By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel is divided on the nuclear comeback thesis, with concerns about execution risks, geopolitical issues, and regulatory challenges outweighing the potential benefits of rising uranium demand and small modular reactors (SMRs).
Risk: Permitting delays, cost overruns, supply-chain bottlenecks, and regulatory pressures on merchant power models and nuclear capex.
Opportunity: Growing demand for 24/7 baseload power from AI data centers and potential regulatory shielding of nuclear margins.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Just a few years ago, the nuclear power industry was seemingly on its deathbed. The echoes of Fukushima were still ringing, and renewables like solar were finally cost-effective enough to move into the mainstream.
Much has changed -- or not changed -- in the meantime, however. Even though solar power is the United States' fastest-growing source of electricity, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that solar power still only accounts for about 4% of the nation's total power production. Wind and power combined only make up 17% of U.S. power generation, in fact, while nuclear is holding on at nearly 19%. A similar (although hardly identical) mix applies outside of the U.S. as well.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now, when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks »
What gives? Simply put, reality is setting in. Solar and other renewables aren't doing enough fast enough to meet the ever-growing need for electricity, which, of course, is accelerating due to the ongoing proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. The next-best immediate solution is well-proven nuclear power, which the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts could more than double capacity by 2050.
In other words, the nuclear power comeback is real. Here are three of the top ways to plug into this long-term undertow.
Some investors are so focused on their hunt for companies working on the next great nuclear power reactor technology that they're looking right past the opportunity staring them in the face. That's the fuel that these reactors perpetually consume: uranium-235. And as it turns out, there are very few companies that actually mine and prepare this material for nuclear power reactors. Cameco (NYSE: CCJ) is one of them.
Canada-based Cameco, while not the biggest company doing this, may be the best investment option for the simple reason that it's an integrated, soup-to-nuts player with mining, refining, and enrichment operations, as well as spent fuel storage. It's even the co-owner of Westinghouse, which makes and services nuclear reactor equipment, including nuclear reactors themselves.
Cameco did $3.5 billion in business last fiscal year and is expected to be about the same this year. And per-share profits are projected to increase only from $1.44 to $1.63 over the same two-year period. That's not a ton of encouraging growth.
Just wait. S&P Global Market Intelligence says worldwide annual uranium revenue is on pace to more than double between now and 2033, boosted by a modest but measurable rise in prices.
It's difficult to doubt this optimistic outlook, too. If nuclear energy is in the midst of a resurgence, the uranium required to make it happen isn't in infinite supply and must be mined and enriched. There's no readily accessible alternative in enough abundance.
GE Vernova (NYSE: GEV) -- the energy-focused offshoot of General Electric, which decided back in 2021 to split itself into smaller, more manageable pieces -- is known for its wind turbines, natural gas turbines, power grid solutions, and the services that go along with these businesses. What it's not known for is being in the nuclear power industry.
Nevertheless, through a partnership with Japan's heavy equipment maker Hitachi, the company is slowly but surely expanding its footprint in the growing nuclear power industry. This includes the improvement of nuclear fuel technology, nuclear reactor service, and perhaps most importantly, the development of so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) that may represent a key aspect of nuclear power's future.
Just as the category's name suggests, GE Vernova's BWRX-300 small modular reactor can be built on-site where that power is needed to support localized uses ranging from desalination to refining to smelting to, yes, powering AI data centers. Although none are operational yet, installation work of this design has begun, which is expected to begin service sometime in 2030.
Once the premise is proven, look for demand to materialize quickly. Indeed, a recent outlook from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (commissioned by the U.S. government) indicates the world is likely to have on the order of nearly 500 SMRs built by 2050, versus essentially none beyond the testing and experimental phase right now.
GE Vernova won't be manufacturing all of these, but it will certainly be able to leverage its familiar name to sell at least its fair share of small modular reactors.
Finally, add Vistra (NYSE: VST) to your list of stocks to play nuclear power's comeback.
It's a utility company, albeit not a particularly well-known one. Not only does it not do consumer-facing business under the parent company's name, but its core business is actually energy wholesaling. With 44,000 megawatts of power-generation capacity, it largely serves Texas and most of the northeastern United States, though it has some exposure to the West Coast market.
Digging deeper into its business reveals it's not overwhelmingly a nuclear name -- at least, not yet. In fact, about 60% of electricity output comes from natural gas, versus only about one-fifth from nuclear.
That's changing, though -- and quickly -- now that the company sees the writing on the wall. It's inked power purchase agreements with Facebook parent Meta Platforms and Amazon, specifically calling for the development of new nuclear power production capacity. Look for Vistra to be much deeper into nuclear in the foreseeable future, which, of course, opens the door to supplying regional grids with nuclear-produced power from the same or parallel facilities.
Also know that, unlike most other utility names, this one isn't much into dividends. It's pouring almost all of its profits back into the business to grow its operation or to repurchase shares.
For perspective, since the $55 billion company authorized up to a $5.9 billion buyback in 2021, it's reduced its total outstanding share count by about 30% and still has $1.8 billion in authorized repurchase funding it expects to utilize by the end of next year. Yet, it's still been able to invest in new capacity as needed, growing its annual revenue from $12.1 billion to $17.7 billion during this four-year stretch. It's a sign of a well-run organization that just knows how to optimize its capital and assets.
Before you buy stock in Cameco, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Cameco wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $417,305! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,293,148!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 936% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 209% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 22, 2026. *
James Brumley has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Cameco, GE Vernova, Meta Platforms, and Vistra. The Motley Fool recommends Hitachi. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Long-run demand for uranium and SMR adoption could lift nuclear equities, but near-term catalysts remain uncertain and execution risk is high."
While the article pushes a clear “nuclear comeback” narrative, the thesis rests on three bets: rising uranium demand, SMR commercialization, and a grid that can absorb higher baseload without overpaying for renewables. Cameco stands to gain from higher uranium prices, but mining cycles and geopolitical risk can cap upside and delay any leap in profitability. GE Vernova’s SMR push matters, yet 2030 is a distant catalyst amid regulatory and project-financing hurdles. Vistra offers optionality via wholesale power and planned nuclear builds, but its capital allocation and dividend model are not investors’ typical comfort zone. A cautious, diversified nuclear exposure may beat single-name bets, but timing is highly uncertain.
Strongest counter: the thesis hinges on SMR commercialization and a uranium rally that may never materialize. Regulatory, financing, and public-acceptance headwinds could keep growth from translating into durable cash flows.
"Vistra's merchant power model allows it to capture the extreme premium on baseload power that regulated utilities cannot, making it the primary beneficiary of the AI-driven energy crunch."
The nuclear thesis is currently driven by a 'hyperscaler' narrative—the desperate need for 24/7 baseload power to feed AI data centers. Vistra (VST) is the most compelling play here, not because of its existing nuclear fleet, but because of its merchant power model. Unlike regulated utilities, Vistra captures the 'spark spread'—the margin between fuel costs and wholesale electricity prices—which is ballooning as data center demand outstrips supply. However, the market is pricing these stocks for perfection. Cameco (CCJ) faces significant geopolitical risk; relying on Kazakhstan for a massive portion of supply is a volatility trap. GE Vernova (GEV) is a long-dated call option on SMRs that won't contribute meaningfully to EPS until the 2030s, making it a valuation outlier today.
The entire nuclear bull case hinges on regulatory approval and construction timelines that historically run years behind schedule and billions over budget, potentially turning these 'AI plays' into capital-intensive value traps.
"The nuclear thesis is sound, but three of these stocks are already pricing in significant upside; only Vistra has near-term, contractually-backed catalysts."
The article conflates a genuine long-term nuclear tailwind with near-term equity returns. Yes, uranium demand will rise and SMRs are real—but Cameco trades at ~$30 with $1.63 EPS guidance (18x forward), pricing in much of this upside already. GE Vernova's nuclear contribution is immaterial pre-2030 and speculative thereafter. Vistra is the only near-term play with signed PPAs (Meta, Amazon), but the article underplays execution risk: nuclear builds face permitting delays, cost overruns, and supply-chain bottlenecks. The 'comeback' narrative is correct; the stock picks assume flawless execution.
Nuclear capacity additions have consistently missed forecasts for 20+ years, and AI data center power demands may pivot to cheaper renewables + storage before SMRs scale. Cameco's valuation already embeds the IAEA's 2050 doubling thesis.
"Long lead times and regulatory friction make near-term revenue impact from the nuclear revival far smaller than the article implies."
Nuclear demand from AI data centers is real, yet the article understates execution risks and timelines. GE Vernova's SMRs have zero commercial output until at least 2030, Cameco faces multi-year mine permitting delays, and Vistra's Meta/Amazon deals cover only a small slice of its 44 GW fleet. Uranium supply constraints could lift prices, but historical boom-bust cycles show enrichment capacity lags often cap producer margins. Utilities also confront state-level rate reviews that limit pass-through of nuclear capex.
If hyperscaler power purchase agreements accelerate faster than regulators allow, these names could rerate sharply higher on scarcity pricing well before 2030.
"Vistra's spark-spread bet is priced for perfection; margins are vulnerable to volatile gas prices, cyclical AI demand, and regulatory/capex headwinds."
Gemini's case hinges on Vistra as a merchant play riding AI-driven 24/7 baseload. Real risks: AI demand may be cyclical and increasingly replaced by renewables and storage; Vistra's margins depend on spark spread and gas prices, which swing; regulatory rates and capex cycles compress returns; PPAs with Meta/Amazon may be only a small slice of earnings, while market pricing already embeds optimistic revenue potential. This makes the thesis fragile if volatility remains high.
"Political intervention to protect retail consumers against rising wholesale power prices poses a significant, overlooked risk to Vistra’s merchant model."
Gemini’s focus on Vistra’s merchant model ignores the 'regulatory capture' risk. While Vistra benefits from current wholesale pricing, the political pressure to cap electricity prices for residential consumers as data centers drive up costs is immense. If states intervene to prioritize retail rate stability, Vistra’s 'spark spread' advantage won't survive the legislative cycle. Relying on merchant power in a politically sensitive environment is a massive tail risk that makes the current valuation look increasingly precarious.
"Regulatory risk to Vistra is reclassification as a utility, not price caps—and that destroys the merchant thesis entirely."
ChatGPT flags Vistra's spark-spread fragility, but misses the inverse: if regulatory capture *does* occur, it'll likely target renewables subsidies and storage incentives first—politically easier than capping wholesale rates directly. Vistra's existing nuclear fleet becomes a *regulated* asset then, shielding margins. The real risk isn't price caps; it's that Vistra gets reclassified as a utility mid-cycle, destroying merchant optionality. That's worse than Gemini's scenario.
"Reclassification exposes Vistra to PUC disallowances that erode nuclear returns faster than any regulatory shield."
Claude assumes reclassification shields Vistra's nuclear margins, yet state PUCs in Texas and Illinois have repeatedly disallowed nuclear cost recoveries during rate cases, forcing write-downs. Vistra's 44 GW fleet includes substantial gas exposure that would also face scrutiny, compressing the very spark-spread gains Gemini highlighted. This path risks turning merchant optionality into capped returns without solving permitting delays.
The panel is divided on the nuclear comeback thesis, with concerns about execution risks, geopolitical issues, and regulatory challenges outweighing the potential benefits of rising uranium demand and small modular reactors (SMRs).
Growing demand for 24/7 baseload power from AI data centers and potential regulatory shielding of nuclear margins.
Permitting delays, cost overruns, supply-chain bottlenecks, and regulatory pressures on merchant power models and nuclear capex.