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.”
Newly published data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), reviewed by the SUN DAY Campaign, reveal that solar accounted for over 75% of US electrical generating capacity added in the first nine months of 2025. In September alone, solar provided 98% of new capacity, marking 25 consecutive months in which solar has led among all energy sources.
Year-to-date (YTD), solar and wind have each added more new capacity than natural gas has. The mix of all renewables remains on track to exceed 40% of installed capacity within three years; solar alone may be 20%.
Solar was 75% of new generating capacity YTD
In its latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through September 30, 2025), FERC says 48 “units” of solar totaling 2,014 megawatts (MW) were placed into service in September, accounting for 98% of all new generating capacity added during the month. Oil provided the balance (40 MW).
The 567 units of utility-scale (>1 MW) solar added during the first nine months of 2025 total 21,257 MW and were 75.3% of the total new capacity placed into service by all sources. Solar capacity added YTD is 6.5% more than that added during the same period a year earlier.
Solar has now been the largest source of new generating capacity added each month for 25 consecutive months, from September 2023 to September 2025. During that period, total utility-scale solar capacity grew from 91.82 gigawatts (GW) to 158.43 GW. No other energy source added anything close to that amount of new capacity. Wind, for example, expanded by 11.07 GW while natural gas’s net increase was just 4.60 GW.
Between January and September, new wind energy has provided 3,724 MW of capacity additions – an increase of 28.6% compared to the same period last year and more than the new capacity provided by natural gas (3,161 MW). Wind accounted for 13.2% of all new capacity added during the first nine months of 2025.
Renewables were 88% of new capacity added YTD
Wind and solar (plus 4 MW of hydropower and 6 MW of biomass) accounted for 88.5% of all new generating capacity while natural gas added just 11.2% YTD. The balance of net capacity additions came from oil (63 MW) and waste heat (17 MW).
Utility-scale solar’s share of total installed capacity (11.78%) is now virtually tied with that of wind (11.80%). If recent growth rates continue, utility-scale solar capacity should surpass that of wind in FERC’s next “Energy Infrastructure Update” report.
Taken together, wind and solar make up 23.58% of the US’s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity.
Moreover, more than 25% of US solar capacity is in the form of small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that are not reflected in FERC’s data. Including that additional solar capacity would bring the share provided by solar and wind to more than a quarter of the US total.
With the inclusion of hydropower (7.59%), biomass (1.05%) and geothermal (0.31%), renewables currently claim a 32.53% share of total US utility-scale generating capacity. If small-scale solar capacity is included, renewables now account for more than one-third of the total US generating capacity.
Solar soon to be No. 2 source of US generating capacity
FERC reports that net “high probability” net additions of solar between October 2025 and September 2028 total 90,614 MW – an amount almost four times the forecast net “high probability” additions for wind (23,093 MW), the second fastest growing resource.
FERC also foresees net growth for hydropower (566 MW) and geothermal (92 MW) but a decrease of 126 MW in biomass capacity.
Meanwhile, natural gas capacity is projected to expand by 6,667 MW, while nuclear power is expected to add just 335 MW. In contrast, coal and oil are projected to contract by 24,011 MW and 1,587 MW, respectively.
Taken together, the net new “high probability” net utility-scale capacity additions by all renewable energy sources over the next three years – the Trump administration’s remaining time in office – would total 114,239 MW. On the other hand, the installed capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear power combined would shrink by 18,596 MW.
Should FERC’s three-year forecast materialize, by mid-fall 2028, utility-scale solar would account for 17.3% of installed U.S. generating capacity, more than any other source besides natural gas (39.9%). Further, the capacity of the mix of all utility-scale renewable energy sources would exceed 38%. The inclusion of small-scale solar, assuming it retains its 25% share of all solar energy, could push solar’s share to over 20% and that of all renewables to over 41%, while the share of natural gas would drop to less than 38%.
In fact, the numbers for renewables could be significantly higher.
FERC notes that “all additions” (net) for utility-scale solar over the next three years could be as high as 232,487 MW, while those for wind could total 65,658 MW. Hydro’s net additions could reach 9,927 MW while geothermal and biomass could increase by 202 MW and 32 MW, respectively. Such growth by renewable sources would swamp that of natural gas (29,859 MW).
“In an effort to deny reality, the Trump Administration has just announced a renaming of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in which it has removed the word ‘renewable’,” noted the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director Ken Bossong. “However, FERC’s latest data show that no amount of rhetorical manipulation can change the fact that solar, wind, and other renewables continue on the path to eventual domination of the energy market.”
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 Century is considered the most luxurious Toyota, and now it’s being spun off into its own high-end brand. Despite the rumors, the ultra-luxury brand won’t be as electric as expected.
Toyota sets new luxury brand up to fail with ICE plans
First introduced in 1967, the Century was launched in celebration of Toyota’s founder, Sakichi Toyoda’s 100th birthday.
The Century has since become a symbol of status and wealth in Japan, often used as a chauffeur car by high-profile company officials.
Toyota previewed the future of the ultra-luxury marquee at the 2025 Japan Mobility Show in October, launching it as a new standalone brand positioned above Lexus.
The new Century brand is set to rival higher-end automakers like Rolls-Royce and Bentley, but it won’t be as electric as initially expected. Toyota’s powertrain boss, Takashi Uehara, told CarExpert that the luxury brand’s first vehicle will, in fact, have an internal combustion engine.
Although no other details were offered, Uehara confirmed, “Yes, it will have an engine.” As to what kind, that has yet to be decided, Toyota’s powertrain president explained.
Like the next-gen Lexus supercar and upcoming Toyota GR GT, Uehara said the Century model could include a V8 engine.
The Century has been Toyota’s only vehicle with a V12 engine. In 2018, Toyota dropped the V12 in favor of a V8 hybrid powertrain for its third-generation.
Toyota’s Century launched its first SUV in 2023, currently on sale in Japan with a V6 plug-in hybrid system alongside the sedan.
Already widely considered the biggest laggard in the shift to fully electric vehicles, Toyota doubled down, developing a series of new internal combustion engines for upcoming models.
Century is one of the five global brands the Japanese auto giant introduced in October, along with Daihatsu, GR Sport, Lexus, and Toyota.
Electrek’s Take
It’s not surprising to see Toyota sticking with ICE for its ultra-luxury Century brand, but it will likely be a costly move.
Chinese auto giants, such as BYD and FAW Group, are quickly expanding into new segments, including high-end models under luxury brands such as Yangwang and Hongqi.
These companies are now expanding into new overseas markets, like Europe and Southeast Asia, where Japanese brands like Toyota have traditionally dominated, to drive growth.
Top luxury brands, including Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz, are already struggling to keep pace with Chinese EV brands. How does Toyota plan to compete with an “ultra-luxury” brand that still sells outdated ICE vehicles? We will find out more over the coming months and years as new sales data is released.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
SparkCharge has partnered with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) and Zipcar to launch the Northeast’s first off‑grid, mobile DC fast‑charging hub for shared EVs. The goal is to bring fast, reliable EV charging infrastructure into communities without having to wait for costly or slow grid upgrades.
The hub sits at Zipcar’s maintenance facility in East Boston, an Environmental Justice community. It’s funded through MassCEC’s InnovateMass program and gives onsite mechanics the ability to quickly recharge a rotating fleet of Zipcar EVs before they’re dispatched across Greater Boston. Members and rideshare drivers who rent Zipcars will get steadier access to charged EVs.
“Electrification should never be limited by where the grid is or how long it takes,” SparkCharge founder and CEO Joshua Aviv said. “With this program in East Boston, we’re showing how fleets can deploy at scale, in any community, and deliver clean mobility today.”
At the center of the setup is SparkCharge’s Mobile Battery‑Powered Trailer, which delivers 320 kW of DC fast charging without the delays and big price tags that usually come with fixed infrastructure. The trailer can recharge from Zipcar’s existing onsite power between sessions, topping up its high‑capacity batteries without stressing the local grid. Since it avoids major grid upgrades entirely, the model is designed to deploy quickly and at zero upfront cost for fleets.
MassCEC says the project shows what community‑first fast charging can look like. “Every resident deserves access to clean, reliable transportation,” said Leslie Nash, MassCEC’s senior director of Technology‑to‑Market. “By partnering with SparkCharge and Zipcar in East Boston, we’re showing how Massachusetts is leading the way in clean transportation innovation.”
The hub also plays into Massachusetts’ push to hit its net‑zero 2050 targets. As shared mobility grows, electrifying fleets will be key to cutting emissions in dense urban corridors. This project introduces a scalable charging option to a part of Boston that is underserved by public charging, helping to keep Zipcar’s EVs reliably on the road.
“For twenty‑five years, Zipcar has been a leader in shared mobility, and we’re proud to take another step toward a more sustainable future,” said Angelo Adams, Zipcar’s president. “Working with SparkCharge and MassCEC allows us to bring fast, reliable EV charging directly to our members and rideshare drivers.”
Zipcar, which is owned by car rental company Avis Budget, announced on December 1 that it was shutting down its UK operations by December 31, 2025. An Avis Budget spokesperson stated that the reason was “to streamline operations, improve returns, and position the company for long-term sustainability and growth,” adding that “all other markets remain unaffected.”
Read more: With a $30M raise, SparkCharge takes EV fleet charging off-grid
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.
-
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
-
Environment3 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