Ontario’s Char Tech Uses Pyrolysis of Woody Biomass to Make Biogas, Biocarbon as a Met Coal Replacement, Biochar as a Soil Amendment, and Activated Biochar for Contaminant Removal: They Also Want to Convert Biosolids to Biochar

      Ontario-based Char Tech is partnering with steel producers in Canada and the U.S. to use high-temperature pyrolysis for organic waste streams in order to produce biogas and biocarbon, a solid fuel for steel production. At the same time, it offers a disposal solution for woody biomass, biosolids, and other materials by turning them into biogas.

     According to Jacob Wallace of Waste Dive:

“The company began by developing a process to convert anaerobic digestate into an activated carbon product that could pull hydrogen sulfide out of biogas. But when executives met with steel manufacturer ArcelorMittal, they decided to pursue a solution to produce biocarbon that could replace metallurgical coal in steelmaking facilities.”

     Char Tech is developing a facility to process woody biomass. The output of the facility is expected to be 20% solids that can be turned into biocarbon and 78% volatile matter and gas. The biogas can be further processed into RNG. Steelmakers could potentially readily offtake significant amounts of biocarbon. Biochar is another potential byproduct. However, the market for biochar is mainly for carbon offsets, and guaranteed offtake is less certain.

     Char Tech is also involved in processing biosolids left over from sewage treatment into biochar with a process that also removes PFAS chemicals. They are involved with the city of Baltimore for such a project.

“Char Tech’s first commercial-scale plant is expected to come online this month in Thorold, Ontario. It’s developing two other facilities in Saint-Félicien, Québec, and Hurket, Ontario. Each of those is expected to produce biocarbon and RNG. White said the company is also interested in advancing its biosolids process in the United States, potentially by licensing the technology rather than building new plants itself.”

“Ultimately what we’re doing here is important,” White said. “It’s about getting the technology deployed rapidly.”

     To summarize, the company is using woody biomass waste to produce biocarbon for steelmaking, along with biogas. They are also processing biosolids into biochar, removing PFAS chemicals. Their high-temperature pyrolysis (HTP) process is a continuous autothermal process, where organic materials (biomass, biosolids, organic waste streams) are heated to over 800°C in a completely oxygen-free environment to create two high-value coproducts: biocarbon and renewable energy.

     There is another product they are also exploring. That is activated biochar. They note below what it is, what it does, and how it is activated. It can be used in the environmental remediation industry and for odor control at landfills, a big need.

References:

 

Char Tech develops pyrolysis to fuels sites; RNG news from Waga, Neogenyx: The Ontario-based company is partnering with steelmakers to turn woody biomass into a replacement for metallurgical coal and RNG. Jacob Wallace. Waste Dive. September 4, 2026. Char Tech develops pyrolysis to fuels sites; RNG news from Waga, Neogenyx | Waste Dive

Biocarbon & Biochar. Char Tech. BIOCARBON | CHAR Technologies

 

 

 

Did Angiosperms Appear in the Early Permian, 165 Million Years Before the Cretaceous? Paleobotanist Xin Wang Thinks They Did

     I will first note that researcher Xin Wang’s work has been a bit controversial. There is certainly no widespread evidence that angiosperms, plants with seeds enclosed within an ovary, which develop into a fruit, existed before the Cretaceous period. Wang has done other research suggesting that angiosperms existed in the Jurassic period, but extending this to the Early Permian is indeed a big stretch. The Wikipedia entry on ‘flowering plants’ notes that Wang’s work has not been widely accepted:

“…angiosperms appeared suddenly and rapidly diversified during the Early Cretaceous (beginning ~130 mya), much later than other major plant groups. Claimed records of flowering plants prior to this are not widely accepted, as all supposed pre-Cretaceous "flowers" can be explained through being misidentifications of other seed plants. Furthermore, almost all of these controversial fossils are described in papers co-authored by the researcher Xin Wang, such as the particularly debated Nanjinganthus.”

     The authors, including Wang, of a new paper in the journal Plant Biosystems suggest that there is indeed evidence of angiosperms dating back to the Early Permian and cite some examples. They think that it is simply that the structures of angiosperms were not recognized as such:

“The early age and the lack of conduplicate carpels in these fossils deter many from recognizing them as angiosperms. Such a hesitation is also rooted in the long held “no-angiosperms-until-Cretaceous” belief.”

“Arguably, Permian angiosperms cannot win full acceptance until the origin of apocarpous gynoecium composed of multiple carpels is critically re-analysed in the light of fossil evidence. Therefore, carpel-like fossils related angiosperms are badly needed in palaeobotany. Here, we report the first carpel-like structures, Permocarpelloides gen. nov., from the Lower Permian (Asselian Shanxi Formation) of Shanxi, China, to complement the former evidence of Permian angiosperms. The Permian age of this fossil pins down a 295-Ma-long history for angiosperms. The unique morphology of Permocarpelloides supports the existence of an apocarpous gynoecium in the Permian, and its differences from typical magnolialean carpels shed new light upon carpel origin and evolution.”

     The specimens showing the ovules were found in the Shanxi region of China, in the Shanxi Formation, which consists of coal beds, shale, siltstone, and limestone. The specimens were found in a siltstone, aged to the Asselian stage of the earliest Permian, dated approximately 295–298.9 million years ago. Incidentally, some of the rocks around where I live, likely including those on my own property, are of this age. The specimens are of a plant they named Permocarpelloides shuozhouensis.  

    It is thought that the early gymnosperms: conifers and seed ferns, emerged 300 million years ago when the climate became much drier, and seasonality became more pronounced. That is also when insects began interacting with them, although there is no direct evidence in the fossil record for gymnosperms being pollinated by insects until the Jurassic. It is thought that when angiosperms developed in the Cretaceous, they were pollinated by insects such as beetles. If Wang is correct, then those insects would be needed for pollination. While there was a significant diversification of insects beginning in the Early Permian, there is no evidence of pollination of gymnosperms, nor of angiosperms if they even existed. There were beetles around then, and some flying insects as well, but modern pollinators like bees did not emerge until the Early Cretaceous.   

     The paragraph below explains the reasoning behind seeing the specimen as an angiosperm and why it differs from the seeds of conifers and seed ferns present at the time.   

“A caveat for the above conclusion is that many Conifers may enclose their seeds after pollination (Tomlinson and Takaso 2002) and the same is also known for some fossil taxa, for example, Caytonia Thomas (Harris 1933). However, in our opinion these exceptions do not undermine our interpretation of Permocarpelloides as angiosperm carpels/fruits. In Conifers, almost all the enclosed seeds occur on the adaxial side of scales and bracts, in contrast to the seeds/ovules positioned between two lines along the carpel margins in Permocarpelloides. In the case of Caytonia, the ovules/seeds are on the adaxial side of the cupule wall and the general morphology of cupule and basal opening of the cupule have no equivalents in Permocarpelloides. Another ghost alternative is seed ferns, which originally designated plants bearing seeds and fern-like foliage. We currently have no clue about the foliage of Permocarpelloides thus comparison based on this trait is impossible. Yet, there are no known seed ferns bearing reproductive organs anyhow similar to Permocarpelloides, in spite of the great diversity documented in seed ferns (Taylor and Taylor 2009; Taylor et al. 1994, 2006, 2007; Doyle 2006). These differences are, in our opinion, deep enough to outweigh doubt over interpretation of Permocarpelloides as an early angiosperm.”

     They also write about other possible interpretations of the new species, such as designating it to a new group of gymnosperms. Below, they explain that and suggest that it could just be new evidence for the suspected blurring of the difference between gymnosperms and early angiosperms in the fossil record.

“Even if Permocarpelloides were finally placed in a new group of gymnosperms, this treatment would not reduce the evolutionary significance: Permocarpelloides would then be the first gymnosperm displaying angio-ovuly and angiospermy, suggestive of the blurry boundary between gymnosperms and angiosperms that has long be theoretically assumed but never confirmed by fossil evidence so far. Independent of being an angiosperm or a gymnosperm, Permocarpelloides is a peerless plant that sheds novel light on the evolution of seed plants.”

     Below, they suggest other possible evidence for Early Permian angiosperms:

“The possible ecological relationship between angiosperms and Permian insects (Khramov et al. 2023; Khramov et al. 2020; Peña-Kairath et al. 2023) deserves further investigations. Furthermore, gene and phylogenomic studies have converged to a pre-Cretaceous origin of angiosperms (Martin et al. 1989; Wolfe et al. 1989; Becker et al. 2000; Shi and de Peer 2026; Li et al. 2019; Zuntini et al. 2024; Ma et al. 2025; Ramshaw et al. 1972). Agreement among these independent lines of evidence, including fossil evidence, insects, and molecular dating, unveil a previously hidden fact: angiosperms have a long history dated back to the Early Permian.”

     Since I have rocks of this exact age quite nearby, I plan to investigate further. There are many different plant and marine fossils nearby, some in the slightly older Monongahela Group. That group contains world-class petrified wood and coal balls, which have well-preserved plant fossils. Coal balls are concretions that form in coal beds. The permineralization is not quartz or opal as in the case of petrified wood, but calcium and magnesium minerals. Back in the late 80s when I was an undergrad, I worked for a paleobotanist. One thing I did was make acetate peels of these coal balls in order to get full 3D representations of plant fossils. I have identified a limestone down in the creek below my house that appears to be fossiliferous, and I plan to collect more specimens when access is better in the late fall and winter. Here on the ridgetop is likely where the earliest Permian outcrops are, and most rocks preserved on the ridge are sandstones and siltstones. There are similarities and differences between the site here and the site in China. Both were positioned near the equator at the time of deposition. However, the U.S. area was part of the mass of continents known as Pangaea, and the Shanxi region of China was a small isolated island. As my historical geology teacher taught me: "isolation yields speciation." Thus, the species found there may never have occurred on Pangaea. The beginning of the Permian marks when ice sheets formed at the poles, especially the Southern polar area, resulting in a global drop in sea level. This followed the Alleghenian uplift in Appalachia. It represents the last time this area was offshore or nearshore, and the Appalachian Mountains have been eroding away ever since. 

     Below is the paleogeography at the Permian-Pennsylvanian boundary. Both the Euroamerican and Cathaysian plates are along the equator, but the Cathaysian plate is isolated. Thus, I would say it is a long shot to find similar species here. 

     However, the ice sheets led to more land being exposed, so land corridors from the Cathaysian plate to the Euramerican plate occurred soon after the advent of the Permian, as shown below.

References:

 

Permian carpel-like organs and their implications on origin of angiosperms. Xin Wang, Qiang Fu, Weijia Huang & Jie Sun. Plant Biosystems. Volume 160, article number 257 (2026). August 25, 2026. Permian carpel-like organs and their implications on origin of angiosperms | Plant Biosystems | Springer Nature Link

Flowering plant. Wikipedia. Flowering plant - Wikipedia

Permian. Wikipedia. Permian - Wikipedia

 

Retrofitting Dams to Produce Hydropower in the U.S. Could Generate 15.2 TWh of Electricity, or 4 GW of Capacity, According to New Study by Oak Ridge National Lab

       The DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) recently assessed the potential of powering non-powered dams in the U.S. to produce hydropower. Its assessment suggests that 4GW of capacity could be tapped, which could generate up to 15.2TWh of electricity annually. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) was also involved in the study. ORNL notes that historically, only about 3% of U.S. dams have been powered by adding turbines and associated infrastructure. The 4GW in capacity was spread over 2600 non-powered dams (NPDs), with an average of 1.4 MW per facility.

     The engineers utilized an open-source software platform known as HydroGenerate to assess the NPDs. According to Interesting Engineering:

“The software models power production by pairing turbine performance curves with hydraulic head, which measures the potential energy created by water elevation behind a dam. It also calculates a site-specific design flow to indicate the exact turbine dimensions needed for peak operating efficiency.”

“To establish this metric, the system processes daily historical records from the US Geological Survey’s stream gage network alongside Dayflow, an Oak Ridge dataset that routes runoff across American river channels.”

     Previous assessments came up with higher estimates of between 12 and 30 GW but did not consider the practical constraints to powering NPDs. The figure below shows improvements made after the previous assessments. 

     The new assessment accounts for seasonal flow changes and existing structural limits.

“Many of these dams already serve other critical purposes, and their operational constraints — such as flood control or navigation — can significantly limit hydropower development,” added Carly Hansen, the project’s principal investigator and lead author of the report. “We’ve worked to reflect those limitations in a way that hadn’t been done before.”

     The flowchart below shows the methodology for estimating monthly hydraulic head.

     About 86% of the identified capacity was found to occur on federally owned property, with sites clustered heavily in the Great Lakes basin and along the upper Mississippi River. The Lower Ohio River Valley also had several sites

     They note that updates to the software are planned.

“Upcoming updates will introduce multi-decade precipitation and streamflow variations into the software, while expanding field evaluations to include non-powered dams throughout Alaska and Hawaii.”

     The researchers noted that hydropower development typically takes time, years to a decade or more, and precipitation and streamflow rates change.

“Hydropower development takes time, often decades, so we need to consider what future water availability might look like,” Hansen said. “In some regions, increasing precipitation could even create greater potential for hydropower in the future.”

     In the paper's conclusion below, they note the importance of feasibility in determinations of NPD powering potential.

 

References:

 

Powering 1.4 million US homes: Untapped dams could generate 15.2 TWh electricity. Aman Tripathi. Interesting Engineering. September 6, 2026. Powering 1.4 million US homes: Untapped dams could generate 15.2 TWh electricity

ORNL assessment uncovers hydropower opportunities in existing dams. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. September 1, 2026. ORNL assessment uncovers hydropower opportunities in existing dams

AN ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL AT NONPOWERED DAMS IN THE UNITED STATES Carly Hansen, Juan Gallego-Calderon, Camilo Bastidas Pacheco, Cleve Davis, Scott DeNeale, Rohit Mendadhala, Jakob Meng, Glenn Russell, Sean Turner. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Idaho National Laboratory. January 2026. 3014287

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity Increased Slightly in 2025: EIA Delineates Demonstrated Peak Capacity and Working Gas Design Capacity

       Back in late May, the EIA published its 2025 annual report of changes in underground natural gas storage capacity in the U.S. and in the different regions of the U.S. The EIA uses two different metrics to measure underground natural gas storage capacity: demonstrated peak capacity and working gas design capacity. The EIA reported:

“The first metric—demonstrated peak capacity—rose 0.1%, or 6 billion cubic feet (Bcf), in 2025, reflecting increased use of natural gas storage due to market conditions. The second metric—working gas design capacity—rose 0.6%, or 26 Bcf, in 2025. Underground natural gas storage capacity continues to play an important role in balancing energy needs in the United States, regardless of how it is measured.”

     Below is the EIA explaining its methodology for the two metrics:

     Below are graphs from the EIA’s report showing where capacity was added in 2025 and by how much, followed by graphs of design capacity, design capacity change, demonstrated capacity, and demonstrated capacity change.

     The graph below shows all natural gas storage facilities in the U.S. as of April 2026. It is from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a part of the Department of Transportation.

References:

 

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity. EIA. May 21, 2026. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity Additions: Up to 45 BCF/Day of New Capacity Planned Through 2027, Biggest Buildout since 2008

     The increase in natural gas demand from increasing LNG exports, data centers, and electrification is also increasing demand for pipelines, as buildout is expected to grow through 2027. 

     Below is an EIA graph of annual pipeline capacity additions from 2020-2024 with both interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines delineated. That is followed by a graph I made for total non-delineated natural gas, with 2025 and estimates for 2026 and 2027 added in. In 2025, the vast majority of pipeline capacity additions were in the South-Central states, including Texas. In 2026 and 2027, new pipeline builds in Texas are expected to dominate at over 66%.

     About 70% of that new capacity, or 31.6 BCF, is already under construction, according to a June 13 article in Energies Media. The majority of the Texas projects will move natural gas out of the Permian Basin. Much will flow to LNG terminals, some to industrial customers, including data centers, and some to natural gas power plants and their residential and commercial power customers, as well as natural gas heat. Louisiana will also get new pipelines (19%, 8.4 BCF/day), followed next by Virginia, which will get 1.6 BCF/day of new capacity through Williams’s Southeast Supply Enhancement Project. The Louisiana projects likely better connect Haynesville gas to LNG terminals along the Gulf Coast. Gas deliveries to Virginia will come from the Appalachian region.

     According to a January 2026 article in Natural Gas Intelligence, the 2026 buildout is expected to be 18-22 BCF/day, which would be the highest buildout since 2008, when 31 BCF/day of natural gas pipeline capacity was added.

References:

 

U.S. plans 44.9 Bcf/d of new natural gas pipeline capacity in 2026–2027, with Texas accounting for over two-thirds of additions. Carlos Albero Rojas. Energies Media. June 13, 2026. U.S. plans 44.9 Bcf/d of new natural gas pipeline capacity in 2026–2027, with Texas accounting for over two-thirds of additions

U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity Set for Biggest Buildout Since 2008. Chris Newman. Natural Gas Intelligence. January 20, 2026. U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity Set for Biggest Buildout Since 2008

Natural gas pipeline project completions increase takeaway capacity in producing regions. EIA. March 17, 2025. Natural gas pipeline project completions increase takeaway capacity in producing regions - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Most natural gas pipelines built in 2025 connect the South Central United States to supply. EIA. February 25, 2026. Most natural gas pipelines built in 2025 connect the South Central United States to supply - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Rubisco, the World’s Most Abundant Protein, Stored in Leaves: The Benefits and Efforts to Produce and Commercialize Leaf Protein Concentrates and Integrated Biorefineries That Can Produce Rubisco and Plant Sugar

 

    Rubisco stands for ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase. It is found in every green leaf. It is responsible for photosynthesis.

“From a food-ingredient point of view, it’s one of the best natural proteins out there,” says Slavko Komarnytsky, a biologist at the Plants for Human Health Institute at NC State University. Milne, of Leaft, calls it the “utopia” protein because it has so many good attributes. 

“Every single food company that checks out this protein says, ‘We are in love with it, we want to use it, and we want a lot of it,’" Komarnytsky says, "and this is where the problems come in.”

     Rubisco can be made into a neutral-tasting white powder. It can be gelled and emulsified. There appear to be no allergies to it as there are to soy and dairy. It is easily digestible.

“From a food-ingredient point of view, it’s one of the best natural proteins out there,” says Slavko Komarnytsky, a biologist at the Plants for Human Health Institute at NC State University.

     Rubisco is likely to soar in popularity over the next ten years, according to some in the food industry. Its biggest problem right now is simply a lack of availability. That is due to the difficulty in extracting it and the associated costs. Producers are trying to overcome these problems. The issue is that the protein in leaves makes up only about 3% of their content, compared to soybeans, where protein makes up 80% of the content. Thus, quite a lot of leaves are needed to process into small amounts of Rubisco. There are more issues as well. Leaves often turn brown after harvesting, so they must be processed into Rubisco quickly. Solid and liquid waste is another issue that requires management and costs.

     Alana Samuels in Time writes:

“Companies have tried to juice the leaves as soon as they’re harvested, but it can be difficult chemically to isolate the rubisco and get rid of the green color to make it into the white powder, says Pearce. “The technology is similar to what it was back in the 60s and 70s,” he says.

“Tony Martens, CEO of Plantible, which makes rubisco to sell to food companies, says he partially agrees with this assessment. Though the underlying process of pulling rubisco from leaves hasn’t changed much in half a century, he says, it has become more possible to make white rubisco protein at a commercial scale in part because of updated processing processing technologies.”

     The challenges to commercializing rubisco remain difficult, and whether it will be successful remains uncertain. It does have some emissions benefits, waste benefits, and animal welfare advantages over other forms of protein. To get animal protein, we must grow specific crops to feed the animals. That part is very emissions intensive. Animals also cause a lot of waste runoff.

     Harvesting and protein yield per acre is more efficient for rubisco than for animal protein.

“What we’re doing is skipping the middleman and going directly to the source,” says Milne. He says that by harvesting alfalfa, one of the most common sources of rubisco, and turning it into protein, Leaft is harvesting about five times more protein per hectare of land than they would if they were raising cows for dairy.”

“That efficiency could come in handy in the case of a global catastrophe or during projected global food shortages. Research published in May by ALLFED, the Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters, found that leaf protein concentrate, which includes rubisco, could meet global protein requirements, even in an extreme nuclear winter scenario, because green leaves are relatively easy to grow quickly all over the world.”

     The company Leaft, based in New Zealand and recently expanding to the U.S., makes ready-to-drink performance fuel shots made of rubisco. Each pouch of greenish sludge contains 18 grams of protein, nearly a third of human daily needs. Another company, Fudi Protein, based in Wisconsin, hopes to market its rubisco product as an alternative to egg whites, but is still fundraising. Plantible Foods, which has operations in Texas and California, makes rubisco out of duckweed, or lemna.  

     A paper published in May 2026 in Sustainable Production and Consumption explores the global potential for integrated biorefineries for producing leaf protein and sugar. 

     Potential refined products include leaf protein concentrate (LPC), lignocellulosic sugar, and/or single-cell protein (SCP). A schematic of an integrated biorefinery is shown below.

     According to the paper:

“…we focus on perennial legumes that are much easier to obtain at scale with a stable high yield per hectare, have better protein quality, and provide multiple harvests per year while requiring no nitrogen fertilizer thanks to their natural nitrogen fixation. The leafy biomass, such as red clover or alfalfa, investigated in this study, is harvested and promptly transported to a nearby biorefinery to ensure immediate biomass processing, thereby minimizing nutrient degradation and preventing undesirable biological or chemical interactions.”

     The paper is quite detailed and explores the ramp-up speed of the technology, financing and production economics, land use, energy use, its capacity for catastrophe response, and its ability to cut waste compared to other protein sources. The paper notes that about 30% of global grasslands could provide the growing realm for crops like alfalfa and clover, both legumes.

     According to Fudi’s website, the biomass from the alfalfa is all usable and is returned to farmers.

“After protein extraction, 100% of the remaining alfalfa biomass — fiber, chlorophyll, and micronutrients — is retained and utilized rather than discarded.”

     Leaft makes a rubisco protein isolate and a rubisco protein concentrate. Plantible grows its lemna on aqua farms and processes it quickly after harvest.

 

References:

 

What to know about Rubisco, the most abundant protein on Earth. Alana Semuels. Time. June 1, 2026. What to know about Rubisco, the most abundant protein on Earth

Global potential of integrated biorefineries for leaf protein and sugar: Producing sustainable food and preventing starvation in catastrophes. Juan B. García Martínez, Jeffray Behr, Thalles A. Andrade, Simon Blouin, João Costa, and David Denkenberger. Sustainable Production and Consumption. Volume 64, May 2026, Pages 247-265. Global potential of integrated biorefineries for leaf protein and sugar: Producing sustainable food and preventing starvation in catastrophes - ScienceDirect

Global amount of RuBisCO - most abundant protein on Earth. Bionumbers. Harvard University. Global amount of RuBisCO - most abundant prot - Biosphere - BNID 103827

Nature's most abundant protein. Now your all-in-1 protein solution. Fudi Protein. FUDI Protein Pure RuBisCO Protein from Regenerative Alfalfa

Plantible Foods. Website. Plantible Foods - Better farms, better foods

Leaft Foods. Website. Leaft Foods

RuBisCO, Wikipedia. RuBisCO - Wikipedia

NANO Nuclear and Howden Announce Progress on Designing Helium Circulator for Cooling NANO’s High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor

     According to Interesting Engineering, a new nuclear microreactor designed by NANO Nuclear is advancing, as progress has been reported on designing a helium-based cooling system. The component known as a helium circulator is being developed for the KRONOS MMR Energy System, a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor under development by NANO Nuclear Energy. They are working toward a prototype of the cooling system. Howden, a Baker Hughes business with experience in helium turbomachinery and high-temperature gas-cooled reactor systems, is collaborating with NANO Nuclear on the project. Howden has done engineering evaluations, design models, supporting analyses, and formal design reviews with NANO.

     The companies plan to continue working on “materials and performance testing, component qualification, design optimization and manufacturing planning.”

     They are working towards integrating the circulator into the microreactor with the goal of meeting requirements for thermal performance, manufacturability, and long-term operation.

“Progressing the primary helium circulator into detailed design represents another important milestone in the continued development of the KRONOS MMR Energy System. Advancement of the circulator design strengthens the technical foundation of the overall reactor program and demonstrates the disciplined engineering execution essential for successful commercialization. We continue to make steady progress across both engineering and regulatory activities as we advance the KRONOS program toward prototype construction, regulatory licensing and future deployment,” said James Walker, chief executive officer of NANO Nuclear Energy.

     While permitting and eventually building this reactor design is still likely a long way off, the advancement of the subsystems into the design, building, and testing phase is ongoing. In addition to advancements in the helium cooling system design, the company noted that it continues to work with Fortil on the fuel and fuel storage systems. Once prototypes for these subsystems are fully designed, built, and tested, and the reactor is permitted by the NRC, they can proceed to the manufacturing phase.

“NANO Nuclear’s strategy is built upon developing advanced reactor technology through disciplined engineering execution and strategic collaborations with world-class supply chain partners. Our continued work with Howden reflects that commitment, bringing together complementary expertise to advance a critical reactor subsystem. Each engineering milestone strengthens the industrial ecosystem supporting KRONOS while further positioning the program for future first-of-a-kind deployment and long-term commercial success,” said Jay Yu, founder and chairman of NANO Nuclear Energy.

     The company is collaborating with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for component demonstrations.

     The KRONOS MMR design is modular, with each unit capable of producing 10-45 MWth of thermal power, and units can be banked together to get up to GW scale. The high-temperature reactor design produces heat that can be used for industrial heating/process heat and district heating. It also utilizes molten salt for energy storage.

     More information about KRONOS MMR from NANO’s website is given below.

 

References:

 

Nuclear microreactor advances key helium cooling system into detailed design. Neetika Walter. Interesting Engineering. September 3, 2026. Nuclear microreactor advances key helium cooling system into detailed design

KRONOS MMR. NANO Nuclear Energy. KRONOS MMR | NANO Nuclear Energy