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.”
Toyota’s latest move in its work to harm the environment involves an internal platform where it uses video games to spread propaganda among its North American employees, enticing them with prizes to join lobbying efforts to loosen environmental rules around the automotive industry.
We’ve covered Toyota’s anti-environment lobbying efforts many times before.
For an inexhaustive list of how Toyota lobbies to harm the environment, the company:
Now, an excellent report by the Guardian details how Toyota uses internal communications to encourage its employees to join its propaganda efforts, with anti-EV and anti-environment propaganda in the form of video games where employees can earn points and prizes.
Toyota calls the platform “Toyota Policy Drivers,” and it’s available to some 10,000 employees across North America. The games were created by LGND, a software firm that has also made projects for defense contractors Aurex and Bechtel.
It consists of several videos telling Toyota’s side of the story – like Toyota’s insistence that hybrids pollute less than EVs, which is incorrect – and links to participate by reaching out to public representatives.
But that’s just normal corporate propaganda stuff. What’s different about Toyota’s platform is the gamification of the process, encouraging employees to earn points and play video games while digesting this propaganda.
Video games used as anti-environment propaganda
Games include Monster Mansion, Adventure Quest, Star Quest, and Dragon Quest (no, not the long-running and popular RPG – we wonder if trademark authorities might be interested in that one).
Toyota cycles games in and out each year, but each has a similar goal of showing propaganda videos in exchange for points. The videos were publicly visible until this morning. After the Guardian published its article, Toyota password protected them.
Playing the “games” can earn you points, which can be redeemed for stickers and t-shirts, or even trips. One employee says he earned cupcakes and a trip to Washington, DC.
Adam Zuckerman of Public Citizen had harsh words for the program, which he called “dystopian” and said “treats employees like children.” Specifically referring to Stephen Ciccone, Toyota’s VP of public affairs for North America, Zuckerman said:
It’s fitting that Ciccone calls himself a wartime consigliere because he has gone to war against the standards that protect our communities and the air that we breathe. Like the mafiosos that he fashions himself after, he is pressuring his own workers into doing his bidding against the common good. Ciccone should quit cosplaying mafia, end his dystopian game of poisoning our air, and stop blocking the green vehicles of the future.
Toyota’s actions and its public image diverge
Toyota’s propaganda contradicts its long-held public image. For decades now, Toyota has been considered by the public as one of the more environmentally-friendly automakers, first starting with its small cars in the 70s and later due to the Prius, the vehicle that is known for popularizing the conventional gas hybrid powertrain. In the early 2000s, the Prius was among the most efficient vehicles available.
However, the Prius is no longer particularly efficient comparatively. Just about any electric car is significantly more efficient than a Prius – even the ridiculous Hummer EV roughly matches the Prius in energy efficiency at 53mpge vs. 57mpg. Also, conventional hybrids get 100% of their energy from fossil fuels, and are thus inherently incompatible with climate solutions.
Despite Toyota’s false claims that gas-powered hybrids are the answer to reducing emissions, its own numbers show that its emissions have steadily increased over the years. And its average US fleet mpg is consistently middling-to-poor, according to the EPA’s automotive trends report.
When Toyota owners are educated about Toyota’s opposition to environmental policy, it results in a 32% reduction in favorability for the brand. A large majority of Toyota owners want the company to support stronger environmental policy.
Similarly, a recent appearance of Toyota’s chairman, Akio Toyoda, decked out in US campaign gear supporting Donald Trump helped many in the public to recognize Toyota’s friendliness with anti-environment actors. As former CEO, Toyoda was largely responsible for the company’s current failure to adopt electric vehicles.
But Toyota has dug in its feet in defending hybrid vehicles, which it considers its own territory, whereas electric vehicles are the territory of other brands. So it twists itself into knots trying to defend more-polluting vehicles, despite the harm that they cause to everyone who lives on Earth – yes, including Toyota employees, who breathe the same air and live in the same disrupted climate as the rest of us.
Toyota laughably claims this corporate-led effort is “grassroots”
While Toyota says that employees don’t have to participate, the combination of incentives and implicit pressure from higher-ups means that employees who would not have otherwise lobbied against the public interest would then be encouraged to do so.
It calls the effort “grassroots advocacy,” even though it is being coordinated and pushed upon employees of a one of the largest corporate entities on the planet (that’s not what “grassroots” means…). It also allows employees to participate during working hours, indicating that it sees these videogames as a work activity, rather than natural grassroots advocacy.
Indeed, the company brags about what it sees as the success of the program, taking credit for various harmful policy changes, like republicans’ illegal attempt to force dirty air on 12 US states. Toyota also used the platform to oppose EPA exhaust rules that would save Americans $100 billion in fuel costs, wrongly calling it an “EV mandate,” despite that the Biden rule is actually technology neutral (which Toyota claims to support, even though it opposed a technology neutral measure in practice).
Perhaps now, with the knowledge of yet another way that Toyota spreads anti-environment propaganda, some of the environmental sheen of this company can start to tarnish in the public eye.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar 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.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss Seth and me (Fred) each buying a new EV, Tesla Robotaxi progress, Ford’s $19 billion charge on EVs, and much more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET:
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The ID.Buzz will not be available in the US for the 2026 model year, but Volkswagen said this isn’t the end for its electric minibus.
Volkswagen cancels 2026 ID.Buzz for the US market
And just like that, the US loses yet another electric vehicle. Volkswagen is pulling the ID.Buzz from its lineup in 2026, but it apparently won’t be forever.
A company spokesperson confirmed the news to Carscoops on Friday, telling them, “Following a careful assessment of current EV market conditions, we have made the strategic decision not to move forward with MY26 ID.Buzz production for the US market.”
While you won’t be able to get your hands on a 2026MY, Volkswagen suggested the electric minibus is in a “transition” phase and will return in 2027.
According to the company spokesperson, the decision enables VW to use the resources instead to focus on selling down current inventory, “ensuring a strong foundation as we prepare for the MY27 transition next year.”
The comments come after a text from a VW dealer surfaced on Reddit, claiming the company notified dealers that the ID.Buzz is being discontinued with no 2026 models planned. The text also stated, “What we currently have in stock will be the final availability.”
Volkswagen’s spokesperson pushed back against the claims, saying that’s not accurate. “We gave dealers this direction: The ID. Buzz continues to serve as an important halo product for the Volkswagen brand, and safeguarding its market presence remains a top priority,” they said.
Like the entire US auto industry, VW is facing new headwinds under the Trump administration, including new tariffs and policy changes such as ending the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles.
Through the first nine months of 2025, Volkswagen sold just under 5,000 ID.Buzz models in the US. The 2025 VW ID.Buzz started at $61,545 with an EPA-estimated driving range of 234 miles.
Electrek’s Take
The Volkswagen minibus was a hit thanks to its open, flexible interior and distinctive look, which became a cultural icon. However, it was also extremely affordable.
While the policy changes under the Trump Administration are forcing automakers to rethink their electrification plans, the $60K electric minibus was a tough sell from the start.
Volkswagen is promising to introduce more affordable vehicles, but the US will miss out on most of them. Will the ID.Buzz return in 2027 at a lower price? It could.
Ford recently announced it has ended production of the current F-150 Lightning and will replace it with an extended-range electric vehicle (EREV) version. The American automaker is also shifting from large, more expensive EVs to smaller, more profitable models.
Once thing is for sure: When, or if, the ID.Buzz returns; it will need to be either at a lower price or offer much more in terms of features, driving range, etc.
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