By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel largely agrees that NuScale Power (SMR) is a high-risk, high-reward investment, with significant execution challenges and uncertainty around revenue until the 2030s. The key debate centers around NuScale's pivot to a licensing model, with some panelists seeing it as a positive shift in capital intensity, while others remain skeptical due to the lack of proven reference plants and scale.
Risk: The single biggest risk flagged is the long construction and licensing timelines, pushing meaningful revenue far into the 2030s, and the uncertainty around the licensing model's success.
Opportunity: The single biggest opportunity flagged is the potential macro opportunity in the global nuclear market, with NuScale being a first-mover in small modular reactors (SMRs).
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 →
Nuclear energy is experiencing a $10 trillion revival.
SMR businesses like NuScale Power should benefit greatly.
Despite the upside potential, investors should monitor two critical risks.
NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) has had an exciting few weeks. Over the past 30 days or so, shares have surged in value by more than 20%. When you zoom out, however, the picture changes dramatically. Since setting an all-time high last October, the stock has lost roughly 77% of it value, sending the stock price plunging from more than $50 to just $13.
Right now, NuScale Power's market capitalization hovers around $4.3 billion. Yet according to new research, the company is chasing a $10 trillion global opportunity. Even Oklo (NYSE: OKLO) -- another promising nuclear stock specializing in small modular reactor (SMR) technology -- has a market value nearly three times higher than NuScale's.
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 »
Is NuScale stock a buy now that shares trade well under $50? If you're looking for growth stocks with maximum upside potential, then yes. But there are two things to keep in mind before jumping in.
SMR investors should be excited about the latest research coming out of Bank of America. "According to BofA Global Research, nuclear energy has, in many ways, been recently 'rediscovered' amid surging electricity demand," the bank's report begins. "Compared with other energy sources, it offers reliable baseload power, a smaller carbon footprint, and a higher energy return on investment." In total, the bank predicts a $10 trillion global opportunity for nuclear technology over the coming two to three decades.
Comparing a $10 trillion global opportunity to NuScale's $4.3 billion market cap creates an enticing picture. And as I've argued in recent weeks, I expect a decent chunk of this spending to eventually be allocated toward SMR systems versus larger conventional nuclear plants. But when you dig into Bank of America's report, one thing becomes clear: The SMR opportunity that companies like Oklo and NuScale are pursuing won't materialize in any meaningful way until 2030, or even 2035.
The problem isn't necessarily near term demand, though there are remaining concerns over how much artificial intelligence companies and data center operators are willing to bet big on this relatively untested technological approach to nuclear. The most immediate challenge to SMR systems taking off is simply construction times. NuScale, for example, doesn't expect its first system to come online until roughly 2032. Other SMR businesses are also targeting their first projects to be completed sometime after 2030, even though construction has already begun.
Like Bank of America's analysts, I don't expect SMR demand to pick up significantly until there are many more real-world examples deployed under today's conditions across several geographies. (Note: the only two SMRs in operation today are both in Asia, with construction initiated over a decade ago.) That means there will be a long wait until SMR businesses like NuScale hit any meaningful inflection point for mass growth.
In the meantime, expect the share prices of SMR stocks like Oklo and NuScale to be extremely volatile. That's what happens when expected revenues are modeled years or decades into the future. Small changes in risk tolerance can have a huge impact on the discount cash flows. So while NuScale and SMR technology in general has a promising growth trajectory long term, investors should expect a lengthy and bumpy holding period.
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 $473,985! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,204,650!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 950% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 203% 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 6, 2026. *
Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Ryan Vanzo 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 is currently a speculative R&D vehicle with significant execution risk, and its valuation is untethered from near-term cash flow realities."
The article frames NuScale (SMR) as a speculative play on a $10 trillion nuclear revival, but it ignores the brutal reality of capital intensity and regulatory hurdles. While the 'AI-driven power demand' narrative is powerful, NuScale is effectively a pre-revenue R&D firm burning cash with a 2032 commercialization horizon. Comparing its $4.3 billion market cap to a theoretical $10 trillion market is a classic 'Total Addressable Market' trap that ignores execution risk. Until they secure firm, non-cancellable orders from hyperscalers or utilities, this is a liquidity-sensitive proxy for sentiment, not a fundamental value play. The 77% drawdown from highs reflects the market realizing that 'promising technology' does not equal 'profitable business' in the near term.
If NuScale secures a major government-backed loan guarantee or a cornerstone contract with a tech giant like Microsoft or Amazon, the current $4.3 billion valuation could look like a bargain compared to the long-term annuity stream of modular energy.
"NuScale's history of project cancellations due to cost overruns, omitted by the article, highlights execution risks that make its $4.3B valuation premature before 2032 deployments."
NuScale Power (SMR) at $13/share and $4.3B market cap embeds deep skepticism after a 77% plunge from October highs, despite Bank of America's $10T nuclear TAM call. But SMRs like NuScale won't deploy until 2032 at earliest, with no U.S. examples operational—only two aging ones in Asia. Article downplays omitted context: NuScale's 2023 cancellation of its flagship Utah project after costs ballooned 75%+ from $5.3B to $9.3B, signaling chronic nuclear overruns. Pre-revenue volatility will dominate; Oklo's 3x higher mcap reflects similar hype without proof. Speculative bet at best.
NuScale's NRC-certified SMR design provides unmatched regulatory lead over rivals like Oklo, potentially unlocking hyperscaler deals (e.g., from AI-driven data centers) that compress timelines and drive re-rating.
"SMR stocks are pricing in a 2030s inflection that depends entirely on unproven technology scaling and customer conviction—a 6+ year wait with no interim milestones to validate the thesis."
NuScale (SMR) at $13 looks cheap against a $10T nuclear TAM, but the article buries the real problem: no revenue until 2032+, and only two SMRs globally after a decade of construction. The 77% drawdown reflects not pessimism but reality—this is a pre-revenue, pre-proof-of-concept bet on 2030s cash flows. BofA's $10T thesis is real, but it's a 20-30 year play, not a growth stock. Volatility will be extreme because terminal value assumptions swing wildly on small changes to cost, timeline, or AI datacenter demand assumptions. The article's framing—'buy the dip'—ignores that SMR is still unproven at scale.
If even one major hyperscaler (Meta, Google, Microsoft) commits to SMR power in 2026-27, pre-revenue valuations could re-rate 3-5x on visibility alone, making current prices look absurdly cheap in hindsight.
"The long, uncertain path to revenue, plus licensing, financing, and construction risks, makes NuScale a high-risk bet that may not justify current pricing."
NuScale sits at the intersection of a potential macro opportunity and steep execution risk. The article highlights a long-run global nuclear opportunity and a first-mover tailwind for SMRs, but the near- to mid-term reality looks unattractive. Construction and licensing timelines push any meaningful revenue far into the 2030s, and the business model depends on huge capital, favorable financing, and stable subsidies—areas prone to revision. History shows only two SMRs in operation after more than a decade of effort, underscoring execution risk. Valuation already embeds a large optionality premium; if policy support wavers or rates rise, the stock could re-rate to reflect return-free-risk. In sum: big prize, big uncertainty.
Counterpoint: if government backing stays intact and a first utility contract comes online sooner than feared, the optionality could justify a higher multiple—even with long lead times. In a world of rising carbon prices and cheap capital, the upside might materialize faster than the bears expect.
"NuScale's shift toward a licensing-led model mitigates the capital intensity risks that caused their previous project failures."
Grok and Gemini highlight the Utah project cancellation, but miss the second-order effect: NuScale is pivoting from a utility-scale developer to a technology licensor. This shift drastically lowers their capital intensity and balance sheet risk. If they successfully transition to a recurring licensing model rather than acting as a turnkey EPC contractor, the 'burn rate' concerns become less relevant. The valuation isn't just about power generation; it's about the intellectual property premium in a supply-constrained energy market.
"NuScale's licensing pivot fails to de-risk the business without proven operational deployments."
Gemini, NuScale's 'pivot' to licensing is overstated—it's more rhetoric than reality. The Utah cancellation exposed flaws in their own execution as EPC, but licensing still demands reference plants and proven performance at scale, which they lack. No SMR has scaled commercially; third-party licensees face identical overruns, supply chain woes (e.g., forging for RPVs), and regs. This doesn't lower capex risk—it outsources it without a track record.
"NuScale's licensing model only works if a third party funds the first plant; the Utah cancellation proves NuScale can't be trusted as the builder, but doesn't invalidate the IP if someone else bears construction risk."
Grok's licensing skepticism is warranted, but both miss a critical asymmetry: NuScale doesn't need to build the reference plant themselves. If a utility or hyperscaler funds construction as a pilot, NuScale captures licensing upside without balance sheet burn. The Utah failure was as EPC operator, not IP holder. That's a material difference Grok conflates. Licensing still requires proof, but the capital burden shifts.
"Licensing alone won’t unlock meaningful upside; royalties require pilots and reference plants, and timing risks keep NuScale’s valuation speculative."
Grok’s licensing claim underestimates the revenue shape: royalties are uncertain, pilots are still required, and utilities could still bear EPC costs themselves. A licensing-centric path still needs a proven reference plant, regulatory clearance, and scale to meaningfully monetize IP. Until a utility signs a multi-year license/royalty stream, the stock remains speculative. Even if pilots advance, timing risk could compress upside and keep valuation tight.
The panel largely agrees that NuScale Power (SMR) is a high-risk, high-reward investment, with significant execution challenges and uncertainty around revenue until the 2030s. The key debate centers around NuScale's pivot to a licensing model, with some panelists seeing it as a positive shift in capital intensity, while others remain skeptical due to the lack of proven reference plants and scale.
The single biggest opportunity flagged is the potential macro opportunity in the global nuclear market, with NuScale being a first-mover in small modular reactors (SMRs).
The single biggest risk flagged is the long construction and licensing timelines, pushing meaningful revenue far into the 2030s, and the uncertainty around the licensing model's success.