Reddit Posts
Small Modular Reactor Stocks may be the next tech trend. Check where to invest.
China Bans Graphite Export - Lomiko Metals $LMR $LMRMF - watchlist
ALCC - Sam Altmans SPAC, Oklo a micro nuclear reactor startup. - This thing is radioactive (Don't touch it)
The uranium sector: A lot is changing the last 3 months at the demand side. The supply side isn't ready for this (An update: the actual additional uranium demand each event creates. It's impressive) + NEW: U-turn of Sweden + NEW: Germany extending the operations of 3 reactors
The uranium sector: A lot is changing the last month at the demand side. The supply side isn't ready for this.
NuScale Power (SMR) is going to be a beast in the coming years (imo). Why?
SO Southern Company…DD and why I’m Bullish
Is this a way to get invested in a future rush on nuclear power?
Mentions
What? Their first units are “early to mid 2030s”, not 2030, and that’s for **EU deployment**. They have done nothing with the NRC or DOE to be competitive with domestic players, only the European regulatory process. Do you think they can magically build in the U.S? Lmao.
You’re mashing together unrelated issues and calling it a conspiracy. 1. The NPR piece is about DOE oversight for certain experimental reactors- not the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing framework that governs commercial power reactors like Oklo’s Aurora. Two different regulatory regimes. 2. Oklo’s 2022 application wasn’t denied for “unsafe design.” The NRC explicitly said it lacked sufficient detail in the application- it was a FOAK combined license submission. That’s a documentation and sequencing issue, not a reactor blew up on paper. They re-engaged and restructured the pathway afterward. 3. VIPR is a test reactor in a controlled DOE facility environment, not a grid-connected commercial unit. Conflating that with historical commercial power plant incidents is apples to submarines. 4. “Infinite dose exposure” is flatly false. ALARA is embedded across 10 CFR Part 20 and DOE radiological control standards. No regulator in the U.S. has legalized unlimited operator dose. 5. The July 4 target is a DOE program milestone. Missing it delays a demo. It does not somehow override federal nuclear safety law. If your thesis is “Oklo can only hit timelines by secretly abandoning nuclear safety,” you need actual evidence… not three links and a narrative bridge lol.
Yeah… about that… https://www.npr.org/2026/02/26/nx-s1-5727510/secret-rules-experimental-nuclear-reactors-now-public Looks like safety regulations were changed *specifically* for their reactor. https://id.energy.gov/Home/NEDirectives Friendly reminder, OKLO can’t (well… couldn’t) build any reactors because their NRC license was denied for lack of safety management planning and safety critical design deficiencies. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2022/22-002.pdf None of this is good to be involved in. In summary: The 07/04 deadline is due to a Trump administration arbitrary mandate. The administration *knows* no one can meet that deadline by following existing nuclear safety regulations. OKLO has had their application for a license of operation denied due to safety concerns Numerous of said regulations get rolled back. OKLO all of a sudden says they can meet the deadline. Put 2 and 2 together; OKLO is ignoring significant amounts of nuclear safety standards that have been written due to past criticality and even meltdown incidents. The regulations as they now stand: Reduced ALARA requirements to basically being optional. Seriously, they allow for infinite dose exposure for operators in the posted changes. Requirement of having a system engineer for every critical safety system. Reduced or eliminated security staff training and screening requirements. Severely reduced NEPA environmental impact statement and assessment requirements, with many being eliminated altogether.
I have been watching Oklo for a long time now. Actually all the companies in the SMR field. Someone is going to win this race. I’m leaning towards Oklo winning that race recently. The case for Oklo winning the race is built on several specific factors that separate it from the rest of the sector. They are currently sitting on a cash fortress of over 1.2 billion dollars which gives them a massive runway compared to peers like NuScale that are facing revenue drops and legal issues. The company has a unique inside track with the government as the current Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is a former Oklo board member and the administration has prioritized the July 4 2026 250th anniversary of the US as a deadline for energy dominance. Oklo holds 3 out of the 11 government pilot program slots and is already breaking ground at the Idaho National Laboratory using a DOE authorization pathway that bypasses the slower NRC commercial licensing. Sam Altman was the chairman but stepped down in 2025 to avoid conflicts of interest and allow for broader industry partnerships, he remains a major shareholder and advocate, while CEO Jacob DeWitte has taken over as Chairman to lead the execution phase. Major tech players like Meta have already signed deals and provided prepayments for power to secure their AI future which aligns with the new executive order requiring data centers to generate their own power. Institutional ownership stands at 85 percent with BlackRock and Vanguard significantly increasing their positions recently while founders have moved shares into family trusts rather than selling. They have also de-risked the supply chain by signing a binding contract with Siemens Energy for the hardware and acquired Atomic Alchemy as an insurance policy to ensure a reactor is live by the July deadline. All of this is supported by recent bipartisan bills passing with supermajorities and a 1.2 billion dollar war chest that allows them to execute without needing to dilute shareholders. Chances are 1 of those 3 will hit the deadline. They have the main Aurora, Pluto, and VIPR. Possibility the do miss the deadline on Aurora but chances are VIPR (isn’t for power) will succeed. That will still show a win because VIPR will create some revenue. Decided for yourself.
I’ve been watching Oklo and checking on them daily for a long time now. I’ve dug very deep… I’ve put together a list of why you should pay attention closely to Oklo. It’s information and take from it what you would like. I. The "Cash Fortress" & Inside Moves • The War Chest: Over $1.2 billion in cash and marketable securities as of 2026. • The Runway: An annual burn rate of ~$80M gives them a 14+ year safety net (they won't go broke before the 2026 deadline). • The Trust Transfer: Founders (Jacob DeWitte) moving millions of shares into Family Trusts and GRATs—signaling generational holding rather than an exit. • Sam Altman’s Skin: his reputation as the "King of AI" is tied to Oklo’s success as the power source for OpenAI. II. The "Unfair" Institutional Backing • Institutional Shield: 85.03% of the company is owned by banks/funds, creating a massive floor. • The Big Three: * BlackRock: Largest holder; recently increased position by 72% (14.8M shares). • Vanguard: Holds 11.6M shares; increased position by 33%. • Mirae Asset: The tech-specialist; increased holdings by 71% (7.8M shares). • Brokers: Consensus "Strong Buy" from top analyst desks with price targets clearing $100–$130 in the near term. III. The Government "Fast-Track" • 3 out of 11: Oklo holds 3 separate slots in the DOE Reactor Pilot Program (Aurora, Pluto, and Atomic Alchemy). • The DOE Loophole: Operating on federal land in Idaho allows them to bypass slow NRC commercial licensing and use DOE Authorization to hit the July 4th deadline. • The Former Board Member: Current Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is a former Oklo Board member; he knows the blueprints and the team personally. • Legislative Tailwinds: The ARC Act and the 397–28 House vote prove that both parties are throwing billions at advanced nuclear to win the AI race. • Freedom 250: Trump’s Executive Order makes the July 4, 2026 anniversary a "national mandate," effectively making Oklo's success a government priority. IV. Physical Execution & Real Tech • The Groundbreaking: Unlike "PowerPoint companies," Oklo already broke ground at the Idaho National Lab (September 2025). • The Hardware Partner: A binding contract with Siemens Energy to manufacture the turbines and power conversion systems—hardware is already being built. • Fuel Independence: DOE award for the Tennessee Fuel Recycling plant allows them to turn "waste" into their own gas station, bypassing uranium shortages. • Atomic Alchemy: The $25M acquisition of this subsidiary provides an "insurance policy" with a simpler reactor that can be turned on by July 4th if the big one hits a snag. V. The "Big Tech" Revenue Lock • The Meta Deal: A massive 1.2GW power campus agreement. • The Prepayment: Meta provided upfront funding to secure early procurement, proving that the world's biggest data center buyers trust Oklo's delivery. • The Mandate: The new Executive Order requiring AI centers to generate their own power turns Oklo from a "nice to have" into a "must have" for Big Tech. VI. Market Indicators • The $61 Support: Proven "institutional floor" where the big banks' algorithms trigger massive buy orders. • Sector Divergence: NuScale (SMR) is failing due to lawsuits/cash burn, while Oklo is gaining share as the "Tech-First" leader. • NVIDIA Alignment: NVIDIA’s partnership with the Idaho Lab to use AI to speed up reactor design directly benefits the Oklo projects on-site.
$OKLO, there was a -70% drawdown recently and there are significant catalysts expected in **1H 2026**, with $126 average PT. Here are some that I recently noted: * DOE Plutonium Awards ([“early 2026”](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/8-big-wins-nuclear-trump-administrations-first-year)) * Incremental PPA conversion on 18GW pipeline * RPP milestones on the 3 Fuel / 3 Reactor projects * First Revenue from INL Radioisotope production * NRC [Draft Decision on PDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/OKLOSTOCK/s/zTuKVJefxK) by 3/20 * VIPR Criticality by DOE’s 7/4/26 deadline * I would also point to what Caroline DeWitte [had recently called out](https://www.reddit.com/r/OKLOSTOCK/s/nCiRfqflAn) in the Founder AMA below: > We expect to hit some real physical milestones too. We have had one groundbreaking announcement already but **I would anticipate by mid-2026 having done geotechnical site analysis work at a number of locations to start construction in those places**. We have exciting expectations out of our 3 DOE Reactor Pilot Program projects and our 3 DOE Fuel Pilot Program projects. > We're limited in what we can say, but I think I can say we expect it to be an exciting and busy 12 months
$OKLO, there are a lot of catalysts expected in **1H 2026**, with $126 average PT. Here are some that I recently noted: * DOE Plutonium Awards ([“early 2026”](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/8-big-wins-nuclear-trump-administrations-first-year)) * Incremental PPA conversion on 18GW pipeline * RPP milestones on the 3 Fuel / 3 Reactor projects * First Revenue from INL Radioisotope production * NRC [Draft Decision on PDC](https://www.reddit.com/r/OKLOSTOCK/s/zTuKVJefxK) by 3/20 * VIPR Criticality by DOE’s 7/4/26 deadline * I would also point to what Caroline DeWitte [had recently called out](https://www.reddit.com/r/OKLOSTOCK/s/nCiRfqflAn) in the Founder AMA below: > We expect to hit some real physical milestones too. We have had one groundbreaking announcement already but **I would anticipate by mid-2026 having done geotechnical site analysis work at a number of locations to start construction in those places**. We have exciting expectations out of our 3 DOE Reactor Pilot Program projects and our 3 DOE Fuel Pilot Program projects. > We're limited in what we can say, but I think I can say we expect it to be an exciting and busy 12 months.
Will be interesting to see what comes of this... That company seems to be fully porting into sweet talking the administration...and suing the NRC no less... In the age of rump, vapor ware and bribes seem to go a long way.
I chose UUUU over $OKLO. I will open a swing in $OKLO around June for NRC approval!
Right, Aurora 1 at INL is slated to be a full commercial reactor, likely to supply electricity to Idaho Falls, ID. Every NOAK build following will take 6-18 months of NRC review, using Aurora 1 as the “reference application”. OKLO announced that they will beginning [multi-site prep at other location this year](https://www.reddit.com/r/OKLOSTOCK/s/Qnz0aBPE8G), so there will be a lot of milestones to come in 2026!
Late 2027 / Early 2028: Target for the INL plant to enter commercial operation. If this works out according to plan it will be a great success. However, this would not mean that OKLO can start building SMRs. The INL plant falls under the DOE Reactor Pilot Program and can operate under simplified authorisation. To build “normal” plants, OKLO will need to get authorisation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The first NRC-authorized commercial plant (Meta Campus, first phase) is targeted to come online by 2030. This is best case scenario. It might or might not work out.
They can (and are) actively building per the DOE’s RPP program, and can operate the reactor non-commercially without NRC oversight. Per the latest NRC/DOE MOU, there will be a fast-tracked NRC license at the end, after Aurora is already build and running, with subsequent licenses at other sites taking 6-18 months. A lot has changed in the regulatory landscape in the last year, as a result of EOs.
NuScale’s design certification doesn’t mean much anymore- having an approved design hasn’t translated into customers or real projects, and interest in their product has clearly cooled. Oklo, on the other hand, is actually moving forward: they landed 3 of the 11 Reactor Pilot Program projects, which is a big signal of DOE confidence. Under that program, the DOE runs the early stages of construction, with a fast-tracked NRC review coming at the end. That gives Oklo a real shot at being one of the first to actually put power on the grid, even if NuScale looks “ahead” on paper with their NRC certification. Oklo also has a growing order book with committed and conditional power agreements, and a strong cash position to support the near-term buildout. Their build-own-operate model is a huge advantage for scaling without dilution- by owning the reactors and selling power under long-term contracts, they create predictable cash flows that can be used to raise project-level debt. That means future units can be financed mostly with debt, not new equity. Each Aurora is small, standardized, and deployable at multiple sites, so they can stack projects and scale quickly. As they build operating history, financing gets easier, costs come down, and the first units basically fund the next ones. On top of that, Oklo isn’t just about power. Their work in nuclear fuel recycling and advanced fuel fabrication, plus radioisotope production through Atomic Alchemy, gives them multiple revenue streams that NuScale doesn’t have. That makes them more than just a reactor company- it’s a vertically integrated nuclear platform that can scale and fund itself over time, not just hit regulatory milestones.
We’re aligned on the role of INL- it’s a test and demonstration reactor intended to generate real operating data and de-risk the NRC path, with the option to convert to commercial operation after obtaining the appropriate license. Where we differ is on whether Part 50 is the ‘right’ benchmark for Oklo. TerraPower, Kairos, and X-energy all selected Part 50 because their designs, scale, funding structures, and host arrangements align with a traditional utility-style licensing model. Oklo’s strategy is deliberately different: prove a small, factory-fabricable fast reactor in operation first, then pursue commercial authorization with substantially reduced design and licensing uncertainty. That’s the core distinction. Oklo isn’t behind because it avoided Part 50- it avoided front-loading regulatory risk before the design was operationally validated. The RPP/MOU framework allows that validation to occur under DOE authority, after which NRC licensing becomes a confirmation and transition step rather than a speculative, pre-construction gate. Different designs, different risk profiles, different optimal regulatory paths.
Now you are correct. The INL reactor is a test and demonstration reactor which should provide performance data to support an NRC design certification under Part 52 or perhaps Part 53 when it is finalized. It may also be converted to commercial use after obtaining an NRC operating license. In contrast to to Oklo, TerraPower, Kairos, and X-Energy are all obtaining NRC licenses under Part 50 and are ahead of schedule to start construction of their reactors. Part 50 is an incremental process well suited for first-of-kind designs. Part 52 is for mature NRC certified reactor designs. Oklo could have gone through the Part 52 process for a COLA but would have first had to mature their design.
No one is claiming a reactor can sell power into the commercial grid without an NRC license… that’s not the point in dispute. The distinction is when and how the NRC licensing burden is carried. Under the RPP/MOU framework, Oklo can design, construct, and operate a non-commercial reactor at INL under DOE authority, generating operational data and validating the full system before seeking commercial authorization. Prior to this framework, Oklo would have been forced into a COLA-first path with incremental NRC approvals before construction or operation. The MOU allows NRC to rely on DOE-accepted analyses and documentation, which materially reduces duplication, regulatory risk, and timeline uncertainty at the back end. The NRC license is still required for grid sales- but it becomes a transition step after an operating reactor exists, not a gate that must be cleared before anything can be built or run.
Under the law, commercial reactors that connect to the grid must be licensed by NRC. A DOE reactor can provide power to itself and government operations. It can not sell power into the commercial grid without an NRC license. All the MOU does is provide the framework for NRC to accept certain DOE documents as complete in an NRC licensing process. It does not allow a DOE owned reactor or one operating on a DOE site to sell into the commercial grid without a license. If DOE were to do that, they would be in violation of the Energy Reorganization Act and would likely be sued by the current nuclear utilities.
Not true. DOE authorization only applies to DOE sites, contactors and reactors. If they want to sell power into the grid, they need an NRC license. For certain safety analyses, DOE and NRC are cooperating just like NRC and Canada. But DOE licensing is not transparent, has no adjudicatory process, and not eligible for Price Anderson nuclear liability insurance. No utility would build one without NRC licensing.
They are tied to the recent revelation of the current government repealing laws regulating groundwater risk assessments for nuclear projects. They got denied their first attempt at an NRC license in part due to… groundwater contamination risks. Even if their design is safe in that regard, that’s utterly terrible publicity that reads like they are relying on existing safety regulations being repealed.
They don’t need to, that’s the old framework. In the DOE’s RPP, they are free to build and operate with a streamlined NRC review at the tail end.
Dude, your analysis is missing the most critical factor: REALITY. Let’s fact-check your points: 1. Fuel (The Elephant in the Room): You ignored the biggest bottleneck. Oklo needs HALEU. Where are they getting it? Russia? The U.S. supply chain for HALEU is years away. No fuel = No power in 2027. IMSR uses Standard LEU. The supply chain already exists globally. Terrestrial Energy can fuel their reactors TODAY. Oklo is buying a Ferrari without gas stations. 2. Regulatory Track Record: Oklo’s application was denied by the NRC before. They are starting over. Terrestrial Energy (IMSR) already has its Principal Design Criteria (PDC) approved by the NRC (Standard Review Plan). They are moving straight to the Construction Permit (CP) with a regulatory path that actually works. 3. "Proven" Tech? You say Oklo is "proven"? Their design relies on liquid metal fast reactors which have a history of complex maintenance issues. IMSR is based on MSR tech proven at ORNL, but modernized. Plus, IMSR produces High-Temperature Heat (Industrial Heat), not just electricity. This opens up markets for hydrogen, ammonia, and desalination that Oklo can’t touch. 4. Business Model: "Only selling designs" is a feature, not a bug. It’s called Capital Efficiency. IMSR is the "ARM of Nuclear" — licensing tech to massive operators like OPG or DL E&C. Oklo trying to build, own, and operate everything (Utility model) is a massive CAPEX trap. Good luck burning that $2.3B when delays happen (and they will). 5. 2027 Deployment? Don't make me laugh. Without HALEU and a finalized NRC license, 2027 is a pipe dream. IMSR's early 2030s target is realistic and backed by actual industrial partners, not just hype. Stop looking at the hype and start looking at the physics and supply chain. IMSR is the real industrial solution.
Has NRC given any approvals or comments on the design? A design is a very small part of the process
Market float doesn’t define the technology. Aurora is under construction at a DOE site, progressing through NRC licensing, and has signed PPAs. This is far beyond a “lottery ticket.” Site authorization at INL isn’t just a checkbox… it’s real-world deployment readiness for a FOAK reactor. Licensing and fuel pathways are actively in motion. Saying “no proven product” ignores that first units in nuclear are always prototypes by definition. Demonstrating one working reactor proves the design and opens the door for replication. Bag-holding? I’m a long term investor and held the stock for over a year.
Lol, Aurora is being built… Oklo has DOE site authorization at INL and is actively progressing through NRC licensing. Calling it “not built” ignores actual construction and regulatory milestones. Regulatory approvals are in process. Oklo isn’t waiting for “someday”- they’re advancing licensing, preparing fuel pathways, and clearing the necessary hurdles for FOA deployment. That’s literally real-world execution… not “marketing hype”… Revenue timelines don’t invalidate the tech. First units in advanced nuclear always take years to scale. Getting Aurora operational proves the design and unlocks future deployments. Market float? That doesn’t matter. Oklo has signed customers, PPAs, and a clear path forward. Marketing talk isn’t what’s happening on the ground… again, the reactor is being built.
Not to my knowledge. That’s what the NRC license is needed for - to receive fuel. It’s also what the DOE permit is for - to make a prototype on a controlled government range with government safety oversight and control.
>Myriad Uranium Corp in a class all by itself inside the barren US with its Copper Mountain project in Wyoming...Accelerated permitting timeline from Wyoming...only need 2 years of development to see big return Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) be like: ...right, 2 years, you betcha. Myriad Uranium Copper Mountain project in Wyoming is regulated by the State of Wyoming, as an agreement state, but still requires NRC permits for ISR operations (injecting fluids into the ground) which Myriad is still only in the planning phase for. Myriad got a federal permit late 2025 to continue exploration and development and their current approved timeline has a plan of operation for 222 testing boreholes in 2026 with an initial MRE (mineral resource estimate) late 2026. It'll probably be 4-12 years before the completion of the development phase.
Yeah, way too many people pouring money in on the news of them being approved to build a test reactor at INL… They don’t realize that INL’s test range was literally built to test reactors the DOE and NRC deemed too risky for initial use near populated areas. The experimental reactors tested there have a pretty high rate of failure and even meltdown. It’s basically the “you can build here so that *when* you mess up, you’ll only kill your own employees” area.
Honestly though, if people know anything about nuclear energy, they know to be terrified of OKLOs designs. Not to mention they still haven’t been able to answer safety-sensitive issues brought up by the NRC regarding their core geometry, reactivity, and potential neutron flux issues.
NIMBY isn’t as much of a thing anymore… coincidentally, Oklo’s head of business development just posted this: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/opinions/nuclear-in-my-backyard/ Also, the NRC/DOE MOU gave the DOE full authority via the reactor pilot program to allow oversight on full design, construction and operation of FOAK reactors, with a streamlined NRC license at the tail end for commercialization… times are drastically changing- I think you will be very surprised in the next three years.
Oklo is promising because they have a clear regulatory path with the NRC and are moving toward a combined license application with no major gaps flagged. Their design has been reviewed on an accelerated timeline showing modern nuclear licensing can work faster than the old model. They plan to build own and operate reactors and sell power under long term contracts creating recurring revenue. They are also working with national labs on fast spectrum reactor fuel and leveraging real experimental data to validate the approach. Licensing progress regulatory acceptance a direct power sales model and technical validation give Oklo real substance beyond a cool story.
Oklo’s reactors are sodium cooled fast reactors, which are very different from traditional water cooled nuclear plants. They operate at low pressure and are designed to be inherently and passively safe, meaning the reactor naturally shuts itself down if temperatures rise, without needing pumps, power, or operator action. There is no high pressure water or steam, so the failure modes that drove past nuclear accidents simply do not exist here. Sodium does introduce its own risks, but those are well understood, non nuclear, and have decades of operating history. Because of this, a minor issue would not shut the program down for years. The NRC process is meant to identify and resolve safety questions before operation. Once licensed, these reactors are designed so that worst case scenarios are fundamentally bounded and manageable.
Power wise? I have a position in UUUU and BW. Also watching news from NRC since Trump just switched the head.
The DOD can, and has, told the NRC to fuck off multiple times in the past.
The DOD wanting it doesn't make the NRC license faster. Doesn't make the reactor technology work. Doesn't collapse a multi-year timeline into now. The hyperscalers want power too. They're not waiting for Oklo. They're signing 15-year binding contracts with operators who can deliver in 2026.
It's not a contract. It's a Notice of Intent to Award, contingent on NRC licensing that doesn't exist.
If you want to buy a company with zero revenue, no operating reactors, a denied NRC license that's not yet been resubmitted, and a commercialization timeline measured in years (assuming everything goes right), by all means. The thesis isn't that nuclear power is bad. Nuclear power is fine. The thesis is that the market is paying $15-16 billion for a company that might deliver electrons in the 2030s while paying less for companies that are delivering electrons now. Oklo's value depends on: successful NRC licensing (failed once), first-of-a-kind reactor construction (never done at commercial scale in the U.S.), supply chains that don't exist yet, cost structures that are theoretical, and demand that persists long enough for any of this to matter. Applied Digital's value depends on: delivering buildings on schedule (already doing it), collecting rent from CoreWeave and a hyperscaler (already contracted), and not screwing up construction (100 MW delivered, more in progress). One of these is a bet on execution against observable milestones. The other is a bet on a narrative that can't be tested for years. The hyperscalers need power now. They're signing 15-year leases with operators who can deliver in 2026. They're not waiting for SMRs that might come online in 2032. The demand is real. The question is who captures it. Oklo can't capture demand that arrives before they exist. But if you think the market is right to pay more for promises than for contracts, Oklo is available.
You’re arguing against a strawman. No one serious is claiming a criticality experiment is a finished reactor… that’s not how nuclear development has ever worked. **Criticality experiments are a prerequisite to reactor design, not a substitute for it.** They generate benchmark data that feeds directly into neutronics models, safety margins, and licensing analyses. Every fast reactor program (EBR-II, FFTF, Phenix, BN-series) followed this exact sequence. Calling that “vaporware” misunderstands the nuclear design process. You don’t finalize a plutonium fast-spectrum core before validating the physics… you do exactly what Oklo is doing now, with DOE/NNSA labs, under oversight. On Aurora: the 2022 NRC denial was explicitly about **application completeness**, not a finding that Oklo’s design was unsafe or unworkable. The NRC said Oklo failed to provide sufficient detail *in that submission*, not that the safety case was invalid. That distinction matters, and Oklo has publicly acknowledged it and restructured their licensing approach since then. And yes- NRC licensing takes time. That’s true for **every** new reactor class, including TerraPower, Kairos, and X-energy. The difference is Oklo is now generating the exact experimental data the NRC expects *before* locking a design and submitting again. Saying “Pluto isn’t finalized yet” isn’t a knock… it’s literally the point of doing this work now.
Criticality experiments are a *long* way off from reactor design, let alone construction. That’s basically the “this won’t kill us if we build it” phase. Selling a criticality experiment as a reactor design is the very definition of vaporware - they’re continuing to try to sell something that doesn’t actually exist. The NRC license still has to be pursued, and that’s a 5-10 year process. As for Aurora; the NRC ruling *explicitly* denied their application for “lack of information regarding safety or handling procedures”. The NRC even took the time to try to help OKLO identify and correct these gaps in design and safety elements - and OKLO still failed to address any. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2022/22-002.pdf The NRC has not yet reviewed Pluto’s design because there is none finalized.
This argument is stuck in the past. Oklo just conducted [publicly disclosed fast-spectrum plutonium criticality experiments in collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory under DOE oversight](https://oklo.com/newsroom/news-details/2025/Oklo-and-Los-Alamos-National-Lab-Conduct-Fast-Spectrum-Plutonium-Criticality-Experiment/default.aspx), producing real benchmark data on plutonium behavior and inherent safety characteristics for the Pluto reactor. That’s not classified vaporware… that’s modern, experimentally validated physics being generated in the open and fed directly into a licensing-grade safety case. The 2022 NRC denial wasn’t about unsafe plutonium handling… it was about application completeness and process, which Oklo has openly acknowledged and corrected. Since then they’ve been advancing NRC engagement, getting principal design criteria accepted for review, and working directly with DOE/NNSA labs on the exact criticality and safety questions skeptics claim they can’t address. The idea that fast reactors can’t have meaningful public technical progress because “everything is classified” just isn’t true anymore and Oklo’s recent LANL work is a clear counterexample.
I’m highly skeptical they will be awarded Pu contracts due to their lack of comprehensive criticality safety protocols and the fact that their NRC denial in 2022 was concerned with their possession of classified methods relating to plutonium production. There’s also basically no info about Pluto because pretty much everything about fast breeder reactors is highly classified due to the nuclear proliferation risk/national security concerns. These reactors will pretty much never be allowed to have meaningful publicly available.
The Natrium plants in the Meta deal are being developed jointly by TerraPower and GE Vernova (GEV) as it’s based off the GE PRISM design. The leading advanced reactor developers are all privately held (TerraPower, Kairos Power, and X-energy). These companies are the closest to commercial deployment. Kairos Power has two construction permits from the NRC and is actively [building their plants](https://kairospower.com/internal_updates/clean-electricity-tennessee-valley/). TerraPower should receive their construction permit this year. X-energy’s construction permit application is currently under review. GE Vernova is also building their BWRX-300 in Canada and have a construction permit application in review with the NRC as well. Best litmus test right now for advanced reactor developers are licensing progress (construction permit applications require submittal of a preliminary safety analysis report that is available to the public and shows a level of maturity of reactor design) and hardware/construction progress (Kairos and TerraPower are the leaders here, with Kairos already having [operated](https://kairospower.com/internal_updates/license-to-build-progress-on-hermes-and-the-etu-series/) a non-nuclear version of their reactor). Will be interesting to see if the public companies can compete with the privately held ones. Best publicly available options are likely GEV, who are developing Natrium and their own BWRX-300, and BWXT, who are looking to be a fuel fabricator for advanced reactors and are the leaders in microreactor development.
This was my point. Companies can say a lot, but people underestimate how big of a hurdle the NRC approval can be. Having that box checked is a major piece of the puzzle. Even if they are doing the part 50 process (instead of part 52 like what AP1000 pursued), this just means they can build. Doesn’t authorize commercial operation just yet. That comes later as you “license what you’ve built”.
The first reactors to put electrons on the grid will likely either be from [Kairos Power](https://kairospower.com/internal_updates/clean-electricity-tennessee-valley/) or TerraPower. No other companies are as far along as they are in construction, licensing with the NRC, and both companies have been building and testing hardware for nearly a decade now to build up manufacturing, assembly, and operational knowledge. Will be interesting to see if any of the publicly traded advanced reactor developers can compete with the privately funded ones. Best bets are likely BWXT and GE Vernova (Natrium is a joint project between GE Vernova and TerraPower).
Only reactors with construction permits from the NRC are Kairos Power’s Hermes 1 (test reactor) and Hermes 2 (demonstration reactor). Kairos has bought down a lot of risk by getting through the permitting process twice already and appears to be all in on vertical integration. https://kairospower.com/internal_updates/clean-electricity-tennessee-valley/ Natura Resources also received a construction permit for their MSRR (research reactor) but have stated they may hold off on working with the NRC since they were selected for the DOE Reactor Pilot Program. https://www.naturaresources.com/natura-to-pursue-doe-authorization-for-msr-1-under-new-ota-advancing-its-reactor-towards-criticality-through-doe-s-pilot-program TerraPower should receive their construction permit for their first Natrium plant this year. https://www.ans.org/news/2025-12-03/article-7590/nrc-completes-safety-review-for-terrapowers-kemmerer-project/
This is a misread. Oklo isn’t “fighting” the NRC, they’re using the established appeals process to clarify novel licensing questions for a FOAK reactor. That’s normal for advanced nuclear. AP1000 is a proven large-scale LWR, but it’s expensive, slow, and not what data centers want. Oklo is targeting a different market entirely: smaller, faster, firm power with a build-own-operate model. Brookfield and Cameco are solid, but they’re not solving the same problem.
Oklo thinks they're better than the regulator, and they're trying to fight the NRC who is trying to help them. It's not a productive use of anybody's time or money. Brookfield and cameco are far better picks because the AP1000 is going to be the standard American reactor and will be used where better Chinese and Russian offerings are blocked.
I get that nothing is technically “real” until power is flowing. But this isn’t hype. Meta signed a binding energy purchase agreement with Oklo that includes prepayment for power and early project funding to develop a 1.2 GW nuclear campus in Ohio. Oklo also has DOE-approved fuel facility design agreements, is part of DOE advanced nuclear pilot projects, and has cleared site permits and environmental compliance steps for their first commercial site. They’re advancing the combined license process with the NRC and running advanced fuel recycling demos with Argonne and Idaho labs. This is real capital, real regulatory progress, and real hardware in motion, not speculation or marketing.
NuScale touts being “further along” because it has NRC design approval for its SMR modules, but design approval isn’t the same as actually building and operating reactors. Utilities still need separate construction and operating licenses for every site, which adds years and extra costs before any revenue flows. Most buyers aren’t excited about buying a decades-old Gen 3 design with a history of executional delays and cost overruns. Oklo, on the other hand, is pursuing a combined license route, which bundles design, construction, and operation into one review and can cut years off deployment timelines, and they already have real DOE site permits, pilot programs, and partnerships in motion. NuScale’s approach also keeps them selling designs to utilities rather than owning the assets, meaning slower, more capital-intensive rollouts. Oklo’s build-own-operate model is hyper scalable. Once the first plants are operational, they can replicate that model across multiple sites with PPA revenue streams from partners like Meta and data center operators, giving Oklo a structural scaling advantage most SMR plays don’t have.
My academic background is related to hydropower and I’m kind of the same way: Until I start seeing FERC and NRC operating licenses flying, I’m not touching any reactor companies with a 10-foot pole.
I think if they build tons of SMRs on bases, the dept of war becomes the regulatory body and they sidestep the NRC, so it can happen faster than you might think
The key difference here is that Oklo is part of the DOE’s Regulatory Pilot Program (RPP), which is explicitly designed to accelerate first-of-a-kind reactor licensing. That puts them well outside the normal multi-decade nuclear timeline. The Idaho site isn’t a random greenfield project; it’s a DOE-controlled site with an existing regulatory framework. With a standardized design, DOE support, and active NRC engagement, their target for first deployment around 2027 is aggressive, yes, but realistic within this unique accelerated program. Dismissing it as “not real” or hype misses the nuance: this isn’t just a corporate wish list, it’s a high-risk, high-upside play precisely because they are breaking the usual nuclear mold. Execution risk exists, but the upside comes from being ahead of the pack on licensing, DOE alignment, and site readiness.
This is just **flat wrong** on timelines. Oklo is targeting first deployment in 2027, with NRC engagement already underway for a specific site and design. Rolls-Royce SMR is still in design approval and site selection mode in the UK… first units aren’t expected until the early–mid 2030s at best. That’s not “coming online sooner,” that’s 5+ years later. Also, RYCEY isn’t a core U.S. domestic nuclear supplier. U.S. demand growth (AI, data centers, defense, DOE sites) will heavily favor American-licensed, American-built, fuel-secure operators. Oklo is aligned with DOE, U.S. regulators, and domestic fuel strategy. Rolls-Royce will absolutely have a role globally, but it won’t be the first mover or dominant player in the U.S.
Agree, and I’d go further-the “pre-revenue” critique misses the entire point of what Oklo is building. This isn’t an app, it’s regulated nuclear infrastructure. The real signal is that trillion-dollar companies with massive energy needs are engaging before revenue exists, because they understand the bottleneck coming. Add in the caliber of people who’ve been involved with Oklo and the fact that the DOE and NRC processes are being actively navigated, and it’s hard to argue this is anything close to a scam. There’s execution risk, sure… but that’s exactly why the upside exists. By the time revenue shows up, the obvious part of the trade is gone.
That’s exactly what I’m saying- Oklo and the other RPP companies can design, build and run the reactors, learn along the way and then submits a fast-tracked version at the tail end for commercialization, essentially “getting credit” from the DOE for their work. It’s all a part of the new DOE/NRC MOU, where the DOE is given more oversight throughout the process.
The DOE doesn’t approve for commercial operation. Read the Oklo submittals to the NRC. Everything is met with the response that not enough information was provided. It’s clear their design is much more conceptual than there leading people to believe.
If you think that Oklo will have a reactor operational in 2-3 years I have a brudge to sell you. Even with all the streamlining of the NRC that's just not gonna happen. They can't just point to EBR2 and say "look we have done a metal cooled fast reactor before, now give us permission" lmao, they are two whole different concepts and they haven't gotten passed even the easiest step yet. I'm bullish on the technology but all this over-hyped and impossible timelines is gonna do more harm than good, just invest in the suppliers of all the SMR's because 9/10 won't make it.
That take confuses pre-revenue with hypothetical. Oklo isn’t inventing new physics… it’s applying proven fast-reactor technology that already operated successfully for decades. The risk isn’t “will this work,” it’s “how fast can they license, build, and scale it.” Nuclear companies don’t earn revenue until after NRC approval and construction, so pointing to zero revenue at this stage just shows a lack of understanding of the industry. Oklo already has a defined fuel pathway, an active NRC licensing process, secured sites, DOE backing, and signed customer agreements. The real question isn’t whether Oklo can build a reactor… it’s whether the market is underpricing how early they are in front of a massive power demand curve. Long-term investors get that. Hand-waving it away as “hypothetical” is just lazy analysis.
That authority was recently given to DOE as a part of the reactor pilot program, NRC licensing gets streamlines at the tail end of the process, even after the reactor is built and running.
Did you see the recent DOE/NRC MOU? Initial NRC applications essentially don’t matter at all anymore after the creation of the DOE’s RPP… candidates will get streamlined licensing after their advanced reactors are already built and running at INL.
1. *NRC 2. They are just taking the EBR-II reactor that ran at INL and building it for commercial applications. SFRs have already been built before and are not new technology nor is spent fuel pellet recycling. Try again.
No they don’t. They don’t even have an NRC approved design.
Which doesn’t matter at all anymore after the creation of the DOE’s RPP… no one wants NuScale’s old, gen-3 product and history of executional failure. RPP candidiates will get streamlined licensing after their advanced reactors are built and running, per the DOE/NRC MOU.
If by close you mean; have yet to get NRC approval for any operations… And just reapplied for licensure in September in a process that takes 5-10 years. Then yeah, sure, they’re close.
The NRC demolished their pre-application.
The real powerhouse reactor builders aren't public. That's the problem ge hitachi is a serious one, and mayyyyybe the underdog terrestrial enrgy ISMR but they are trying to do a molten salt reactor, idk how the engineers will prove to the NRC that the salt won't corrode their parts after long time, it's only been done in small lab settings, not industrial scale. Terrapower is also a contender but i don't see them publicly traded.
Not even that: Their NRC operating license was denied the first time around on the grounds that they never provided any form of detailed information about their actual reactor design or mode of operation - much less criticality or other risks. The denial is a good read. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2022/22-002.pdf TLDR: there were no safety findings because OKLO failed to provide any actual details on safety. They’re going through licensing again now, but the first time took over 5 years only to get a letter about how they aren’t answering questions about safety critical concerns. I’m pretty sure they don’t actually know how to design, let alone build, a nuclear reactor.
No profits Missed earnings No approval from NRC Hell yeah
That comparison actually proves the opposite. Data centers are hard because they’re private, local-zoned, grid-constrained projects with no national security priority. HALEU enrichment is federally backed, centrally sited, and explicitly designated as a national security and energy-security imperative. The U.S. already built and operated enrichment at scale for decades (Paducah, Portsmouth) and is restarting it with DOE funding, long-term offtake guarantees, and NRC-defined pathways. These facilities don’t depend on speculative demand… they’re being built because without them, the U.S. nuclear sector literally cannot function. That’s a very different risk profile than a hyperscaler trying to secure power in Northern Virginia.
NRC is currently finalizing the review process for something like 15 more reactors. Theres 4 alone at the Fermi hypergrid project. All of these data centers have to provide their own power. GE has a SMR being green lit
# OKLO: Time to short it? [OKLO Inc (NYSE) 13B marketcap](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/OKLO/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIekvuT6GnGP7BPwlVQIBtT6XPpalRMNmgHQ967gcTiCuUO2SKSHmQatzNF9wCliIX8ZFJ3nVWZuVSgIFiz0OzdYHXN3IUCw3CWlRc5Ne9hAVM18vG9KctWHPzUCJ3bJxry1PAKLsNdAOQj2hPpVQsuWg3wo_oC6bDSgUyrJwPon) Alright fellow degenerates, I went down the OKLO rabbit hole and… I don’t see the bull case matching the current price. I would be curious to hear any counter arguments before I go all in on puts 🤡 Not financial advice, just connecting dots. ## The Hype Machine Why OKLO is mooning: - Sam Altman involvement - Government buzz around nuclear - AI / data center energy narrative What OKLO actually has: - No operating reactor - No commercial power - No revenue from electricity Right now this thing is basically trading on vibes and optionality. ## Nuclear = Slow AF This is not software. **This is nuclear.** Even by Oklo’s own timeline: - They’re hoping for a pilot unit around mid-to-late 2026 - They do NOT have full NRC approval - Their first NRC application was literally rejected in 2022 for lack of detail First of a kind nuclear projects usually take many years from licensing → construction → testing → operation. Commercial anything before 2027–2028+ looks very optimistic at best. ## Nuclear = Insanely Expensive OKLO: - No operating cash flow - No product revenue - Massive future capital requirements - Very real dilution risk coming long before profits exist High valuation + no revenue + massive capex = 🚩🚩🚩 ## Insiders Bailing This part is wild. There’s been heavy insider selling by top execs at these elevated prices as recently as end of December: CEO, CFO, other high-ranking insiders. Receipts: https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/OKLO/insider-trades No meaningful insider buying to offset it... They’re selling the dream while Reddit is buying it. ## The Disconnect Market is pricing OKLO like: > proven clean-energy company Reality is: > early-stage nuclear startup with no reactor, no revenue, no license Not saying it goes to zero, but the risk/reward on this thing feels completely upside down from here.
Duke Power applied to the NRC to build a bunch of small reactors in North Carolina
NuScale’s NRC design certification hasn’t translated into real projects or strong customer interest, while Oklo is actively moving forward. They secured 3 of 11 DOE Reactor Pilot Program projects, giving them DOE backing and a fast-tracked path to grid-ready reactors. Oklo also has a growing order book, solid cash reserves, and a build-own-operate model that enables scaling with debt rather than new equity. Their small, standardized Aurora reactors can be deployed at multiple sites, with early units funding later ones as operating history builds. Beyond power, Oklo has multiple revenue streams- including fuel recycling, advanced fuel fabrication, and radioisotope production… making them a vertically integrated nuclear platform, not just a reactor developer.
Doesn’t really change anything. Venezuela has *maybe* (only sources are a spotty assay from about 60 years ago) around 42,000 tons of ore reserves… But it is *incredibly* terrible quality uranium phosphate. We’re talking yields of >0.01% of usable material per ton, oh… and the fact that refining phosphatic uranium *has never been attempted, let alone done*. There are no refining methods in existence. Those have to be invented first. The phosphate makes things even more complicated and dangerous due to phosphorus chemistry being *particularly* nasty (toxic, spontaneously combustible, and caustic), coupled with Uranium’s equally potent pyrophoric properties make that ore a disaster in waiting. Current estimates are that out of that 42,000 tons of ore, only 50 tons are even viable for refining. Compare that to Canada’s high grade ore reserves of >588,000 tons. That all aside, almost all Uranium mining operations have been missing their targets by double digit percentages for the past year, it also takes decades for reactors to be built, and many of the designs causing the hype haven’t even passed design review let alone NRC licensing approval. TLDR; everyone’s getting hyped about a crappy supply possibility that would be tied to crimes against humanity, and demand that doesn’t actually exist yet, and won’t for decades. Don’t get me wrong, demand for U will go up… maybe 10-15 years from now.
The DOE’s Reactor Pilot program has 11 advanced reactor projects aiming to reach criticality by 7/4 next year. NRC has given the DOE authority to allow these companies to construct and test, with that information collected to be used for streamlined licensing reviews. Once the RPP reactors are built (whoever succeeds) subsequent review windows for new reactor sites are 18 months or less under the new ADVANCE Act and EO guidance.
A lot of the bullish arguments around Oklo collapse once you look at the actual sequence of how nuclear projects move from paper to reality. First, Oklo’s application was outright rejected at the NRC Licensing Review Committee stage, meaning it was not even accepted for detailed technical review. That’s unusual in the industry and signals fundamental deficiencies, not minor edits. After a rejection like that, a company doesn’t “resume” the process — it has to produce a materially revised application before it can even re-enter the queue. Once resubmitted, the acceptance review alone typically takes 6–12 months. If accepted, a first-of-a-kind reactor then faces 3–5+ years of full safety and environmental review, with repeated requests for additional information, redesigns, and clarifications. Only after that can a construction authorization even be considered — and that still isn’t permission to build immediately. Post-approval comes another long phase: site approvals, environmental work, financing, safeguards, security planning, emergency response planning, inspections, and contracting with certified nuclear suppliers. Critical components aren’t off-the-shelf. Specialized reactor hardware, fuel-handling systems, containment structures, nuclear-grade concrete, and precision manufacturing all require qualified vendors, audited processes, and regulator sign-off. Some of this equipment — including specialized centrifuge-based and fuel-cycle infrastructure — has multi-year manufacturing lead times and costs hundreds of millions of dollars. This is why the fuel argument is misplaced. When people talk about the government “allocating plutonium,” they’re really talking about HALEU fuel. HALEU is scarce and prioritized for licensed, operating, or near-term reactors, not companies with no reactor, no site, no customers, and no NRC license. Oklo is decades away from needing fuel, so allocating it to them now would make no sense. Fuel follows readiness — not stories. The same disconnect applies to claims about recycling legacy nuclear waste. That idea has been tried before, including large, government-backed programs with effectively unlimited resources, and it failed to reach commercialization. The barriers weren’t theoretical physics — they were cost, complexity, regulation, and politics. Recycling isn’t a shortcut; it’s historically been a dead end. Even after all of that, building a nuclear reactor is itself a multi-year project, typically measured in 5–10 years once construction actually starts. And when (or if) a first reactor is finally completed, it won’t be a commercial sale. First-of-a-kind reactors are typically demonstration units, heavily subsidized, discounted, or effectively given away because no utility wants to be the first buyer taking operational, regulatory, and political risk. In short, investors aren’t funding a near-term reactor business. They’re funding a very long-dated speculative option, with enormous regulatory, manufacturing, capital, and dilution risk — long before fuel, recycling, or commercial revenue becomes relevant.
The "average age" of the Kepler Fusion patent portfolio is quite low, which is a major advantage for a technology-focused company. Based on the most recent corporate updates from December 2025, here is the breakdown: 1. Most Patents are "Young" (Less than 4 Years Old) The majority of the 238 patents in the Kepler pipeline are very recent. While specific filing dates for all 238 aren't in a public list yet, we can track the "accelerated" phase of their IP growth: * The Initial Wave (2022): Kepler Aerospace and Kepler Fusion officially announced the start of their major fusion patent filing process in March and May 2022. * The Massive Expansion (2024–2025): The jump from a few core filings to "over 230 patents" occurred primarily throughout 2024 and 2025. * Estimated Average Age: Most of the IP is 1 to 3 years old. 2. Why "Young" Patents Matter for Your Valuation In the patent world, younger is generally better for valuation because: * Protection Length: A standard utility patent lasts 20 years from the filing date. Since most of Kepler's patents were filed between 2022 and 2025, they will protect the Texatron technology until at least 2042–2045. * Freshness to Market: Younger patents are more likely to cover modern advancements like AI-driven plasma control and new high-temperature superconducting materials that weren't available 10 years ago. * Roadshow Appeal: During the 2026 roadshow, management will pitch this as a "pristine" portfolio with a full two decades of market exclusivity ahead of it. 3. Comparing to Competitors For context, compare this to older fusion players: * TAE Technologies: Many of their core patents date back to the early 2000s or 2010s. While they have thousands of patents, some of their earliest foundational IP is starting to approach its expiration date. * Kepler (American Fusion): Because they are a "late mover," their patents are optimized for the current regulatory environment (specifically targeting aneutronic power which the NRC recently decided to regulate more leniently). 4. The "In the Pipeline" Distinction It is important to remember that because these patents are so young, many are likely still "Pending" or "Provisional." * Valuation Impact: An independent auditor (the one doing the $300M–$500M report) typically applies a slightly higher risk discount to "pending" patents than "granted" ones. * The 2026 Catalyst: As these 238 "pipeline" patents transition from "Pending" to "Granted" throughout 2026, each grant serves as a news catalyst that can push the stock price higher without any change in revenue. Would you like me to look for any specific "Grant" announcements from the USPTO for the Texatron™ technology from the last few months?
Accessing Trump’s political weight at DOE, NRC, FERC, and appropriations at the exact moment the U.S. created its first federal fusion office and is debating large public funding. I wonder how this will play out.
Same, no point in arguing with someone who doesn’t read or keep up with the sector. Get your next single talking point ready for when things materialized from the new framework. By the way, NuScale has had an NRC approved design for over five years now, how that’s working out for them?
No, and 2024 called- it wants its talking points back. Department of Energy owns the process now, with the NRC signing off after the reactor is already built and running. Your point has no implications towards their timelines or potentially scalability- I recommend that you look into the May EOs and the new MOU between the NRC/DOE for streamlined licensing. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2530/ML25303A288.pdf
Their Aurora is literally a replica of EBR-II and they are actively building it since approval is not needed through the DOE’s RPP program… the NRC fast-tracks commercialization after the pilot reactor has already been built and demonstrated. Have you been living under a rock for the past six months?
What are you talking about? They are actively building their three reactors through the DOE’s RPP framework at INL… NRC no longer has scope of authorizing FOAK advanced reactor construction, the DOE does.
I’d nibble OKLO tiny; prefer picks-and-shovels like BWXT and LEU. Watch NRC docketing, HALEU supply, and firm PPAs; slips mean dilution. CCJ for uranium beta. For idle cash, I use Vanguard Treasury money market, TreasuryDirect I Bonds, and a small Gainbridge fixed annuity. Barbell it: small OKLO, core BWXT/LEU.
There is a clean energy source and tech that can catch up and keep up: SMRs. It’s a regulatory bottleneck but we’re in a deregulation environment. Electrification will take years, so a bridge is needed. I don’t think the US government will risk China taking the AI lead. There’s the cameco commitment and heavy OKLO investment by big tech. I have speculative positions in this space betting on NRC fast tracking, driven by surging energy costs and midterms optics.
Don't ask me about wind. I'm not a big fan of wind. It seems resource-intensive to construct and expensive to maintain, while putting demands on grid infrastructure, without the high power density of nuclear. Solar's advantages are the aforementioned independence from grid infrastructure, but also that it *scales down* -- you can build a little solar where it's needed very quickly and inexpensively -- and it doesn't suffer from nuclear's crippling over-regulation, nor are most people afraid of it, which reduces barriers to implementation. The Chinese have demonstrated that new nuclear installations can be built a lot faster than it takes us, but "faster" is relative. It still takes them a few years to go from zero to an online reactor. Compare this to solar, which can be set up over a weekend for a residence, or a few months for larger facilities. The whole point of the SMR technology is to speed up reactor deployment, which also reduces a lot of their cost. The idea is that SMR are mass-produced, every reactor the same as every other, so that once the first reactor gets licensed by the NRC all of the other reactors coming off that line only mostly need their sites licensed. It remains to be seen if the NRC plays ball, though. A lot of the problems with nuclear boil down to people being foolish. Not only is it over-regulated and people are afraid of it, but also the people making budgets and cost/benefit analyses take a dim view of projects which cost a large lump sum (billions of dollars) and take several years to bear fruit. They are more likely to prioritize projects which will yield results within a financial quarter, even if in the long run the longer project is disproportionately more beneficial. Also, in places like California where enough solar has already been installed to meet all of the state's energy needs, it makes more sense to invest in grid-scale battery storage so that surplus energy generated during the day can be used at night. The lack of such storage produces the so-called "duck curve" representing a sharp drop-off of available power at night, necessitating firing up fossil-fuel power plants to make up the lack -- https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56880 Grid-scale battery storage is expensive and puts demand on California's overloaded and unreliable power grid, but quite a bit less so than a nuclear power plant. Not only is the total cost and time to build lower, but also unlike a nuclear power plant battery storage can be spread around amongst several installations, reducing point grid load and increasing reliability (if a segment of the grid goes down, battery power is still available to customers on both sides of the down segment). All of this neglects some of nuclear's other benefits, though: **Water** -- every nuclear facility is potentially an extremely highly productive water desalination plant. In Japan every reactor is required to also serve as water desalination, and a few reactors in the US do as well. Every reactor generates vast waste heat, which has to be gotten rid of somehow, and getting rid of it by desalinating seawater is a gimme. A one-gigawatt reactor produces enough waste heat to desalinate enough water to provide for the needs of half a million people. With enough coastal reactors built, we could effectively eliminate drought in the United States, and unstopper growth in places like Los Angeles which are bottlenecked on water supply. **Waste disposal / neutron chemistry** -- fast-neutron "burner" reactors are even more expensive than LWR, but they are more useful in various ways, too. One of their uses is disposing of nuclear waste, by breaking its atoms down into lighter and more benign (and even industrially useful) isotopes. There is a fast-neutron reactor being built right now in New Brunswick expressly for the purpose of disposing of legacy LWR waste, but also generating power. It won't be able to keep up with demand, though; we really need to build a lot more of those. It's easy to point at the fearmongers and say they're the reason we can't have nice things, but really the more fundamental problem is energy tribalism. People "pick a side", and are for "their side's" solutions and against "the other side's" solutions, but this is counterproductive. A more inclusive mindset, based on technical merit, would serve us better. We really need to improve our energy infrastructure. Our civilization literally depends on it. Realistically that should include both solar and nuclear. In practice, though, the decision-making processes are not that rational. I just hope we can somehow find our way to a better future.
Flagship product is the only NRC approved small modular reactor design = ready for commercial deployment in the US. Just one problem- they don’t have any customers. They’re still pre-revenue, highly speculative, burning cash and investing heavily in R&D, and even had their previous largest contract to date in Idaho cancelled due to poor cost management. Despite all that, if they can execute strong financial discipline & secure a major customer/partner I think they’re one of the highest upside plays in the nuclear sector.
Bullish! They have NRC-approved designs (first U.S. SMR certified; newer 77 MWe design and a 462 MW plant just approved in May–June 2025). That’s a real moat vs most SMR competitors.
I bought SMR and OKLO stock and going to hold until 2028-2029 and see where we go. The SMR stock went down by a lot recently due to news of share dilution but their design is approved by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) so longer term, I see good potential
Yes and no. Yes, he has sabotaged our economy, very badly. Yes, he has undermined the solar and wind industries. Yes, he is leaning hard into fossil fuels. On the other hand, though, his administration has taken solid steps to promote the development of nuclear energy, leveraging the DoE and the military to circunvent red tape and use military spending and facilities to start building out new nuclear installations. That, at least, is a good thing. We are going to need a lot of nuclear reactors, not just for datacenters but for curtailing drought and the eventual phase-out of fossil fuels. Solar can pivot pretty quickly. Presumably future administrations will be more sane and competent, and promote a resurgence of solar. We're going to need all the solar we can get, too, especially in the absence of needed power grid investments. One of the key advantages of solar is that they can go directly on the facilities which need power, avoiding the need for grid capacity. On the other hand, the Trump administration has also (very stupidly) slashed the headcount at the NRC, on the mistaken theory that with fewer bureaucrats standing in the way of nuclear development, nuclear facilities could be built faster. The reality is, the law hasn't changed, and so new nuclear facilities still need to jump through the NRC's regulatory hoops for their licenses. Fewer people working at the NRC means it takes even longer to review those new nuclear builds and hand out licenses. They really screwed the pooch on that one. Let's hope the next administration corrects the mistakes of the current administration, and keeps the (very few) decisions worth keeping.
DOE is managing most of the licensing process now, not the NRC – it’s going to be fast-tracked and they will begin mass scale at the end of this decade.
The opportunity is real but the timeline is longer than headlines suggest. Here’s where the money will actually flow: **Near-term plays (2025-2028):** 1. **Constellation Energy (CEG)** \- owns the plants Big Tech is restarting. They signed Microsoft's 20-year, 837MW TMI-1 deal and Meta's 1,121MW agreement. With 24 reactors up for renewal before 2035, they're the incumbent that actually has operating assets. Stock already up on these deals, but more renewals coming. 2. **Uranium miners** \- Cameco, Kazatomprom. The supply chain is constrained and SMRs need fuel. No new major uranium mines have opened in a decade. If SMRs scale, uranium goes into structural deficit by 2027-2028. This is your commodity leverage without picking an SMR winner. 3. **Regulatory consulting firms** \- The bottleneck isn't technology, it's NRC approval. SMRs need site-specific licenses and Big Tech doesn't know how to navigate this. Firms like **Lightbridge (LTBR)** that specialize in regulatory strategy and nuclear fuel consulting are quietly essential. **Mid-term (2028-2035):** 4. **SMR manufacturers** \- **NuScale (SMR)** is furthest along, first US SMR approved by NRC in 2020. Problem: their first customer (Utah) canceled the project. But now they have Amazon's $500M commitment for Washington state. Still risky - no commercial deployment yet. **Oklo (OKLO)** is Sam Altman-backed and pursuing fast reactors; riskier, but if they land more deals like Meta's, it's a 10x play. 1. **Modular construction/fabrication** \- SMRs are factory-built. Companies that can mass-produce containment vessels and reactor modules will be critical. Look at **Doosan** (Korean, partnered with NuScale) and **BWX Technologies (BWXT)** \- they build naval reactors, similar tech, already scaling. **The actual bottleneck (and opportunity):** 6. **Grid transmission companies** \- SMRs need to be sited near data centers, but the grid in between is maxed out. **NextEra (NEE)** and other utilities building transmission lines to industrial clusters (Virginia, Ohio, Texas) will capture the "last mile" value. **What to avoid:** * **Pure-play SMR startups without signed PPAs.** The Google-Kairos deal is promising, but Kairos hasn't built a reactor yet. Same for TerraPower's Wyoming project (backing from Gates/DOE, but construction just started). Valuations are frothy on *announcements*, not revenue. * **"AI-powered nuclear safety" startups** \- regulatory bodies won't trust black-box AI for nuclear safety. Hype without a pathway to adoption. **Timeline reality check:** The first SMR units will come online around 2030 (Google's Kairos deal). Until then, Big Tech is mainly buying *existing* nuclear output (TMI, Clinton plant). The real SMR boom is a 2030s story, not a 2025 one. Bottom line: **Constellation Energy is your safe bet** (they have the plants, the PPAs, and no execution risk). Uranium miners are your leverage. SMR manufacturers are your moonshots - allocate accordingly.
Did you mean 2037? Because none of these reactor designs are NRC approved yet…let alone under construction. Investors are VASTLY underestimating cost and schedule difficulties here. Meanwhile, GE Vernova is shipping gas turbines all over the world at a rate we haven’t seen since the early 2000’s.
Republicans are definitely trying to sabotage a lot of alternate energy progress, but both sides of the aisle have hampered nuclear over the decades. For all the current administration's faults there have been some steps taken to modernize nuclear in the US, which is something. The NRC has been an active bottleneck against nuclear innovation for 50 years now. China currently has more nuclear reactors under construction than the rest of the world combined.
How many pro-environmental plays have strong bi-partisan support right now? Advanced nucleara got a vote in the US Senate 88-2, under Biden. Trump's been Exec Ordering the NRC to do it's job. But don't wait-- it won't last forever. Already saw a WSJ Editorial Page saying "Dems are pro nuclear now, so GOP should turn against it." That's the quality of thought from the political hacks. But I think we will have enough bipartisan time to get it done. Remember, nuclear can be 10x cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel, and is already much more reliable. So ... one of these startup companies is likely to be huge. Do you try to pick it? Or try to buy into all of them?
That was 4 years ago. NRC visited the plant last week
Speaking of timelines ... The aurora reactor NRC application. When OKLO re-applied with the NRC and there was an accelerated review planned for this reactor design ....do you know the timeline for approval or announcements?
NRC says it's "the worst" applicant it's ever had it's smoke and mirrors and nice renderings
For interested parties that want to know the path forward for OKLO: With the DOE selecting OKLO for their nuclear project, OKLO is moving forward with building a reactor with criticality (reactor is running) in the summer of 2026 ( about eight months away). They cant sell electricity without a COLA and NRC approval, but they can have a working reactor with DOE approval. They already have the fuel for this first reactor. After having a working reactor, OKLO is betting that the NRC approval will happen faster since they will have a working model rather than a design on paper. After NRC approval, all that is required is to hook up their reactor to the electric grid and do all the necessary startup testing. I have no clue as to what the OKLO stock is worth, I made my money this year and got out.
Your link led me to an endless square verifying bs, but if it's what I'm assuming it is then it wasn't even because the plan wasn't viable but just because they didn't receive enough information. And that was 4 years ago dawg, they've already broken ground on that very plant. They've received a significant number of regulatory approvals already, and that is one of the larger hurdles to nuclear. Oklo has already received an NRC audit for Phase 1. The NRC is also the poster child of bureaucracy, to my knowledge the only license that originally submitted to the NRC since its founding in 1975 that has actually begun operations is Vogtle 3/4. So Oklo being this far along is a huge deal.
Govt has soft indicated = Secretary of Energy was on their board? I don't want to solely rely on grift and corruption as my investment thesis. The NRC said Oklo had the worst application they've ever received: https://archive.ph/dzDhh I want nuclear to do well but I don't think Oklo is it