By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
NuScale's (SMR) long-term potential is uncertain due to significant risks, including first-of-a-kind engineering challenges, potential share dilution, geopolitical fuel-security dependencies, and the need for utilities to accept substantial cost overruns.
Risk: First-of-a-kind engineering challenges and potential share dilution before commercial viability
Opportunity: None explicitly stated
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
The company has been posting losses instead of gains and has yet to build a reactor.
But it has ample liquidity to keep it running -- and, hopefully, growing.
Buying into it now could turn out to be a great move.
Meet NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR), an energy company specializing in the development and sale of modular light water reactor nuclear power plants. Its ticker symbol, SMR, stands for small modular reactor, typically able to generate up to 300 megawatts per unit -- around a third of what a traditional reactor would.
The company was recently valued at around $4 billion, and its stock has averaged annual gains of about 17% over the past three years -- though it's down by nearly 24% over the past year.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
There's a lot of interest in nuclear energy lately, especially given the proliferation of energy-hungry data centers facilitating artificial intelligence (AI) processing. And NuScale is the first and only small modular reactor (SMR) developer to receive Standard Design Approvals from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
That's all very promising, but NuScale has not yet become a highly profitable company, producing many reactors. Indeed, it has been posting progressively larger losses in recent years. It's also facing competition, such as from solar power.
The company's presentation for its first quarter announces that "NuScale is years ahead of the competition," with approved designs, suppliers in place, and capabilities including off-grid operation. It's involved in planning [for the Tennessee Valley Authority] "what would be the largest nuclear power deployment program in U.S. history, which will utilize NuScale technology." In the meantime, it's working on a project in Romania.
So where will NuScale stock be in 10 years? Well, it's really hard to say. If it does build reactors and does become profitable, shareholders could be richly rewarded by 2036. But there could be delays and/or cash crunches and/or rivals eating its lunch. If it succeeds and is generating, say, 10 times its current revenue, its shares may well be worth 10 times as much -- or more -- by 2036. But note that it has diluted its shares by issuing many more -- and if that continues, that will shrink shareholder gains.
Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and NuScale Power wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $468,861! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,445,212!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,013% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 210% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 16, 2026. *
Selena Maranjian has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"NuScale's path to profitability is heavily contingent on external financing and successful FOAK execution, both of which have historically led to massive shareholder dilution in the nuclear sector."
NuScale (SMR) is a speculative play on nuclear infrastructure, but the article glosses over the 'death valley' of capital intensity. While NRC design approval is a moat, it doesn't solve the execution risk of first-of-a-kind (FOAK) engineering. With mounting losses and a history of project cancellations—most notably the Carbon Free Power Project—the company faces a massive funding gap before commercial viability. Investors are betting on a 10-year horizon, but the immediate reality is potential for significant share dilution as they burn cash to reach operational status. Unless they secure clear, multi-billion dollar government-backed utility contracts, the '10x revenue' scenario is purely theoretical and ignores the reality of nuclear cost overruns.
If the U.S. government prioritizes energy independence and data center power needs via the Department of Energy's loan programs, NuScale could become a strategic national asset, effectively de-risking their balance sheet regardless of current losses.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"NuScale's NRC approval is real optionality, but the path from approved design to profitable deployment is 7-10 years of cash burn, heavy dilution, and execution risk that a $4B valuation already prices in aggressively."
NuScale (SMR) is a pre-revenue nuclear play with NRC approval—a genuine moat—but the article conflates regulatory validation with commercial viability. The TVA project is still in planning; Romania is years away. Current losses are accelerating, not shrinking. The 17% three-year average masks a -24% YTD decline. A $4B valuation assumes successful deployment and profitability by 2036, but nuclear projects routinely face 5-10 year delays and cost overruns. Share dilution compounds this: if SMR issues equity to fund construction (likely), today's shareholders get massively diluted before any revenue inflection. The article's Netflix/Nvidia hindsight porn is marketing noise—survivorship bias masquerading as analysis.
If AI-driven power demand forces utilities to move faster than historical norms, and if SMR's modular design genuinely solves grid integration faster than large reactors, NuScale could capture a $100B+ TAM before competitors scale. Regulatory approval is the hardest moat; everyone else is years behind.
"NuScale's upside relies on uncertain regulatory, financing, and execution milestones that are not baked into price, making a 10x move in 10 years unlikely."
NuScale's story depends on a multi-decade deployment wave that remains uncertain in timing and scale. The article highlights NRC approvals and potential TVA/Romania projects, but it omits the core risks: no reactors built yet, ongoing losses, and a fragile cash runway requiring further funding. First-of-kind construction, cost overruns, schedule delays, and financing gaps could easily push the business into perpetual burn or dilution. In a competitive energy mix with cheaper solar/storage, and given policy shifts, the odds of a meaningful near-term revenue ramp look slim. The $4B valuation rests on a highly approximate future, not current cash flow.
The strongest counter is that the article assumes a favorable, near-term deployment avalanche; in reality, profitability hinges on one or two large, years-delayed contracts that may never materialize, and dilution could erode returns before any reactor is turned on.
"NuScale's commercial viability is bottlenecked by HALEU fuel supply constraints, not just engineering or regulatory hurdles."
Claude, you’re overstating the 'moat' of NRC approval. Regulatory approval is a sunk cost, not a commercial barrier to entry. The real risk is the supply chain bottleneck for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU). Even if NuScale solves FOAK engineering, they cannot deploy without a reliable fuel source, which is currently dominated by Russian supply chains. The market is ignoring that this isn't just a construction risk; it's a geopolitical fuel-security dependency that renders the '100B TAM' moot.
[Unavailable]
"HALEU is a real near-term constraint, but construction cost overruns—not fuel—will determine whether utilities actually deploy SMRs at scale."
Gemini's HALEU supply chain point is real but overstated as a moat-killer. The U.S. is actively building domestic HALEU capacity (Centrus, DOE programs)—this isn't a permanent Russian dependency. However, Gemini's right that it's a 2-3 year bottleneck nobody discusses. More pressing: even if fuel supply solves, NuScale still needs utilities to accept 50-100% cost overruns on first reactors. That's the actual gate, not uranium.
"The HALEU bottleneck plus cost overruns create a compounded downside that makes the potential TAM highly conditional, not a given."
I’d extend your HALEU worry into a sustainability risk for the business case, not just a moat issue. Even with domestic HALEU capacity, the combination of 50-100% first-reactor cost overruns, long cycle times, and uncertain offtake means the cash burn persists well beyond NRC validation. If utilities require price risk sharing or guaranteed subsidies, the equity dilution becomes almost unavoidable. The '100B TAM' hinges on all these gears meshing.
NuScale's (SMR) long-term potential is uncertain due to significant risks, including first-of-a-kind engineering challenges, potential share dilution, geopolitical fuel-security dependencies, and the need for utilities to accept substantial cost overruns.
None explicitly stated
First-of-a-kind engineering challenges and potential share dilution before commercial viability