The US dollar fell against most major currencies during Monday’s trading as markets closely awaited key economic data due later this week.

This comes amid market concerns over a potential US government shutdown if lawmakers in Congress fail to pass the funding bill before the end of September.

President Donald Trump warned of possible mass layoffs of federal employees if the law is not passed and the shutdown goes into effect.

Investors are closely watching important economic releases later this week, most notably US manufacturing activity data, as well as the monthly employment report due on Friday.

In trading, the dollar index fell by 0.2% to 97.9 points as of 17:19 GMT, recording a high of 98.1 points and a low of 97.7 points.

Australian Dollar

The Australian dollar rose 0.5% against its US counterpart to 0.6578 as of 17:29 GMT.

Canadian Dollar

The Canadian dollar gained 0.1% against the US dollar to 0.7190 as of 17:29 GMT.

From Brussels to Washington, a new wave of enthusiasm for so-called small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) is sweeping through policy circles, research centers, and energy startups. These compact nuclear units, marketed as plug-and-play solutions, are being pitched as the perfect answer to powering data centers, meeting the surging demand from artificial intelligence, and supporting the energy transition with clean, stable electricity.

But there’s just one problem. In fact, there are many. And none of them are “small.”

The hype cycle in full swing

Today, SMRs are being promoted as the iPhone of nuclear energy: smarter, smaller, cheaper, scalable. A magical fix for everything—from remote grids to decarbonizing heavy industries to feeding AI servers. Countries like the US, Canada, and the UK have rolled out ambitious plans to deploy them. Major companies including NuScale, Rolls-Royce SMR, GE Hitachi, and TerraPower have presented shiny timelines and glowing promises.

But the fine print tells another story.

Not a single commercial SMR is operating anywhere in the world. None has even been built. NuScale, a US pioneer in this space, recently scrapped its flagship Utah project after costs soared above $9,000 per kilowatt and it failed to attract investors. Even the company’s CEO admitted operations wouldn’t start before 2030. Meanwhile, Rolls-Royce’s promised SMR factory hasn’t produced a single steel bolt.

In other words, we are betting on a technology that doesn’t yet exist at scale, won’t arrive in meaningful numbers until the 2030s, and would require thousands of units to make a dent in global energy demand. That’s not strategy—it’s science fiction.

Big reactors haven’t inspired trust either

Even large-scale nuclear projects, which SMRs are supposed to “fix,” are struggling. Take the UK’s Hinkley Point C, once touted as the future of European nuclear power. It is now twice its original budget (over £46 billion), at least five years late, and still facing construction issues. The same French-backed EPR design has suffered similar setbacks in Flamanville (France) and Olkiluoto (Finland), where completion took more than a decade longer than promised and costs ballooned.

Let’s be blunt: if any other energy technology had this track record, we would have laughed it off the table years ago.

Price floors for nuclear, ceilings on common sense

Authorities in France and Finland have now approved guaranteed minimum prices for new nuclear power—essentially handing operators blank checks. In Finland, the floor was set above €90 per megawatt-hour for 20 years. By contrast, solar and wind in European auctions are clearing between €30–50/MWh, with far lower marginal costs.

So why lock ourselves into long-term contracts at higher prices in the name of a “market-based future”? It’s hard to see how this helps consumers, industries, or climate goals. Especially since nuclear plants, like renewables, still require major grid upgrades to handle large-scale generation. No efficiency gains there either.

SMRs: too small, too late

Let’s imagine the best-case scenario: some designs clear regulatory hurdles by 2027–2028, construction begins in the early 2030s, and the first commercial units come online by 2035. Even then, the world would need to build and connect thousands of these SMRs within 10–15 years to displace a meaningful slice of fossil generation. That’s a logistical nightmare—before even touching on public acceptance, licensing hurdles, uranium supply, or waste management.

By contrast, in the time it takes to build one SMR, solar, wind, and batteries could be deployed 10–20 times over, at lower cost, faster timelines, and with no radioactive legacy.

Unlike nuclear, these technologies are already modular, scalable, and proven worldwide—from Australia’s deserts to German rooftops to California’s power plants.

Inside the reactor: waste and risk

Nuclear advocates love to stress how “safe” modern designs are. Yes, statistically, nuclear is relatively safe per kWh. But it is the only energy source that carries a nonzero risk of catastrophic failure—and waste that remains toxic for thousands of years.

So why gamble on this when we have abundant clean energy with zero explosion risk and recyclable or inert waste?

A supporting role, not the main act

To be clear, nuclear will likely continue to play some role in the energy mix for certain countries. France and Sweden have existing fleets. New builds may proceed in China or South Korea, where costs and planning are tightly managed. But for most of the world, especially those racing to decarbonize quickly, new nuclear is not the solution.

SMRs, despite the marketing, won’t save the day. At best, they’ll be a niche technology for specialized cases—remote mines, military bases, or industrial clusters with no alternatives. That’s fine. But let’s stop pretending they’re the silver bullet for energy.

Final word

We are in the decisive decade for climate action. Every euro, dollar, or yuan must deliver the maximum emissions cuts per unit of time and cost. By that measure, SMRs fall short. Nuclear—large or small—is too expensive, too slow, too risky, and too narrow to drive the energy transition.

It’s time to dial down the nuclear hype and double down on the technologies already winning: wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, grid flexibility, and green hydrogen. These aren’t dreams. They’re being deployed today, by the gigawatt.

SMRs are interesting, yes. But when it comes to decarbonization, we don’t need unicorns—we need workhorses.

Copper prices rose on Monday, supported by a weaker US dollar and supply concerns following an accident at the world’s second-largest mine.

Benchmark three-month copper on the London Metal Exchange (LME) climbed 0.9% to $10,272 per metric ton in official open-outcry trading. The metal is up about 4% since the start of the month, after hitting a 15-month high of $10,485 last Thursday. Analysts have cut supply forecasts for 2025 and 2026 due to disruptions at Indonesia’s Grasberg mine.

Suki Cooper, analyst at Standard Chartered, said: “We remain constructive on copper’s outlook following tighter concentrate markets driven by the disruption and the declaration of force majeure at Grasberg.”

The Grasberg mining area suspended operations on September 8 after a deadly mudslide at one of its three major underground mines.

In the US, looming risks of a government shutdown if Congress fails to pass a funding bill by Tuesday added pressure on the dollar, making dollar-priced metals more attractive to holders of other currencies.

In China, the world’s top consumer of metals, the government set a target for average nonferrous metals production growth of around 1.5% this year and next, down from the 5% target in 2023–2024.

Data showed Chinese industrial profits returned to growth in August, though manufacturing activity is expected to have contracted for a sixth straight month in September, with official PMI figures due Tuesday.

Other LME metals performance

Aluminium: up 0.7% to $2,675 per ton.

Zinc: up 1.4% to $2,930.

Lead: down 0.2% to $1,998.

Tin: up 0.8% to $34,775.

Nickel: up 0.3% to $15,225.

Bitcoin rose on Monday, recovering part of last week’s steep losses, as signs of renewed buying by major investors (“whales”) provided support for the market.

The world’s largest cryptocurrency gained 2.2% to $111,790.8 by 02:31 ET (06:31 GMT), after sliding last week to a three-week low below $109,000. Bitcoin had lost more than 5% over the past week amid broad selling pressure and heavy liquidations of open positions.

Whale buying provides support after sell-off

Blockchain tracking platforms showed that large investors ramped up purchases in recent sessions, helping stabilize prices. This followed a volatile week in which a single day of liquidations wiped out about $1.5 billion in long positions across exchanges.

The bearish tone was compounded by the expiry of $22 billion in cryptocurrency options contracts at the end of the third quarter, which added further pressure on Bitcoin and other digital assets.

At the same time, sentiment on Monday remained cautious as investors tracked developments in Washington, where lawmakers have until September 30 to pass a funding bill and avoid a government shutdown. Such a standoff raised concerns over possible delays in key US economic releases, including Friday’s nonfarm payrolls report, adding uncertainty to financial markets.

Although a shutdown would not directly affect the Bitcoin network, risk-off sentiment in global markets could weigh on cryptocurrencies.

Kraken seeks funding at $20 billion valuation – Bloomberg

Bloomberg reported Friday that crypto exchange Kraken is in advanced talks to raise new funding that would value the company at around $20 billion. The proposed round may include a strategic investor contributing between $200 million and $300 million.

This interest reflects improving investor appetite toward digital asset companies, supported by clearer regulatory frameworks and growing participation of financial institutions in crypto markets.