Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 - Issuance of Amendment Nos. 287 and 271 Re: Adoption of TSTF-568, Revision 2 and Associated Technical Specification Changes (EPID L-2023-LLA-0167)

Subject: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 - Issuance of Amendment Nos. 287 and 271 Re: Adoption of TSTF-568, Revision 2 and Associated Technical Specification Changes (EPID L-2023-LLA-0167)

ADAMS Accession No.: ML24082A137

Using Web-based ADAMS, select “Advanced Search”
Under “Property,” select “Accession Number”
Under “Value,” enter the Accession Number
Click Search. 

HALEU Comments

CIECP. 2024. & PHASE. Comments. DOE. HALEU DEIS (Apr 22, 2024)...docx

Saturday, April 27, 2024

Nevada nuclear commission ready to strike back after pro-Yucca hearing in Congress

Nevada nuclear commission ready to strike back after pro-Yucca hearing in Congress

Comments in a House hearing raised fears that Congress may reopen nuclear waste issue after election, and that state needs to be more proactive in fighting it.


Gabby Birenbaum
April 26th, 2024 at 2:00 AM

Earlier this month, a congressional subcommittee met to discuss spent nuclear fuel and where to store it — setting off alarms for opponents of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the federal site in Nye County designated to store the nation’s high-level nuclear waste that has nonetheless sat vacant for decades due to intense regional opposition.

Two weeks later, the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects held its first meeting of the year to discuss the antagonistic tenor of the subcommittee meeting — and strategize for how to beat back a potential new wave of Yucca enthusiasm after the 2024 election.

“[The hearing] is a problem,” said Fred Dilger, the director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. “It suggests to us that the pro-Yucca faction may be back after November.”

Members of the commission — which advises the governor and Legislature on radioactive waste issues — said they and Nevada’s congressional delegation were taken aback by the harsh tenor and lack of knowledge that subcommittee members displayed during the April 10 hearing. Key subcommittee members referred to Yucca as a “technically successful” program that has only been stymied by politics from “states like Nevada.”

While no new legislation or funding has been proposed this Congress, the commission believes the subcommittee members’ frustration is worthy of strategic response, particularly because of existing technical issues with the site that they say members and witnesses did not acknowledge. 

Even if a newly seated Congress in 2025 is interested in allocating funds to restart the licensing process for Yucca Mountain, Nevada has a number of baked-in processes meant to muck up the works.

Though the proposed repository is on federal land, the Department of Energy would still need to pursue a license application to use and build the site, given that the only existing infrastructure is a tunnel within the mountain. Doing so, according to government estimates, would cost $1.66 billion just on licensing — which the state would fight in court through existing challenges over water rights — and could take up to 10 years. Even if the license application is ultimately granted, construction would then cost between $75 billion and $119 billion.

In addition, there are practical challenges that have severely curtailed the ability to transport nuclear waste to Nevada. There are no existing rail lines nor right-of-ways to Yucca Mountain, and existing tribal lands and the Basin and Range National Monument stand in the way of potential shipping routes.

Scores of Nevada politicians and geologists alike have argued against the repository on the basis of science and national security. On the latter point, Dilger said new developments at Creech Air Force Base — less than 50 miles from Yucca — to build out satellite launch capacity and the proximity between aerial combat training at Southern Nevada’s various military installations and the proposed nuclear waste repository bolster the national security argument, and make the Air Force a likely ally in the fight to kill the program. 

“They're very jealous of their ability to do the things they want to do in that operating area,” Dilger said. “And Yucca Mountain would compromise that. There's no disagreement between ourselves and the Department of Energy about that.”

And he added that recent high-profile transportation incidents — from the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio to the recent collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore — could bolster safety arguments in the existing accident-prone mountain passes around Nevada, where nuclear waste would need to be transported. 

Despite all of the practicalities on their side, commission members agreed that when it comes to Yucca, they can never be too careful — and wondered aloud whether they should have been more aggressive in the run-up to the hearing.

In 2022, the state filed a legal motion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking it to dismiss the Yucca licensing project, coinciding with a targeted social media campaign for policymakers and nuclear energy wonks. But that motion took place under Gov. Steve Sisolak (D); once Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) took office, Dilger said the governor’s office was “reluctant” to engage in media efforts this past fall.

Lombardo’s spokesperson Elizabeth Ray said the governor’s office supports the agency’s work and “looks forward to the appropriate implementation of their community outreach strategy.”

Board members noted that the agency is still actively educating policymakers on the issue, and suggested better coordinating those efforts with Clark County and the City of Las Vegas.

Forecasting the future

Dilger said that he does not expect the upcoming presidential election to have an impact on whether the federal government takes another swing at licensing Yucca. The Biden administration has been consistent in opposing any new funding for Yucca and following the Nevada delegation’s preferred approach of consent-based siting. While former president Donald Trump initially included Yucca funding in his budgets — though it never passed the Senate — he reversed course in 2020. 

Politically, given Nevada’s status as a pivotal swing state, presidential candidates have little incentive to pick a fight with Nevada voters during an election year. 

Dilger said that unlike in the first few decades of the Yucca fight, both the nuclear industry and the Department of Energy would prefer a new approach and recognize that the project is functionally dead, between scientific, practical and financial challenges. However, he fears a new pro-nuclear group in Congress reviving the issue.

“It's a very odd situation,” he said. “But until we get legislation to kill Yucca Mountain, and start a search for a new repository, we're on the hook.”

However, a future Trump administration could pose a threat to anti-Yucca advocates given recommendations from Project 2025, a constellation of policy plans for the executive branch created by numerous former Trump officials and allied conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation.

On nuclear energy, the Project 2025 authors are explicit, calling for the restart of the Yucca Mountain licensing process. They also want to reconstitute the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), the agency that first selected Yucca Mountain as the high-level nuclear waste storage site and which was dismantled by the Obama administration.

The reestablished OCRWM would be responsible for “developing the next steps” with respect to Yucca, including reforming the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to encourage privatization of nuclear waste storage.

While Project 2025 also urges the next administration to use consent-based siting to identify and build new repositories, and says that finishing the Yucca application process does not represent a commitment to completing the facility, authors made it clear that Yucca is not off the table.

“Consent-based siting for a civilian waste nuclear repository has been a way to delay any politically painful decisions about siting a permanent civilian nuclear waste facility,” they write.

Former Sen. Richard Bryan (D-NV), the chair of the commission, reiterated that the onus is on Nevada to respond to any threat — including from the subcommittee.

Bryan said the congressional delegation was working on a united further action to educate members on the risks Yucca poses, led by Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV). Titus sent a letter to the subcommittee on the day of the hearing; a spokesperson for her office confirmed discussions are ongoing for next steps.

“If we're not able to communicate these concerns to subcommittee members [and] to others, then we're in effect unilaterally disarming ourselves,” Bryan said. 

The Nevada Independent is a 501(c)3 nonprofit news organization. We are committed to transparency and disclose all our donors. The following people or entities mentioned in this article are financial supporters of our work:
  • Steve Sisolak - $3,700
  • Richard Bryan - $2,723
  • Joe Lombardo - $1,800
  • Richard Bryan - $103

Friday, April 26, 2024

NRC proposes streamlined environmental reviews for new reactor license applications

NRC proposes streamlined environmental reviews for new reactor license applications

If finalized, the proposed rule would apply to any future fission reactor application and could reduce environmental review costs by up to 45%, Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff found.

Published April 25, 2024
By Brian Martucci
Inside Detail of Nuclear Reactor

Inside Detail of Nuclear Reactor E+ via Getty Images

Dive Brief:

  • The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will seek public comment on a proposed rule governing environmental reviews for future nuclear reactors, according to an NRC staff memo dated April 17.
  • The rule would codify the findings of the draft Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement, or ANR GEIS, produced by NRC staff. The technology-agnostic rule would “streamline the environmental reviews for future new nuclear reactors by presenting generic environmental impacts for those designs that fit within certain site and plant parameters,” the NRC said in an April 23 announcement.
  • “The Commission’s vote to codify ANR GEIS builds on agency best practices for environmental reviews and will enable the more effective, efficient and predictable licensing of advanced reactors,” Nuclear Innovation Alliance Executive Director Judi Greenwald said in a statement.

Dive Insight:

The proposed rule would apply not only to future advanced fission reactor applications but any future fission reactor applications submitted to NRC, “provided the application meets the values and the assumptions of the plant parameter envelopes and the site parameter envelopes used to develop the GEIS,” the commission said. 

The proposed rule distinguishes between environmental issues with negligible impact, which can be resolved through generic guidance governing all reactor applications, and issues with potentially greater impact, which require detailed, site-specific analysis. 

The vast majority of environmental issues have negligible impact, the NRC found. That means the proposed rule would “enable applicants and staff to use generic staff findings on 100 of 121 environmental issues in the ANR GEIS [that are] generally applicable to advanced reactors as the basis for their project specific environmental reviews,” Greenwald said.

That should free up applicants, NRC staff and public stakeholders to “focus on project-specific environmental issues for future environmental reviews for advanced reactors,” she added. NRC staff estimate that the proposed rule could reduce environmental review costs by up to 45%, E&E News reported.

In the staff memo, NRC Secretary Carrie Safford said the proposed rule must require review of the ANR GEIS every 10 years. The requirement’s language “should be identical to that used in the license renewal GEIS” for existing reactors, Safford said.

Because the proposed rule would govern any future fission reactor applications, Safford said NRC staff should “consider whether to change the title of the GEIS, with associated edits to the rulemaking package and draft guidance documents, to better reflect applicability.”

The proposed rule should also clarify that each application’s environmental review must incorporate site-specific issues raised by the review in a separate decommissioning GEIS, Safford’s memo said.

The ANR GEIS would not apply to “near-term fusion systems,” which will be regulated under a different framework, the memo said

Thursday, April 25, 2024

NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference with TVA To Discuss Proposed Violation at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: II-24-012 April 25, 2024
Contact: Dave Gasperson, 404-997-4417

NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference with TVA To Discuss Proposed Violation at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a regulatory conference May 2 with the Tennessee Valley Authority to discuss a proposed violation at the Sequoyah nuclear plant, in Soddy Daisy, Tennessee.

The proposed violation, detailed in a March 2024 inspection report, involves TVA’s failure to establish, implement, and maintain adequate maintenance procedures for one of the plant’s emergency diesel generator’s exhaust valves.

The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. Eastern time at the NRC’s Region II office, Marquis One Tower, 245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Atlanta, Georgia. Members of the public interested in listening to the meeting can call 301-576-2978 and enter conference ID 488908054#.

Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions of the NRC staff or make comments about the issues discussed after the business portion of the meeting.

During the enforcement conference, TVA representatives will have the opportunity to provide their perspectives and additional information concerning this event before the agency makes its final enforcement decision.

No decisions on the final safety significance or any potential NRC actions regarding the proposed violation will be made at the meeting.

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

NRC to Issue Proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement for New Reactors

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 24-026 April 23, 2024
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC to Issue Proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement for New Reactors

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has directed the staff to issue for public comment a proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement rulemaking that is intended for potential use by applicants and the agency during new nuclear reactor licensing.

The NRC is proposing a technology-neutral approach for the GEIS to cover different reactor designs. It would cover any new nuclear reactor application meeting the parameters used to develop the GEIS. The proposed GEIS would streamline the environmental reviews for future new nuclear reactors by presenting generic environmental impacts for those designs that fit within certain site and plant parameters. If the rule is finalized, new reactor license applications would supplement applicable generic environmental findings with evaluation of project-specific issues.

The NRC will seek public comment on the proposed rule following its publication in the Federal Register. Public meetings and other methods to submit comments will be publicized when the proposed rule is published.


Friday, April 19, 2024

Nuke's story


Indian Point owner sues NY to overturn law banning radiological water in Hudson River



Indian Point owner sues NY to overturn law banning radiological water in Hudson River

Thomas C. Zambito New York State Team

The owners of the shuttered Indian Point nuclear power plant sued the state of New York today, claiming a law banning the discharge of radiological water into the Hudson River is a “blatant infringement” of the federal government’s role in nuclear safety.

The lawsuit filed by Holtec International in U.S. District Court in Manhattan asks a judge to declare a law signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul in August unconstitutional.

It claims the measure, backed by Democratic lawmakers from the lower Hudson Valley, was billed as a way to protect real estate values in river towns when the true intent was to regulate radiological health and safety.

“This false pretense does not change the fact that the State is attempting to regulate matters with a direct effect on radiological safety,” the lawsuit says.

Earlier versions of the bill mentioned possible health risks caused by exposure to radiological material. The final version did not.

Months after the law was signed, Holtec announced that if it wasn’t allowed to dump a million gallons of radiological water used to cool nuclear fuel into the Hudson it would need another eight years to tear down the plant, extending its timetable to 2041.

“The failure of New York State to respect Federal Law, and follow the facts and science of the issue, left us no other means for remedy,” Holtec said in a statement issued today. “The passage of the bill has already delayed the planned completion of the decommissioning of Indian Point an additional 8 years, which hurts the local community’s desire to see the project completed and the property returned as an asset for economic development in the region.  We look forward to the legal process moving along on this important decision.”

Environmental groups, including Riverkeeper, claimed the best course was to house the water on the 240-acre site in Buchanan.

But radiation scientists told the USA Today Network last year the low levels of tritium that would be released into the water posed no danger to public health. The plant’s previous owners had used the Hudson to make similar discharges during the nearly 60 years the plant was in operation.

A Hochul spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit

Thursday, April 18, 2024

Ukraine to manufacture components for [Holtec] small modular reactors | Ukrainska Pravda


Ukraine to manufacture components for small modular reactors


Ukraine to manufacture components for small modular reactors


Ukraine will be manufacturing components for small modular reactors, as Ukraine's state nuclear energy regulator Energoatom and Holtec International have signed an agreement to that effect.

Source: Ukraine’s Energy Ministry

Quote: "The agreement involves the establishment of facilities in Ukraine for the production and manufacture of nuclear systems, structures, and components for small modular reactors, as well as storage and transport systems for spent nuclear fuel. It also covers other needs for the use of nuclear energy in Ukraine and other countries in the region," the ministry said.

The document was signed by Petro Kotin, Head of Energoatom, and Kris Singh, President and CEO of Holtec International, in the presence of Minister of Energy German Galushchenko. 

Kotin thanked Holtec for a successful cooperation over the years. 

"This agreement is important not only for Energoatom but also for Ukraine's entire energy sector and the domestic economy. It is the first step towards strengthening cooperation over many years. Establishing nuclear energy production facilities in the country will contribute not only to strengthening the country's energy security but also to Ukraine becoming a global leader in various areas of nuclear energy development," he said.

Kris Singh, in turn, called on the US Congress to help the people of Ukraine: "The signing of this Agreement was preceded by a devastating blow from Russia last Thursday to the power plant that supplies electricity to the Kyiv region. The Ukrainian defence, weakened by the inaction of Congress regarding the bill on financial assistance to the affected country, could not stop more than a third of the drones and missiles that destroyed the power plant. 

The restoring of the country's energy infrastructure must begin now to stop Putin's attempts to destroy Ukraine's energy capabilities completely," said the President and CEO of Holtec International.

Read also: Russia continues to destroy the Ukrainian energy infrastructure. What should Ukraine expect without thermal power plants?


  • Energoatom has started a project to construct power units nos. 5 and 6 at the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) using American AP1000 technology by Westinghouse. The first concrete cube for power unit no. 5 has already been laid.

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

NuScale Power Shows Too Many Red Flags


NuScale Power Shows Too Many Red Flags

Apr. 04, 2024 6:00 PM ET NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Stock

Manuel Paul Dipold


  • NuScale Power is a company working on small-scale nuclear reactors, but there are red flags including an unclear timeline, competition, and a CEO who sold all his shares.
  • There are already functioning small modular reactors in Russia and China, with over 80 different designs worldwide, posing significant competition for NuScale.
  • NuScale's cash reserves are low, and the company will need new liquidity soon, while the CEO's sale of all his shares raises concerns.

Investment thesis

NuScale Power (NYSE:SMR) is working on what appears to be an exciting product that will probably be in great demand in the future: small-scale nuclear reactors. The story is good, but a closer analysis reveals several red flags, such as an unclear timeline, a lot of competition, soon-to-be-depleted cash, and a CEO who recently sold 100% of his shares.

Company overview

NuScale's IPO was in May 2022 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. The company researches a new kind of nuclear power: small and modular. The company describes its "VOYGR" light-water reactors as "the future of nuclear" and says they are suitable for power generation, hydrogen production, or water desalination. According to the company, the system is designed to be modularly expandable and only needs to be refueled with new uranium every 24 months. The modular design offers many advantages: Locally flexible, easily transported by ship, train, or truck, and very safe (according to the company). Further advantages are also summarised in this article from the International Atomic Energy Agency:

Given their smaller footprint, SMRs can be sited on locations not suitable for larger nuclear power plants. Prefabricated units of SMRs can be manufactured and then shipped and installed on site, making them more affordable to build than large power reactors, which are often custom designed for a particular location, sometimes leading to construction delays. SMRs offer savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.

What are Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)? (IAEA)

IAEA Large, modular and micro reactors

Large, modular and micro reactors (IAEA)

Nuclear industry overview

Nuclear energy has experienced a revival in recent years. It is now clear and becoming increasingly clear to the politicians responsible that renewable energies alone will not be enough. They are too volatile, and storing the surplus energy is not easy or expensive. Therefore, a constant base of continuously generated energy is needed. Nuclear energy is the ideal solution in combination with the endeavor to reduce CO2 emissions. In addition, nuclear energy is comparatively very safe regarding direct and indirect fatalities.

grams of CO2 per energy source
According to Statista, around 60 new nuclear power plants are currently under construction worldwide.
nuclear power plants in build 2024

The current state of SMRs

These are excellent prerequisites for small modular reactors. There is a general interest in nuclear energy, and its advantages are undisputed. If SMRs turn out to be more practical and cheaper to build or operate, these systems should have a golden future ahead of them.

However, many people are unaware of, and every interested reader of this article should know, that some SMRs are already in operation (in Russia and China), and many more are under construction or in planning. According to the IAEA, there are around 80 different designs worldwide. In other words, this area has massive competition, and some of the competition is already much more advanced than NuScale Power.

There are more than eighty (80) SMR designs under development and deployment at different stages in 18 Member States (...) The Akademik Lomonosov floating power unit in the Russian Federation with two-module KLT-40S was connected to the grid in December 2019 and started commercial operation in May 2020. The HTR-PM demonstrator in China was connected to the grid in December 2021 and is expected to reach full power operation by the end of 2022. The CAREM25 in Argentina is under construction and is expected to reach first criticality in 2026. The construction of ACP100 in China started in July 2021 and is targeted to start commercial  operation by the end of 2026. The construction of BREST-OD-300 in Russian Federation began in June 2021 and is planned to be completed in 2026.

"Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments" (IAEA´s 420-page booklet)

In this document, on page 12, there is a list of various systems and the stages of planning or construction they are at. Many systems originate from Russia or China, but numerous US-based systems also exist. Although many are still in the design phase and not yet beyond that, it shows that there could be intense competition in this area, so small companies with limited cash could have a hard time. Here is an excerpt:

Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments modular reactors

In which phase are NuScale´s reactors?

According to this article from MIT Technology Review, the NuScale design for a reactor module that generates 50 MW of electricity has already been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). But during the certification process, NuScale´s engineers changed the design again so that in the future a module will produce 77 MW instead of 50 MW. I added the bold text below.

“We found that we could actually produce more power with the same reactor, the same exact size,” says Jose Reyes, cofounder and chief technology officer at NuScale. Instead of 50 MW, the company found that each module could produce 77 MW. So the company changed course. For its first power plant, which will be built at the Idaho National Laboratory, NuScale is planning to package six of the higher-capacity reactors together, making the plant capacity 462 MW in total. The upgraded power rating requires some adjustments, but the module design is fundamentally the same. Still, it means that the company needed to resubmit updated plans to the NRC, which it did last month. It could take up to two years before the altered plans are approved by the agency and the company can move on to site approval, Reyes says.

We were promised smaller nuclear reactors. Where are they? (MIT)

The above article is from 2023, so it fits the timeline in the latest investor presentation; the company writes that the new design should be approved by July 2025. Overall, it is still a slowdown for the company.

NuScale approval timeline

To summarise, this means that the latest design has not yet been approved, and even if it is approved, this does not mean that it will go online quickly after that. It is not yet clear when the first modules will be ready to produce energy and generate revenue (after all, this is what investors are waiting for). The company has previously discussed the middle of this decade, but I can't find any dates in the latest documents. For me, this means that the company itself does not know; otherwise, this would be stated in the investor presentation.

NuScale´s numbers and financial trends

Total expenses are on an upward trend, while revenues are tiny at this point. In 2023, they generated $22.8M, which "arises from engineering and licensing services provided to potential customers" (10-K page 41). Additionally, in 2023, the company earned $10.8M interest on its cash.


In the latest Investor presentation, the company states that the net loss was $56.4M in Q4 2023. The cash position is about $125M, which means the remaining cash will only be sufficient for 2 or 3 more quarters.

nuscale loss and cash

The number of fully diluted shares is 262.8M * $5.5 (current share price) = $1.45B market cap.

NuScale outstanding shares

As always, when there is no revenue but only the hope of a future business opportunity, it is tough to assess a valuation. Does the company deserve its $1.45B market cap? There is no clear yes or no answer to this question, but this is the figure that the current market attributes to the company. Therefore, this article focuses more on the general challenges and red flags that arise when analyzing the company. We are seeing that the market is slowly losing confidence in the company, and the stock is in a sustained downtrend, which is not surprising given the negative news, especially the issues I will mention in the next heading.


Share dilution, insider trades & SBCs

Given the above graphic about the fully diluted shares, we can see that only the Class A Shares are included below: those jumped in 2022 and continue to rise. Given the quarterly losses to date and the company's cash position, the company will need new liquidity quite soon, which could lead to more dilution for all existing shareholders.


These are all insider trades from the last six months. What stands out here is that the CEO, John L Hopkins, recently sold 100% of his shares. I have also not read any reports that he will soon give up his position as CEO or that there will be any other management changes. Of course, this sale could also have personal reasons that we are not aware of, but it is rare to see a CEO sell 100% of his shares.

SMR insider trades



The analysis of this company reveals several red flags:

- The company's cash reserves are not particularly high, and the company will soon need new liquidity, so all indications are that the share dilution will continue

- The CEO has recently sold 100% of his shares

- The company gives no indication (at least not an obvious one) as to when the first system will be up and running, producing power and generating revenue

- The company states that business opportunities exist worldwide (Investor presentation page 5). A closer analysis shows that there are already functioning systems in several countries and massive competition in this area: there are more than 80 different SMR systems. I therefore doubt that these business opportunities exist worldwide: it is much more likely that NuScale will not be able to compete on price with the competition from Russia and China.

- The Q4 + full year 2023 presentation contains only 12 pages, and the latest general Investor presentation is only 22 pages. Also, the report in text form is very short. Overall, the potentials are discussed, as well as the need for clean energy and a growing energy demand. But there are not many hard facts with clear timelines.

- Overall, it is unclear how much potential there is on the market for small reactors and what long-term sales opportunities there are. These systems will still compete with larger nuclear reactors and renewable energy storage systems, which might become more and more attractive (due to falling prices) in the future. It is unclear if the combination of solar + storage might be cheaper in 2035. The point is, there are a lot of questions - too many for my taste.

So, what will happen to the share price? Given the almost unbroken downtrend of the past year and the many challenges this company seems to have, I think it will likely shed more of its $1.45B market capitalization. In my view, this is a shorting opportunity with an attractive risk/reward ratio.

Risks to my short thesis

There are general and company-specific risks to short-selling shares: Borrowing shares costs a percentage fee, which can be considerable, especially for smaller companies, and should be checked in advance. Theoretically, short-selling shares has infinite loss potential. Therefore, this stock market tool should be used very carefully and only if you are familiar with it. Regarding NuScale specifically, it could be that the future certification process goes faster than previously anticipated, which could lead to a sudden rise in the share price. Furthermore, it could be that the company achieves another technological breakthrough or wins a major contract from private companies or the government. A new partnership with another company would also be positive news for the company. Furthermore, the company has announced cost reduction measures to save $50M - $60M annually, which could lead to a lower cash burn and slower future share issuance.

All these possibilities could improve investor sentiment and lead to a sudden rise in the share price. Also, it should be noted that shares with a lower market capitalization are usually more volatile.

This article was written by

My focus is on a total return style with long and short positions (10-30% short positions). My main expertise is the current technological and geopolitical shift with the amazing investment opportunities they offer. Therefore, I always try to find stocks or whole sectors with favorable risk-reward structures. My long investment style is a core-satellite strategy: The core consists of large caps and/or ETFs. The satellites around this core are small caps, potential 10-baggers, and undervalued stocks. In short selling, I focus on overvalued stocks that will fall back down sooner or later. My name is Manuel Paul Dipold. Born in Germany but lived 8 years in Asia. I am myself an entrepreneur and have many entrepreneur friends. I am not a professional investor but it´s a hobby I love. So I know Europe and Asia very well and seek undervalued or high-growth stocks - always with valuation, geopolitical and social shifts in mind.

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, but may initiate a beneficial Short position through short-selling of the stock, or purchase of put options or similar derivatives in SMR over the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.