Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

actinideinc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

#61

Post by ben_w »

tmp10423288442 wrote: post #58
KennyBlanken wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we wanted to find out what an LLM thought we'd ask the LLM. Don't be a meat proxy. https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/

But you weren't going to ask the LLM, and now you know something you weren't aware of. Seems no different than someone reporting what they found out in a Google Search, as long as they disclose that they used an LLM (as long as they used one that actually searches the web, but pretty sure even ChatGPT Free does that these days).

> but pretty sure even ChatGPT Free does that these days).

It can do, but won't do so reliably; and the guessing it does if it's not grounding with a search is still like someone in a pub saying "I recon…". Admittedly, a Cambridge pub like the Carlton Arms used to be when I lived there (sometimes I'd be the only one at the table who wasn't studying for a PhD), but still, pub.

Re: Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

#62

Post by [deleted] »

ortusdux wrote: post #30

I've been following SuperCritical, a new startup working on Uranium extraction from sea water. My understanding is that the process is much more sustainable than mining, which makes it easier/faster to establish a domestic source vs the permits needed for a new US based mine. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/08/26/335139...

[deleted]

Re: Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

#63

Post by dopa42365 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #11
git_rancher wrote: post #3

A few hundred thousand dollars worth of tech replacing what used to be a massive industrial investment is amazing. And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.

> And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible. low-enrichment (~20%) is what's happening here. the bad stuff, for nukes, is ~90% enrichment.

5% enrichment (regular reactor grade) is 2/3 the way to weapons grade already.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

Hence there technically being no enrichment cap for any country that signed the NPT and stuff (not to be confused with protection from US bombs or rogue states that never signed the NPT).

Re: Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

#65

Post by p1mrx »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #51
p1mrx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take these numbers with a grain of salt because I got them by chatting with AIs, but if you're producing electricity from HALEU, then centrifuges require reinvesting So calutrons will always be less energy efficient than centrifuges, but if the capital cost and construction time is low enough, calutrons might still be economically viable.

If we wanted to find out what an LLM thought we'd ask the LLM. Don't be a meat proxy. https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/

Even if you ignore my LLM numbers, "what percent of a reactor's output must be reinvested to enrich its own fuel?" is a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

Re: Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

#67

Post by jryle70 »

benabbott wrote: post #24

[flagged]

Why is it careless? and how do you know they didn't invest effort in the homepage, maybe even more with AI than if they didn't use it.

Plenty of human made websites with terrible graphics. We'd complain, but we wouldn't say the content is worthless because the art looks bad.

Re: Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

#68

Post by woah »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #51
p1mrx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take these numbers with a grain of salt because I got them by chatting with AIs, but if you're producing electricity from HALEU, then centrifuges require reinvesting So calutrons will always be less energy efficient than centrifuges, but if the capital cost and construction time is low enough, calutrons might still be economically viable.

If we wanted to find out what an LLM thought we'd ask the LLM. Don't be a meat proxy. https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/

Are you a meat proxy for that blog post?

Re: Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

#69

Post by yubblegum »

Legend2440 wrote: post #19
git_rancher wrote: post #3

A few hundred thousand dollars worth of tech replacing what used to be a massive industrial investment is amazing. And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.

>And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible. It's not that difficult from an engineering perspective, the tech is almost a century old. It's just that we will drop bombs on anyone who tries. Nuclear nonproliferation relies on active enforcement.

> It's just that we will drop bombs on anyone who tries.

I don't recall us bombing Pakistan, India, Israel, China, or North Korea.

> Nuclear nonproliferation relies on active enforcement.

The comedy hour at HN has arrived. See above ^^^

Re: Actinide is first startup to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

#70

Post by jjk166 »

git_rancher wrote: post #3

A few hundred thousand dollars worth of tech replacing what used to be a massive industrial investment is amazing. And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.

It's actually the opposite. Centrifuges are a cheaper and easier enrichment method. A single uranium centrifuge is on the order of $10,000 to $20,000. It's economical to run lots of centrifuges, but you could in theory get up to high enrichment just using the same centrifuge again and again.

Lot's of non-nuclear weapons states do have access, the Netherlands for example enriches more uranium annually than the UK. It's the components of centrifuges that are tightly controlled. Building enrichment facilities is well within the capabilities of pretty much any nation state, it's doing it secretly which is the hard part.

This alternative technique only makes sense at extremely small quantities. For their primary market of making medical isotopes, it makes a lot of sense. For nuclear reactor fuel it's incredibly impractical.

Post reply on HN