Deep Fission, a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) developer, has partnered with Endeavour Energy, a US sustainable infrastructure developer, to develop and deploy nuclear fission to power AI data centers. They have committed to co-developing 2GW of nuclear energy to supply Endeavour’s global portfolio of data centers which operate under the Endeavour Edged brand. The first reactors are expected to be operational by 2029.
Deep Fission Inc. (Deep Fission), a nuclear energy company pioneering a new approach to clean power by placing safe, small modular reactors (SMRs) in boreholes a mile deep.
The Deep Fission reactor is based on the time-tested (67 years) traditional technology of the pressurized water reactor (PWR), the most common type of nuclear reactor around the world. even the same fuel assemblies (which hold the fuel in place), and the same methods to control the power (control rods and boron in the coolant fluid). The Shippingport reactor was the first full-scale PWR nuclear power plant in the United States. The reactor reached criticality on December 2, 1957, and aside from stoppages for three core changes, it remained in operation until October 1982.
The Deep Fission SMR design operates at the same pressure (160 atmospheres) as does a standard PWR, and at the same core temperatures (about 315°C, equal to 600°F). As with a standard PWR, the heat is transferred to a steam generator at depth to boil water, and the non-radioactive steam rises rapidly to the surface where a standard steam turbine converts the energy to its electricity.
Our SMR has no moving parts at depth, other than the control rods and the fluid flow of the water coolant. This design minimizes the need for maintenance, although cables attached to the reactor allow it to be raised to the surface (it takes only an hour or two) if inspection of the reactor is deemed necessary.
Deep Fission SMR capsules (15MW each) can deliver high power density in a small footprint, enabling 150MW in a quarter acre and 1.5GW of clean energy generation in just 3 acres. The Deep Fission system eliminates the need for massive containment and pumping infrastructure. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not yet ruled on buffer zone requirements for SMRs, but we do not expect our inherently safe subsurface system to require any footprint restrictions beyond the standard fence line.
The Deep Fission system leverages mature pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology, the most common nuclear technology worldwide (more than 65% of U.S. commercial reactors). PWR designs use high-pressure water, which serves as a moderator that enables power production using ordinary low-enriched uranium dioxide fuel pellets. Deep Fission reactor capsules operate at depths of 1 mile underground where they are naturally pressurized by gravitational forces. This eliminates the cost and complexity of massive pressure containment vessels that are required when nuclear plants are built on the surface and reduces the risk of losing pressure due to power outage, extreme weather events or other accidental or intentional disturbances.
“There is significant momentum for nuclear power right now, but the cost is still a challenge,” said Elizabeth Muller, CEO of Deep Fission. “Our technology not only ensures the highest levels of safety but also positions us to deliver zero-carbon continuous power at a cost of just 5-7 cents per kWh,” she continued.
“Deep Fission’s solution slashes the high costs and long timelines of surface-built nuclear projects, enhances safety, and delivers clean, reliable energy with high power density of more than 100MW in a quarter acre. We’re excited to play a pivotal role in advancing this transformative approach,” Jakob Carnemark, founder of Endeavour and Edged data centers said.
With over 40 patent-protected inventions, Deep Fission’s approach leverages the natural geological advantages of deep borehole placement – robust containment and constant pressure – making the reactor inherently safe. Endeavour’s sustainable data center engineering expertise complements Deep Fission’s cutting-edge solution, creating a solid foundation for driving the rapid commercialization of these advanced nuclear reactors.
“We are constantly searching for technologies capable of supporting the unprecedented demands of AI and meeting green energy goals, but they have to be economically viable,” said Jakob Carnemark, Founder of Endeavour and Edged data centers. “Deep Fission’s solution slashes the high costs and long timelines of surface-built nuclear projects, enhances safety, and delivers clean, reliable energy with high power density of more than 100MW in a quarter acre. We’re excited to play a pivotal role in advancing this transformative approach.”
The partnership between Deep Fission and Endeavour will redefine how clean energy is incorporated into electricity-demanding industries. With a shared commitment to low-carbon power generation, this alliance aims to set a new standard for power solutions worldwide
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Small, modular nuclear reactors make tremendous sense. Smaller “jacketed” nuclear cores in a “collection” have an innate both predictability, and safety a single big reactor core can never have. It takes zillions to build any one nuclear reactor, big enough to actually do anything. Dumb. Multiple nuclear cores, “jacketed”, aka: linked together just makes sense. One core has “a problem”, you take it out, and shoot it (not literally of course) But you get my drift.
So what we actually do (big reactors) is ‘dumb’
And what we don’t do (lots of little reactors in holes with minimal supervision) is trivial, easy, natural, etc.?
I feed that back to management.
No. I feed that back to more cost effective technology. Current western built nuclear reactors are intensely robust (aka: tough, and very safe), but also incredibly expensive. Takes many years to authorize, build a single, large commercial reactor. Regulations are legion. But would would you prefer radioactive crap on your corn flakes? You only have to look at the former Soviet Union to see the consequences of ignoring common engineering sense. Smaller, multiple cores is just logical.
Faster, cheaper to build, and deal w/any “problems” (A hissy fit, midlife crises, whatever…)
Smaller cores are not “just logical” when you understand neutron transport. A neutron travels ~10cm between birth and death in a LWR and more than double that in a heavy water fuel reactor and much and probably 50cm in a graphite moderated reactor. To keep the system multiplying the small reactor must be jacked up to HALEU (10-20% enriched). A big PWR leaks about 3% of the neutrons out of the reaction volume; NuScale leaks like 10% or more. The leakage in these tall narrow PBMRs must be astronomical (e.g. 20%) and only worse for little borehole thought experiment reactors.
Father-daughter team. Must be independently wealthy. Nuclear engineers all over the planet, speaking 10 different languages, are facepalming: “why didn’t we think of putting a pwr in the ground?” /S
There’s a lot to be be said about “boiling water reactors” But we (and others) “played” w/that in the 1960’s/1970’s. While it did reduce the “problem” of the consequences of “pressurization” in our reactors, it required MUCH MORE Uranium fuel, to give us the same juice, aka; power. It’s a matter of a very expensive fuel (highly refined Uranium, refined just enough, to make it into a fuel, but NOT a bomb. The difference is, a few % points. I couldn’t detect THAT difference if it bit me in the ass. And couldn’t “detect it” w/both my hands and a guide dog. Uhm, sorry kids…
The fact is (IMO), a pressurized water reactor, makes the most of our energy from the Uranium we have. (Understand, “Uranium” is just a heat source, like coal, oil, or even the sun. In a solar thermal system (today rather redundant, due to great advances in photovoltaics’), but the basics are in the case of all these systems, including nuclear thermal, not changed for decades. It’s all about heating water, fast and hot enough for it to flash into steam, to drive a turbine, that powers a generator. Also nuclear power can provide maximum power, for the same amount of fuel used.
This may sound (and it does), counterintuitive, but it’s true. Don’t believe me? Ask the US NAVY, on second thought, DONT. Their not supposed to talk about this stuff…
Not sure if you’re aware of 1/3 of the reactors in the country are boiling water reactors and their fueling rate and efficiency is exceedingly similar to the other 2/3, the PWRs. BWR is basically a once-through steam generator at 1030 psia. The savings afforded by the thinner wall thickness and reduced number of large forgings of the BWR was fully negated by the more complex control rod drive system, in-core instrumentation, and other systems.
Perhaps. But you have to understand the industrial infrastructure your trying to integrate with. Not just technically but economically. Unfortunately, the world economy is based less on “what’s the best, at any one moment” as apposed to what’s more “understood and comfortable at any one time”. Some of the “coolest” technologies ever invented, never changed our world because they showed up, at the wrong place, and time. Do I “understand this”? Oh yes my dear.
“Some of the “coolest” technologies ever invented, never changed our world…”
While one could argue the flying wing configuration of the airplane is ‘better’ than the general architecture of fuselage, wing, tail, nacelle for x-y-z reasons, it has only found a niche in low observability bombers.
Just because you ‘could’ make passenger aircraft different, doesn’t mean we should or that we’re leaving countless benefits unrealized.
We really need to elevate the “paper vs. academic” argument to the status of truism or logical fallacy. The thinking of armchair experts on the internet with regards to energy reactors, space flight, self driving cars, AI singularity, etc. presents itself [in my opinion] as a logical fallacy phrased thusly: “It’s obviously better because it is different, but not consistent with current SOP because conspiracy/stodginess/infrastructure/comfort/hubris….” It is tiresome. I’ve been on the site 10 years and still MSR and SST not progressed beyond the 1960s/70s.
Correction “real vs. paper/academic”
as eloquently trolled by one of the best, HG Rickover.