James Walker is the CEO of NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. Based in New York, the advanced technology-driven nuclear energy company says it’s seeking to become a commercially focused, diversified and vertically integrated company across the following business lines: portable and stationary microreactor technologies, nuclear fuel fabrication, nuclear fuel transportation, nuclear applications for space and nuclear industry consulting services. NANO Nuclear also believes it is the first nuclear microreactor company to be listed publicly in the U.S.
A nuclear physicist and engineer with degrees in mechanical engineering, mining engineering and nuclear physics, Walker previously led projects for the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence, including reactor core manufacturing for Rolls-Royce submarines and nuclear fuel reclamation.
Walker spoke recently with Providence Business News about power generation in Rhode Island and the state’s transition to renewable energy under restrictive Trump administration policies.
PBN: A new report shows that southern New England states are at an elevated risk of power shortfalls by 2030. What does that mean?
WALKER: In plain English, it means the region may not have enough dependable electricity available during periods of extreme demand, like a heat wave or a deep winter cold snap, later this decade.
The grid has to constantly balance supply and demand in real time. Demand is rising much faster than expected, largely from data centers, reindustrialization and electrification, while many existing power plants are retiring, and replacement resources aren’t coming online quickly enough.
If that gap widens, the system has less cushion. That’s when you start hearing about emergency orders, conservation alerts, or, in the worst cases, controlled outages. It’s important to stress this isn’t a prediction of guaranteed blackouts. It’s a warning that the margin for error is shrinking.
PBN: Rhode Island officials are moving to delay their long-term renewable energy transition – as set out in the Act on Climate – blaming President Donald Trump's policies. What should officials be doing now to prevent electricity shortages?
WALKER: Relying heavily on federal funding across multiple administrations is always a risk. Energy infrastructure operates on multi-decade timelines, and policy shifts are inevitable. If your long-term strategy depends on uninterrupted subsidies, you’re building on uncertain ground; a succeeding administration can often renounce federal support for the initiatives.
If officials are serious about preventing electricity shortages, they need to prioritize adding firm generation capacity, including advanced nuclear; streamline permitting; and create regulatory stability that attracts long-term private investment. Energy policy has to be built around physics first, politics second.
PBN: A bill passed recently in the R.I. General Assembly allows nuclear power as an option for the state's energy portfolio. Is this a step in the right direction?
WALKER: Allowing nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio doesn’t mean Rhode Island is committing to build a reactor tomorrow; it means the state is keeping its options open. If you’re serious about reliability and long-term decarbonization, it can’t make sense to rule out one of the only proven sources of 24/7 carbon-free power.
Energy policy works best when it’s grounded in physics and economics, not ideology. Giving nuclear power a seat at the table allows Rhode Island to evaluate advanced reactors and SMRs [small modular reactors] alongside renewables and storage, and build a system that’s actually capable of delivering consistent power when demand is high.
PBN: Why does it still make people reluctant or nervous?
WALKER: When you look at the full data set, deaths per unit of energy produced, long-term health impacts and environmental damage, nuclear energy consistently ranks as one of the safest energy sources we have. Nuclear energy is safer than coal, safer than oil, and comparable to or better than any other large-scale generation options.
The difference is that nuclear incidents are rare but highly visible, so they leave a lasting impression. Radiation also sounds abstract and intimidating to people, even though we live with natural background radiation every day. Meanwhile, the harms from fossil fuels are constant but less dramatic, so they don’t trigger the same emotional response.
PBN: How has the technology surrounding nuclear power advanced in recent years?
WALKER: The technology has moved forward in ways that are practical, not just theoretical. Modern reactors use passive safety systems that rely on physics – not human intervention – to shut down safely if something goes wrong. There’s also been real progress in advanced fuels, digital controls, modular construction techniques and small modular reactor designs that can be built in factories instead of entirely on-site. It’s a much more standardized, engineered approach than what people picture from projects [that were] built decades ago.
The worst possible accident scenarios of the past are not possible with the new generation of reactors, so we’re taking the safest form of power ever devised and making it safer still. What is changing now is the move toward smaller, modular designs and repeatable builds, which are meant to reduce construction risk and improve cost predictability.
For states thinking long-term about reliability and price stability, nuclear offers something very few other sources can: 60–80 years of steady, carbon-free power with very low fuel costs once the plant is operating.
Christopher Allen is a PBN staff writer. You may contact him at Allen@PBN.com.
