The Signpost

File:Microreactor Infographic (53202258170).png
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
CC BY 2.0
180
162
900
Special report

Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Smallbones


An illustration of a microreactor from the Idaho National Laboratory. This illustration may show the approximate size of NNE's planned reactors. An advisor to NNE has also worked at Idaho National Laboratory.


Nano Nuclear Energy is in the business of designing very small nuclear power generators. Though they don’t yet have any operating generators, their intention is to make them small enough to carry around on or tow behind a large truck, or even have them power ships while loaded on the ship’s deck. Technically, reactors of this size might be better described as "microreactors" rather than "nanoreactors". You can see an animation of their vision on YouTube.

According to Hunterbrook Media, a newspaper associated with a short seller named Hunterbrook Capital, NNE has "no revenue, products, or patents for its core technology". But it does have a plan to produce its small nuclear generators starting in 2030-2031, a timeline that an expert asked by Hunterbrook Media called "frankly laughable". Hunterbrook also raises questions about management quality, slow applications for regulatory approvals, and the need to raise "hundreds of millions of dollars for research and development" before the product can go to market.

Similar facts and questions were raised by a story in May from Fast Company without raising the possibility that NNE could become the target of short sellers. NNE stock was listed on NASDAQ with a market capitalization of about $600 million before the Hunterbrook report. This year its auditor has been fined $2 million by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) for failure to maintain auditing quality control standards. NNE, to say the least, is an unusual company.

Hunterbrook

Related articles
Does Wikipedia pay?

How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024

"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023

The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023

Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022

The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022

Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022

Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021

Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021

Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021

Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021


More articles

A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021

Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020

How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020

Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020

Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020

WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020

Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020

Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020

Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020

Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020

Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020

Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020

2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020

English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019

Women's history month
31 March 2019

Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018

Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017

Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015

Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015

Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015

Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015

On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015

Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015

A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015

Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015

Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015

Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014

With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014

PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014

Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014

Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014

Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014

WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014

Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013

More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013

Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013

Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013

Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013

Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013

PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013

Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012

Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012

Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012

Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010

License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007

AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007

Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006

Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006

Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006

German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005

Hunterbrook Media published its story about NNE at 9:45 am Friday, July 19, 2024 and announced that Hunterbrook Capital, technically a hedge fund, had sold short NNE’s stock, betting that the price would fall. NNE’s stock price fell 7.43% before noon, but finished the day up 1.05% at $19.30. As of the publication date of The Signpost (August 14), the price has fairly steadily declined since July 19 to $7.70.

Neither NNE nor Hunterbrook have responded to inquiries from The Signpost made soon after the Hunterbrook report. NNE has responded to the Hunterbrook story by means of a August 13 press release, titled "NANO Nuclear Energy Fights Back Against Short Sellers" which included a letter from their lawyers. Taken together, these documents essentially deny all of Hunterbrook's claims and threaten to sue them for defamation.

It seems that one of these companies must be stretching the truth here. How can we find out which one?

The New Yorker published a 3,300 word article in May about Hunterbrook. They call Hunterbrook Media and Hunterbrook Capital "conjoined twins", though it's clear that Hunterbrook Capital is the owner of the joint business. Because Hunterbrook Capital is registered with the SEC as a hedge fund, Hunterbrook Media cannot use any non-public information in its stories without risking being considered an insider trader. They use only well documented publicly available information in their stories, and publish them openly on their website with no ads or paywall. Hunterbrook Capital has pre-publication access to the material, and can trade, long or short, based on that information.

On the face of it Hunterbrook is an unusual company, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are trying to fool anybody. I should note that I’ve cited Hindenburg Research, another short seller, in a Signpost article and found their information was reliable. Nevertheless, that doesn't necessarily mean that Hunterbrook's information will be correct. Readers should be aware that short selling, the practice of betting that a stock's price will go down, is a controversial business and that many short sellers have been accused of exaggerating their reports in order to drive the stock price down further.

One method of seeing how forthright and transparent businesses are is to check the Wikipedia articles about them. Are the articles peppered with edits from blocked sock puppets or apparent undeclared paid editors? Wikipedia retains almost every edit, so edits to an article by blocked or banned editors are fairly easily-checked. At the same time, no investigation solely using Wikipedia's database can be absolutely certain of an editor's identity. They may be impersonating someone to cause them embarrassment, a practice known as Joe jobbing. Ultimately, we rely on the judgement of administrators and checkusers who officially decide whether to block sock puppets, and on participants at Articles for Deletion, who sometimes decide whether an article has been improperly created.

There’s not much to say about Hunterbrook using this method, since I couldn't find any Wikipedia articles about the company, or its owners or employees.

NNE also is lacking in Wikipedia articles in the usual places. They’ve almost all been deleted. But there is a record of three separate deletion discussions. The first two were for the company, Nano Nuclear Energy (both resulting in deletion). The second nominator said there were "some articles about the broader technology mention the company in passing, but no real coverage of the company itself". A reviewer, noting the lack of independent sources, kindly wrote TOO SOON. There is a surviving article on the Spanish Wikipedia, as well as an archived copy of an English Wikipedia article from May 4, 2024, so readers can judge for themselves whether the company was notable. Using Google Translate, the Spanish article looks nearly identical to the archived English article.

Three socks and a sock farm

The third AfD discussion was about NNE's founder and president Jay Jiang Yu. An AfD reviewer wrote that the article was "paid-editing sock drivel". The closer agreed, with most of the other reviewers finding no reliable sources, thus !voting to delete. Two sock puppets, "EliteBrandRealm" and "Eugenio Montilla" both voted to keep on February 18, 2024 and were both indefinitely blocked the same day. Eugenio Montilla was blocked as a sock of the master Claudio Antonio Ruiz. EliteBrandRealm was investigated as part of the Claudio Antonio Ruiz sockfarm, but ultimately blocked separately. There were about 45 blocked socks operating on several Wikipedia language versions involved in the investigation of the Claudio Antonio Ruiz sockfarm.

At Wikimedia Commons, Leolaria1997 made 15 of their 17 edits on NNE logos, but was not blocked there. They were blocked on the English language Wikipedia for advertising on Wikipedia, including creating the article Nano Nuclear Energy, Inc. (notice the "Inc."), as well as editing the article of a plastic surgeon who specialized in the "Brazilian butt lift".

Claudio Antonio Ruiz also uploaded another NNE logo to Commons and made edits to the article of the same plastic surgeon, but their blocks were not directly linked.

One other connection to NNE was an autobiography submitted in 2015 to Articles for Creation by User:Dr. Carlos O. Maidana. This editor was warned about the autobiography violating Wikipedia rules. All three of his edits have now been deleted. Dr. Carlos O. Maidana is listed as "Head of Thermal Hydraulics and Space Program" by NNE. He has worked at the Idaho National Laboratory in related areas, and it is not clear whether he worked for NNE in 2015. This may just be a case of a person who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules making a flawed contribution in good faith.

No evidence has been found about Hunterbrook editing Wikipedia. But the evidence on NNE, gathered mostly in the AfD discussions and sock puppet investigations looks solid for the purposes of Wikipedia. The article named "Nano Nuclear Energy" was deleted twice, for lack of notability. Another article named "Nano Nuclear Energy, Inc." was created by a user blocked for advertising on Wikipedia and the article was quickly deleted. Though blocked separately, this editor had some connections with the undeclared paid editor Claudio Antonio Ruiz, who is listed as the master of a large sock farm.

The article on NNE's founder and president Jay Jiang Yu was edited by undeclared paid editors who were part of the same sock farm. The AfD reviewers and sock puppet investigators should be congratulated for their speed and accuracy. It appears that the paid editing was started late last year and ended by May.

The Signpost makes no representation about who might have made any paid edits, nor about who might have paid for them. We only state that there is some evidence consistent with paid editing on articles related to NNE.


S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I just watched the Atomic Bamboozle DVD which I checked out from my local public library. A key takeaway from that: the first (experimental) nuclear power plants were small-sized. The problem with those was that it was hard to get them to work economically. That's why the industry went big with reactors, they're more economically efficient at producing power. Too bad large language models are only good at plagiarism and suck at math. We need AI to help us solve the puzzle of how to milk all the radioactivity out of nuclear fission waste until there's not much left, or solve the puzzle of how to make nuclear fusion work at anything resembling small scale. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Thanks for the link to Atomic Bamboozle. There's a further link to the Trailer of the film on Youtube which gives a good idea of what the film is about. At the original link is a pretty good discription:
Atomic Bamboozle - A Jan Haaken Production
As political pressure mounts in the US to meet net zero carbon goals, the nuclear power industry makes its case for a nuclear “renaissance.” This documentary by NECESSITY Director Jan Haaken follows activists as they expose the true costs of the new small nuclear reactor designs.
It does seem to be about somewhat larger nuclear generators than those discussed here.
The video linked in the articles first paragraph was just as scary to me the first couple of times I viewed it. It is definitely an animation predicting the future even though much of the footage looks very real. For people of my generation, trucking around a factory-built nuclear generator is very scary, as is trucking around nuclear fuel down some fairly small country roads. Or operating a nuclear generator on the deck of a boat. Surely they are just waiting for a truck accident or hurricane to happen - and then what? Well, that's what the company has to show before they start producing them. Yeah it might be almost nothing - no problem - losing a nuclear generator overboard. But that what they have to show before I'd be happy with it.
It was an interesting article to write. Originally it was writing "on deadline" - the first news (Hunterbrook Media) was announced on Friday morning and I figured I had at most until that Monday. Without responses from either Hunterbrook or NNE, and with almost no time for reflection, I got a bit nervous and subtly suggested to JPxG that we could pull it - so that's why this took so long to actually publish. It held up though quite well, IMHO, with little updating needed. Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
American nuclear submarines have successfully operated for decades without major issues, so the concept is feasible. The reactors on subs must be pretty small sized. Again, I think the problem is money. The Department of Defense has an essentially unlimited piggy bank so can spend whatever it takes to keep their personnel safe. On the other hand, you can count on private industry to cut corners, and then pass the costs off to the public when trouble happens. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0