Latest news with #U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
NuScale Power (NYSE:SMR) Gains 84% Over Last Quarter
NuScale Power recently received a significant regulatory approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its uprated 250 MWt NuScale Power Modules, enhancing its capacity to deliver carbon-free energy solutions. This milestone complements the company's efforts to expand its educational outreach with new Energy Exploration Centers, aiming to nurture future nuclear professionals. Over the last quarter, the company's share price surged by 84%, a notable move compared to a 12% market rise over the past year. These advancements could have bolstered NuScale's position, aligning with broader market trends. We've identified 4 possible red flags for NuScale Power that you should be aware of. The latest GPUs need a type of rare earth metal called Dysprosium and there are only 24 companies in the world exploring or producing it. Find the list for free. NuScale Power's recent regulatory approval for its uprated 250 MWt modules could significantly bolster its revenue prospects and earnings forecasts. The company's advanced small modular reactor technology positions it for faster deployment and potential revenue acceleration, enhancing profitability amid the anticipated growth in demand from energy-intensive sectors like AI-driven data centers. Such developments suggest a promising pathway for NuScale to improve financial performance beyond its recent revenue of US$49.04 million and earnings loss of US$134.06 million. However, hurdles such as securing long-term agreements and supply chain constraints need careful management to maintain this upward momentum. Over the past year, NuScale's total shareholder return, a combination of share price appreciation and dividends, reached over 355%, a very large percentage, significantly outperforming the US electrical industry, which saw an 18.5% rise. This remarkable longer-term gain contrasts with the overall market's moderate performance of 11.9% during the same period. As of today, the recent share price of US$13.91 represents a nearly 43% discount relative to the consensus analyst price target of US$24.46. This gap may reflect differing views on the company's ability to meet ambitious revenue and earnings projections amidst evolving market dynamics and operational challenges. Investors should consider how these factors might influence future valuations and NuScale's financial trajectory. Examine NuScale Power's earnings growth report to understand how analysts expect it to perform. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include NYSE:SMR. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's executive orders could endanger America's nuclear renaissance
On May 23, President Trump signed four executive orders designed to dramatically expand and accelerate U.S. development and construction of nuclear power plants, with emphasis on advanced reactors. The stated rationale for the administration's action is a combination of a domestic energy emergency and a desire to win the geopolitical competition against China and Russia. However, if implemented as written, these orders could undermine the very objective they intend to promote. The new orders assert that the failure of the U.S. to develop the nuclear energy sector in recent decades is primarily attributable to a myopic and misguided approach to nuclear regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the commission licenses the design, construction and operation of domestic nuclear and radiological facilities, including commercial nuclear power plants. The orders lay out a series of radical steps to scale back, reorient and even bypass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by having the Departments of Energy or Defense license non-commercial reactors to be built on their federal sites. In total, they aim to achieve rapid development of new nuclear designs and expedited construction of advanced nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also ordered to effect a 'wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance' within nine months. The desire to revamp the U.S. nuclear industrial base, encourage and support new nuclear power plant construction, and streamline Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing is welcome. However, it is neither new nor specific to the Trump administration. Under the ADVANCE Act passed by Congress in 2024, the commission had already begun to adapt its licensing processes for new reactor designs and recruit staff to do this work. Three flawed premises guide the new executive orders. First, they see the future of nuclear energy as fundamentally similar to that of other energy sources — whereby innovation in design and fast deployment are seen as inherent net positives, and bugs, if any, can be fixed later. The orders downplay or ignore the special magnitude of nuclear risks, the series of traumatic accidents suffered by leading nuclear power nations and the unique environmental and multi-generational footprint of nuclear waste and spent fuel. Second, nuclear regulation is mostly viewed as unduly burdensome, expensive, time-consuming and an outright drag on efficiency. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is explicitly blamed for 'throttling nuclear power development' in the U.S. In this regard, the orders fail to recognize a central purpose of regulation: to build and maintain trust in nuclear energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not presented the key obstacle to nuclear development in the U.S. And it is the key instrument to earn and keep trust in nuclear energy both nationally and internationally. Third, the executive orders grossly exaggerate the delays to new deployment legitimately attributable to excessive nuclear regulation. They underestimate the addition of time to market due to limitations on workforce availability, supply chain, financing, specialty fuels and community buy-in. What Americans need is confidence that any nuclear power plant built and operated in the U.S. is safe, secure and ultimately beneficial to American and host community prosperity. However, the net result of these executive orders, coupled with the additional impact of other administration actions to reform governmental regulatory processes to align with White House policies, is to risk public trust in nuclear energy. Downscaling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff, curtailing its political independence, compromising its technical integrity, scaling back its community engagement role or avoiding the commission outright introduces more uncertainty than inspires confidence in a nuclear renaissance. It would shatter the commission's credibility, nationwide and worldwide, to lower the risk standards it has been credibly using for years to minimize adverse radiation effects from nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the orders are bound to expedite the brain drain from the agency, whose credibility, speed and efficiency are all dependent on a quality workforce that firmly believes in its mission and inspires all others with its professionalism. They will reduce confidence in further extending the lives of aging nuclear power plants —many of which have been operating for 60 years or more — or in restarting mothballed plants. And they could unnecessarily increase public wariness that new nuclear designs will not be subjected to a rigorous and transparent review before their performance can be fully demonstrated and tested. The public reactions to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima underscore how critical trust is to sustaining public support for nuclear power. Here, the global setback to the credibility of the Federal Aviation Agency as a U.S. aerospace licensing authority is a poignant reminder, when it emerged after deadly crashes of Boeing's 737 Max, that the agency had delegated some of its licensing process to the company. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's credibility as a professional, independent regulator is also a major selling point for U.S. nuclear vendors seeking to win overseas contracts. At a time when the U.S. nuclear industry is trying to achieve economies of scale to bolster its competitiveness against Russian and Chinese firms (who can offer better financing and other perks), the commission's reputation as the gold standard in nuclear regulation is one of the few comparative American advantages. Yes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission operations should be more efficient. The effort to make them so is already well underway and could be further encouraged. But now — just as nuclear power nears a new dawn — is the worst possible time to damage the commission's capacity to credibly assess and faithfully, independently and publicly report its evaluations and licensing considerations and decisions. Toby Dalton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Ariel (Eli) Levite is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's executive orders could endanger America's nuclear renaissance
On May 23, President Trump signed four executive orders designed to dramatically expand and accelerate U.S. development and construction of nuclear power plants, with emphasis on advanced reactors. The stated rationale for the administration's action is a combination of a domestic energy emergency and a desire to win the geopolitical competition against China and Russia. However, if implemented as written, these orders could undermine the very objective they intend to promote. The new orders assert that the failure of the U.S. to develop the nuclear energy sector in recent decades is primarily attributable to a myopic and misguided approach to nuclear regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the commission licenses the design, construction and operation of domestic nuclear and radiological facilities, including commercial nuclear power plants. The orders lay out a series of radical steps to scale back, reorient and even bypass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by having the Departments of Energy or Defense license non-commercial reactors to be built on their federal sites. In total, they aim to achieve rapid development of new nuclear designs and expedited construction of advanced nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also ordered to effect a 'wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance' within nine months. The desire to revamp the U.S. nuclear industrial base, encourage and support new nuclear power plant construction, and streamline Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing is welcome. However, it is neither new nor specific to the Trump administration. Under the ADVANCE Act passed by Congress in 2024, the commission had already begun to adapt its licensing processes for new reactor designs and recruit staff to do this work. Three flawed premises guide the new executive orders. First, they see the future of nuclear energy as fundamentally similar to that of other energy sources — whereby innovation in design and fast deployment are seen as inherent net positives, and bugs, if any, can be fixed later. The orders downplay or ignore the special magnitude of nuclear risks, the series of traumatic accidents suffered by leading nuclear power nations and the unique environmental and multi-generational footprint of nuclear waste and spent fuel. Second, nuclear regulation is mostly viewed as unduly burdensome, expensive, time-consuming and an outright drag on efficiency. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is explicitly blamed for 'throttling nuclear power development' in the U.S. In this regard, the orders fail to recognize a central purpose of regulation: to build and maintain trust in nuclear energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not presented the key obstacle to nuclear development in the U.S. And it is the key instrument to earn and keep trust in nuclear energy both nationally and internationally. Third, the executive orders grossly exaggerate the delays to new deployment legitimately attributable to excessive nuclear regulation. They underestimate the addition of time to market due to limitations on workforce availability, supply chain, financing, specialty fuels and community buy-in. What Americans need is confidence that any nuclear power plant built and operated in the U.S. is safe, secure and ultimately beneficial to American and host community prosperity. However, the net result of these executive orders, coupled with the additional impact of other administration actions to reform governmental regulatory processes to align with White House policies, is to risk public trust in nuclear energy. Downscaling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff, curtailing its political independence, compromising its technical integrity, scaling back its community engagement role or avoiding the commission outright introduces more uncertainty than inspires confidence in a nuclear renaissance. It would shatter the commission's credibility, nationwide and worldwide, to lower the risk standards it has been credibly using for years to minimize adverse radiation effects from nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the orders are bound to expedite the brain drain from the agency, whose credibility, speed and efficiency are all dependent on a quality workforce that firmly believes in its mission and inspires all others with its professionalism. They will reduce confidence in further extending the lives of aging nuclear power plants —many of which have been operating for 60 years or more — or in restarting mothballed plants. And they could unnecessarily increase public wariness that new nuclear designs will not be subjected to a rigorous and transparent review before their performance can be fully demonstrated and tested. The public reactions to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima underscore how critical trust is to sustaining public support for nuclear power. Here, the global setback to the credibility of the Federal Aviation Agency as a U.S. aerospace licensing authority is a poignant reminder, when it emerged after deadly crashes of Boeing's 737 Max, that the agency had delegated some of its licensing process to the company. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's credibility as a professional, independent regulator is also a major selling point for U.S. nuclear vendors seeking to win overseas contracts. At a time when the U.S. nuclear industry is trying to achieve economies of scale to bolster its competitiveness against Russian and Chinese firms (who can offer better financing and other perks), the commission's reputation as the gold standard in nuclear regulation is one of the few comparative American advantages. Yes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission operations should be more efficient. The effort to make them so is already well underway and could be further encouraged. But now — just as nuclear power nears a new dawn — is the worst possible time to damage the commission's capacity to credibly assess and faithfully, independently and publicly report its evaluations and licensing considerations and decisions. Toby Dalton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Ariel (Eli) Levite is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Anti-nuclear activists call for broader environmental review on Palisades restart
The Palisades Nuclear Plant sits on the shore of Lake Michigan, in Covert Township. (Courtesy: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) As New Jersey-Based Holtec International works its way toward restarting the Palisades Nuclear Plant in West Michigan, a host of organizations are challenging regulator's findings that reviving the reactor would not bring significant harm to the environment. The Palisades restart marks the first effort of its kind in the United States, with the federal government awarding the effort a $1.5 billion loan alongside $150 million in state funding to bring the facility back online. However the effort is not without its detractors, as some environmental organizations have argued against providing state funding for the effort, while other organizations have opposed the plant over safety and environmental concerns. In a virtual hearing Thursday morning, attorneys representing Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert, and Nuclear Energy Information Services asked a panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel to accept a motion allowing them to file new and updated contentions. Those contentions argue the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission erred when it issued a finding of no significant impact for the project, allowing it to forgo a full review of environmental impacts. 'The position of the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] staff seems to be that, since the plant was operable in May 2022 that simply a return to operability means that there are no significant environmental impacts,' said Wallace Taylor, an attorney representing the anti-nuclear groups, arguing that the environmental analysis should have come from a perspective of retooling, recalibrating and restarting a dormant facility. The Commission issued a draft of its findings in January, where it outlined the purpose and need reviving the facility would serve, the level of environmental review needed and provided a description of the plant, any potential alternatives, and the various ways it could impact the environment. The environmental assessment cites Michigan's standard for 100% clean energy by 2040, which includes provisions for nuclear energy and natural gas with 90% effective carbon capture technology in justifying the need for the project. It also argues the facility will enhance electrical reliability in the state by generating consistent, carbon-free energy and reducing the state's reliance on imported energy sources. Although the commission reviewed alternatives like replacing the current reactor with a new reactor; replacing the reactor with other alternatives like natural gas, solar and wind; and using alternative system designs with the current reactor, it only provided further analysis for a no-action alternative, where it would deny the authorizations needed to bring Palisades back online. After reviewing a number of potential concerns, commission staff ultimately concluded the project would have no significant environmental impacts, and that choosing not to grant the authorizations Holtec needs to operate the plant would violate the purpose and need of the project: meeting clean energy demand. Terry Lodge, also representing the groups challenging the review, contended that the purpose of need statement was flawed, arguing it presents a restart of the plant as the only viable option without offering any justification or explanation of the demand for power. Lodge and Taylor also argued the limited consideration of alternatives to the plant was similarly problematic. 'I think that it's pretty obvious that renewable energy would have a lessened environmental impact than a nuclear plant, which would require uranium mining, which would require something to be done with the radioactive waste. There's radioactive material, like tritium, for example, that comes from nuclear plants, and all of that would have to be considered to have a really appropriate discussion in the [environmental analysis], and that wasn't done,' Taylor said. Lodge further contended that the impact of the project remains unclear, as Holtec is still working to identify whether it needs to replace key components of the reactor, like steam generators, arguing the environmental effects of the restart are not yet known and quantified. While justifying their findings, commission staff explained that the purpose and needs statement is used to determine the range of alternatives considered within the assessment. Anita Naber, representing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, explained that the alternatives analysis is intended to determine whether there are other options available or environmentally preferable alternatives. She later explained that while developing a purpose and need statement for their environmental analysis, staff members give substantial weight to the goals and needs of an applicant, in line with both the commission's policy and case law. 'The staff will look at the applicant's purpose and need and the factual background and information that's submitted by the applicant in support of that purpose and need and evaluate that. And that's what the staff did for the Palisades restart environmental assessment,' Naber said. In offering their closing arguments to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, the plant's opponents emphasized that an environmental impact should have been required for the project since the beginning, and would have required a much more in-depth analysis of alternatives. However, members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Holtec argued that the contentions filed by the opposing groups should be denied, as they were not responding to new information as required by the commission's rules. Naber also noted that the commission expects petitioners to file contentions on the basis of an applicant's environmental report rather than delaying them until after the staff issues its environmental analysis. 'To have their contentions admitted for hearing, petitioners must demonstrate some sort of genuine factual or legal dispute with the staff draft [environmental analysis], which they have not done. They also need to provide actual fact or expert support for their assertion, but they have not done this either,' Naber said. On rebuttal, Lodge argued that the Commission's rules allow petitioners to file new or amended contentions based on a draft or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment or any supplements to those documents. 'We timely and we believe properly under this section amended our contentions,' Lodge said, arguing their updated contentions should not be excluded as a result. The panel will take the matter under consideration and will determine whether to accept the opposition's updated contentions. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Business Wire
13-05-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Oklo Completes Site Characterization Borehole Drilling for First Powerhouse
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oklo successfully completed borehole drilling for site characterization work at the Idaho National Laboratory site for its first Aurora Powerhouse. This milestone marks a significant step forward in the development and future construction of the facility. The completed work included the drilling of several boreholes to support comprehensive geotechnical assessments of subsurface conditions. These efforts help with validating site suitability, informing detailed engineering design, and securing the necessary permits for construction. 'The completion of this drilling campaign highlights our team's ability to execute through the early stages of site development,' said Jacob DeWitte, co-founder and CEO at Oklo. 'With this work completed, we are well-positioned to continue making progress on licensing, infrastructure development, and ultimately, the groundbreaking of our first Aurora powerhouse.' The site characterization phase involved collaboration with leading geotechnical experts to ensure all data collection met regulatory and industry standards. The insights gathered will guide foundation design, seismic safety measures, and other site suitability assessments. These geotechnical analyses will be integrated into Oklo's Combined License Application (COLA) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Oklo's COLA covers the design, construction, and operation of the Aurora powerhouse, enabling a streamlined and efficient regulatory review process. Once approved, the license will authorize Oklo to construct and operate the plant. About Oklo Inc.: Oklo Inc. is developing fast fission power plants to deliver clean, reliable, and affordable energy at scale; establishing a domestic supply chain for critical radioisotopes; and advancing nuclear fuel recycling to convert nuclear waste into clean energy. Oklo was the first to receive a site use permit from the U.S. Department of Energy for a commercial advanced fission plant, was awarded fuel from Idaho National Laboratory, and submitted the first custom combined license application for an advanced reactor to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Oklo is also developing advanced fuel recycling technologies in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy and national laboratories. Forward-Looking Statements This press release includes statements that express Oklo's opinions, expectations, objectives, beliefs, plans, intentions, strategies, assumptions, forecasts or projections regarding future events or future results and therefore are, or may be deemed to be, 'forward-looking statements.' The words 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'continue,' 'could,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'intends,' 'may,' 'might,' 'plan,' 'possible,' 'potential,' 'predict,' 'project,' 'should,' 'would' or, in each case, their negative or other variations or comparable terminology, and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. These forward-looking statements include all matters that are not historical facts. They appear in a number of places throughout this press release and include statements regarding our intentions, beliefs or current expectations concerning, among other things, the benefits of the proposed acquisition, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, prospects, growth, strategies and the markets in which Oklo operates. Such forward-looking statements are based on information available as of the date of this press release, and current expectations, forecasts and assumptions, and involve a number of judgments, risks and uncertainties. As a result of a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties, the actual results or performance of Oklo may be materially different from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. The following important risk factors could affect Oklo's future results and cause those results or other outcomes to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements: risks related to the deployment of Oklo's powerhouses; the risk that Oklo is pursuing an emerging market, with no commercial project operating, regulatory uncertainties; the potential need for financing to construct plants, market, financial, political and legal conditions; the effects of competition; the risk that an agreement with Atomic Alchemy and the proposed acquisition thereof do not materialize or fail to produce the expected benefits; changes in applicable laws or regulations; and the outcome of any government and regulatory proceedings and investigations and inquiries. The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. You should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties of the other documents filed by Oklo from time to time with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release and in any document incorporated by reference are based on current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effects on Oklo. There can be no assurance that future developments affecting Oklo will be those that Oklo has anticipated. Oklo undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.
