Elementl Power Developing Utility-Scale Advanced Nuclear Power Project in Southeast Ohio

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elementl-power-developing-utility-scale-advanced-nuclear-power-project-in-southeast-ohio-302804339.html

News provided by
Elementl Power Inc.
Jun 18, 2026, 08:02 ET

Independent nuclear developer selects GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy's BWRX-300 small modular reactors

LETART TOWNSHIP, Ohio, June 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Elementl Power, an independent developer of utility-scale nuclear power projects, announced today that it is pursuing development of a nuclear power plant with a planned capacity of up to 1.5 gigawatts (GW) in Southeast Ohio.

Elementl has signed an Early Works Agreement with GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy to utilize the company's BWRX-300 small modular reactors (SMR) for the project, making it among the first new SMR projects in the United States.

The nearly 700-acre Meigs County property is situated along the Ohio River in Letart Township, approximately 100 miles southeast of Columbus. Elementl has agreed to purchase the site from American Municipal Power (AMP).

Elementl recently filed a request with PJM Interconnection to connect the site into the regional transmission system for the first 600 megawatts (MW) of output from the facility. PJM will review Elementl's application and is expected to respond later this year.

…

Construction on the first unit is expected to begin in 2030, subject to a final investment decision and regulatory approvals, with an anticipated completion date of 2034

…

❝We’re saved!❞

https://www.gevernova.com/nuclear/carbon-free-power/bwrx-300-small-modular-reactor

[Envirogal]

1. Great use of rivers--powering gigantic cement-laden plants

And of course, dealing with the remaining nuclear waste that no one still knows what to do with.

I guess it will just blend in with all of that ag run off.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Don't forget

(Like fossil fuel power plants, and likely nuclear fusion plants) nuclear fision plants like this use tremendous amounts of water in their operation. (That’s why they are built next to rivers, lakes & oceans.) The water is used to cool the reactors (or looked at another way, the reactors heat the water) the iconic, steaming “cooling towers” people associate with nuclear reactors are also used by large coal plants.



Some of the heated water is released back into the body it was drawn from, giving the creatures living there a nice warm bath. The nuclear reactor boils water, to drive a turbine to generate electricity. The process is typically about ⅓ efficient, with most of the energy being lost as "waste heat".

[Envirogal]

5. The creatures don't need a warm bath

In exchange for their water and habitats to be compromised. They adapted to the region just fine before human disruption.

What happens when rivers run low? We need habitat and drinkable water more than excess energy plants to serve data Centers and nuclear hawks perverse fantasy…..that kick the can on solving the nuclear waste issue that they have had decades to try and solve.

This is all a tax payer protected boondoggle wolf disguised as green energy in sheep’s clothing. Just like natural gas was sold to us as clean green energy and we now know better.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. I'm sorry, that was irony. The warming of ground water is a bad thing (we have no irony smiley, only sarcasm.)

My point was that when it comes to nuclear power, people tend to focus on high-level waste, but there are other negative impacts to consider.

Mind you, when it comes to water usage, while nuclear power uses about the same amount as coal, it does have the advantage of not producing carbon dioxide. (In the end, TANSTAAFL — ”There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”) All types of energy production have their down-sides, it’s a matter of finding the least-worst solution, and there is disagreement on what that is. (I tend to think there is no “silver bullet.” The least-worst solution is a balance of multiple sources.)

I was never fooled by the natural gas hype, but, here’s the thing, coal is almost solid carbon, with some impurities. “Natural Gas” (let’s just call it “methane") is made up of carbon and hydrogen CH₄ so while burning coal produces mostly CO₂ burning natural gas produces a combination of CO₂ and water vapor. So, when it is burned, it is cleaner than coal. Leaky infrastructure (wellheads, pipes, etc.) makes it worse. Then again, coal seams also leak methane, which is mostly released straight into the atmosphere.

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-coal-mine-methane-review-2026/

I think a good general principle is, “Burning stuff is not a good thing.”

[not fooled]

3. Is this one the result of corrupting Ohio state government?

Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2026, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

and making ratepayers cover the risk?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. New York is looking to deploy technology like SMR's (Small Modular Reactors) in the near future

I don’t think it’s corruption. I think it’s sensible. Most experts agree, some sort of “dispatchable” source is necessary to support variable renewable sources (like wind, PV solar.) Small Modular Reactors are a reasonable solution (although I would greatly prefer nuclear fusion.)

Even the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (renamed the National Laboratory of the Rockies by a certain orange faced buffoon) in their plan for a clean grid by 2035 (now purged from their servers, but archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20250106220818/https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81644.pdf ) called for deploying new nuclear reactors, especially in what they called the “Constrained Scenario.”

The Constrained scenario limits both renewable energy and transmission deployment, resulting in higher costs. The higher costs of renewables makes new nuclear capacity more cost-competitive, and in this scenario, the model builds about 200 GW of new nuclear capacity between 2030 and 2035. This scenario would require about 40 GW/year of new installation, or about four times the maximum historical rate in the United States.