Good editorial - Schrödinger’s reactor: Excitement over SMRs is fine, but it's unproven and costly | Opinion | journalgazette.net
Schrödinger’s reactor: Excitement over SMRs is fine, but it's unproven and costly
The Journal Gazette Editorial Board 10 hrs ago [Nov 11, 2025]
Before Indiana rushes into the nuclear future, we ought to ask a basic question: Who carries the cost if it doesn’t work?
At a two-day summit at Purdue University last week, Indiana signaled it wants to be seen as an early leader in the SMR push. AES Indiana announced it will study whether small modular reactors could be built at its Eagle Valley and Petersburg generating sites. Indiana Energy and Natural Resources Secretary Suzanne Jaworowski reinforced the message from the stage, declaring the state “ready and willing” to deploy nuclear power. Purdue, for its part, positioned itself as a hub for nuclear research and investment. Given the nascent state of small reactor development, Indiana would quite literally be on the leading edge.
It sounds exciting. Yet enthusiasm on a stage is very different from affordable energy in a home or business. With Hoosiers already having to navigate the rising cost of everything, they deserve answers before commitments are made.
As Kerwin Olson of the Citizens Action Coalition noted in a Journal Gazette op-ed earlier this year, SMRs come with a familiar complication: “shifting the enormous risks and costs on to captive ratepayers.”
“Hoosiers, many of whom are already struggling with escalating utility bills, will bear the financial burden of unproven technology,” he wrote in February. “The financial risks are staggering … and there is no guarantee these investments will ever pay off.”
That’s not a theoretical warning. It’s speculation with other people’s bills.
The recent record on SMR development should give Indiana pause. Nu-Scale — long held up as the leading U.S. SMR project based in Idaho — collapsed last year when projected costs ballooned from a $4 billion initial estimate to more than $9 billion, forcing municipal utility providers to walk away. And as the clean energy journal Canary Media reported, only two commercial SMRs operate anywhere in the world despite more than 70 designs in development across 15 countries. Momentum, the report noted, “is not the same as deployment.”
In the meantime, we have tools that work now. Community solar, restored net metering, battery storage, energy efficiency and localized microgrids can lower emissions, strengthen the grid and give residents a stake in their energy future. Yes, SMRs are cleaner than coal, but the waste they create is still lethal, and that fact can’t be swept aside.
Indiana needs to protect ratepayers, build resilience and invest where results are already measurable. If small modular reactors one day prove affordable, scalable and safe, they can earn their place. Until then, caution isn’t reluctance — it’s responsibility.
The state’s energy strategy should not hinge on whether a cutting-edge technology eventually pans out. It should center on whether decisions are grounded in public interest, affordability and transparency. Nuclear power may earn its place in time. But for now, Indiana’s job is to protect Hoosiers from carrying the financial weight of an overpromised energy breakthrough.
The Journal Gazette Editorial Board 10 hrs ago [Nov 11, 2025]
Before Indiana rushes into the nuclear future, we ought to ask a basic question: Who carries the cost if it doesn’t work?
At a two-day summit at Purdue University last week, Indiana signaled it wants to be seen as an early leader in the SMR push. AES Indiana announced it will study whether small modular reactors could be built at its Eagle Valley and Petersburg generating sites. Indiana Energy and Natural Resources Secretary Suzanne Jaworowski reinforced the message from the stage, declaring the state “ready and willing” to deploy nuclear power. Purdue, for its part, positioned itself as a hub for nuclear research and investment. Given the nascent state of small reactor development, Indiana would quite literally be on the leading edge.
It sounds exciting. Yet enthusiasm on a stage is very different from affordable energy in a home or business. With Hoosiers already having to navigate the rising cost of everything, they deserve answers before commitments are made.
As Kerwin Olson of the Citizens Action Coalition noted in a Journal Gazette op-ed earlier this year, SMRs come with a familiar complication: “shifting the enormous risks and costs on to captive ratepayers.”
“Hoosiers, many of whom are already struggling with escalating utility bills, will bear the financial burden of unproven technology,” he wrote in February. “The financial risks are staggering … and there is no guarantee these investments will ever pay off.”
That’s not a theoretical warning. It’s speculation with other people’s bills.
The recent record on SMR development should give Indiana pause. Nu-Scale — long held up as the leading U.S. SMR project based in Idaho — collapsed last year when projected costs ballooned from a $4 billion initial estimate to more than $9 billion, forcing municipal utility providers to walk away. And as the clean energy journal Canary Media reported, only two commercial SMRs operate anywhere in the world despite more than 70 designs in development across 15 countries. Momentum, the report noted, “is not the same as deployment.”
In the meantime, we have tools that work now. Community solar, restored net metering, battery storage, energy efficiency and localized microgrids can lower emissions, strengthen the grid and give residents a stake in their energy future. Yes, SMRs are cleaner than coal, but the waste they create is still lethal, and that fact can’t be swept aside.
Indiana needs to protect ratepayers, build resilience and invest where results are already measurable. If small modular reactors one day prove affordable, scalable and safe, they can earn their place. Until then, caution isn’t reluctance — it’s responsibility.
The state’s energy strategy should not hinge on whether a cutting-edge technology eventually pans out. It should center on whether decisions are grounded in public interest, affordability and transparency. Nuclear power may earn its place in time. But for now, Indiana’s job is to protect Hoosiers from carrying the financial weight of an overpromised energy breakthrough.
- Log in to post comments
