By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on NuScale Power (SMR), citing lack of firm sales, no meaningful revenue, and significant risks including cost overruns, supply chain bottlenecks for HALEU fuel, and uncertain adoption by utilities.
Risk: The supply chain bottleneck for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) required to fuel SMR designs, which could delay NuScale's revenue timeline and make the near-term bull case dependent on federal HALEU production acceleration with no credible timeline.
Opportunity: Potential policy backing and utilities' willingness to adopt on-site generation, which would require novel financing, regulatory clarity on waste and security, and a credible path to profitable scale.
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 →
NuScale Power is developing small modular reactors (SMRs).
It's facing a market opportunity that could be worth $10 trillion.
It lacks a first firm sale, but that could change in a few years.
NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) is a nuclear energy company trying to change several things at once, from how nuclear power plants are built to where power is generated. In simplest terms, it wants to build small modular reactors (SMRs) that can be mass-produced in a factory.
If it succeeds, it could unlock what Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) is calling a $10 trillion market opportunity in nuclear energy, possibly becoming one of the most important energy companies of the century.
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 »
Despite this potential, NuScale's stock has fallen over 75% since hitting all-time highs in October 2025. It currently trades below $13, making this an ideal moment to reflect on whether it's worth buying.
Imagine, for a second, a two-lane road that was built in the 1960s. For years, this road handled local traffic just fine. Then, almost overnight, the area became a logistics hub, and now heavily freighted semi-trailer trucks use it everyday. Since the road wasn't designed with industrial use in mind, it starts to get alligator cracks, eventually needing to be widened and repaved.
This briefly illustrates the current power grid problem in the U.S. Much of it was built in the 1950s and 1960s, when television, refrigerators, and other "new" consumer appliances caused a boom in electrification efforts. For a time, the grid provided what was needed, but today it's being dangerously strained by the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers and cloud computing. It's only a matter of time before the system reaches its utmost limits.
In the example above, the road is widened and repaved. But here's where NuScale Power diverges slightly from a traditional fix: It doesn't just want to add new power generation to a grid network. Rather, it wants to build SMR plants for on-site power generation. This would mean, for example, building SMRs near a data center, industrial hub, or other remote locations.
To be sure, NuScale isn't excluding utilities from its customer mix. Indeed, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is one of its potential first clients. But rather than relying on the transmission system of a utility, NuScale will also enable customers to generate their own power close to where they need it. This opens its customer list to include data centers, industrial clients, mining sites, and even governments.
NuScale's SMR technology opens it up to a diverse mix of customers. But here's the kicker: It currently lacks a firm sale. It hasn't finalized an SMR project for a customer, nor is it generating revenue from an SMR power plant.
In fact, NuScale likely won't generate meaningful revenue from sales for two years. Even then, it might not even be profitable, as the chart below suggests.
That puts NuScale is an uncomfortable position. It's currently the only nuclear energy company in the U.S. with an SMR design approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- a huge advantage. Yet, its technology is still unproven, and nobody wants to be the "first" to test it out. It's also unclear how much an SMR plant would cost, as the cancellation of NuScale's "Carbon Free Power Project" in Idaho demonstrated.
As such, NuScale carries massive potential and massive risk. Aggressive investors betting on a future of nuclear energy may want to buy while the stock is still under $20. Those with more risk aversion may find a nuclear energy exchange-traded fund (ETF) to better suit their philosophy.
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 $511,411! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,238,736!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 986% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 199% 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 April 22, 2026. *
Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Steven Porrello 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 lack of a firm, profitable order backlog makes it a high-risk speculative asset rather than a viable infrastructure play in the current high-interest-rate environment."
NuScale Power (SMR) is essentially a pre-revenue venture capital play masquerading as a public utility stock. While the NRC design certification is a genuine moat, the collapse of the Carbon Free Power Project in Idaho highlights the 'first-mover' trap: cost overruns and inflation have rendered the current SMR model economically unviable for municipal utilities. With cash burn accelerating and no firm backlog, the $10 trillion TAM cited by BofA is irrelevant if the company cannot reach commercial scale before its liquidity window closes. Investors are currently pricing in a technology breakthrough that remains years away from a proven, profitable deployment, creating a high-beta trap for retail capital.
The urgent power demands of hyperscale AI data centers may force a 'cost-plus' environment where tech giants subsidize SMR deployment, effectively de-risking NuScale's balance sheet through massive prepayments.
"NuScale's history of massive cost overruns and lack of firm orders make it too risky despite nuclear tailwinds."
NuScale (SMR) boasts the only NRC-approved SMR design in the US, targeting on-site power for data centers amid grid strain from AI demand, with BofA eyeing a $10T nuclear TAM. Yet the article glosses over brutal realities: zero firm sales, the 2023 Idaho project's cancellation after costs ballooned over 150% to $9.3B for 462MW, and no meaningful revenue for 2+ years despite $13M Q4 2023 from R&D deals. At ~$12/share (EV ~$2.5B), it's a binary gamble on hyperscalers overlooking cheaper gas/renewables, with dilution risk from ongoing cash burn (~$80M/quarter). Speculative, not investable yet.
If TVA or a Big Tech firm like Microsoft signs a landmark deal soon, NuScale's modular scalability could deliver 50%+ margins at scale, justifying a rapid re-rating to 20x sales.
"NuScale has regulatory approval and a real market need, but lacks proof of unit economics or customer commitment, making the current valuation a bet on execution rather than a discount to intrinsic value."
NuScale trades at ~$13 after a 75% collapse from October 2025 highs, but the article conflates optionality with valuation. Yes, SMRs address real grid strain from AI data centers—that's genuine. But the article buries the critical fact: zero revenue, no firm orders, and the Idaho project cancellation signals cost control is broken. The $10 trillion TAM is meaningless if NuScale can't execute at competitive unit economics. The 2-year timeline to 'meaningful revenue' is also vague—meaningful could mean $50M on a $2B+ market cap. The NRC approval is real differentiation, but first-mover advantage in nuclear often means first-mover losses. I need to see actual LOIs with pricing before re-rating.
If data center power demand accelerates faster than grid buildout, and NuScale lands even one $500M+ contract with a hyperscaler at acceptable margins within 18 months, the risk/reward flips dramatically—the stock could 3-5x before profitability.
"The core risk is that NuScale's revenue is years away and contingent on a perfect alignment of policy, project financing, and construction, not just regulatory approval."
NuScale is betting on a new class of SMRs that could de-risk grid reliability and locate reactors near data centers and industry hubs. The article leans into an outsized TAM ($10 trillion) and a first-mover moat from NRC-approved design, but cash-flow realism remains grim: no firm sales, long lead times, uncertain capex per unit, and potential cost overruns on modular builds. The bull case hinges on policy backing and utilities' willingness to adopt on-site generation, which would require novel financing, regulatory clarity on waste and security, and a credible path to profitable scale. Absent visible revenue catalysts, the stock remains a binary speculative play.
First, NuScale could secure a first commercial sale in the next 2–3 years, unlocking revenue visibility sooner than expected. Second, a rising policy push for low-carbon baseload power and data-center resilience could catalyze faster adoption than currently modeled.
"The critical bottleneck for NuScale is not just project cost, but the HALEU fuel supply chain required for commercial operation."
Claude, you’re missing the regulatory 'moat' reality. The NRC approval isn't just a hurdle; it’s a barrier to entry that prevents competitors from catching up quickly. While everyone here obsesses over the Idaho cancellation, you’re ignoring that the U.S. government is now actively subsidizing SMR deployment via the Department of Energy’s 'Liftoff' reports. The real risk isn't just 'cost control'—it’s the supply chain bottleneck for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) required to fuel these designs.
"HALEU fuel supply shortages will delay NuScale's commercialization by 3+ years due to insufficient US production capacity."
Gemini, DOE 'Liftoff' reports outline pathways but deliver zero direct funding—IRA's $2.5B for advanced reactors is spread across dozens of projects, insufficient for NuScale's scale-up. HALEU is the true chokepoint: domestic production lags (Centrus at ~20kg/month now), needing gigawatt-years of fuel; imports from Russia banned. This industry-wide delay torches NuScale's 2026-2027 revenue timeline nobody else flagged.
"HALEU scarcity, not NRC approval or DOE subsidies, is the binding constraint on NuScale's path to revenue."
Grok's HALEU bottleneck is the hardest constraint nobody adequately weighted. Centrus producing 20kg/month against gigawatt-year fuel demands means NuScale's 2026–2027 revenue timeline isn't just optimistic—it's physically impossible without solving fuel supply first. This isn't regulatory or financial; it's a hard physics/supply problem that makes the entire near-term bull case dependent on federal HALEU production acceleration, which has zero credible timeline. That's a deal-killer most equity analysts miss.
"Without scalable HALEU fuel supply, NuScale's near-term revenue is unlikely even with NRC approval; the fuel bottleneck is the gating risk that could render the current valuation a mirage."
Grok, the HALEU bottleneck you flag is the real choke point, but it dwarfs the near-term revenue case. Even with DOE Liftoff, scaling fuel supply to support any meaningful NuScale ramp is a multi-year bet; 20 kg/month today vs gigawatt-year demand. The market underprices the timing risk. If no credible, scalable HALEU pathway or LOI with pricing within 18–24 months, upside is asymmetrical at best.
The panel consensus is bearish on NuScale Power (SMR), citing lack of firm sales, no meaningful revenue, and significant risks including cost overruns, supply chain bottlenecks for HALEU fuel, and uncertain adoption by utilities.
Potential policy backing and utilities' willingness to adopt on-site generation, which would require novel financing, regulatory clarity on waste and security, and a credible path to profitable scale.
The supply chain bottleneck for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) required to fuel SMR designs, which could delay NuScale's revenue timeline and make the near-term bull case dependent on federal HALEU production acceleration with no credible timeline.