What is your view of the potential here? Serious safety and tech issues? Won't they have to build a demonstration model up there in New Mexico before any further discussion takes place?
In my view, the comments section in your second link gives the correct flavour of the practicalities/realities.
First crunch question is whether Los Alamos already has all of the materials data, under the relevant irradiation conditions, needed for licensing. If not, then you have to do active experiments to get the data – delay and cost.
That is in a conventional licensing scenario. The marketing/investment case seems to be being made on deployment outside of the normal institutional control – plonk it in a field / bury it in rural Egypt (according to their website). I don’t know if licensing authorities would even consider this. If so, proof of safety would have to be at a whole new level. Maybe a killer, as they don’t seem to be claiming any major advantages in the conventional licensed site scenario.
Yes, a demonstration reactor is the normal next step. With the money, and assuming no unexpected show stoppers (not unreasonable, with Los Alamos pedigree), it could probably be “made to work”. But, many designs stop there, as reliability etc. show them to be uneconomic against established designs. E.g. it has liquid metal coolant, which has a poor record in operational environments. You’d be nuts to buy a commercial unit prior to this step – although you are talking smaller investment than for a traditional scale plant.
So - not saying it is all impossible, just saying side-step the hype and have a balanced view of the probabilities.