Today's revealing CT Mirror OpEd  on Massachusetts Governor Healey's invitation to a delusional "summit" of New England governors to resurrect "Small Mirage Nuclear Reactors."  It's being framed under the guise of powering AI data centers. The Clamshell Alliance and Citizen Awareness Network hosted a "reception protest" outside of the University of Massachusetts/Lowell venue hosted by the UMass Lowell nuclear engineering school. 

--
Paul Gunter, Director
Reactor Oversight Project
Beyond Nuclear

In global first, a next-gen geothermal plant goes live at utility scale | Canary Media https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/geothermal/global-first-next-gen-geothermal-fervo
 
With the first unit online, Fervo said it is working to commission two more 33-MWpower blocks by Jan. 1, 2027. The project’s remaining 400 MW — which is supported by a new agreement with Google — is under construction and slated to come online in  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/a-shuttered-california-nuclear-plant-sends-tritium-laced-water-toward-the-pacific/ar-AA2d3D7J

A shuttered California nuclear plant sends tritium-laced water toward the Pacific

Story by Everett Sloane

• 1d •

4 min read

About 5,000 gallons of tritium-laced wastewater flowed into a storm drain pathway toward the Pacific Ocean at the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station on Sept. 23, 2026, after a routine wastewater transfer ran well past its planned stop time. Southern California Edison detected tritium in the water at roughly 3,000 picocuries per liter, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission logged the release the next day as a non-emergency event.

San Onofre stopped generating electricity more than a decade ago. What happened this week is a decommissioning-site accident, not a reactor incident, and it went to federal regulators through the same event-reporting system that tracks routine problems at retired plants across the country. Tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, is a routine byproduct of nuclear plant operations and shows up in low concentrations in groundwater and cooling-system water long after a reactor stops running.

A wastewater transfer that ran past its stop time

Southern California Edison told the NRC that a planned transfer of mostly groundwater and concrete-cutting water continued between roughly 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. Pacific time on Sept. 23 after it should have stopped, sending the excess into the plant’s Unit 2 storm drain and intake conduit rather than completing the discharge path the company had planned to use. The utility notified the NRC’s event notification system the following afternoon, citing an earlier notice it had already made to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.

That sequencing matters under federal rules: NRC licensees report certain events to the agency once a separate regulator has already been told, rather than as the first call. Southern California Edison’s report reached the NRC at 2:57 p.m. Pacific time on Sept. 24, roughly a day after the discharge itself, and identified the pathway as leading from the Unit 2 conduit toward the ocean near San Onofre State Beach, on the San Diego County line in San Clemente.

Tritium at 3,000 picocuries, and a pH that broke the site’s own limit

The 3,000 picocuries-per-liter tritium reading is far below the EPA’s 20,000 picocurie-per-liter limit for drinking water, but the discharge broke a separate threshold: its pH measured 10.6, above the permit limit of 9 set for water leaving the site. Total suspended solids came in at 16 milligrams per liter, and results for oil and grease were still pending when the report was filed.

Wastewater leaving a nuclear site into public waters is governed by discharge permits the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board issues under the same National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System framework that covers ordinary industrial dischargers, not by NRC radiological limits alone. A pH violation on its own is a permit matter; combined with an off-path release of tritiated water, it drew reports to both agencies at once.

Thirteen years into a decommissioning that won’t finish until 2051

San Onofre’s two working reactors, Units 2 and 3, went online in the 1980s and supplied power alongside an older Unit 1 that dates the site’s operating history back to 1968. Southern California Edison permanently retired the plant on June 7, 2013, after replacement steam generators installed a year earlier developed unusual wear that the utility ultimately judged too costly to fix.

The site has been in an active dismantlement phase, known as DECON, ever since, according to the NRC’s decommissioning tracker for the site. Spent fuel finished moving into an underground dry-storage system on Aug. 6, 2020, and the NRC’s timeline calls for the site to reach unrestricted use by 2028, with full decommissioning — the point at which SCE’s oversight ends entirely — projected for 2051.

Southern California Edison says the release posed no threat

“Based on these preliminary analytical results and currently available information, Southern California Edison does not believe the release poses a threat to ocean water quality,” the utility told the NRC in its report on the Sept. 23 discharge. The agency’s own classification — non-emergency — reflects the same read: no evacuation, no public health order, no operating reactor involved.

It is not the only time SCE has had to explain an unplanned wastewater release at San Onofre. A 2020 discharge from the site’s sewage treatment plant, which sent partially treated wastewater more than a mile offshore after dilution problems, drew a sharper company response at the time: SCE called that earlier incident “unacceptable” and said it was reviewing whether its own procedures had failed to prevent it. Six years later, with the plant a third of the way through a 38-year decommissioning that has already outlasted its final decade of power generation, wastewater controls at the site remain the recurring weak point regulators keep coming back to.

Neither agency has said whether the Sept. 23 release will trigger a fine or a corrective-action order. The NRC’s report leaves that determination for later review, and Southern California Edison’s decommissioning timeline continues on the same schedule regardless — spent fuel stays in dry storage on site for decades longer than the reactors themselves ever ran.

This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Morning Overview editors prior to publication.

 https://iceberg-research.com/2026/09/24/deep-fission-fisn-a-money-pit/

Deep Fission ($FISN): a Money Pit

September 24, 2026

Please refer to our disclaimer at the bottom of the report.

Main findings

  • Nasdaq-listed Deep Fission (FISN) is developing a small modular reactor (SMR) with a capacity of 5MWe-15MWe. The company plans to bury a miniature version of the widely used pressurized water reactor (PWR) one mile deep, inside a 40-60-inch water-filled borehole drilled into hard rock. 
  • Like other SMR developers, FISN pitches itself as an AI data-center power solution. But data centers have turned to natural gas to accelerate deployment. Almost all of the roughly 75GW of booked data center on-site generation is natural gas-based. FISN has no regulatory approval and remains years away from commercialization.
  • Before its June 2026 IPO, FISN guided to a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of just $50-70/MWh. Then the company dropped the reference. Using figures disclosed in its June 2026 prospectus, we calculate an LCOE of $289/MWh for the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) reactor and $148/MWh for the nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) reactor, about 200% above prior guidance. This is not competitive with behind-the-meter gas solutions.
  • Even this NOAK estimate is too optimistic, as capital cost is understated. Using figures from independent third parties, we estimate NOAK capital cost to be $112mn, 34% above FISN’s estimate, raising our estimated NOAK LCOE to $170/MWh. 
  • FISN claims it can secure Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval in less than a year. Yet it has already struggled with the less demanding Department of Energy (DOE) process, missing the program deadline while at least four peers have already completed it. Even if NRC approved, commercialization is far from assured: NuScale, which has a much more conventional design, has yet to sell a reactor three years after receiving its NRC license.
  • FISN targets deploying its reactor in just six months versus 3-4 years for other advanced SMRs, citing fewer safety-related systems. Yet its own filing states a two-year development timeline. Peers pursue the same simplification strategy, but FISN adds a major step: drilling a one-mile borehole.
  • FISN touts the industry’s largest customer pipeline. Most counterparties are undisclosed. Of those identified, one is an undeveloped industrial park with doubtful demand for a nuclear reactor. The other two (Endeavour Energy and Blue Owl) have signed only non-binding agreements. 
  • FISN has less than twelve months of cash runway and faces ~$350mn of unfunded capital needs, potentially implying ~43% dilution to its existing shareholders. At the same time, the competition for SMR funding is intensifying: publicly traded SMR names have risen from three before October 2025 to nine today, with three more coming to the market, including a far more established player, Westinghouse.
  • FISN is largely a repackaging of the founders’ prior venture, Deep Isolation, a deep-borehole nuclear waste disposal company that has failed to commercialize its concept after a decade.


Background and bull case

Deep Fission (NASDAQ: FISN) is a California-headquartered company founded in 2023. The company is developing a nuclear reactor called Gravity. The reactor is intended to be a miniature version of the conventional pressurized water reactor (PWR), using low-enriched uranium (LEU) as fuel. The company’s key innovation is that its reactor would be buried in a 40-60-inch water-filled borehole one mile (~1.6 km) underground. The reactor is designed with a power generation capacity of 5–15MWe.

Source: Deep Fission

 

Management claims that its reactor is cheaper to build because its innovative borehole design eliminates certain components required in above-ground PWR reactors. For example, the depth and surrounding geology provide natural containment, potentially eliminating the need for the reinforced concrete and steel containment structures typical of above-ground reactors.

FISN was founded by Richard Muller, a UC Berkeley physics professor, and his daughter Elizabeth, who serve as CTO and CEO of the company, respectively. The company became an unquoted public company in September 2025 through a reverse merger with shell company Surfside Acquisition, before listing on Nasdaq in June 2026.

FISN is participating in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) pilot reactor program. The company is seeking DOE authorization to build a pilot reactor at a site in Parsons, Kansas, by 1H 2027. Then, FISN plans to submit license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to convert the pilot reactor into a commercial facility by the end of 2027, with high-volume deployment targeted to begin in 2028. Because its reactor is based on well-established PWR technology, its licensing pathway would be simpler than for novel advanced reactor designs. 

The company claims that its reactor can then be commercially deployed in as little as six months, compared with three to four years for other small modular reactors (SMR). 

FISN expects the surge in power demand from AI data centers will drive demand for its reactors and claims the largest pipeline of potential customers, representing 18.5GW of prospective capacity.



It’s time for small modular reactor supporters to admit it: natural gas, not SMRs, is the undisputed winner of the AI data center build-out

In early 2024, the market realized that AI would consume enormous amounts of energy. This kicked off a trading frenzy from conventional nuclear, to gas-turbine manufacturers, to the speculative (and often sketchy) SMR companies. Every player, including the most exotic concept, was supposed to win.

Fast forward two years, and the verdict is in. Gas-fired generation is the clear preferred solution for powering AI infrastructure. Data centers have booked 75GW of onsite generation capacity so far. Almost all of them will rely on natural gas.

Source: Semianalysis

While the largest and most efficient combined-cycle gas turbines face multi-year lead times, data centers have turned to smaller engines or aeroderivatives with lead times as short as twelve months. Gas generation is a proven technology and can meet AI power demand quickly, with the added advantage of cheap natural gas in the US. SMRs, on the other hand, sit at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum: they remain unproven, with commercialization not expected before the 2030s. 

The political environment has also become more favorable to fossil-fuel-based generation, removing one of the key roadblocks to new gas development.

Read more

 

Google is investing $900M to boost Georgia Power’s nuclear capacity.

  • The goal: To fund upgrades that will raise the max power output of plants Vogtle and Hatch, adding 96 MW to Georgia's grid. The enhancements will also extend the life of the units and “help Georgia Power customers receive even more value from the existing nuclear fleet,” Joshua Peacock, communications lead at Georgia Power, told us. 

  • A new structure: Google would make monthly payments under a proposed Georgia Power tariff and receive zero-emission credits in return. The value of those credits would be defined in a contract between the utility and data center customers. 

  • The impact on bills: Georgia Power froze its base rates through 2028, and intends to ask the PSC to lower the base rates again in the future, according to Peacock. The utility has been able to keep its rates steady “because of all of the growth and revenue coming in from large energy users like Google,” he said. 

image.png

 
News from Don’t Waste Michigan
For Immediate Release

 

REFUELING SNAFU REVEALED AT PALISADES ATOMIC REACTOR RISKS WORKER AND PUBLIC SAFETY

HOLTEC’S LAST MINUTE CANCELLATION OF BILLION DOLLAR INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING CONNECTED TO INCIDENT, CRITICS ALLEGE

 

COVERT TOWNSHIP, VAN BUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN and ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, September 23, 2026—On September 21, nearly three weeks after bungling a thousand-pound, highly radioactive, irradiated nuclear fuel assembly loading operation in the atomic reactor core, Holtec finally acknowledged the incident, its latest in a long list of safety-significant mistakes. It has further delayed the unprecedented, highly controversial restart of the long closed Palisades nuclear power plant on the Lake Michigan shore in southwest Michigan. Neither Holtec nor the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, headquartered in Rockville, Maryland, near Washington, D.C.) has yet indicated whether the nuclear fuel assembly, or other parts of the reactor core, were damaged, how the stuck assembly will be retrieved, nor how long it will take for fueling to recommence, and reactor operation — already more than two years behind Holtec’s initial schedule — to restart.
 
On September 21, 2026, Holtec International published a press release that reported an incident during nuclear fuel loading at Palisades.
 
 
Palisades entered Mode 6 (Refueling) and began loading fuel into the reactor vessel on August 30, 2026. During fuel-loading activities, one fuel assembly tilted from its upright position after it had been placed, and the fuel-handling machine grapple had been disengaged. Plant personnel responded promptly in accordance with established procedures, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was notified. Plant personnel evaluated the incident and determined that it did not trigger the safety reporting requirements under NRC regulations. Fuel loading remains paused while Holtec addresses the affected fuel assembly.
 
Consistent with the plant’s nuclear quality assurance program, a root cause evaluation has been initiated to determine the cause of the event and identify any resulting corrective actions. In parallel, Holtec’s corporate engineering division has devised and is developing equipment for the fuel retrieval and on-site storage equipment to return the fuel to the spent fuel pool. Palisades is also preparing a License Amendment Request (LAR) for submission to the NRC related to the proposed methodology to retrieve the assembly.
 
 
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday that it is reviewing an incident related to restarting work at the Palisades nuclear reactor in Covert, Michigan…
 
The National contacted the NRC after a social media post from long-time nuclear energy critic Edwin Lyman, a physicist and the director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
 
"An eagle-eyed observer brought to my attention a post on Reddit alleging that Holtec dropped a partially burned nuclear fuel assembly during its fuelling of the Palisades reactor in Michigan more than two weeks ago, yet nothing but silence from either the company or NRC," his (September 20, 2026) post read.
 
(The National’s article can be emailed by Kevin Kamps to reporters upon request.)
 
“It seems that both Holtec and NRC attempted to cover up this embarrassing and critical safety-related incident, but Dr. Lyman’s social media post, and The National’s coverage, forced Holtec’s hand into hastily issuing a press release, attempting to downplay the incident after the news article’s publication,” said Kevin Kamps, executive director of Don’t Waste Michigan in Kalamazoo, Michigan, 35 miles downwind of Palisades. Don’t Waste Michigan is the state-wide anti-nuclear coalition founded in the mid-1980s. Kamps has watch-dogged Palisades since 1992.
 
“As a former senior vice president in the nuclear power industry, one of my divisions built both nuclear fuel racks and nuclear transfer machines, so this issue is in my wheelhouse. It’s yet another rookie SNAFU by Holtec. They have had four years to practice and yet could not get this simple maneuver right. Running a nuclear plant is one thousand times harder than putting the fuel in correctly. How can they be trusted to run a car when they can’t even put gas in the tank?,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer with 55 years of relevant experience.
 
For a dozen years, Gundersen has served as an expert witness for the environmental coalition opposed to Palisades’ continued operation under multiple nuclear industry corporate owners.
 
Relatedly, on September 17th, Holtec pulled their September 8th Initial Public Offering (IPO) which had been in the works for years. Holtec claimed valuation of $10.2 billion, and was offering 50 million shares at $15-$18 each, hoping to raise up to $900 million in private investment, in order to build out their ever morphing 'Small Modular Reactors'.   
 
“It is not a coincidence that Holtec's IPO withdrawal, years in the planning, could not go forward with pending bad news of a major refueling SNAFU at the end of August,” stated Michael Keegan, chair of Don't Waste Michigan in Monroe, Michigan. Keegan has scrutinized Palisades documents for more than four decades.
 
"To date, the NRC has not issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL), which is clearly indicated," Keegan added.
 
"Running 'Amateur Hour' while loading radioactive fuel rods seems like poor business practice," noted David Kraft, director of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS). "But the NRC's response -- 'The tipped (not dropped) fuel assembly did not meet reporting requirements to the NRC. The incident remains under review.' -- is equally worrisome. After three weeks of 'review,' if NRC can't determine the safety and condition of the potentially damaged assembly, what other potentially threatening issues might be going on at Palisades that are not 'meeting reporting requirements'?", Kraft asks. "We hope the public will not find out 'by accident.'"
 
“The safety-significance of this ongoing incident is highlighted by the fact that Holtec itself has admitted it is preparing a License Amendment Request (LAR) just to retrieve the wedged fuel assembly, and return it to the indoor wet storage pool for highly radioactive waste,” said attorney Terry Lodge, Toledo, Ohio-based co-counsel for Don’t Waste Michigan and Michigan Safe Energy Future, two of multiple organizations that have long resisted Palisades’ continued operation.
 
“An LAR presents an opportunity to petition to intervene, and request a hearing, to present adversarial contentions in an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board proceeding,” said Wally Taylor, Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based co-counsel for the environmental coalition. “We are considering our options, given this latest development,” Taylor added.
 
After taking part in several long years of fruitless NRC licensing proceedings related to the Palisades restart, Don't Waste Michigan and Michigan Safe Energy Future are now pursuing federal court appeals, in both the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, in opposition to the Palisades restart. September 30th marks the next filing deadline in the 6th Circuit case.
 
Researching related Reddit posts also begs the question, is the wedged fuel assembly merely “tipped,” as NRC Region 3 Office of Public Affairs spokeswoman Victoria Mitlyng was quoted as saying in The National article? A Reddit post about the incident alleged that the fuel assembly, which is supposed to be in a vertical orientation in the reactor core, was dropped, resulting in a horizontal disorientation.
 
Environmental coalition researchers reported on September 22, 2026 that they “got on Reddit and if the comments from 18 days ago (September 4, 2026; see italicized text, below) are accurate (see below) this looks like a pretty serious problem...I tried just screen-grabbing, but that didn't work so here's the comments without the fluff around them. Someone with a handle ossetepolv seems to have the most information…”.
 
(Apologies for the foul language included in the original Reddit posts below.
 
A screenshot of an example of the Reddit posts can be emailed to reporters by Kevin Kamps upon request.)
 
TEXT OF VARIOUS REDDIT POSTS RELATED TO THIS INCIDENT:
 
———————————
I was waiting for Holtec to put out a release, but it’s been over a day now so I guess they aren’t going to, so fuck ‘em.
 
They dropped a fuel assembly inside of the vessel. As of about 24 hours ago it was lying fully horizontal on the core plate. Probably the worst fuel handling fuck up I’ve ever seen. There’s a picture making the rounds, it’s ugly. They’ve probably started recovery ops by now, but that picture is going to stick around.
———————————
 
Are the 09 pics the one of the stick sitting diagonally in a fuel rack? Or am I thinking of something else?
 
I’ve been told it’s a once-burned assembly from their last cycle in 2022. It looks VERY dark in the picture, and you can see the fresh sticks in the same pick are shiny clean.
———————————
 
Whoa.. I'm adding to this now that I'm home from work... If true, that has got to be a speedrun achievement for the cursed bingo card of nuclear blunders. Forget the guy who took an accidental swim in the cavity last fall—we've apparently upgraded to micro-managing a high-stakes game of 3D underwater Jenga with radioactive geometry.
 
Pour one out for the engineering team, who are currently stress-sweating through a hyper-speed 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation trying to figure out how to legally write "oops, we dropped a spicy toothpick sideways" into an acceptable recovery procedure without the NRC resident inspector developing a permanent eye twitch.
————————————————————
 
No_Revolution6947 16d ago (September 6, 2026) posted:
 
The 09 would have been used assemblies in the core obviously bent.
 
Ugh, dropping a burned assembly…it doesn’t shine, it’s a used assembly. Then, depending on how badly it’s bent, it might need a specially designed fixture to put it into and then to transfer it to the SFP (spent fuel pool). That will take a few weeks. But then, at least the cause analysis will be sufficiently completed that procedure changes and training can be done (and the core redesign) so they can be ready to slowly finish refueling. If it’s also laying against other assemblies or the lower end fitting hit other assemblies as it fell, the inspections of the impacted assemblies can be done.
————————————————————
 
Another post on the Reddit thread from September 3–4 stated:
 
Sounds like the reload isn’t going so well, I saw a picture this morning of a BIG uh-oh.
 
(Emphases added)
 
 
Gundersen has also hypothesized that the fuel bundle incident might have damaged the grid inside the reactor that holds the fuel assemblies perfectly upright.
 
Given that the fuel assembly is not new, but has been previously irradiated, Gundersen has pointed out it has fission gas and other fission products inside of its bundled nuclear fuel rods, by this time mainly Krypton-85, but also Cesium-134, Cesium-137, Strontium-90, and Iodine-129, to name but several. Gundersen has warned that cracks in the fuel assembly’s rods would contaminate everything in the pool, and that airborne releases are possible inside containment.
 
If in fact the fuel assembly was lying horizontally, it seems to indicate it was dropped before being inserted, and face-planted on the top grid, Gundersen explained. The fuel assembly weighs close to a thousand pounds, and likely damaged itself and the grid during the incident, Gundersen added.
 
David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and the retired nuclear safety director at Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out that Palisades has had similar incidents in the past, under previous corporate owners. (Kevin Kamps can email related documents to reporters upon request.)
 
Lochbaum has also prepared an overarching list of incidents at Palisades dating back to the mid-1960s.
 
A chronology of environmental coalition resistance to Palisades’ restart, compiled by Kevin Kamps from 2022 to 2026, is posted at: <https://beyondnuclear.org/newest-nuke-nightmares-at-palisades-2022-present/>.
 
A two-page summary prepared by Kamps in 2024, regarding Holtec’s criminality, corruption, incompetence, and inexperience, is posted at: <https://beyondnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2-29-24-Holtec-two-pager.pdf>.

Pages