https://www.wvnews.com/statejournal/news/west-virginia-drops-bid-for-50b-federal-nuclear-innovation-campus/article_c532084b-36c0-4134-bce4-79655fe7a5cb.html

West Virginia drops bid for $50B federal Nuclear Innovation Campus

  • by Charles Young EDITOR
  • 2 hrs ago
  • 3 min to read
     

Nuclear facility
West Virginia has joined a U.S. Department of Energy initiative exploring nuclear energy development, building on recent state efforts to remove legal and regulatory barriers to nuclear power.

PM
Morrisey
Screenshot

 

Quick take:

  • West Virginia will not host a federal nuclear campus: The state Office of Energy said Sept. 30 it cannot execute the U.S. Department of Energy’s hosting agreement or fully commit to its requirements.
  • The state had previously pursued the opportunity: West Virginia joined the DOE’s Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus initiative and submitted a broad proposal in April that included nuclear generation and manufacturing as well as fuel recycling and spent nuclear fuel storage.
  • Morrisey opposed nuclear waste disposal: Gov. Patrick Morrisey has said West Virginia should pursue nuclear generation and manufacturing but “will not be a dumping ground for nuclear waste.”

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — West Virginia will not host a federal Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus after state officials said they are unable to execute the required hosting agreement and fully commit to its requirements.

In a Sept. 30 letter to Marla Morales, acting deputy assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, West Virginia Office of Energy Director Nicholas S. Preservati said the state cannot sign the agreement but remains committed to supporting President Donald Trump’s and Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s vision for a national nuclear renaissance.

Preservati also said West Virginia remains ready to support the DOE, the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus initiative and future campus recipients.

The decision marks a change from earlier this year, when West Virginia joined Idaho, Tennessee, Utah, Oklahoma and Louisiana in pursuing participation in the federal initiative.

The DOE program is intended to support development across the nuclear fuel cycle. Proposed campuses could include fuel fabrication, enrichment, used nuclear fuel recycling, advanced reactors, power generation, research and advanced manufacturing.

DOE estimates have indicated an individual campus could attract up to $50 billion in capital investment and create nearly 25,000 jobs. Those figures represented the potential scale of an individual campus and were not projections for West Virginia.

As part of its earlier participation, the West Virginia Office of Energy submitted a 48-page response in April to a DOE request for information about establishing Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses.

The state’s response described a broad vision for a campus and said West Virginia had “maximum interest” in hosting one.

The proposal called for West Virginia to serve as “the nation’s central hub for nuclear fuel recycling, interim storage, and long-term materials stewardship.”

It included potential development of a consolidated interim storage facility for partially spent and spent nuclear fuel from active and decommissioned nuclear power plants. The proposal also discussed fuel recycling, materials recovery and potential long-term disposal options.

The April response identified four potential sites: the 1,000-acre Hobet site in Boone County; the 380-acre Century site and 508-acre Casto site in Jackson County; and the 407-acre Old Standard site in Jefferson County.

Additional potential locations were identified in Grant County, Mason County, the Kanawha Valley and the Ohio River Corridor.

The sites had not been fully vetted or qualified based on geological characteristics, according to the state’s response.

The broad scope of the proposal also differed from Morrisey’s public position on West Virginia’s nuclear strategy.

Morrisey has emphasized nuclear power generation and manufacturing as ways to attract investment and high-paying jobs while building on the state’s existing energy industries.

“We are pursuing nuclear generation and manufacturing to bring high-paying jobs to West Virginia,” Morrisey said.

At the same time, Morrisey has explicitly rejected using West Virginia as a site for nuclear waste disposal.

“But West Virginia will not be a dumping ground for nuclear waste. Period,” Morrisey said.

Morrisey had directed the Office of Energy to ensure sites identified in final applications were considered only for nuclear generation or manufacturing.

The DOE initiative does not require participating states to host every type of nuclear activity contemplated by the broader federal program. States pursuing campuses were expected to enter hosting agreements with the department as the process progressed.

West Virginia’s decision not to execute the agreement ends its pursuit of hosting a campus through the current process, while state officials said they will continue to support the broader federal initiative and future campus recipients.

West Virginia’s efforts to expand its nuclear industry followed changes in state law.

In 2022, the Legislature repealed restrictions dating to 1996 that had limited construction of nuclear power plants in West Virginia.

In 2024, lawmakers established a state radiation control framework and began the process of seeking an agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Those changes did not authorize construction of a nuclear plant at any specific location.

West Virginia officials have previously pointed to the state’s existing energy infrastructure, industrial base and workforce as potential advantages for nuclear-related development.

The state’s decision to decline the federal hosting agreement does not preclude other nuclear development in West Virginia, including projects focused on nuclear generation or manufacturing.

Editor Charles Young can be reached at 304-626-1447 or cyoung@wvnews.com

Matheny, Keith, Nuclear regulators probe fuel assembly installation mishap at Palisades, Detroit Free Press, Sep 26, 2026. https://www.freep.com/story/news/environment/2026/09/26/palisades-nuclear-holtec-nrc/91934961007/.
 
[“Built in the late 1960s, the Palisades nuclear power plant began commercial power generation at the end of 1971 and it operated for roughly 50 years until it permanently shut down in May 2022.” Holtec International is now attempting to make Palisades the first commercial reactor in the US to repower after permanent cessation.
 
On August 31, 2026, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued two notices of violation to Holtec for its Palisades restart work based on the findings of NRC inspectors that Holtec "‘failed to implement and maintain its radiation protection program for work activities with high alpha contamination levels,’ and ‘failed to monitor internal dose for individuals impacted by elevated airborne radioactivity in accordance with established procedures.’ Inspectors further found that ‘the issues with high alpha contamination levels and airborne radioactivity were not promptly raised to sufficient levels to initiate timely corrective actions to prevent repeated occurrences.’"
 
The NRC characterized the violations as Green-level findings because no regulatory dose limit was exceeded with workers despite the elevated levels of airborne radioactivity.
 
On August 31, 2026, Holtec issued a news release announcing that it had begun fuel-loading at Palisades. The press release said that refueling consisted of 204 fuel assemblies and included both new fuel and previously used fuel assemblies from the Palisades plant's final operating cycles prior to its shutdown in May 2022.
 
Apparently around the time it began the refueling process, a used fuel assembly tilted from its upright position after it had been placed, and the fuel-handling machine grapple was disengaged.
 
“A nuclear power plant's fuel assembly is a bundled structural matrix of ceramic uranium dioxide fuel pellets stacked inside long metal tubes, supported by a rigid framework. An assembly typically has 179 to 264 fuel rods, is 12 to 14 feet long and weighs between 700 and 1,750 pounds.”
 
“Neither the Palisades plant's owner, Camden, New Jersey-based Holtec, nor NRC officials released information to the public about the incident for weeks.”
 
Holtec finally mentioned the fuel rod assembly incident in one of several notices in a September 21, 2026 overview press release titled "Progress Report on Palisades’ March to Startup." Holtec said it has paused fuel loading activities while it seeks to determine the cause of the incident. The statement said:  “‘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.’"
 
In a Sept. 24 statement to the Free Press, NRC spokeswoman Viktoria Mitlyng said that the incident “‘did not meet reporting requirements to the NRC.’"
 
On September 26, 2026, in a news story headlined “Nuclear regulators probe fuel assembly installation mishap at Palisades”, the Detroit Free Press covered the incident and noted that Palisades’ refueling had been halted as Holtec seeks a license amendment from the NRC to retrieve the assembly from within the nuclear reactor vessel.
 
Edwin Lyman, a physicist and director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a leading nuclear energy watchdog, found the incident and lack of transparency disturbing:  "‘I suspect that the rush to do things quickly is leading to mistakes − and you don't like to have too many mistakes when you're talking about a nuclear power plant’" he commented.
 
Lyman noted that the use of old spent fuel is an issue, “‘because once it's been irradiated there are fission products within the fuel, and if one of those fuel rods were to rupture, some of those gases could escape’". He added, “‘It's not as radioactive as spent fuel that's no longer usable and is waste. But it has more radioactivity than in an unradiated assembly. It will increase the challenge to recovery compared to if it was all unradiated fuel ... it will require very special precautions.’”
 
Lyman additionally called the August 31, 2026 NRC violation notices to Holtec "’very disturbing”" and that he does not put much stock in the NRC's assessment of the incident's low safety significance.
 
Referring to the agenda of the Trump administration to push ahead with nuclear development, Lyman reflected, “‘The NRC is now a tool of the White House political program, and that program is expanding nuclear power as fast as possible and getting rid of regulations that they saw as slowing it down.’”
 
President Trump’s Executive Order 14300 of May 23, 2025 ordering the reform of the NRC and directs "‘a deadline of no more than 18 months for final decision on an application to construct and operate a new reactor of any type, commencing with the first required step in the regulatory process, and (2) a deadline of no more than 1 year for final decision on an application to continue operating an existing reactor of any type, commencing with the first required step in the regulatory process.’"
 
One new rule proposed by the NRC, Lyman said, would reduce the scope of non-emergency events that have to be reported to either the NRC or the public in a timely fashion.
 
The recent incidents at Palisades, "‘illustrate that trying to speed things up, trying to reduce oversight to meet arbitrary timelines, is counterproductive in the end, because ultimately it only causes delays down the road or potentially even worse,’” Lyman said. “‘Nuclear power operation isn't something you can speed up and lower your guard on without expecting serious consequences.’"]
 
 
Michel Lee, Esq.
Chairman
Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy (CIECP)
 
Senior Analyst
Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE)
LETTER
 
September 24, 2026
 
Kathy Hochul 
Governor of New York State 
Capitol Building 
Albany, NY 12224
 
Rory M. Christian, Chair and CEO 
Michelle L. Phillips, Secretary to the Commission 
New York State Public Service Commission Empire State Plaza 
Agency Building 3 
Albany, New York 12223-1350
 
Doreen M. Harris 
President and CEO 
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 
 
RE: Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Implement a Nuclear Reliability Backbone, Case Number 26-E-0335
 
Dear Governor Hochul, Chair Christian, President Harris, and Secretary Phillips: 
 
We write to oppose the use of any taxpayer or ratepayer subsidies to support the construction of new nuclear power plants in New York, as proposed in the Advanced Nuclear Policy Options paper published on June 12th, 2026, by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the Department of Public Service1
 
Nuclear power is the most expensive form of new energy. The Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island cost roughly 85 times its original estimate and left Long Islanders with some of the highest utility bills in the country when most of the $6 billion cost of the facility was passed along to local ratepayers after it was decommissioned due to public backlash over safety concerns2. The Vogtle Plant Units 3 and 4 in Georgia are the most recent nuclear generators built in the United States, the first in 30 years. That 2GW facility took 15 years to build, 7 years longer than planned3, at a cost of $36.8 billion, more than double the original cost estimate of $14 billion4. The exorbitant cost of this new nuclear generation led to a nearly 25% rate increase for Georgia Power customers5. By comparison, over just the past four years the state of Texas has built 30GW of solar and 6GW of storage for roughly the same cost6.
 
If construction of new nuclear generation in New York follows anything like a similar path to the most recent precedent in the United States, it will not only lead to unacceptable cost burdens for ratepayers and taxpayers, but will also arrive over a decade later than needed to address current near-term generation capacity needs. As a recent analysis of the New York State Energy Plan by Dr. Joseph Romm of the University of Pennsylvania7 pointed out, at a time when data centers are the largest driver of new electricity demand, “ironically, new reactors are the only option that worsens the affordability problem but can’t be built fast enough to address the AI data center demand crisis.”8 The same analysis also finds that small modular reactors lead to even higher costs per unit of energy than large facilities like Vogtle, and that the cost to develop new reactors does not benefit from learning reductions, but has become more expensive, not less, as more generating capacity has been developed.
 
In addition to being very expensive and taking a very long time to build, nuclear power is toxic and dangerous, generating massive quantities of hazardous waste and radioactive pollution while threatening catastrophic accidents. 84 years after the world’s first nuclear reactor was built in the U.S., there is still no solution for safe long-term disposal of the intensely radioactive and long-lived nuclear waste that reactors produce. All that waste will remain a danger to New Yorkers, our environment, and our drinking water for many generations into the future.
 
The options for state financial support proposed in the Policy Options paper include adding enormous surcharges to utility bills, providing taxpayer-funded construction grants, investing public money directly into nuclear reactors, and using public money to provide cost-overrun guarantees. The Public Service Commission estimates that these subsidies could total $23.9 billion, which is very likely an underestimate based on the industry’s track record. These costs would be on top of the recently approved $33 billion ZEC subsidy program to keep New York’s four existing nuclear reactors operating through 2049. Any of these options would burden New Yorkers with higher electric bills while taking on the risk of paying for cost overruns that history suggests are highly probable.
 
New York taxpayers and ratepayers are not a bottomless ATM machine for the nuclear industry. The extraordinary subsidies the PSC has authorized for nuclear power vastly overshadow spending on far more affordable and rapidly deployable clean options.
 
Rather than devoting financial resources to environmentally destructive, expensive, and slow-to-build nuclear schemes, we should be investing in proven, affordable solutions like wind, solar, storage, thermal energy, energy efficiency, demand response, and any number of other technologies and policies that can meet our needs more quickly and at lower cost to ratepayers and taxpayers.
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 
Sincerely
 
Liz Krueger
28th Senate District
 
Jo Anne Simon
52nd Assembly District
 
 
Jabari Brisport
25th Senate District
 
Cordell Cleare
30th Senate District
 
Leroy Comrie
14th Senate District
 
Kristen Gonzalez
59th Senate District
 
Robert Jackson
31st Senate District
 
Kevin Parker
21st Senate District 
 
Roxanne J. Persaud
19th Senate District
 
Gustavo Rivera
33rd Senate District
 
Julia Salazar
18th Senate District
 
Jose M. Serrano
29th Senate District
 
Khaleel M. Anderson
31st Assembly District
 
Chris Burdick
93rd Assembly District
 
Catalina Cruz
39th Assembly District
 
Martiza Davila
53rd Assembly District
 
Manny De Los Santos
72nd Assembly District
 
Phara Souffrant Forrest
57th Assembly District
 
Emily Gallagher
50th Assembly District
 
Deborah J. Glick
66th Assembly District
 
Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas
34th Assembly District
 
Andrew Hevesi 
28th Assembly District
 
Anna R. Kelles, PhD
125th Assembly District
 
Marcela Mitaynes
51st Assembly District
 
Steven Raga
30th Assembly District
 
Linda B. Rosenthal
67th Assembly District
 
Grace Lee  
65th Assembly District 
 
Dana Levenberg
95th Assembly District
 
Diana Moreno
36th Assembly District
 
Mary Jane Shimsky
92nd Assembly District
 
Sarahana Shrestha
103rd Assembly District
 
Phil Steck
110th  Assembly District
 
Yudelka Tapia
86th Assembly District
 
Claire Valdez
37th Assembly District
 
Phil Ramos
6th Assembly District
 
 
 
 
 
FN 3
 
FN 4
 
FN 5
 
FN6
Ibid
 
FN7
 
FN8
The Korean APR 1400 appears to be a worthy partner to the U.S. nuclear industry - repeatedly overly optimistic schedule estimates combined with years of overruns.
 
image.png
 
The dates listed for each unit are the years in which first concrete placement was started. Six of the reactors are in Korea. The other four were built by the Koreans in the UAE.
 
Two main points stand out: (1) the actual schedules are much longer than the projected and (2) there doesn't appear to be much of a positive learning curve.
 
David
 
 
 

Project Power: A New U.S.–Korea Nuclear Partnership

October 1, 2026
 
By Global America Business Institute

Project Power marks a potentially significant expansion of U.S.–Korea nuclear cooperation, combining U.S. reactor technology and market opportunities with Korea’s investment, manufacturing, engineering, and construction capabilities. The framework envisions up to eight large reactors, including both Westinghouse AP1000 and Korean APR1400 units, while opening the door to deeper industrial and supply-chain integration. Its success, however, will depend on resolving financing, regulatory, site, and commercial issues before the projects can move into construction.

Global America Business Institute | www.thegabi.com

 
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

Pages