nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Floating nuclear power in northern New Brunswick: a reality check

The Minister did not explain how much any jobs created would cost taxpayers.

“not a single HTGR-termed ‘commercial’ has proven financially viable.”

The proposed SMR project at Belledune has many more unknowns. The most obvious is how the project will secure the billions of dollars required to develop and build a first-of-a-kind reactor on the site,

Susan O’Donnell, October 21, 2026, https://nbmediacoop.org/2026/10/21/floating-nuclear-power-in-northern-new-brunswick-a-reality-check/

Recently a proposal to build a floating nuclear power plant with two small reactors at the Port of Belledune made the news.

Is the proposed project more than just another nuclear establishment pitch for public funding? Will New Brunswick be sucked into a third SMR vortex demanding tens of millions in subsidies before spiralling into dust?

Last October, Energy Minister René Legacy told the CBC the government was no longer interested in supporting “first of a kind” small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). In 2018, the government invited two start-up companies into New Brunswick – ARC and Moltex – and spent the next seven years promoting and supporting their “advanced” SMR projects. In 2025, the government finally faced the cold reality: the SMR benefits assured by the nuclear establishment – jobs, export markets and revenue windfalls – would never materialize in New Brunswick.

By that point, the federal and provincial governments had already handed almost $130 million in subsidies to ARC and Moltex and other nuclear-adjacent organizations cashing-in on the SMR public funding spree in the province.

What a difference a year makes. This October, Minister Legacy told The Globe and Mail about a new project proposing to develop a marine vessel to support two first-of-a-kind small nuclear reactors at the Port of Belledune. He claimed the project was a good idea because the jobs created would capitalize on the province’s strengths: “lots of machinists, lots of welding, lots of industrial might.” The Minister did not explain how much any jobs created would cost taxpayers.

According to the Globe article, the New Brunswick government has expressed interest in purchasing the power produced by the two SMRs on the vessel. That power would likely be the most expensive ever produced in the province.

The federal public purse has already been cracked open for the proposed nuclear vessel giving a hint of the provincial funding which may need to follow. The federal government gave Montreal-based start-up Prodigy Clean Energy a $2,750,000 subsidy in 2024 to develop “floating transportable nuclear power plants as part of the SMR supply chain.”

In 2025, Prodigy said its proposed nuclear vessel would host the Westinghouse eVinci, a small reactor design under development in the U.S. Just a year later, Prodigy has flipped to a different American reactor for its Belledune project, a high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR) cooled by helium. Only one HTGR cooled by helium is in operation, in China.

Analysis of the operational history of HTGRs reveals a troubling past. Several small HTGRs cooled by helium were developed at considerable expense in countries including Germany, the U.S. and South Africa. The HTGRs were prone to many small failures resulting in frequent shutdowns, with final shutdowns “well before the operating periods envisioned for them.” In addition, HTGRs are uncompetitive compared to conventional reactors cooled by water and “not a single HTGR-termed ‘commercial’ has proven financially viable.”

For the New Brunswick project, it’s currently unclear if the proposal includes any reactor construction in Belledune. The two BANR reactors may be constructed entirely in the U.S. and shipped to the Port of Belledune. BWXT has operations in Canada with expertise making reactor components but has no reactor construction experience in this country.

The proposed SMR project at Belledune has many more unknowns. The most obvious is how the project will secure the billions of dollars required to develop and build a first-of-a-kind reactor on the site, if indeed the plan is to construct the two reactors in the province, plus the cost of building the marine vessel.

The cost of the only SMR under construction in Canada, at the Darlington nuclear site on Lake Ontario, is a minimum of $6.1 billion plus $1.6 billion for associated infrastructure. That project has been funded entirely by public subsidies because no private sector investors have been found despite considerable promotion efforts.

The Belledune project has buy-in from two Mi’gmaq communities in northern New Brunswick, Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig) and Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig), and the project is being promoted as majority-owned by First Nations.

The Indigenous involvement provides a clue for how public funds could flow to the Belledune project. In June this year, the federal and Ontario governments gave seven First Nations in Ontario part ownership of the SMR at the Darlington site. The part ownership was structured as a “loan guarantee” of $715 million to the First Nations from a federal Indigenous loan program, public funds that were streamed through to the Darlington SMR under construction.

Of particular note, the intended market for the transportable nuclear power plant is remote mines and communities. The BANR reactor would produce power at a cost far higher than the diesel fuel generators currently in place. For this and many other reasons, research found that the market for SMRs in mining and remote communities is “too small to be viable.”

It’s also unclear how NB Power would be involved in the project. The utility was the proponent for the two earlier failed SMR projects – ARC and Moltex – which were intended to be constructed at NB Power’s Point Lepreau nuclear site.

Developing a second licenced nuclear site in the province, in Belledune, would be a costly and significant undertaking requiring compliance with numerous nuclear safety and security regulations. NB Power is already planning to convert its Belledune coal-fired plant to burn biomass fuel, and its Integrated Resource Plan released earlier this month made no mention of SMRs at Belledune, or any SMRs in the utility’s future 20-year scenarios.

The motivations behind the New Brunswick government’s support of the Belledune nuclear project are hard to fathom, considering how recently the province was burned by the Moltex and ARC SMR fiascos and the decades-long slow train wreck and money pit that is the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. The motivations certainly may include hopium, an irrational, addictive belief that a new nuclear reactor will eventually work as promised in New Brunswick.

A commentary published earlier this month, RIP SMRs, ended: “Apparently, old SMR ideas never really die. They will just, eventually, fade away.” How long the proposed Belledune floating SMR idea will take to fade away and how much it will cost us before it does are open questions. New Brunswickers should remain vigilant to ensure that not too many more public millions (billions?) are squandered before the hopium runs out and reality kicks in again.

Correction: An earlier version of this commentary stated that helium gas-cooled reactors do not exist. The story has been corrected to state that only one high-temperature gas reactor cooled by helium is in operation, in China. Updated at 5:14 PM, Oct. 22, 2026.

Susan O’Donnell is lead investigator of the CEDAR project in the Sustainability and Environmental Studies Program at St. Thomas University and a member of the board of directors of the NB Media Co-op.

October 26, 2026 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Idaho could see nuclear boom as small modular reactors near reality; Twin Falls panel set for Oct. 27

As businesses and municipalities begin exploring small modular nuclear reactors, a panel and documentary come to the CSI campus to weigh Southern Idaho’s opportunities.

Lorien Nettleton, Idaho News 6 Oct 24, 2026

By:Lorien Nettleton

TWIN FALLS, Idaho — The pace of innovation for small nuclear reactors means Idaho could be faced with big opportunities and challenges as businesses and municipalities begin exploring the technology.

Idaho has been at the center of nuclear innovation for more than 75 years. About 17% of U.S. energy comes from nuclear, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Little to none of the nuclear power produced is in the Western United States, but Idaho Advanced Energy Consortium Executive Director Christi Gilchrist says that is about to change.

“I think the sky is the limit as we have been figuring out how to best deploy these as a nation,” Gilchrist said. “All those folks leaning in looking forward, we’re going to see an SMR deployed in Idaho in our lifetime.”……………………………………..https://www.kivitv.com/twin-falls/idaho-could-see-nuclear-boom-as-small-modular-reactors-near-reality-twin-falls-panel-set-for-oct-27

October 26, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Deep concerns regarding the Rolls-Royce development at the Wylfa site



Open Letter to Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Secretary of State for Energy Security
and Net Zero.

Dear Secretary of State, I am contacting you with a letter
written to the former holder of the post, Ed Milliband, expressing my deep
concerns regarding the Rolls-Royce development at the Wylfa site on Ynys
Mon.

Since writing to Ed Miliband, there have been developments that make
the prospects of a nuclear site on the island even more concerning:


1)Increasing threats of war mean that we will be targets for attack. Russia
and Iran have both threatened us, due to our interventions in Ukraine and
the use of British bases for the bombing of Iran. Whatever the rights and
wrongs of these interventions, it is clear that nuclear power stations are
now regular targets for attack. How are we to be protected? How are we to
get off the island in the event of an attack ( or nuclear accident)? There
are two bridges connecting us to the mainland, and even if there were
three, there would be no safe evacuation possible, without the danger of
accidents.

RAF Valley is also on the island, making us a further target.
The waste produced by the possible new nuclear reactors will also serve as
an ongoing target and risk, as it would remain onsite for at least 100
years, being too hot to remove. Our future generations will be responsible
for this; not a legacy we want to bequeath.

2) Increasing droughts and
wildfires have threatened the safety of nuclear plants all over the world,
including at Sizewell B this year. Should the electricity supply be cut to
a nuclear power station, if backup diesel power is then cut off or damaged,
through flooding, as in the case of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, then
there is also disaster, as the reactors cannot be cooled if there is no
electrical power to the station. So, for a nuclear station to be safe,
there needs to be adequate power in the first place. This can no longer be
relied on.

3) A December 2025 Harvard T.H Chan study found a statistical
link between those living close to nuclear power plants and higher cancer
rates in Massachusetts. The strongest link was seen within 20 to 30
kilometers of a nuclear station, and the risk increased as people got
older. There is also a risk to workers.

4) Whereas the Rolls-Royce site has
advertised that the electricity generated at Wylfa would go to homes, it is
now published that energy could go to AI centres being developed on the
island and nearby. How are we to know the end use of the electricity to be
generated by these nuclear reactors?

The World Nuclear Industry Status
Report ( WNISR) 2026 shows that between March 2025 and June 2026, both
solar and wind power have independently surpassed generating electricity
from nuclear reactors. I understand that you want to mitigate the effects
of climate change in the most efficient and safe ways possible. Nuclear
power is neither efficient or safe, particularly under conditions of
conflict, climate change, or indeed pandemic, where routine maintenance is
reduced, as happened during the Covid pandemic.

We implore you to
reconsider pouring more money into these nuclear reactors, yet to receive
the Generic Development Consent order, and instead concentrate our
resources to upgrading the grid, as you propose, and using our excellent
renewable energy sources.


People Against Wylfa B 19th Oct 2026,
https://www.stop-wylfa.org/

October 24, 2026 Posted by | safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

New nuclear technology is predicted to transform North Wales.

A major programme delivering Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology is set
to transform Anglesey and wider North Wales in the coming years. Wylfa on
Anglesey has been selected as the site of the UK’s first SMR nuclear power
station. The move recognises the strong nuclear heritage and expertise of
the area.

Earlier this month, a group of public and private bodies across
industry, local government and the Welsh Government, and led by Bentley
Systems met at a roundtable to discuss benefits for the region. Gary
Pritchard, leader of Isle of Anglesey County Council and Llinos Medi AS/MP
for Anglesey were in attendance. Institution of Civil Engineers Wales Cymru
Fellows provided impartial advice and expertise on building the programme
in its first steps.

The programme will pioneer skills in the region,
develop new vocational and academic training programmes, and create jobs in
Anglesey. ICE Wales Cymru Regional Director Keith Jones said: “ICE Wales
Cymru supports the Welsh and UK governments in the development of Small
Modular Reactors (SMR). Wales is ideally placed to play a very significant
role in clean energy generation and become an energy hub for the UK.
Nuclear power has a key part to play in the transition to net zero”.

Insider Media 19th Oct 2026, https://www.insidermedia.com/news/wales/new-nuclear-technology-set-to-transform-north-wales

October 24, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

OPG firm joins UK BWRX-300 project

The UK-based project company of European SMR developer and investor SGE, and Origin Nuclear, a subsidiary of Ontario Power Generation, have signed a letter of intent to establish a joint venture for the future operation of a planned fleet of 14 BWRX-300 small modular reactors.

SGE SMR UK is the UK-based project company of Poland’s SGE (formerly Synthos Green Energy). Earlier this year, SGE outlined plans for the privately financed deployment of 14 GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 small modular reactors across three sites in the UK, for which it submitted an application under the UK’s Advanced Nuclear Framework.

The proposed joint venture will see SGE SMR UK and Origin Nuclear work together to establish a UK-based nuclear operating company. Origin Nuclear – whose owner, Canadian nuclear operator Ontario Power Generation (OPG), is developing the first BWRX-300 reactor at Darlington in Ontario – will support the licensing process, commissioning and operational readiness of the reactors, and will also be responsible for plant operations, and centralised support services across the proposed UK BWRX-300 fleet.

“This is a significant step forward for our UK programme,” SGE CEO Rafał Kasprów said. “Securing an operating partner is one of the most important decisions in developing a nuclear project, and with Origin Nuclear and its parent company OPG, we have a partner backed by more than a half century of nuclear experience and direct involvement in the first BWRX-300 project in Canada. It gives us greater confidence in our ability to deliver 14 reactors across three sites in the UK. Just as importantly, it brings us closer to establishing a long-term operating model that can support BWRX-300 projects across Europe.”

“The Darlington New Nuclear Project, where OPG has begun construction of the first BWRX-300, will deliver the reliable, low-carbon electricity Ontario needs to meet rapidly growing demand, while creating opportunities for Origin Nuclear and other Ontario companies to showcase our expertise on the global stage,” said Jos Diening, Origin President and CEO. “As OPG builds the next generation of nuclear infrastructure at home, Origin is helping position Ontario’s world-class supply chain to compete for opportunities around the world.”

The BWRX-300 is a 300 MWe water-cooled, natural circulation SMR with passive safety systems that leverages the design and licensing basis of GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s US Nuclear Regulatory Commission-certified ESBWR boiling water reactor design and its existing, licensed GNF2 fuel design. SGE is a co-investor in the standardised BWRX-300 design alongside GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, OPG and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

The unit under construction in Canada is envisaged as the first of four at OPG’s Darlington New Nuclear site. In September, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a construction permit to TVA for a BWRX-300 reactor at the Clinch River site in Tennessee.

The first site in the UK is planned to accommodate six BWRX-300 reactors, with the first unit starting commercial operation in 2034. This would be followed by two further multi-unit sites – an approach SGE says is intended to support repeat construction, coordinated procurement and the transfer of experience between projects. The programme is supported by an international delivery team comprising SGE, GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Samsung C&T, Laing O’Rourke, Aecon Group Inc, Fermi Development and Etara.

The proposed total generating capacity from the 14 units of 4.2 GW would be enough, SGE says, to meet around 11% of UK power demand, equivalent to the needs of almost eight million homes, for at least 60 years.

October 24, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Romania’s SMR project with NuScale hits deadlock as 80% of conditions are not met


Romania Insider 12th Oct 2026

Romanian nuclear group Nuclearelectrica (BVB: SNN) said that more than 80% of the conditions specified when it approved the Final Investment Decision (FID) for the Doicești small modular reactor (SMR) project in February remain unmet. These include critical commitments assumed by US partner NuScale.

This implies that the project as it was planned can not continue; the company said that it will reassess the SMR technologies and decide accordingly.

It concluded that there currently exist premises for the initiation of steps to update the SMR Implementation Strategy in Romania, “for which we continue to appreciate the openness of the American partners.”……………………………………….. (Subscribers only) https://www.romania-insider.com/business/romanias-smr-project-nuscale-hits-deadlock-80-conditions

October 18, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Polish Tycoons Solowow and Solorz Revive Partnership for Small Nuclear Reactors

Polish billionaire Michal Solowow and the Solorz family have
agreed to jointly build small modular reactors, marking their second
attempt to cooperate on a nuclear project as Poland overhauls its aging
power sources.

Solowow’s company SGE SA signed a deal with ZE PAK SA aimed at working out the details of their future cooperation to build and operate small modular reactors, according to a regulatory filing. Solowow, who has exclusive rights to offer GE Vernova Hitachi’s BWRX-300 reactors, will hold a majority stake in the new joint venture.

Bloomberg 13th Oct 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-13/polish-tycoons-solowow-and-solorz-revive-partnership-for-small-nuclear-reactors

October 17, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

The market is being brutal with nuclear companies that are still years away from making real money

Oil Price By Alex Kimani – Oct 11, 2026

Nuclear energy stocks have suffered heavy losses over the past year, even as technology companies commit billions of dollars to securing nuclear electricity for AI data centers. The Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has lost more than 20% over the past 12 months, compared with gains exceeding 40% for the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLE). Investors have grown increasingly concerned about valuations, financing requirements and the long development timelines for companies that don’t yet generate any meaningful commercial revenues.

The market has been brutal with nuclear companies that are still years away from making real money. NuScale Power Corp. (NYSE: SMR) has lost about 82% of its value over the past year, Oklo Inc. (NYSE: OKLO) is down roughly 75%, and Nano Nuclear Energy (NASDAQ: NNE) has fallen nearly 68%. All three are developing technologies that could eventually feed enormous new demand for nuclear power, but investors are no longer paying nearly as much for what could happen years from now.


NuScale received standard design approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for its 77-megawatt SMR technology in May 2025, but continues to burn cash as it works toward commercial deployment. In January, Sam Altman-backed Oklo and Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META) announced an agreement supporting development of a 1.2-gigawatt nuclear energy campus in Pike County, Ohio, to supply electricity for Meta’s regional data centers and AI infrastructure. Initial generation is targeted for as early as 2030, with the full 1.2 GW potentially coming online by 2034. Nano Nuclear, which is developing portable microreactors, also faces a long road to commercialization.

Uranium fuel suppliers and miners have suffered substantial losses of their own. Centrus Energy Corp. (NYSE: LEU) has dropped some 62% over the past year, Uranium Energy Corp. (NYSE American: UEC) has fallen roughly 32%, and BWX Technologies (NYSE: BWXT) has lost around 27%………………………….https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/3-Stocks-To-Play-The-Nuclear-Energy-Boom.html

October 16, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Mapped: Who’s building nuclear SMRs?

none of the new generation of land-based SMR plants in the western world have yet made it from the drawing board to become a commercial reality.

Neil Gerrard, Senior Editor, Construction Briefing, 12 October 2026

One of the big challenges of the data centre boom is how to power all those electricity-hungry computing facilities.

One possible answer is small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The concept of nuclear plants that can be built cheaply and safety with a repeatable, modular design, has held promise for years.

But none of the new generation of land-based SMR plants in the western world have yet made it from the drawing board to become a commercial reality.

However, some SMR projects are now starting to get off the ground and could provide a major new source of construction work in the coming years if ambition survives reality.

That is why there has been a flurry of news stories about SMRs recently, from Rolls-Royce SMR launching a new supplier programme for £1.4 billion worth of contracts as it prepares to build three reactors in the UK, to Samsung C&T, GE Vernova Hitachi, and Studsvik teaming up to advance a 1.2GW power project in Sweden.

Keeping track of who plans to build what, where, when and with whom is becoming an increasingly bewildering exercise.

That’s why the Construction Briefing team has put together a map and article that track exactly that.

The global pipeline of SMRs ranges from licensed projects to preliminary agreements. To complicate matters further, several programmes have already changed direction, stalled, or hit the buffers completely.

Projects in Canada, China and the US have progressed into construction or commissioning. Elsewhere, developers have secured customers and engineering contracts but still face decisions on financing, licensing and construction.

Our tracker looks at the different nascent SMR technologies out there and charts how far advanced projects involving those reactors are.

Although SMRs are typically defined as reactors with a rated electrical power of 300 MWe or less, it also includes larger modular designs marketed alongside SMRs, such as Rolls-Royce’s reactor (470 MWe) and TerraPower’s sodium-cooled Natrium reactor (345-500 MWe).

The global pipeline of SMRs ranges from licensed projects to preliminary agreements. To complicate matters further, several programmes have already changed direction, stalled, or hit the buffers completely.

Projects in Canada, China and the US have progressed into construction or commissioning. Elsewhere, developers have secured customers and engineering contracts but still face decisions on financing, licensing and construction.

Our tracker looks at the different nascent SMR technologies out there and charts how far advanced projects involving those reactors are.

Although SMRs are typically defined as reactors with a rated electrical power of 300 MWe or less, it also includes larger modular designs marketed alongside SMRs, such as Rolls-Royce’s reactor (470 MWe) and TerraPower’s sodium-cooled Natrium reactor (345-500 MWe)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.constructionbriefing.com/news/mapped-whos-building-nuclear-smrs/8133242.article

October 16, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Not Now, VOYGR

Further, while the company posted $75,000 in revenue for a single quarter in 2026, its expenses for that same time period were more than $64 million.

NuScale’s early majority owner, Fluor Corporation — a company deeply involved in the US nuclear weapons complex — sold all of its 126 million shares in NuScale between October 2025 and April 2026, reaping $2.43 billion in gross proceeds. 

NuScale’s foundering flagship could sink without leaving port, writes Linda Pentz Gunter

by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/10/11/not-now-voygr/

As most of us immersed in the nuclear issue know well, there is little else so far that quite so starkly illustrates the fool’s errand that is the stubborn pursuit of small modular reactors than the sorry tale of NuScale.

As dramas go, it’s hard to know whether to list it under tragedies or comedies.

Founded in 2007 as a project at Oregon State University, NuScale announced around 2013 that it had established a demonstration SMR project in partnership with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and Energy Northwest, a consortium of publicly-owned utilities across seven states that would purchase shares in the power to be delivered by 12 50 megawatt (MW) reactors built at Idaho National Laboratory and expected to be completed by 2030.

By the time the whole scheme collapsed in 2023, with construction costs ballooning from an estimated $3 billion to $9.3 billion, its customers were running for the exits. By then, NuScale had sold just a 21% share of its planned electricity output, and the costs for that electricity had risen from an expected $58 a megawatt hour (MWh) to $89 MWh.

At the eleventh hour, NuScale had quickly scaled the project down to six 77MW reactors — known as VOYGR — but it was too late. Instead, the company had spent sixteen years and at least $800 million and had nothing to show for it. Its shares promptly plummeted by 37%.

The United States’s widely proclaimed “flagship” SMR project had sunk in choppy seas without even leaving port.

But now, NuScale is back with its 77MW VOYGR reactor, which, according to NuScale’s website, represents “America’s first small modular reactor” and is “the only SMR on the market that has begun factory production for first modules.”

It has begun production on reactor components, but what the company doesn’t tell you about those components for “America’s first small modular reactor” is that they are being manufactured at a factory in South Korea. So much for the jobs argument. (NuScale also laid off 154 members of its US workforce after the 2023 collapse.)

The VOYGR is still curiously described as a “flagship”, even though there is now a veritable fleet of wannabe SMR designs desperately searching for customers. Technologically, it is not particularly “new” or “advanced.” It is effectively just a scaled down version of the existing pressurized water reactor technology in use today, those being typically sized at around 1,000MW.

But investors still aren’t excited. NuScale was one of the stocks that recently got shorted (See The Big Small Modular Reactor Short) and financial advisors such as Motley Fool caution that “most investors will probably be better off waiting until NuScale Power has at least signed a definitive contract for one of its SMRs.”

Further, while the company posted $75,000 in revenue for a single quarter in 2026, its expenses for that same time period were more than $64 million.

NuScale’s early majority owner, Fluor Corporation — a company deeply involved in the US nuclear weapons complex — sold all of its 126 million shares in NuScale between October 2025 and April 2026, reaping $2.43 billion in gross proceeds. 

Fluor emains in place as an engineering contractor. However, Fluor’s departure as an investor — albeit a windfall for them —is not such great news for NuScale, as it continues to burn through money while seeking new capital sources.

Not only are VOYGR parts being made overseas, NuScale is also looking primarily at the export market for sales, because domestic deployment is not on the immediate or even potentially longterm horizon. Instead, NuScale is eyeing markets in Poland and Romania although it does have a technology agreement with Standard Power to develop two SMR-powered facilities in Ohio. However, these, as with many small modular reactor schemes, are specifically meant to power data center operations there.

This serves as a reminder that the general public will not be aboard the VOYGR. The fixed-price power purchase agreements that NuScale is securing from hyperscale data center operators “are providing the bankable demand certainty required to stimulate new manufacturing investment,” says Enkiai, a San Francisco-based market analysis platform.

The unveiling of the artist’s rendition of the “new” VOYGR (see image above) is similar to the original overly romanticized drawing for the first VOYGR . Both feature a benign looking set of buildings in a bucolic setting, miles from anywhere, including from reality.

But since the VOYGR is actually intended to power AI data centers in likely far more built-up areas, I thought I’d ask AI itself what it thought of the prospects for NuScale’s foundering flagship?

“NuScale’s VOYGR small modular reactor faces severe economic and design hurdles that make commercial operation highly improbable under current market conditions,” it replied.

Alternatively, it could have exercised a little wit along with brevity and answered simply: “Not Now, VOYGR.”

Linda Pentz Gunter is the Executive Director of Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. She is the author of the book, No To Nuclear. Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress And Provokes War, published by Pluto Press. Any opinions are her own.

Note: Now, Voyager was a film starring Bette Davis. The last line is “Oh, Jerry, don’t let’s ask for the moon. We have the stars.”

October 15, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster | 1 Comment

Plans advance for floating nuclear plant in New Brunswick, a first among G7 countries

Prodigy has not disclosed a price for the Belledune facility. Mycle Schneider Consulting has concluded that a market for reactors in remote mines and communities is “unlikely to materialize” because the electricity they would generate would be far too expensive.

Prodigy says they seek a mix of private and federal funding


Matthew McClearn
, Toronto october 9, 2026
, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-new-brunswick-floating-nuclear-plant-prodigy-clean-energy/#vf-comments

Plans for a floating nuclear power plant advanced this week with its backers’ selection of a small reactor to power it.

The demonstration facility, dubbed a Transportable Nuclear Power Plant, would mark many firsts. Set for near a small port in Belledune, N.B., it would be the first floating nuclear plant in a G7 country, as well as the developer’s first commercial deployment.

It would also be the first nuclear project majority-owned by First Nations. Belledune is situated in the traditional territories of Pabineau First Nation and Eel River Bar First Nation, which support the project.

And it would be a prototype for the barge’s developer, Prodigy Clean Energy Ltd., which hopes Belledune will serve as a “commercial blueprint” for remote communities and coastal industrial operations in Canada and globally.

The facility would feature two 22-megawatt microreactors known as the BWXT Advanced Nuclear Reactor (BANR). It’s currently being designed by BWX Technologies Inc.

BWXT-N +0.26%increase, a U.S.-based manufacturer of nuclear components with operations in Ontario.

Unlike many upstart reactor developers, BWXT has actual experience: Its core focus is building naval components and reactors, often in more challenging settings than a moored barge.

“They’re the quickest and most ready,” said Terry Richardson, Chief of Pabineau First Nation, who helped select the BANR. “They have the proven technology with what they’ve been doing in the States, with aircraft carriers and submarines.”

Floating nuclear plants are rare. One, the Akademik Lomonosov, operates in the Russian Arctic. This year, nuclear giant Rosatom said it had manufactured two reactors (variants of the RITM-200 reactors used in Russian icebreakers) to be incorporated in floating plants that will power a remote copper mine.

“Information regarding this project has been erratic, and construction has apparently started on one barge only,” reported Mycle Schneider Consulting in an assessment of the global nuclear industry’s progress, published last month.

Prodigy has not disclosed a price for the Belledune facility. Mycle Schneider Consulting has concluded that a market for reactors in remote mines and communities is “unlikely to materialize” because the electricity they would generate would be far too expensive.

The partners’ challenge is to find investors who disagree – a task that has defeated most reactor developers. Prodigy says they seek a mix of private and federal funding; Prodigy’s chief executive officer, Mathias Trojer, said Ottawa spends more than $2-billion annually subsidizing electricity costs in the North, so it is motivated to fund alternatives to the region’s aging diesel plants.

The Belledune proposal ticks some of the boxes in a federal nuclear strategy unveiled earlier this year, which sought to “demonstrate a Canadian-controlled Generation IV microreactor by 2035 to support defence facilities and operations and, in the longer term, remote and northern communities.”

The BANR is not Canadian-controlled, however. It’s been under development for several years already as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. John MacQuarrie, BWXT’s president of commercial operations, said Belledune’s BANR would be a variant of that reactor, containing a mixture of American and Canadian intellectual property.

BWXT has not pursued commercial certification for the BANR in either country, but Mr. MacQuarrie said it plans to engage with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission shortly.

Mr. Trojer, said the design should be completed in the next two years or so, and a final investment decision would be made around that time; the facility could be built in roughly 18 months and be operational in the early 2030s.

Politicians regard the Prodigy/BWXT barge as a potential boon for industry. René Legacy, New Brunswick’s Deputy Premier and Energy Minister, said his province wants to build the barge, an undertaking “directly in line with our strengths, which is lots of machinists, lots of welding, lots of industrial might.” But New Brunswick can’t build reactors: his Ontario counterpart, Energy Minister Stephen Lecce, said his province’s supply chain stands ready to assist.

New Brunswick has signed an agreement signaling its intent to buy power produced by the barge, and announced plans to bring it before the federal Major Projects Office for designation as a project of national importance.

The BANR would be powered by what’s known as tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel. BWXT, which makes nuclear fuel for clients including the U.S. government, says it can already produce TRISO in non-commercial quantities. But its crucial ingredient is high-assay low-enriched uranium, which is enriched to contain nearly 20 per cent of the fissile isotope of uranium – much higher than fuel for existing commercial reactors.

Only Russia and China produce HALEU in appreciable quantities, according to the World Nuclear Association. The U.S. is investing heavily to grow its own minuscule domestic capacity, but other reactor vendors have reworked HALEU-fueled designs due to their inability to obtain the fuel.

Mr. MacQuarrie said the BANR’s TRISO would likely be produced in the U.S. Mr. Trojer added that the Belledune project would require only modest amounts.

“It’s a long lead item, but if anyone can deliver it, then it’s BWXT or some combination of their business relationships.”

October 11, 2026 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Details emerge on Valar’s Utah plans

with litigation slowly continuing and regulatory pathways still being formed, the future is unclear

Whether Valar aims to leverage its Ward 250 authorization into further DOE-approved deployments on Department of Interior land is unknown. However, the DOE has continually characterized its reactor authorizations as purpose-built to expedite the research and development of test reactors—a definition that would hardly fit a 456-unit data center campus.

Nuclear Newswire, Oct 6, 2026, 

Last week, NPR reported that reactor start-up Valar Atomics is planning to construct a new facility in Utah that would feature 456 of its reactors. This campus, called Project Beehive, would sit on more than 9,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and would feature co-located data centers and a fuel production facility.

More on the land: On September 24, the Salt Lake Tribune first reported that Valar had applied to lease 480 acres of land owned by the state of Utah. This land (near the towns of Price and Wellington) is entirely surrounded by BLM land, but first reports indicated that the Valar project would be sited only on state-owned land.

The much larger application for the use of more than 9,000 federal acres was not revealed until NPR’s report on September 30. The state and federal applications should almost certainly be considered parts of the same project, as the land involved in each is in roughly the same area, east of Price and north of Wellington.

The BLM’s Utah office confirmed to NPR that it is “currently reviewing the application for completeness” and that the public will have “meaningful opportunities to provide input” on the project. For its part, Valar told NPR that “no construction begins before permits and approvals, and the public process leads along our internal targets set the pace.”

The regulatory angle: Mention of permits calls to mind another currently unclear facet of Valar’s plan: its regulatory pathway. The company progressed through Department of Energy authorization for the permitting of Ward 250, its first demonstration reactor. The question of how DOE authorization will be leveraged into Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing for follow-on commercial deployments has yet to be fully settled by the DOE, NRC, and private industry. Whether Valar would pursue the new 10 CFR Part 53, the soon-to-come Part 57, or the established Part 50 or Part 52 is currently unknown.

Nor has the company formally engaged publicly in preapplication activities of any kind with the regulator. In fact, its closest association with the NRC at this writing is through a complex and ongoing lawsuit: State of Texas et al v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Not to be confused with the unrelated NRC v. Texas—another federal court challenge between the state and the regulator—the State of Texas v. NRC challenges the NRC’s authority to license small reactors, arguing that their inherent safety and minimal use of nuclear material exempt them from the NRC’s strict requirements. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit, first filed in December 2024, included the states of Texas, Utah, and Louisiana; the Arizona State Legislature; and reactor start-ups Last Energy, Deep Fission, and Valar.

Almost two years on, the states involved have submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal ahead of any ruling, essentially dropping out of the lawsuit. The reactor developers (Valar included) are now currently conferring on what their next steps will be, according to a September 2 status report filed with the court.

So, with litigation slowly continuing and regulatory pathways still being formed, the future is unclear. It is also unclear whether the project’s siting on federal land will confer on it any special regulatory benefits. The Department of Interior (the agency that encompasses the BLM) does not have Other Transactional Authority like the DOE or Department of Defense. The OTA framework has been used by both the DOE and DOD for the authorization of its recent reactor projects. Whether Valar aims to leverage its Ward 250 authorization into further DOE-approved deployments on Department of Interior land is unknown. However, the DOE has continually characterized its reactor authorizations as purpose-built to expedite the research and development of test reactors—a definition that would hardly fit a 456-unit data center campus.

At any rate, whatever path Valar intends to pursue, the clock is ticking. NPR reports that Valar aims to begin nonnuclear construction by the end of this year and to have first reactors on line in 2028.

The background: Utah is a natural fit for Valar’s next project. While the company is headquartered in El Segundo, Calif., it was already closely partnered with the Beehive State through the Reactor Pilot Program. Through the RPP, Valar achieved criticality with its Ward 250 test reactor at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab—it was one of the four companies to reach this milestone by the July 4 deadline set by Executive Order 14301.

Ward 250 is a 100-kWt TRISO-fueled, high-temperature gas reactor. Valar has not definitively revealed the planned capacity for follow-on deployments of its reactor technology. However, CEO Isaiah Taylor previously has said that Ward 250 is “sized to 15 MW thermal.”

This tentative number is at odds with NPR’s story, which reports that the 456 reactors involved in Project Beehive will “produce around 9.6 gigawatts of power for the data centers and even more thermal heat for other industrial applications,” meaning each Valar reactor would be rated at a minimum of 21 MWe—a figure that is significantly higher than any capacity previously ascribed to the design. NPR identified Valar’s design as being rated at 25 MWe.

In one more notable wrinkle, this is also not Valar’s first plan to bring a nuclear-powered data center to Utah. Shortly after achieving criticality with Ward 250 in late June, the company announced a partnership with Nvidia to jointly develop a much smaller data center in the state. However, Nvidia has not been publicly named, at this time, as an involved party in Project Beehive. https://www.ans.org/news/article-8462/details-emerge-on-valars-utah-plans/

October 8, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Our nuclear future? The ‘Manhattan Project’ for European energy.

A Polish-led alliance backed by Washington is betting on smaller reactors to overcome the cost and delays that have dogged Europe’s nuclear revival

Overseen by Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, the coalition of
American, Japanese and Korean companies aims to jump-start the mass
production of small modular reactors (SMRs), miniature power plants that
are theoretically much cheaper and quicker to build than conventional
atomic power stations. The UK has also expressed an interest: Lord Sarwar,
the trade minister, met representatives of the Polish SMR company at the
centre of the alliance this week.

 Times 4th Oct 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/poland-britain-alliance-nuclear-future-manhattan-project-qts63dbcs

October 8, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Why the world’s top nuclear nation is sitting out the hype on small reactors

Despite hype and investment, the commercial record of SMRs remains thin, with only two reactors operational globally.

France’s caution about SMRs should raise flags for policymakers and nuclear organizations contemplating these reactors elsewhere

By AnnaJulia Yates, Allison Macfarlane, Alexander Wimmers | Analysis | September 25, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/09/why-the-worlds-top-nuclear-nation-is-sitting-out-the-hype-on-small-reactors/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=The%20top%20nuclear%20nation%20sitting%20out%20the%20SMR%20hype&utm_campaign=20260928%20Monday%20Newsletter

Many countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Sweden, are gripped by a frenzy of enthusiasm for small modular reactors (SMRs). But France does not buy into the hype. Despite remaining staunchly pro-nuclear, with the world’s largest share of electricity generation from nuclear reactors at nearly 70 percent, France gives SMRs only limited, conditional support, treating them as what they are: emerging technologies whose promised advantages have yet to be demonstrated at a commercial scale.

Varied enthusiasm for SMRs across countries may result from national industrial organization and history. The decentralized US power sector, for example, encourages private development of competing energy innovations, compounded by over-budget and delayed large reactor projects that have made SMRs seemingly more attractive. Conversely, France’s state-led nuclear program, with its established supply chain and nuclear infrastructure, has focused on large, standardized reactor builds. However, these differences between France and the United States should not be overstated; in Sweden, state-owned utility Vattenfall is pushing for SMRs, and in the United Kingdom, the government is providing substantial support to development and potential deployment of SMRs.

But all countries face common fundamental problems with ageing fleets and issues bringing new reactors online. Average reactor ages are 39 years in France and the United Kingdom, and 44 years in the United States and Sweden. France’s most recent Flamanville 3 reactor took two decades to build, and at 6 times its original cost; Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom has been repeatedly delayed at ballooning cost to consumers, and the most recent US newbuild projects resulted in the vendor’s bankruptcy.

France’s centralized system does not insulate it from the challenges SMRs claim to solve, making its cautious approach a noteworthy contrast to other countries’ rush towards SMRs. It serves as a reminder that though technologies provide easy political hype, they must prove safety, economic viability, and a clear advantage over existing low-carbon energy alternatives before major investment is justified.

A difficult start. Small modular reactors are promoted as a way out of nuclear power’s most persistent problems of massive upfront capital requirements, cost overruns, and construction delays. Developers and pro-SMR governments promise that smaller, modularized designs will be cheaper to finance, easier to manufacture, and faster to build—among other announced benefits.

The most obvious difference between SMRs and their larger counterparts is scale: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines an SMR as a reactor producing up to 300 megawatts of electricity—less than one third of what third-generation large reactors typically produce. The OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) currently lists 127 SMR designs worldwide at various development stages.

Despite hype and investment, the commercial record of SMRs remains thin, with only two reactors operational globally.

These projects do not prove the broader SMR case of efficient deployment: So far, most have faced delays, and the operating record is sparse. Available data from existing reactors show disappointing annual load factors below 21 percent for the Chinese HTR-PM in 2024 and around 30 percent on average for the Russian floating reactor. (The load factor, or capacity factor, is a measure of reactor performance that reflects the actual electrical energy produced over a specific period compared to the maximum possible energy it would produce if it ran continuously at its reference design power. According to the IAEA, in 2023, the median load factor of all commercial power reactors worldwide was 88 percent.) A clearer sense of SMR cost, safety, and waste production will only emerge once more actual operational experience is gathered.

Another problem is the heterogeneity of proposed modular reactor designs, which creates uncertain safety criteria, yet-to-be-established supply chains, and novel waste streams. This mixed bag will further complicate—and slow down—SMR deployment by increasing regulatory, technical, and economic uncertainty.

Large reactors ‘avant tout.’ France relies on nuclear power for nearly 70 percent of its electricity generation. With the addition of the 1650-megawatt-electric Flamanville 3 EPR reactor, which was connected to the grid in 2024, the country now has 57 operable reactors. All of these are pressurized water reactors, with an average output capacity of around 1000 megawatts-electric.

France’s first commercial SMR project, named NUWARD, began in 2017, when state-owned electric utility EDF partnered with the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) and two companies in which the French state owns major stakes: Naval Group and TechnicAtome. The initial concept promised a novel plant design consisting of two 170-megawatt-electric modules that would “serve the global market with a competitive solution in the late 2020s.” But in 2024, NUWARD abandoned that design due to technical and market-viability issues, deciding instead to “pivot its SMR product strategy” toward “a design based on proven technology bricks only.” EDF later announced that the new design would be a much larger reactor whose 400 megawatt-electric capacity exceeds the traditional 300 megawatt-electric cutoff for SMRs.

The only other significant French SMR initiative was launched under President Emmanuel Macron’s 2030 investment plan. Published in 2021, the plan includes €129.8 million in state support for 11 advanced nuclear projects, some of which are SMRs. But this support remains conditional and relatively restrained: Participants will have to complete the standard licensing protocol to ensure technical and safety credibility and continually convince the state of their projects’ economic viability before accessing future rounds of funding.

One reason for France’s cautious approach to SMRs is that it already has a well-defined, centralized, and standardized nuclear program, supported by decades of investment. The French government is directly involved in setting national energy priorities, tasking EDF with constructing and “frenchifying” US-designed large pressurized water reactors and refining each successive reactor generation, ultimately standardizing its nuclear fleet.

The clearest expression of this strategy is France’s prioritization of the large EPR2 reactor—a modernized version of the EPR reactor now operating in France, Finland, and China—over SMRs. In 2020, Nuclear Intelligence Weekly reported that EDF “remains almost exclusively focused on developing a more economic version of the EPR”, and focused worker capacity towards the EPR2 with “as many as 1000 engineers involved” in the project versus only “10 to 15” on NUWARD development.

President Macron made this priority explicit: In 2022, he announced plans to build six new EPR2 units once the design is ready, giving large reactors a defined place in the future French nuclear fleet that SMRs have yet to receive. Although the EPR2 design remains conceptual and the first operating reactors are not expected before 2040, Macron’s announcement and EDF’s staffing choices suggest that SMRs remain secondary to France’s long-held strategy of building large reactors.

Skepticism of SMRs. Beyond caution, diverse actors inside the French nuclear establishment have raised concerns about SMRs.

French nuclear safety authorities, for instance, have been vocal about the feasibility and the safety issues of certain SMR approaches. In 2021, the French nuclear regulator ASNR warned that many SMR designs rely on innovative solutions whose “feasibility and efficiency are yet to be demonstrated.” A 2023 parliamentary assessment raised similar concerns, noting that SMR projects show “varying maturities” and that “important research and development efforts remain to be done” for some technologies, including molten-salt, lead-cooled, sodium-cooled, and high-temperature SMRs. In May, the French regulator added that proposed SMR deployment near industrial or densely populated areas would require adapted safety objectives.

France’s major energy union FNME-CGT has been equally critical of the private governance of SMR development. The organization argues that the public interest, which the nuclear energy sector ought to cater to, is at odds with the short-term interests of private start-up companies. In a scathing response to one of the selected projects in the 2030 reactor investment program, the union wrote: “the [SMR] project … is the work of a ‘start-up’ whose shareholding is, to say the least, capitalist, and raises technical and environmental questions.” The union reiterated that advanced reactor projects ought not to be handed to private companies, and “even less so” to start-ups, while voicing concerns about the environmental, territorial, labor, security, and budget risks of advanced reactor programs.

Yves Bréchet, a former High-Commissioner for Atomic Energy of France, has offered a broader warning about the political logic driving SMR enthusiasm. Testifying before the Belgian parliament in 2023, he cautioned: “SMRs must not become a pretext for dispersing resources in pursuit of political optics.” His concern was that government funding for SMRs may be more in pursuit of press releases about technological ambition and international competitiveness than concrete potential. Any decision to pursue them, Bréchet continued, must come from a “thorough scientific and technical review” by an expert body, not from “arbitrary [political] decision.”

Lessons for SMR advocates. France’s caution about SMRs should raise flags for policymakers and nuclear organizations contemplating these reactors elsewhere. The country’s prioritization of large reactors and the skepticism voiced by some French experts point to a clear lesson for countries considering them.

Reactor programs should not be based on hype or political spectacle: A privatized, start-up-led, and lightly regulated approach may generate momentum and attract investors, but it cannot be a substitute for technically credible proof that a reactor is safe, economical, and able to withstand institutional scrutiny. Any policy decision to champion SMR development must be justified by evidence that they are not only technically, commercially, and politically viable, but also necessary: able to address a demonstrated energy need better than traditional large reactors or other available alternatives, like renewables, on time and aligned with societal and environmental objectives. Especially given limited budgets and workforce capacity, governments cannot afford to chase every potentially promising design at once. SMRs cannot be immune to these constraints.

Betting on SMRs will mean choosing to allocate engineers, regulators, public money, and political attention away from other energy options that can deliver low-carbon energy now instead of sometime in an uncertain future. Enthusiasm and innovation alone cannot outweigh the need for concrete evidence for SMRs.

October 1, 2026 Posted by | France, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Second reactor manufactured for floating nuclear plant

Thursday, 24 September 2026, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/second-reactor-manufactured-for-floating-nuclear-plant

The second RITM-200C small modular reactor unit has been manufactured for the floating nuclear power plant destined to supply electricity to a copper mining centre in Chukotka.

The floating nuclear power plant, FPU-106, will feature two of the 58 MWe RITM-200C reactors – the first was manufactured in May and is at the shipyard awaiting installation. The units have been manufactured at Rosatom’s Mechanical Engineering Division’s ZiO-Podolsk plant.

Anton Lebedev, head of ZiO-Podolsk, said: “2026 has been a landmark year for ZiO-Podolsk’s mechanical engineering teams: for the first time, we have produced a complete set of RITM units for a floating nuclear power plant that will supply power to an industrial cluster in the Russian North. This is an important step in the global development of small modular nuclear power. The plant has also set a record this year: in less than a year, four RITM-family units have already been manufactured, with five more in production.”

The RITM-200C is an adapted version of the RITM-200 reactors used on Russia’s nuclear icebreaker fleet.

In total, the Baimskaya development requires around 300 MWe, therefore, three such 100+ MWe floating power plants are needed, while a fourth will be installed as backup for outages during refuelling and maintenance.

Russia has the world’s only operating floating nuclear power plant, the Akademik Lomonosov which began commercial operation in May 2020. It is based, with its coastal infrastructure, by the city of Pevek – population 5,000 – to which it supplies heat and power in Russia’s Arctic Chukotka region.

The Akademik Lomonosov has two KLT-40S reactors generating 35 MWe each, which are similar to those used in a previous generation of nuclear-powered icebreakers. It has the capacity to provide electricity to a city with a population of up to 100,000 people.

As well as the four floating power units under construction, Rosatom is targeting the export market for floating nuclear power plants.

September 28, 2026 Posted by | Russia, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment