, and must now use a persistent icon on the touchscreen to toggle one-pedal driving on or off. This is less convenient than the old car and its physical controls. The regenerative braking paddle is gone from behind the steering wheel, too.

But there are two settings for one-pedal driving, one gentler than the other, and you'll also regenerate energy using the brake pedal. Exactly how much regen occurs before the friction brakes take over depends on things like the battery's state of charge; in high regen, I saw as much as 85 kW by lifting the throttle, and the same with one-pedal driving turned off but using the brake pedal to slow. With one-pedal turned off, the car will still regenerate a few kW when you lift the accelerator pedal, so, unlike a German EV, this car won't coast freely.

Is this the McRib of EVs?

Any worries that the rebatteried Bolt would be missing the car's essential character were misplaced. Although some of the numbers on paper look lower, the driving experience is no worse than the old car in most ways, and improved in terms of onboard safety systems, powertrain efficiency, and so on. The comments will no doubt reflect antipathy that GM dropped Apple CarPlay and Android Auto to cast one's phone, but the inclusion of apps like Apple Music might go some way toward alleviating this angst. In all, the 2027 Bolt represents a solid upgrade.

But there's a catch. Just like last time, GM has other designs on the Bolt's assembly plant—now in Fairfax, Kansas. That factory will churn out Bolts for just 18 months; next year production ends and the automaker repurposes the site to build gasoline-powered Buick Envisions and Chevy Equinoxes. Chevy told us that it expects there will be sufficient Bolts to stock dealerships for the next two years, but after that, it's done.

Read full article

Comments

Back in 1976, the New York Times profiled the Colonel himself, Harland Sanders, as he was furious that he had been sidelined from Kentucky Fried Chicken by whoever he had sold it to. The Colonel had some thoughts about the quality:

Once in the kitchen, the colonel walked over to a vat full of frying chicken pieces and announced, ‘That’s much too black. It should be golden brown. You’re frying for 12 minutes — that’s six minutes too long. What’s more, your frying fat should have been changed a week ago. That’s the worst fried chicken I’ve ever seen. Let me see your mashed potatoes with gravy, and how do you make them?”

When Mr. Singleton explained that he first mixed boiling water into the instant powdered potatoes, the colonel interrupted. “And then you have wallpaper paste,” he said. “Next suppose you add some of this brown gravy stuff and then you have sludge.” “There’s no way anyone can get me to swallow those potatoes,” he said after tasting some. “And this cole slaw. This cole slaw! They just won’t listen to me. It should he chopped, not shredded, and it should be made with Miracle Whip. Anything else turns gray. And there should be nothing in it but cabbage. No carrots!”

He actually got sued for saying this:

My God, that gravy is horrible. They buy tap water for 15 to 20 cents a thousand gallons and then mix it with flour and starch and end up with pure wallpaper paste. And I know wallpaper paste, by God, because I’ve seen my mother make it.

To the “wallpaper paste” they add some sludge and sell it for 65 or 75 cents a pint. There’s no nutrition in it and the ought not to be allowed to sell it.

And another thing. That new crispy chicken is nothing in the world but a damn fried doughball stuck on some chicken.

But this is the highlight by far after the company moved its HQ a state to the south:

“This ain’t no goddam Tennessee Fried Chicken, no matter what some slick, silk-suited son-of-a-bitch says.”

Goddamn right!

I wonder if KFC was once edible? I assume the product has not improved since the 70s.

The post This Ain’t No Goddam Tennessee Fried Chicken appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

The Spinosaurus is a sail-backed, crocodile-snouted dinosaur that Hollywood depicted as a giant terrestrial predator capable of taking down a T. rex in Jurassic Park 3. Then they changed their mind and made it a fully aquatic diver in Jurassic World Rebirth—a rendering that was more in line with the latest paleontological knowledge.

But now, deep in the Sahara Desert, a team of researchers led by Paul C. Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago, discovered new Spinosaurus fossils suggesting both scientists and filmmakers might have got it all wrong again. The Spinosaurus most likely wasn’t an aquatic diver because, apparently, it couldn’t dive.

Bones in the sand

While the T. rex-beating version of the Spinosaurus was considered unlikely due to its relatively fragile skull, the newer depiction as an aquatic diver made more sense in light of paleontological evidence. Until now, all remains of these predators were pulled from coastal deposits near ancient seas and oceans. That geographic distribution was consistent with the aquatic lifestyle interpretation. If a creature lived on the coast, maybe it swam out to sea like a prehistoric seal, only crawling out to the beaches to rest just as it was depicted in Jurassic World Rebirth.

But the Spinosaurus found by Sereno and his colleagues lived in a completely different neighborhood. The fossils were discovered in the central Sahara of Niger, in what was a terrestrial area called Jenguebi. “When you want to find something really, truly new, you have to go where few have been or maybe nobody has been,” Sereno says. “In the case of Jenguebi, I don’t think it’s seen a paleontologist before.” His team managed to find the site, led by local Tuareg guides after driving for over a day and half through the desert. “We had a team of nearly 100, including paleontologists, filmmakers, guides, and 64 armed guards. You feel like you’re in an Indiana Jones movie,” Sereno recalls. But the effort paid off.

Back in the Cenomanian stage of the Late Cretaceous, the Jenguebi was an inland basin laced with rivers—a riparian habitat situated between 500 and 1,000 kilometers away from the nearest marine shoreline. In these riverbank sediments, Sereno and his team unearthed multiple specimens of the new Spinosaurus species they called S. mirabilis. The skeletons were buried right alongside massive, long-necked dinosaurs, including various species of titanosaurian and rebbachisaurid sauropods. To Sereno, the proximity of these bones left no doubt that the animals they belonged to lived and died together in the same inland freshwater environment. And this inland existence drives a pretty big nail in the coffin of the aquatic diver idea.

Prehistoric heron

The researchers point out that all large-bodied secondarily aquatic tetrapods like whales, mosasaurs, or plesiosaurs, are marine. Finding a giant Spinosaurus thriving in an inland river system strongly supports the idea that it was a semiaquatic, shoreline ambush predator that would wade into shallow waters like a giant crane or heron. But there were other hints that the Spinosaurus was not a diver.

“When you calculate this animal’s lung volume and the air that was permanently in its bones, you’ll find out it was buoyant,” Sereno explains. The permanent air sacks in the bones, an anatomical feature shared by many modern birds, most likely kept the Spinosaurus afloat even when it exhaled all the air out of its lungs. “Birds that dive get rid of those air sacks—penguins got rid of them,” Sereno says. “It’s a balloon you can’t fight against.” He added that even its limbs were far too long to be effectively used as paddles.

This wading lifestyle, the team argues in the paper, was not something unique to the S. mirabilis but extended to other Spinosaurus species as well—the skeletal features of the newly discovered S. mirabilis were found fundamentally similar to its shoreline cousins like S. aegyptiacus on which the Jurassic World Rebirth vision was largely based. Sereno argues it's highly unlikely that one was a wading river monster while the other was a deep-diving pursuit predator with limited land mobility.

But there was one thing that made S. mirabilis different from S. aegyptiacus. The word “mirabilis” in the newly discovered Spinosaurus’ name translates to “astonishing” in Latin. What Sereno’s team found so astonishing was the prominent crest atop the animal’s head, one of the largest we’ve ever discovered.

The scimitar crown

Instead of the bumpy, fluted ridge seen on S. aegyptiacus, S. mirabilis sported a blade-shaped, scimitar-like bony crest that arched upward and backward from its snout, reaching an apex high over its eyes. This structure was composed of solid bone, unlike the highly porous, pneumatic casques found on some modern birds. However, the bone itself was etched with fine longitudinal striations and deep grooves, indicating that the bony core was just the foundation.

The newly discovered skull, along with a model of what its spike might have looked like on a living animal. Credit: UChicago Fossil Lab

In a living S. mirabilis, this crest would have been enveloped and substantially extended by a keratinous sheath, much like the vibrant growth developed by modern helmeted guinea fowls. If scaled up to a fully mature adult, the bony core alone would measure around 40 centimeters in length; with its keratinous sheath, it could have easily exceeded half a meter. For Sereno, the purpose of this “astonishing” scimitar crown was similar to crests worn today by cranes and herons. “It was asymmetrical. It varied between individuals. So, I think it was solely for display,” Sereno explains.

His team hypothesizes that visual signaling was the primary function of both the cranial crests and the massive trunk and tail sails that define spinosaurids. In the crowded shoreline and riverbank habitats, a towering, brightly colored crest or sail would be an excellent way to broadcast your size, maturity, and genetic fitness to rivals and potential mates without having to engage in a costly physical brawl.

Still, when it came down to it, S. mirabilis, weighing in at well over 7 tons, totally could brawl. “The Spinosaurus was enormous. I think it could have eaten anything it wanted even though its mainstay was fish,” Sereno says.

Crocodile jaw

The showpiece on its forehead aside, the S. mirabilis was a highly specialized killing machine. Its snout featured a low profile with parallel dorsal and ventral margins, terminating in a mushroom-shaped expansion at the tip. The upper and lower jaws allowed the teeth to interdigitate perfectly—there was a notable diastema, a gap in the upper row of teeth, that neatly accommodated the large teeth of the lower jaw. The S. mirabilis jaw structure appears similar to that of modern long-snouted crocodiles, optimized for snatching and snaring aquatic prey with a rapid, trap-like closure. Surprisingly, S. mirabilis showed greater spacing between the teeth in the posterior half of its snout compared to S. aegyptiacus despite being otherwise nearly identical.

Analysis of the animals' overall body proportions led Sereno and his colleagues to suspect these dinosaurs resided in the functional middle ground between semiaquatic waders like herons and aquatic divers like darters, placing them in an ecological niche entirely separate from all other predatory theropods. Based on Sereno’s paper, the evolutionary history of the spinosaurids started in the Jurassic, when their ancestors first evolved that distinctive, elongate, fish-snaring skull before splitting into two main lineages: baryonychines and spinosaurines.

Then, during the Early Cretaceous, the spinosaurines enjoyed a golden age, diversifying across the margins of the Tethys Sea, a late Paleozoic ocean situated between the continents of Gondwana and Laurasia, to become the dominant predators in their respective ecosystems. What most likely brought an end to their reign was climate change.

The end of the line

The final chapter in the Spinosaurus history played out just before the Late Cretaceous, as the Atlantic Ocean was opening up. This is when spinosaurines, limited geographically to what today is Northern Africa and South America, pushed their biological limits, attaining their maximum body sizes as highly specialized shallow-water ambush hunters. This specialization, though, probably led to their extinction.

Around 95 million years ago, at the end of the Cenomanian stage, the world started to shift. An abrupt rise in global sea levels driven by climate changes drowned the low-lying continental basins and created the Trans-Saharan seaway. The complex, shallow river systems and coastal swamps that supported giant wading spinosaurines vanished beneath the waves. “We don’t see spinosaurid fossil records beyond this period,” Sereno explains. The spinosaurid lineage, unable to dive and adapt to more aquatic lifestyles, was brought to an end.

But we still don’t know much about its beginning. “This is going to be the subject of our next paper—where did the Spinosaurus come from?” Sereno says.

Sereno’s paper on the S. mirabilis is published in Science: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adx5486

Read full article

Comments

As part of today's MacBook Pro update, Apple has also unveiled the M5 Pro and M5 Max, the newest members of the M5 chip family.

Normally, the Pro and Max chips take the same basic building blocks from the basic chip and just scale them up—more CPU cores, more GPU cores, and more memory bandwidth. But the M5 chips are a surprisingly large departure from past generations, both in terms of the CPU architectures they use and in how they're packaged together.

We won't know the impact these changes have had on performance until we have hardware in hand to test, but here are all the technical details we've been able to glean about the new updates and how the M5 chip family stacks up against the past few generations of Apple Silicon chips.

New Fusion Architecture and a third type of CPU core

Apple says that M5 Pro and M5 Max use an "all-new Fusion Architecture" that welds two silicon chiplets into a single processor. Apple has used this approach before, but historically only to combine two Max chips together into an Ultra.

Apple's approach here is different—for example, the M5 Pro is not just a pair of M5 chips welded together. Rather, Apple has one chiplet handling the CPU and most of the I/O, and a second one that's mainly for graphics, both built on the same 3nm TSMC manufacturing process.

The first silicon die is always the same, whether you get an M5 Pro or M5 Max. It includes the 18-core CPU, the 16-core Neural Engine, and controllers for the SSD, for the Thunderbolt ports, and for driving displays.

The second die is where the two chips differ; the M5 Pro gets up to 20 GPU cores, a single media encoding/decoding engine, and a memory controller with up to 307 GB/s of bandwidth. The M5 Max gets up to 40 GPU cores, a pair of media encoding/decoding engines, and a memory controller that provides up to 614 GB/s of memory bandwidth (note that everything in the GPU die seems to be doubled, implying that Apple is, in fact, sticking two M5 Pro GPUs together to make one M5 Max GPU).

Apple's spec sheets now list three distinct types of CPU cores: "super" cores, performance cores, and efficiency cores. Credit: Apple

Apple is also introducing a third distinct type of CPU core beyond the typical "performance cores" and "efficiency cores" that were included in older M-series processors.

At the top, you have "super cores," which is Apple's new M5-era branding for what it used to call "performance cores." This change is retroactive and also applies to the regular M5; Apple's spec sheet for the M5 MacBook Pro used to refer to the big cores as "performance cores" but now calls them "super cores."

At the bottom of the hierarchy, you still have "efficiency cores" that are tuned for low power usage. The M5 still uses six efficiency cores, and unlike the super cores, they haven't been rebranded since yesterday. These cores do help with multi-core performance, but they prioritize lower power usage and lower temperatures first, since they need to fit in fanless devices like the iPad Pro and MacBook Air.

And now, in the middle, we have a new type of "performance core" used exclusively in the M5 Pro and M5 Max.

These are, in fact, a new, third type of CPU core design, distinct from both the super cores and the M5's efficiency cores. They apparently use designs similar to the super cores but prioritize multi-threaded performance rather than fast single-core performance. Apple's approach with the new performance cores sounds similar to the one AMD uses in its laptop silicon: it has larger Zen 4 and Zen 5 CPU cores, optimized for peak clock speeds and higher power usage, and smaller Zen 4c and Zen 5c cores that support the same capabilities but run slower and are optimized to use less die space.

What we don't know yet is how these new chips perform relative to the previous versions. Technically, the M4 Pro and M4 Max both had more "big" cores than the M5 Pro and M5 Max do—up to 10 for the M4 Pro and up to 12 for the M4 Max. But higher single-core performance from the six "super cores" and strong multi-core performance from the 12 performance cores should mean that the M5 generation still shakes out to be faster overall.

How all the chips compare

For Mac buyers choosing between these three processors, we're updating the spec tables we've put together in the past, comparing the M5-generation chips to one another and to their counterparts in the M2, M3, and M4 generations.

Here's how all of the M5 chips stack up, including the partly disabled versions of each chip that Apple sells in lower-end MacBook Air and Pro models:

Despite all the big under-the-hood changes, the basic hierarchy here remains the same as in past generations. The Pro tier offers the biggest bump to CPU performance compared to the basic M5, along with twice as many GPU cores. The Max chip is mainly meant for those who want better graphics, 128GB of RAM, or both.

Compared to M2, M3, and M4

Compared to past generations, the M5 looks like the basic incremental improvement that we're used to—no huge jumps in CPU or GPU core counts, relying mostly on architectural improvements and memory bandwidth increases to deliver the expected generation-over-generation speed boost. The Pro and Max chips have similar graphics core counts across generations, but there has been more variability when it comes to the CPU cores.

The Pro chips have been sort of all over the place, and the M3 generation in particular is an outlier. When we tested it at the time, we found it to be more or less a wash compared to the M2 Pro, which was (and still is) rare for Apple Silicon generations. The M4 Pro was a better upgrade, and the M5 Pro should still feel like an improvement over the M4 Pro despite the big underlying changes.

The M5 Max will be the biggest test for Apple's new performance cores. According to our testing of the M5 in the 14-inch MacBook Pro, the M5-generation super cores are about 12 to 15 percent faster than the M4 generation's performance cores. The M4 Max had up to 12 of those cores, while the M5 Max only has six. That leaves a pretty substantial gap for M5 Max's new non-super P-cores to close.

Aside from that, the biggest outstanding question is how the M5 shakeup changes Apple's approach to Ultra chips, assuming the company continues to make them (Apple has already said that not every processor generation will see an Ultra update).

The M1 Ultra, M2 Ultra, and M3 Ultra were all made by fusing two Max chips together, perfectly doubling the CPU and GPU core counts. Will an M5 Ultra still weld two M5 Max chips together using the same basic ingredients to make an even larger processor? Or will Apple create distinct CPU and GPU chiplets just for the Ultra series? All we can say for sure is that we can no longer make assumptions based on Apple's past behavior, which tends to be the most reliable predictor of its future behavior.

Read full article

Comments

IT consultant and services provider Accenture has agreed to buy Speedtest and Downdetector owner Ookla from Ziff Davis for $1.2 billion in cash.

Accenture plans to integrate Ookla’s data products into its own offerings that are targeted at helping communications service providers, hyperscalers, government entities, and other types of customers “optimize … mission-critical Wi-Fi and 5G networks,” Accenture’s announcement today said.

Ookla's platform also includes Ekahau, which offers tools for troubleshooting and designing wireless networks, and RootMetrics, which monitors mobile network performance.

Accenture plans to use data gathered from Ookla’s services for applications such as helping hyperscalers and cloud providers “ensure the resilience of AI infrastructure and edge datacenters, which deliver most of the inference workload,” improving fraud prevention in banks, conducting smart home analytics in utilities, and retail traffic optimization.

In a statement, Accenture chief strategy and services officer Manish Sharma said:

“Speedtest and RootMetrics define the experience; Downdetector identifies incidents faster; and Ekahau drives digital workplace transformation through superior Wi-Fi. In an era of omni-channel and agentic access, low-latency, zero-friction connectivity is a competitive necessity, and these tools give enterprises the power to build the high-performance environments they need.

Ookla says its products see a total of 250 million consumer-initiated tests per month, and it has about 430 employees. Ookla had a net income of $76.1 million and generated $230.7 million in revenue in 2025.

Ziff Davis bought Ookla in 2014 for $15 million, per a Reuters report today. The publishing company said it expects the sale to close “in the coming months.”

In a statement, Accenture CEO and chair Julie Sweet said:

By acquiring Ookla, we will help our clients across business and government scale AI safely and build the trusted data foundations they need to deliver the reliable, seamless connectivity that creates value.

Current Accenture public sector clients include the US Air Force, the US Social Security Administration, and, recently, the US Department of State.

Speedtest and Downdetector are popular tools that help people quickly test their current Internet speed and the status of online services, respectively. Downdetector is often cited by media reports discussing the availability of websites, apps, banks, and more.

Under Ziff Davis, both programs also have business-to-business (B2B) applications. Using Speedtest, for instance, Ookla gathers, aggregates, and analyzes data for “billions of mobile network samples daily, which measure radio signal levels, network coverage, and availability, and [quality of experience] metrics for a number of connected experiences, such as streaming video, video conferencing, gaming, web browsing, and CDN and cloud provider performance,” Ookla says. Currently, Speedtest B2B customers include telecommunications operators, regulatory and trade bodies, analysts, journalists, and nonprofits.

Downdetector Explorer, meanwhile, is a monitoring tool that’s supposed to help businesses detect outages. Customers include streaming services, banks, social networks, and communication service providers.

Should Accenture’s acquisition close, the IT consultant will similarly use data from Speedtest and Downdetector to inform clients, and individual users will be subject to a new privacy policy and any other changes Accenture potentially makes.

An Accenture spokesperson told Ars Technica that Accenture plans to operate the Ookla “business as it operates today.” 

Read full article

Comments

On Wednesday, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that it had issued its first construction approval in nearly a decade. The approval will allow work to begin on a site in Kemmerer, Wyoming, by a company called TerraPower. That company is most widely recognized as being financially backed by Bill Gates, but it's attempting to build a radically new reactor, one that is sodium-cooled and incorporates energy storage as part of its design.

This doesn't necessarily mean it will gain approval to operate the reactor, but it's a critical step for the company.

The TerraPower design, which it calls Natrium and has been developed jointly with GE Hitachi, has several novel features. Probably the most notable of these is the use of liquid sodium for cooling and heat transfer. This allows the primary coolant to remain liquid, avoiding any of the challenges posed by the high-pressure steam used in water-cooled reactors. But it carries the risk that sodium is highly reactive when exposed to air or water. Natrium is also a fast-neutron reactor, which could allow it to consume some isotopes that would otherwise end up as radioactive waste in more traditional reactor designs.

The reactor is also relatively small compared to most current nuclear plants (245 megawatts versus roughly one gigawatt), and incorporates energy storage. Rather than using the heat extracted by the sodium to boil water, the plant will put the heat into a salt-based storage material that can either be used to generate electricity or stored for later use. This will allow the plant to operate around renewable power, which would otherwise undercut it on price. The storage system will also allow it to temporarily output up to 500 MW of electricity.

Globally, only about 25 significant reactors have been built using sodium cooling, and most of them weren't used to generate power; the US hasn't built one since the 1960s and hasn't operated one since the 1990s. This is a radical design, and the company could still face many hurdles before getting approval to operate it.

That said, building it is a critical first step. The company chose the site in 2021 and submitted the construction application to the NRC in early 2024. That was shortly before the passage of the ADVANCE Act in June 2024, which sought to streamline the approval of nuclear projects and promote new generations of reactor designs. That may explain why the NRC completed its evaluation of TerraPower's filing nearly 10 months ahead of its initial prediction.

The Kemmerer plant is being built as a joint public-private partnership as part of the Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. Right now, the project is expected to be completed in 2030, and so will arrive far too late to help with the expected surge in datacenter demand over the next several years. As a first-of-its-kind project, it should also be expected to experience construction delays. And while the Trump administration has been enthusiastic about simplifying the approval process for operating reactors, a 2030 timeline may delay the Kemmerer plant's approval well into the next administration.

Read full article

Comments