Why Silicon Valley is so hot on nuclear energy and what it means for the industry
The Vogtle nuclear power plant is located in Burke County, near Waynesboro, Georgia in USA. Each of the two existing units have a Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR), with a General Electric turbine and electric generator, producing approximately 2,400 MW of electricity. Two Westinghouse made AP 1000 reactors are under construction here.
Pallava Bagla | Corbis News | Getty Images
Venture capitalists in Silicon Valley and other tech hubs are investing money in nuclear energy for the first time in history. That’s changing its trajectory and pace of innovation.
“There’s not been a resurgence of nuclear power, ever, since its heyday in the late 1970s,” Ray Rothrock, a longtime venture capitalist who has personal investments in 10 nuclear startups, told CNBC.
Now, that’s changing. “I have never seen this kind of investment before. Ever.”
Jacob DeWitte, CEO of micro-reactor startup Oklo, says the landscape has changed dramatically since he started raising money in 2014, when he was a part of the Y Combinator startup incubator.
“More investors are interested, more investors are excited by the space, and they’re getting smarter to do the diligence and know what to do here — which is good,” DeWitte told CNBC.
This surge of private investment will be a positive for the industry, agrees John Parsons, an economist and lecturer at MIT.
“I think having fresh perspectives is really good,” Parsons told CNBC. Nuclear energy is “a very complex science, and it’s been supported by the federal government and at these national labs. And so that’s a very small circle of people. And when you broaden that circle, you get a lot of new minds, different thinking, a variety of experiments.”
In any industry, there can be a “groupthink” or “narrowness” in the way things are done over time, Parsons said. With private investment in the space, “there will be out-of-the-box thinking,” he said. “Maybe that out-of-the-box thinking doesn’t produce anything useful. Maybe it turns out that the old designs are the best. But I think it’s really wonderful to have the variety of takes.”
Not everyone is so optimistic that the recent influx of venture dollars will lead to progress.
“Investors have often invested in stupid things that didn’t work,” Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University, told CNBC. “Because the reality is that in a 75-year history of this technology, it has never been profitable in a market-based system.” If investors are putting money into nuclear now, that’s because they think they can make money, and “I can only think they believe they will make money because they think that there’s a big opportunity to have the federal government pick up a big part of the tab,” Oreskes said.
Pitchbook’s private investment data for nuclear technology data includes both fusion and fission.
Chart courtesy Pitchbook.
Nuclear investment by the numbers
From 2015 to 2021, total venture capital deal flow in the United States increased 54% in terms of deals closed and 294% by dollar value, according to data compiled by private capital market research firm Pitchbook for CNBC. In that same time, climate investing deal flow in the United States jumped by 214% in terms of volume and 1,348% by dollar value.
In the nuclear space, investment rose even faster — 325% by volume and 3,642% by dollar value, according to Pitchbook.
Some of the rapid pace of increase in investment in the nuclear sector is explained by its starting point — virtually zero.
“This is still pretty small compared to the private investments in renewables,” like wind and solar, for example, said David Schlissel, director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a market research firm.
The venture market slowed overall in 2022, and nuclear investment is no exception. Concerns about the war in Ukraine, inflation, a wave of layoffs and murmurs of a recession have made investors nervous in the public markets and private alike.
Pitchbook includes companies developing technologies to mitigate or adapt to climate change in this category. Examples include renewable energy generation, long duration energy storage, the electrification of transportation, agricultural innovations, industrial process improvements, and mining technologies.
Chart courtesy Pitchbook
“At the beginning of the year, we were looking at a much different financial paradigm for nuclear startups seeking funding. Now, following a war, and inflationary related forces, the fundraising market is just not what it was earlier and that is challenging for everyone seeking funding and support, nuclear or otherwise,” Brett Rampal, a nuclear energy expert who evaluates investment opportunities and consults for nuclear startups, told CNBC.
More than $300 billion poured into the venture capital industry in 2021. Rothrock expects to see more like $160 billion in 2022.
“I’m sure that some funds that pull back may never come back,” Rothrock said. But most investors who are putting money into a nuclear company understands that it will not be a quick investment, Rothrock told CNBC. “Entrepreneurs and investors at the level we are talking for nuclear are playing the long game, they have to. These projects will take time to mature and to generate real cash flows.”
Also, the Inflation Reduction Act that President Joe Biden signed into law in August, which includes $369 billion in funding to help combat climate change, has given nuclear investors a very significant positive signal, Rampal told CNBC.
“The IRA investment and production tax credits are not nuclear specific credits, they’re clean energy credits that nuclear is now considered a part of, and that sends a real important message to people and investors that would consider this space,” Rampal said. Similarly important, the European Union voted in July to keep some specific uses of nuclear energy (and natural gas) in its taxonomy of sustainable sources of energy in some circumstances, according to Rampal.
Total venture capital deal activity, according to Pitchbook data, for the last five years.
Chart courtesy Pitchbook.
The VC approach to nuclear
The nuclear power industry in the United States launched as a government project after the U.S. built the first atomic bombs during World War II. In 1951, a nuclear reactor produced electricity for the first time in Idaho at the National Reactor Testing Station, which would become the Idaho National Laboratory.
In the 1960s and 1970s, large conglomerates constructed big nuclear power plants, and those projects often ran over budget. “As a consequence, most of the utilities that undertook nuclear projects suffered ratings downgrades—sometimes several downgrades—during the construction phase,” according to a 2011 report from the Congressional Budget Office. Also, the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 raised public fears about safety and put a damper on construction.
Nuclear power generation in the United States peaked in 2012 with 104 operating reactors, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
However, in recent years, private investors and venture capitalists have been putting money into nuclear startups, driven by a newfound sense of urgency to respond to climate change, as nuclear energy releases no greenhouse gases. There’s also the allure of funding underdog companies with huge upside.
The venture capital model is based on big bets — venture capitalists spread their money across many companies. Most are expected to fail or maybe break even, but if one or two companies get enormous, they more than cover the cost of all those losses. This is the investing model that built Silicon Valley stalwarts like Apple, Google and Tesla.
Some venture capitalists are especially excited about fusion. It’s the type of nuclear energy that powers stars, and it generates no long-lasting radioactive waste — but so far, it’s proven fiendishly difficult to create a lasting fusion reaction on Earth and impossible to generate enough energy for commercial generation.
“It’s far better than nuclear fission,” investor Vinod Khosla told CNBC in October. “It’s far better than coal and fossil fuels for sure. But it’s not ready. And we need to get it ready and build it.”
Khosla isn’t the only one. The private fusion industry has seen almost $5 billion in investment, according to the Fusion Industry Association, and more than half of that has been since since the second quarter of 2021, Andrew Holland, CEO of the association, told CNBC.
Installation of one of the giant 300-tonne magnets that will be used to confine the fusion reaction during the construction of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) on the Cadarache site on September 15, 2021.
Jean-marie Hosatte | Gamma-rapho | Getty Images
Others are excited about new advances in nuclear fission, the more traditional type of nuclear power based on breaking atomic nuclei apart, like DCVC founder Zachary Bogue, who invested in micro-nuclear reactor company Oklo.
“Advanced nuclear fission is a quintessential deep-tech venture capital problem,” Bogue told CNBC in September. There is technical and regulatory risk, but if those problems are solved, “there are just massive-scale returns … all of those elements are a perfect recipe for venture capital.”
While these bets seem expensive and risky compared with venture capital’s recent focus on software and consumer tech, they’ll still bring a faster and more agile approach than the old-line nuclear industry.
Take micro-reactors.
“These are going to be very expensive at first. But the goal is to find something that is a product that’s much more flexible, can go on to the grid in many more different places and serve different functions, and go off grid also,” explained MIT’s Parsons.
Similarly, fusion startups say they will generate energy much faster than government research projects like ITER, which has already been in progress since 2007.
This quick-turn approach to investment is spurring experimentation. New generations of nuclear reactors will have different sizes, different coolants and different fuels, explained Matt Crozat, senior director of policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Some reactors are being designed for companies or communities in isolated areas, for example. Others are being made to operate at high temperatures for industrial processes, Crozat told CNBC.
“It really is expanding the range of what nuclear can mean,” Crozat said. Many won’t succeed, but time and the market will figure out what’s needed and what’s possible, he said.
Because venture investors are hungry for returns, this also spurs nuclear startups to chase interim revenue streams as they’re getting their big-bet technology up and running.
For example, Bill Gates‘ nuclear innovation company TerraPower is working on a demonstration of its advanced reactor in Wyoming in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy, but in the meantime is using its capacity to produce isotopes that are also used in medical research and treatments. Advanced nuclear company Kairos Power is developing the capacity to produce salt for molten salt reactors, both for itself and to sell to other companies.
‘A long history of broken promises’
But critics say venture capitalists are ignoring the troubled history of nuclear power as a business.
“Investors have forgotten or are ignoring the lessons from earlier generations of nuclear plants which cost 2 to 3 times as much to build and took years longer than was promised by the vendors,” Schlissel told CNBC. For instance, a project to put two new reactors on the Vogtle power plant in Georgia was originally estimated to be $14 billion and ended up costing more than $34 billion and taking six years longer to complete than expected, he said.
15 November 2022, Egypt, Scharm El Scheich: A nuclear symbol is displayed at a pavilion of the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA at the UN Climate Summit COP27. Photo: Christophe Gateau/dpa
Picture Alliance | Picture Alliance | Getty Images
Harvard’s Oreskes says the nuclear industry is a “technology with a long history of broken promises,” and she is skeptical of the sudden investor interest.
“If you were my daughter, and you had a boyfriend that had made repeated promises to you over months, years, decades, constantly breaking them, I would say, ‘Do you really want to be with this guy?'”
She’s not categorically anti-nuclear, and supports the continued operation of nuclear power plants that already exist. But she’s particularly skeptical of fusion, which has been promised to be “just around the corner” for decades, and says this new round of investments in fusion “doesn’t pass the laugh test.”
Ultimately, the new crop of nuclear startups has to figure out how to create nuclear energy in a cost-competitive way, or nothing else matters, says Rothrock.
“More money means more startups and to me that means more shots on goal (improving odds of success),” he told CNBC.
“The issue in nuclear is economics. Plants are complicated and take a while to build. Some of these new startups are tackling those issues making them more simple and thus cheaper. No one will buy an expensive power plant, especially a nuclear plant. Economics drives it all.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk threw shade at Waymo for having “rookie numbers” amid Tesla’s own disappointing autonomous-driving performance, raising the question: Is Elon Musk delusional or simply lying about Tesla’s Full Self-Driving?
Every year since 2018, Musk has alternately claimed that Tesla would solve self-driving “by the end of the year” or “next year.”
It never happened.
Tesla claimed a sort of victory this year with the launch of its “Robotaxi” service in Austin, Texas, but even that has been misleading since the service only operates a few vehicles in a geofenced area, something Musk has criticized Waymo for in the past, and unlike Waymo, Tesla has in-car supervisors with a finger on a killswitch to stop the vehicle in case of a potential accident.
Even with in-car supervisors preventing an unknown number of accidents, we recently learned that Tesla’s robotaxi crash rate is almost twice that of Waymo’s, which operates its service without any employees inside its vehicles.
Now, Musk called Waymo’s 2,500 fully autonomous vehicles currently in operation “rookie numbers”:
To put the comment in perspective, Tesla is believed to have about ~30 “Robotaxis” in its Austin fleet. In addition, Tesla claims to be operating “robotaxis” in the Bay Area with just over 100 cars, but it is officially considered a ride-hailing service because drivers are in the driver’s seat, and Tesla hasn’t even applied for an autonomous driving permit in California.
Tesla has also been pushing increasingly more misleading claims about its “Full Self-Driving” system being safer than humans.”
In the last few weeks, Tesla has repeatedly shared this misleading data as “proof” that its system is safer than humans:
This dataset is based on Tesla’s quarterly “Autopilot safety” report, which is known to be misleading.
There are three major problems with these reports:
- Methodology is self‑reported. Tesla counts only crashes that trigger an airbag or restraint; minor bumps are excluded, and raw crash counts or VMT are not disclosed.
- Road type bias. Autopilot is mainly used on limited‑access highways—already the safest roads—while the federal baseline blends all road classes. Meaning there are more crashes per mile on city streets than highways.
- Driver mix & fleet age. Tesla drivers skew newer‑vehicle, higher‑income, and tech‑enthusiast; these demographics typically crash less.
With the new chart on the right above, Tesla appears to have separated Autopilot and FSD mileage, which gives us a little more data, but it still has all the same problems listed above, except the road-type bias is less pronounced, since FSD is also used on city streets.
However, many FSD drivers choose not to engage FSD in potentially dangerous or more difficult situations, especially in inclement weather, which contributes to many crashes – crashes that are counted in the human driver data Tesla is comparing itself against.
Lastly, it is unfair to say that the data proves FSD is safer than human drivers, as even with the flawed data, Tesla should claim that FSD with human supervision is safer than human drivers. It’s not FSD versus humans, it’s FSD plus humans versus humans.
It leads us to this.
With Tesla and Musk being undoubtedly wrong and misleading about the performance and the very nature of its current autonomous driving offering, I wanted to know your opinion about the situation through this poll:
Electrek’s Take
Personally, I think it’s a little of both.
I think he sometimes really believes Tesla is on the verge of solving autonomy, but at the same time, he is perfectly willing to cross the line and mislead people into thinking Tesla is further ahead than it actually is.
For example, I believe I can explain this comment about Waymo having “rookie numbers” despite the Alphabet company having about 10x more “robotaxis” than Tesla – even with Tesla’s very loose definition of a robotaxi.
Based on job listings across the US and his recent ridiculous comment that Tesla will magically cover half of the US population with robotaxis by the end of the year, I think Tesla is hiring thousands of drivers. Soon, it will put them in Model Ys with ‘Robotaxi’ stickers on them and have them drive on FSD and give rides in the Robotaxi app in several US cities.
Musk will claim that Tesla’s Robotaxi is now bigger than Waymo, even though it will basically be the equivalent of Uber drivers in Tesla cars with FSD, which is already the case. Just this week, I took an Uber from the Montreal airport, and it was in a Model Y with FSD. Has Tesla launched ‘Robotaxi’ in Montreal?
It’s either that or he counts consumer vehicles with FSD, which is even dumber.
In short, he is delusional, and when he realizes that he was wrong, he is willing to lie to cover things up.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Solar and wind are growing fast enough to meet all new electricity demand worldwide for the first three quarters of 2025, according to new data from energy think tank Ember. The group now expects fossil power to stay flat for the full year, marking the first time since the pandemic that fossil generation won’t increase.
Solar and wind aren’t just expanding; they’re outpacing global electricity demand itself. Solar generation jumped 498 TWh (+31%) compared to the same period last year, already topping all the solar power produced in 2024. Wind added another 137 TWh (+7.6%). Together, they supplied 635 TWh of new clean electricity, beating out the 603 TWh rise in global demand (+2.7%).
That lifted solar and wind to 17.6% of global electricity in the first three quarters of the year, up from 15.2% year-over-year. That brought the total share of renewables in global electricity – solar, wind, hydro, bioenergy, and geothermal – to 43%. Fossil fuels slid to 57.1%, down from 58.7%.
Renewables are beating coal
For the first time in 2025, renewables collectively generated more electricity than coal. And fossil generation as a whole has stalled. Fossil output slipped slightly by 0.1% (-17 TWh) through the end of Q3. Ember expects no fossil-fuel growth for the full year, driven by clean power growth outpacing demand.
China and India are partly driving that shift. In China, fossil generation fell 52 TWh (-1.1%) as clean energy met all new demand, resulting from a structural change in its power system. India saw fossil generation drop 34 TWh (-3.3%), thanks to record solar and wind growth and milder weather.
Solar is leading the charge
Solar is doing the heavy lifting. It’s now the single biggest driver of change in the global power sector, with growth more than three times larger than any other electricity source in the first three quarters of the year.
“Record solar power growth and stagnating fossil fuels in 2025 show how clean power has become the driving force in the power sector,” said Nicolas Fulghum, senior data analyst at Ember. “Historically a growth segment, fossil power now appears to be entering a period of stagnation and managed decline. China, the largest source of fossil growth, has turned a corner, signaling that reliance on fossil fuels to meet growing power demand is no longer required.”
Electricity demand rose 2.7% in the first three quarters of 2025, far slower than the 4.9% jump seen last year when extreme heatwaves pushed up cooling demand in China, India, and the US. This year’s milder weather helped take some pressure off the grid, making it easier for clean energy to close the gap.
A turning point for the global power system
For the first time outside of major crises such as the pandemic or the global financial crash, clean energy growth has not only kept up with demand but surpassed it. The next big question: can solar, wind, and the rest of the clean power sector keep up this pace consistently? If they can, 2025 may be remembered as the year global fossil generation plateaued.
Read more: FERC: For two years straight, solar leads new US power capacity
If you’re looking to replace your old HVAC equipment, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you’re finding a trusted, reliable HVAC installer near you that offers competitive pricing on heat pumps, check out EnergySage. EnergySage is a free service that makes it easy for you to get a heat pump. They have pre-vetted heat pump installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions. Plus, it’s free to use!
Your personalized heat pump quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – *ad
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
![The Genesis GV90 really does have coach doors [Video]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/09/Genesis-GV90-space.jpeg?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
Genesis is taking luxury to the next level with its new flagship SUV. The GV90 is shaping up to be the brand’s most lavish vehicle yet, offering ultra-premium features like coach doors.
Genesis GV90 caught with coach doors in real life
After unveiling the Neolun Concept at the New York Auto Show last March, Genesis said it was a preview of its first full-size SUV.
The “ultra-luxe, state-of-the-art SUV,” as Genesis describes it, will be the brand’s largest and most luxurious vehicle yet, slotted above the GV80.
It wasn’t the stunning design or the over-the-top interior that caught most people’s attention, but the B-pillarless coach doors.
Although we were worried that some of the ultra-premium features, like the coach doors, wouldn’t make it to the production model, new spy photos reveal otherwise.
A GV90 prototype was spotted out in public with the coach doors wide open, giving us our closest look at the setup. The new spy photos, courtesy of SH Proshots (via TheKoreanCarBlog), show the hinged door system in action and offer a glimpse of the interior.
Earlier this year, Hyundai Motor filed several patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, detailing new door latching devices.
Two patents, titled “Cinching Device For Door Latches in Vehicle” and “Door Latch Device for Vehicles,” offer a better idea of how the Genesis GV90’s coach doors will work.
Genesis has previously said that B-pillarless coach doors are now a reality in production vehicles. It looks like the GV90 will be the first to debut it.
Yes, the Genesis GV90 will be available with coach doors, but it likely won’t be standard on all trims. It could be a premium feature reserved for higher-priced variants. The GV90 has been spotted out in public several times now with a traditional door design. We’ve also caught a glimpse of other premium features it will offer, like adaptive air suspension.
Genesis has yet to reveal prices or final specs. We could see the GV90 debut by the end of the year, with sales expected to start in mid-2026.
One thing is for sure: The Genesis GV90 won’t be cheap. It’s expected to start around $100,000, but higher trims could cost upwards of $120,000.
Earlier this week, a production version of the GV90 was caught for the first time driving in South Korea. It was still covered in camouflage, but from what’s shown, it looks nearly identical to the Neolun concept.
Reports suggest the flagship SUV could debut on Hyundai’s new eM platform. Hyundai claims the platform will deliver a 50% improvement in driving range per charge compared to its current EVs. It’s also expected to offer Level 3 autonomous driving and other advanced driver assist capabilities.
The flagship electric SUV will serve as a tech beacon, showcasing Hyundai’s latest tech and software. It’s expected to feature a massive 24″ curved infotainment as part of a digital cockpit design.
Genesis is also launching its first hybrid, the GV80, next year, and an extended-range electric vehicle (EREV) in late 2026 or early 2027. The luxury brand will also introduce a new off-road SUV as it expands into new segments.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024