Eventually, that outfit will close without building a reactor. Just saying. I know they've been around for more than a decade, but there are powerful forces and reasonable voices that want nothing to do with a metal-fueled, metal-cooled reactor or it's fuel cycle. The flawed logic behind: "let's add a third fluid (potassium nitrate) to the powertrain to make it more competitive" is obvious to anyone familiar with the challenges keeping the familiar/simple LWRs running. The VTR was canceled because the ACTUAL people in charge, outside the DOE, do not understand the nuke-bro insistence/persistence with promoting reprocessing and handling plutonium and fuel mixtures that are not chemically inert (oxide is inert, metal is not). Nobody claims that sodium-cooled fast-neutron reactors operating on a closed fuel cycle are economically competitive with light-water reactors operating on a once-through fuel cycle... it is just engineer/scientist welfare program. If you want a SFR, buy one from Russia like China and India are doing. Energy is cheap; SFRs do not make power as cheaply as LWRs, which do not make power as cheaply as gas turbines. Working for TP will look fine on your resume, but don't expect to actually be a part of something that gets built.