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
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
Nuclear is having its moment because data centers need baseload power that renewables can't consistently provide. When Microsoft signs a 20-year PPA with Constellation to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1 specifically for AI training, that's not a publicity stunt - that's infrastructure reality. The math is compelling: A single large language model training run can consume 1-2 megawatts continuously for months. You can't do that with solar/wind intermittency, and batteries at that scale are still economically prohibitive. Natural gas works but has carbon exposure risk. CEG and VST are the pure plays, but watch the regulatory environment. The NRC hasn't approved a new reactor design in years, so the real value is in companies that can restart existing units or extend licenses. Small modular reactors (SMRs) are promising but still 5-10 years from commercial deployment. Position sizing matters here - this is a long-term infrastructure thesis, not a quick trade.
The problem with coming out and saying exactly what will happen with SMR, whether positive or negative is sort of already expressed in the title of this post. How do you "feel" about SMR being a good long term investment, nobody really knows how this will shake out, so many variables with regulatory/NRC. It boils down to whether, as an investor, you have a conviction that the technology is worthwhile and valuable in the future, and that's something that's really hard to say for sure with the numerous regulatory hurdles SMR is bound to face. I bought its IPO as a freshman in college, held until it hit 30, trimmed cost basis, sold it all in a couple tranches at an avg of 46/share, and just actually bought more today with a couple tranches of limit orders in case it goes lower. I think the technology is worthwhile, but I could learn a hard lesson by investing in it. We will see.
The problem with legacy is their lack of innovation and low growth potential. Not that they are bad but upside is extremely limited. Yes, interest in SMR’s is skyrocketing. But of those 127 designs listed, there is only 1 approved today by NRC - NuScale. These things take years for approval. This is certainly a speculative investment and waiting till they have revenue and installed smr’s operational would miss the runup til that point. Yes, this investment could go to zero but personally willing to take that chance.
every one is talking AI, data centers, electric vehicles,these will be huge for sure, so im thinking where is all the electricity gonna come from? it must be plentiful it must be local ,it must be green as possible ,,,all these technologies will not function unless nuclear energy is in play, but a plant takes 10 years to build ,,,,wait the NRC has approved the design of a small nuclear reactor from a company called Nuscale. built in a factory in modules small enough to ship directly to a Data center or small town or factory, SMR will be the supplier of massive amounts of clean energy,,,,,,,study SMR and put all your eggs into this basket , dont listen to the diversitards, all in and wait,,,SMR in 7 years will be $1000 after 3 splits buy now and hurry
all while market tries to guess what's next at the biggest valuations since ever due to AI. I don't imagine this is a bubble popper; i personally think energy might be. The AI data centers and chips require constant, large amounts of energy that the current grid cannot supply. They need more nuclear reactors or coal power plants built, and given the pace of US construction it will likely not be in time. Then it's a choice of no power in your home but chat gpt, or having lights and no chat gpt. Wild card is the modular nuclear reactors like oklo is trying to submit plans for, and smr who have plans submitted for review to the NRC. These reactors can potentially power the grid, but also costs billions to build from materials that are sourced abroad so... tariffs.
"Oklo" Worth a read: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G4huKykWMAAUIJe?format=jpg&name=large Also a line from that Bloomberg piece: "A former senior agency official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says Oklo “is probably the worst applicant the NRC has ever had."
> Terrestrial’s IMSR design hasn’t yet entered US NRC licensing review September 10th press release of NRC Principal Design Approval - https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/newsroom/posts/5296 > Oklo has also secured HALEU fuel access through DOE contracts - a key bottle neck that Terrestrial still faces Oklo has not “secured” the HALEU fuel, it is simply in the DOE’s Fuel Line Pilot Program which should help them secure the fuel. Terrestrial, however, does not require HALEU and instead uses SALEU. SALEU is easier to source than HALEU. Additionally, Terrestrial is also in the DOE Fuel Line Pilot Program (link - https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-selects-four-companies-advanced-nuclear-fuel-line-pilot-projects) > Terrestrial’s SPAC valuation looks lower mainly because its earlier in both licensing and commercialization - it hasn’t demonstrated an operational test unit or secured federal demonstration backing. Has OKLO demonstrated an operational test unit or have they simply broken ground at their site? And if the DOE Reactor and Pilot programs are what you are counting for “secured federal demonstration backing” then Terrestrial has done this as they are in both the DOE’s pilot programs for fuel line and reactor. Fuel line program link is above, here is the reactor program link from August 12th - https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/newsroom/posts/5264 > OKLO is already several phases into the DOE pilot pipeline and under active NRC review for multiple submissions, including its Principal Design Criteria report now being reviewed on an accelerated timeline. Terrestrial already has NRC Principal Design Criteria approval, as noted by my first bullet point. I included dates for these announcements to show that all this was readily available knowledge at the time of your comment. I believe you deliberately left out/lied about information to make your favorite little stock look better but maybe you can convince me I am wrong?
Yeah, that’d be a smart play if it actually happens. Using old Cold War fuel could save ‘em a ton of time and cash. Still, nothing’s real till the NRC gives the green light. Cool story for now, but I wouldn’t go full send on OKLO just yet.
All these smr start ups are basically put a coin in the slot machine and pray. Each has a relatively small chance of success given how much competition in the sector there is. Still i would place BWRX-300 (GEV), hond (terrestrial energy) and SMR (nuscale), as the highest on the probability of success list. GEV and SMR make the most sense because they're basically scaling down established light water tech. Based on what i understand of nuclear reactors i would say there is almost a zero percent chance a "micro reactor" is at all a good idea in any context, or that the economics make sense for that matter. The US experimented with the concept back in the 60's and 70's when safety concerns were lower and nuclear innovation was on the rise, and it was unanimously decided the idea of tiny reactors distributed in remote locations is a terrible idea from a safety and proliferation stand-point. Just think about the fact that graphite moderated reactors are optimal for plutonium generation, now you're going to mass-manufacture these little things and distribute them all over the world, owned by small mining companies or remote rural townships? No way that flies with the IAEA or the NRC.
When are they targeting first commercial deployment? Has an ISMR reactor ever operated or gone through regulation in the U.S.? Do they have an own-and-operate model which allows NRC reviews for new sites to take a little as 6 months?
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the early 2030s before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first commercial Aurora reactor by 2027, which is a huge lead in a sector where first mover advantage is everything. Your point that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the primary bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. This combined with the fact that they recently announced a $1.7B HALEU recycling center in Tennessee is a hedge against fuel sourcing risk and provides a strong moat. And let’s talk money, because that’s what most people miss. Terrestrial’s SPAC merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. Regulatory progress also isn’t in the same league. Oklo’s topical report was accepted by the NRC for an accelerated review, and they represent 3 out of the 11 projects for the DOE’s pilot reactor program. Terrestrial, meanwhile, is still navigating pre-licensing stages in both the U.S. and Canada. That’s not insignificant, but there’s a big difference between being in pre-app review versus actually pouring concrete on U.S. federal land. And the “valuation gap” argument is just frankly lazy math. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s current $4B (post-merger) valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. This also doesn’t factor in the close connections that OKLO has with DOE leadership (Chris Wright), Sam Altman, and the current administration- which to many investors, means a lot more than everything else. At the end of the day, HOND is a concept stock where Oklo is actively transitioning into an execution story. Oklo is already building on a reactor design that literally powered the grid decades ago, has government fuel supply support, and is the first microreactor company to break ground at a national lab. Terrestrial’s molten salt approach is exciting, but it’s still theoretical at the commercial level. If we’re talking asymmetric upside, I’d rather put my money in the company that’s already proving it works instead of one that hopes to by the 2030s.
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the **early 2030s** before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first Aurora reactor by 2027–2028, which is a huge lead in a sector where first mover advantage is everything. The idea that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. This combined with the fact that they recently announced a $1.7B HALEU recycling center in Tennessee is a hedge against fuel sourcing risk and provides a strong moat. And let’s talk money, because that’s what most people miss. Terrestrial’s SPAC merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. Regulatory progress also isn’t in the same league. Oklo’s topical report was accepted by the NRC for an accelerated review, and they represent 3 out of the 11 projects for the DOE’s pilot reactor program. Terrestrial, meanwhile, is still navigating pre-licensing stages in both the U.S. and Canada. That’s not insignificant, but there’s a big difference between being in pre-app review versus actually pouring concrete on U.S. federal land. And the “valuation gap” argument is just frankly lazy math. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s $600–700M valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. At the end of the day, HOND is a concept stock. Oklo is an emerging execution story. Oklo is already building on a reactor design that literally powered the grid decades ago, has government fuel supply support, and is the first microreactor company to break ground at a national lab. Terrestrial’s molten salt approach is exciting, but it’s still theoretical at the commercial level. If we’re talking asymmetric upside, I’d rather put my money in the company that’s already proving it works instead of one that hopes to by the 2030s.
The amount of time I’ve read “XXXX is the next Oklo” these last few weeks has been insane. Oklo is the next Oklo. Terrestrial only makes sense to me if you are specifically looking for Canadian market exposure, as that’s where most of their regulatory headway and experience is in. Domestically, ISMR tech is completely unproven and will likely face more regulatory hurdles with the NRC, to which HOND has had very little experience with. Also they are targeting their first commercial build in the “early 2030s” so most optimistically that’s 5 years behind the competition.
OKLO’s COLA submission to the NRC is any day now- looking forward to the morning they announce
Yeah I’m talking about the NRC for commercialization, outside of the pilot program
They can’t even build a reactor until they have NRC approval which they haven’t yet applied for.
Oklo is not a "proven design". They have no reactor built yet and don't even have NRC license. NuScale's SMR is not a proven design, for that matter, though they at least have an NRC license, nor the BWRX-300, nor terrapower's, nor nano's. None of these smrs are proven anything because they haven't been built yet. They are all paper-reactors. When they have built one and it works it will be proven.
Calling Oklo a scam makes no sense- they’re literally building at a DOE site under the federal Reactor Pilot Program and just had their NRC design criteria accepted for accelerated review. You don’t get government-backed land, fuel access, and federal oversight if you’re fake. It’s one of the most regulated industries on the planet, not some crypto rug pull.
There was an episode on them on Decouple podcast. Their design got rejected by NRC. They’re trying to accomplish their goal with 200 people while countries like Russia that have actual fast sodium reactors have thousands of people working on it (a whole division of Rosatom). The only new approved design is for TerraPower, but they aren’t publicly traded
It has went under NRC review already though specifically, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed a Safety Evaluation for Terrestrial’s IMSR Principal Design Criteria, approving inherent reactor safety features
After I graduated college I worked at a national lab that handled the licensing applications (on behalf of the NRC) of 29 new nuclear power plants. I worked on the hydrology portion. Each application was delivered on PALLETS. Do you know how many of those 29 were built? Only one, Vogtle.
There’s no design submission. The last submission they made over 3 years ago was dismissed without prejudice. Which is incredibly rare. Usually the NRC will work with companies to things approved. I think the micro reactor technology will work eventually but they will need at least another decade to get up and running. And even then, the ROI is basically a mystery at this point. It may never cost out. Getting something approved to be built could very well be another rug pull when it doesn’t work out.
OKLO have only begun their dance with the NRC which can take 7+ years and are very likely to NOT fast track anything, particularly something new and unproven . NuScale $SMR is already past that hurdle but doesn’t have a “celebrity” investor like Altman. The tides could quickly turn if NuScale can keep their head start to market. Neither is likely to have a working reactor before 2029.
While Terrestrial Energy ($HOND) has potential, the argument that it’s “undervalued relative to Oklo” ignores key structural and regulatory realities. Oklo isn’t just a concept-stage company… it’s the first private U.S. company granted Department of Energy pilot program authority (three of the eleven total awards) and has an active reactor site at Idaho National Laboratory where it’s broken ground. Oklo’s Aurora design is a modernized version of EBR-II, a sodium-cooled fast reactor that successfully operated for three decades at the same site, giving it a uniquely proven technical foundation. By contrast, Terrestrial’s IMSR design hasn’t yet entered U.S. NRC licensing review, and the company doesn’t hold any U.S. construction or operating licenses. Its agreements so far are preliminary and largely outside the U.S. market. Oklo has also secured HALEU fuel access through DOE contracts- a key bottleneck that Terrestrial still faces… and has established power purchase and development framework agreements totaling over 14 GW, including with Switch, Equinix and Wyoming hyperscale. Terrestrial’s SPAC valuation looks lower mainly because it’s earlier in both licensing and commercialization; it hasn’t demonstrated an operational test system or secured federal demonstration backing. Meanwhile, Oklo is already several phases into the DOE pilot pipeline and under active NRC review for multiple submissions, including its Principal Design Criteria report now being reviewed on an accelerated timeline. In short, Oklo’s advantage isn’t hype… it’s positioning. It has regulatory traction, a proven reactor lineage, secured fuel and siting rights, and tangible commercial demand- all in the U.S. market where AI and data-center-driven power needs are growing fastest. Terrestrial may eventually play a role, but Oklo is clearly ahead in real-world execution.
Yeah, I think its hard to complain about 4x and 5x returns hahaha. And lets face it, OKLO is a 25B dollar company with no revenue and no NRC approved design. 25 billion is a hell of a lot for having nothing but ideas.
There are major utility companies powering data centers with Nuclear Power right now. Okolo hasn't even been able to get approved by the NRC to do testing yet.
For DoD and DOE builds, yeah. However Oklo will be submitting their COLA to NRC soon for commercial.
I didn’t realize Trump cut out the NRC. I’m going to read up in that
It’s great that the DOE can now circumvent NRC authority to build these pilot reactors- I’m sure we’ll see a lot more coming soon! Looks like their new target is mid-2026. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-30/oklo-targets-mid-2026-launch-for-us-nuclear-reactor-ceo-says?embedded-checkout=true
I'm just saying it's way more legit than GSRT, which I think is pretty obvious. It seems to be more comparable to the 'legit' players like OKLO/SMR, except at a fraction of their market cap. At $18, $HOND is only $2.3B vs. SMR at $11.6B and OKLO at $20.4B. to answer your question though, here's what ChatGPT 5 Thinking said for reference (feel free to point out something you think it got wrong): # So…what makes HOND / Terrestrial Energy “legit” vs. faster-looking peers? 1. **Regulatory substance, not sizzle.** Terrestrial just cleared an **NRC Safety Evaluation** of its **Principal Design Criteria**—including acceptance of its **inherent power control** concept—**a first** for a molten-salt power reactor. That’s a real, bankable step in the U.S. process many peers haven’t matched. 2. **Binational de-risking.** It already completed **CNSC Phase-2 Vendor Design Review** in Canada, with coordinated NRC-CNSC workstreams. That cross-jurisdiction work reduces “unknown unknowns” for future U.S./Canada projects. 3. **Fuel advantage.** IMSR is designed for **LEU/SALEU**, avoiding near-term **HALEU** bottlenecks that loom over fast-reactor and many microreactor roadmaps (Oklo, others). 4. **Two DOE ‘fast-track’ lanes.** It’s selected for both the **Reactor Pilot Program** *and* the **Fuel Line Pilot Program**—that pairing shortens the path to a first build and sets up future NRC licensing with fewer gaps. (Pilot reactors are DOE-authorized; commercial fleets still need NRC.) 5. **Commercial siting pathways.** MoU with **EnergySolutions** on multiple brownfield nuclear sites and an invitation from **Texas A&M (RELLIS)** build optionality for FOAK/early units—exactly what many peers still lack. **Bottom line:** Some developers publicized earlier CODs before the DOE “fast-track” push, but HOND/Terrestrial’s **regulatory depth + LEU fuel strategy + DOE selections** give it a credible, *financeable* lane now. The market hasn’t priced it like OKLO yet (very different multiples), but on execution signals, it’s one of the more “real” advanced-nuclear SPACs.
My past several buys have all been for International Isotopes. Two pending catalysts are an uplisting to a major exchange, for which shareholders/BOD have voted for, and a $12.5 mil sell of an NRC deconversion of depleted uranium license, or DuF6 for those that want details. The announced buyer is American Fuel Resources and have applied for that license. It will be a huge catalyst for INIS and for current retail investors. Disclosure: I have been investing in the company over 10 years. Search for company name and AFR or NRC and you will find links to more info, or go to company website. [https://intisoid.com/](https://intisoid.com/) $INIS is 70% insider owned, and very much under the radar it would appears. Until recently there were not a lot of shares for sell near the trading range. The company sells radioisotopes, medical equipment, calibration standards, and sealed sources. There was a 180K ASK open late in the trading day yesterday. That was out of the norm, even for a stock that trades oddly. If one were able to build a position without running up the SP, then there might be some reason to look at this hidden gem. I saw one analyst average target price of just over 16 cents for the next 12 months. I can see something much higher than that when news of the license transfer hits the streets. Since September there has been a noted increase in followers on LinkedIn for what that is worth. The company just wrapped up a 4 day presentation of products in Spain. Other recent presentations have been in Latin America. Several key employee new hires to fill new positions indicate rapid growth for the company.
Progress * They **broke ground** on their first commercial Aurora reactor (Aurora-INL) at Idaho National Laboratory. Construction is underway. * They completed the **NRC Readiness Assessment Phase 1** for their Combined License Application (COLA); meaning they’ve satisfied several pre-application regulatory requirements. * Their NRC “Principal Design Criteria” report (setting safety, reliability, and performance requirements) was accepted for review under an accelerated timeline.
Look at HOND. Buying a nuclear company that got the same love from the NRC that OKLO did. A company that’s actually further ahead of OKLO. It’s market cap? About 50x less than OKLO. This fucker is gonna run up so hard
NRC is the regulator. Designers and manufacturers should submit their design documents to NRC for approvals. Design approv is how regulatory control starts. This will be followed by factory process approval. For example Nuscale approval documenta are available for public viewing.
You say no viable product, but Oklo’s Aurora is based directly on the EBR-II reactor that ran safely and efficiently at INL for three decades. They’ve already broken ground at the same site, completed fuel assembly flow-testing, and had their PDC topicals accepted by the NRC under an accelerated schedule. Yes, they’re pre-revenue, but in advanced nuclear, ‘viable’ means validated tech, regulatory traction, and committed demand… not a finished plant. The upside isn’t about being identical to Amazon or Tesla- it’s about being first to scale a proven design to meet exploding AI and data center power needs. If they execute, the leverage is enormous
NRC meant Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I have updated the post. Please approve.
Tomorrow is the first day that Oklo is eligible to submit their Aurora application to the NRC (10/1) per the new ADVANCE Act fees
Just means it’ll be faster to get rejected by the NRC (again). Streamlining the process is advantageous for all the players in the SMR/AMR space, particularly those with existing, functional designs!
All the faster for the NRC to decline it (again)
My bet is on International Isotopes. Ticker INIS and there is news about a sell of NRC license for deconversion of depleted uranium for $12.5 mil that should happen soon. There is talk of another buyer perhaps coming in with a higher offer if American Fuel Resources isn't able to arrange financing. INIS has given a drop dead date of next March. Looking at Level II now I see what would be a huge jump should trading go anywhere that high. Company is 70% owned by insiders and they have already voted with the other shareholders to uplist to a big board. I've been building a large core position for over 10 years. For those that follow on LinkedIn, you will have noticed several new key employee hires that indicate rapid growth. [https://intisoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PR\_DUF6-Asset-Transaction\_20240208\_final.pdf](https://intisoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PR_DUF6-Asset-Transaction_20240208_final.pdf)
I don't get the nuclear meme stocks. NRC and DOE approval takes decades.
Calling Oklo a ‘grifter company’ ignores the actual milestones they’ve hit. Their first COL was denied for administrative reasons, not safety, and they’ve completed an NRC readiness assessment while preparing for resubmission. They’re also building at INL under DOE pilot authority and have framework agreements with hyperscalers- real steps toward de-risking and commercialization. You haven’t provided any evidence that anything is a scam, instead you are hyper emotional and trying to distract.
Their first COL was denied for administrative reasons, not safety, and Oklo is prepping a resubmission after completing an NRC readiness assessment. With DOE pilot authority, INL construction, and hyperscaler agreements, they’re the U.S. first-mover in advanced SMRs. First-mover isn’t about a finished reactor- it’s about milestones, regulatory progress, and infrastructure, and Oklo is already ticking those boxes.
Yes, Oklo’s first COL was not approved, but it was largely due to process and formatting issues, not safety or feasibility. They’ve since resubmitted and are actively working with the NRC under updated advanced reactor frameworks, and they’re moving forward with DOE pilot program authority and actual construction at INL. Being first in line with both regulatory engagement and commercial frameworks is what makes them a U.S. first-mover- you don’t need a finished reactor to hold that position.
Respectfully, your comment seems to conflate traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear with what Oklo is actually doing. Oklo isn’t building a 1GW conventional plant that takes 10–15 years, they’re pioneering compact, advanced fission reactors designed to be smaller, modular, and faster to license and deploy. Oklo is one of the first U.S. companies to advance a commercially deployable advanced fission reactor through the NRC licensing process. That regulatory head start is significant, and most competitors are still in early design or pre-licensing stages. They have concrete plans for multiple 75MW reactors with LOIs and DOE support, so this isn’t just theoretical. By design, SMRs reduce construction and permitting timelines dramatically, we’re talking years (2027), not decades, before revenue generation. While traditional nuclear takes forever, Oklo is actually pioneering the next generation that could scale safely and profitably much faster. The stock isn’t about vaporware, it’s about being first to market in a segment with enormous regulatory and technical barriers.
Didn't the NRC deny OKLOs design and license? What do you meant leading with regulatory approvals?
Kudos for being quite consistent about your position with respect to HOND as I had remembered reading your same comment verbatim in another Reddit community and upon my searching, I see it’s in multiple forms in response to others mentioning HOND. No question that for those who were in early in OKLO they made a killing and for that they deserve praise for their foresight. But given its lofty valuation now, I don’t think there are the same opportunities for OKLO investors to 10 X their investment in the next one or two years. Perhaps the OKLO technology will succeed and that would be great for the AI world and I certainly wish them well. But unless you were in early, I don’t foresee the same kind of returns in the stock for new investors. HOND offers new investors the only publicly traded SMR company that like OKLO is on the DOE SMR pilot program and its share price is a fraction of OLKO. In other words, there is potential headroom for dramatic Share price growth - whether the stock achieves that or not is anyone’s guess. As far as the technology goes, whether either of these companies’ reactor designs wok in commercial use is anyone’s guess because neither has been tried yet in commercial use. Neither has a design approved by the US government. Personally, I hope both companies succeed and that the AI world has a source of clean, carbon free, almost unlimited power because the United States grid will never be built out to the size required by the mushrooming demand of the construction, boom and data centers. It would be fantastic if OKLO shareholders continue to get richer and richer and those of HOND join the party. Since you cut and pasted your response to HOND in multiple forms in Reddit I will paste the best response I’ve seen to your criticisms of HOND: “Whether HOND will become the next OKLO in the future has yet to be determined. You are right - the Terrestrial Energy reactors will be larger and have a new design but are designed to produce many times more power than OKLO’s reactors. In terms of speed to market I am not sure if OKLO will be first. OKLO’s first design concept was rejected by the NRC in January 2022 and it still lacks an approved reactor design. Only SMR (NuScale Power) has that albeit for a 50-MWe module - not the 77-MWe module design that it wants to move forward with. OKLO is also very expensive so, as an investment, if you are not already in it, there may not be as much upward headroom as opposed something like HOND, which is still much less expensive by comparison to either OKLO or SMR. I do not see OKLO offering any possibility to a new investor this year of a 10 X or even 5X return on a new investment as that’s already occurred. HOND offers that possibility (although of course it could go south as well.) Also, HOND has another significant advantage over competitors. Connections. The United States Commerce Secretary’s family’s investment firm, NYC powerhouse Cantor Fitzgerald (the Commerce Secretary himself was the chairman of this firm and the principal owner and controller of it until he became Commerce Secretary, and transferred that ownership and control to family trusts controlled and run by his children and family and his sons run the firm now), own over $20 million of HOND stock and warrants which, if the stock performs similar to OKLO, will be worth at least $200 million to $300 million. I would venture to believe that the stock will perform quite well if the Trump administration continues to give the necessary, regulatory approvals to the company, or takes an ownership stake in it.”
Yeah $OKLO has giga-tendie potential, but it can also nuke faster than my Robinhood account on CPI day. They’ve got no revenue yet, just vibes, and they’re burning cash like a Tesla fire while praying those LOIs actually turn into contracts. Regulators are the final boss here, one NRC hiccup and this thing faceplants 50% before lunch. Execution risk is huge too, because building a mini reactor isn’t like backtesting an RSI strategy, it’s supply chains, fuel, and safety, a lot of ways to rug. The stock’s already running more on Sam Altman hype than fundamentals, which means if he sneezes wrong, OKLO bleeds. And if they need more cash, dilution is coming and your “diamond hands” turn into confetti. So yeah, it *could* hit $200 if every catalyst lands perfectly, but it could just as easily crater if one domino tips. Trade the volatility, don’t marry the reactor.
Oklo’s initial COL was denied due to process deficiencies, not technical concerns, and the NRC has since revised its licensing framework for advanced reactors. In contrast to NuScale’s large-scale, high-capex design, Oklo is targeting smaller, modular systems with a clearer commercial pathway. Importantly, Oklo recently broke ground at Idaho National Lab as part of the DOE reactor pilot program, marking the tangible start of infrastructure construction. Insider alignment, including Sam Altman’s ongoing holdings, further contradicts the idea of a near-term ‘enrichment scheme.’
Oklo’s 2022 COL application was denied for process deficiencies, not safety grounds. Since then, the NRC has updated its approach for advanced reactors, and Oklo has DOE pilot backing that lets them proceed with site and infrastructure work. While commercial deployment is long lead, the company is aiming for first criticality around 2026. The key difference from a ‘pump and dump’ is that Oklo has insider alignment, DOE program support, and an active regulatory pathway. They just began site construction last week! https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/smrs/oklo-breaks-ground-on-its-first-nuclear-powerhouse/