Bởi Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
Các tác nhân AI nghĩ gì về tin tức này
The panel consensus is bearish on Oklo and NuScale's near-term prospects due to regulatory, financing, and fuel supply hurdles. While AI-driven electricity demand could be a catalyst, the timeline for SMR deployment is uncertain and risky.
Rủi ro: HALEU fuel supply bottleneck
Cơ hội: Government support for SMRs as a national security asset
Phân tích này được tạo bởi đường dẫn StockScreener — bốn LLM hàng đầu (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) nhận các lời nhắc giống hệt nhau với các biện pháp bảo vệ chống ảo tưởng tích hợp. Đọc phương pháp →
Nuclear power can benefit from the AI revolution.
Two innovative nuclear stocks are positioned to benefit.
Oklo and NuScale both specialize in small modular reactors (SMRs).
Nuclear energy is experiencing a resurgence of interest, and there's one catalyst to thank: artificial intelligence.
From 2005 to 2023, electricity generation in the U.S. was essentially flat. In 2024, however, electricity generation rose to hit a new all-time high. In 2025, another new all-time high was reached. Why? Because artificial intelligence is energy-intensive, and that industry is growing so quickly that it's pushing growth rates sharply positive for the first time in decades.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
The current electricity grid isn't designed to meet the needs of the rapidly growing AI industry, which in turn relies on data centers to function. This infrastructure requires a huge amount of electricity, not only to keep the lights on, but to cool red-hot graphics processing units (GPUs) executing computations for AI software.
In short, more electricity generation will be needed to support AI's continuous growth -- a growth journey that is expected to be sustained for decades to come.
Nuclear energy has emerged as a promising solution -- but not just any kind of nuclear energy. The two companies below are pioneering a relatively novel way to produce energy from nuclear fission. This innovative method could be a perfect solution to the rising energy demands of AI and data centers.
Few nuclear stocks are as tailor-made to meet the needs of the AI industry as Oklo (NYSE: OKLO). In fact, Sam Altman -- the founder of OpenAI and ChatGPT -- was an early investor in Oklo, acting as Chair of the Board for many years.
From my perspective, Oklo is the ideal choice if you think data center and cloud infrastructure operators will take the energy dilemma into their own hands. That's because Oklo focuses on small modular reactors, or SMRs. Even by SMR standards, Oklo's systems are relatively small, so small that Oklo's management team calls them "microreactors."
That makes them an attractive choice for data center operators to adopt on a more local scale, especially since Oklo believes the entire licensing and deployment timeline will be just six to 12 months once the process is fully scaled.
Oklo is more diversified than many SMR competitors, given its recent acquisition of Atomic Alchemy, which gave it fuel recycling capabilities and exposure to medical-grade isotope sales. But its main business will be supplying data centers with nuclear "microreactors," as evidenced by its recent deal with Meta Platforms for a 1.2-gigawatt system in southern Ohio.
NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) also designs and sells SMR systems, but its go-to-market strategy is very different than Oklo's. Instead of forging deals directly with data center operators, NuScale is focused on feeding the grid through grid-scale deployments.
While NuScale has several projects globally already in motion, its most lucrative is arguably its deal with the Tennessee Valley Authority for a 6-gigawatt system to serve the eastern U.S. There could be a major catalyst on its way soon for this project, since a power purchasing agreement is expected to be closed by the end of this year.
NuScale's systems are generally larger than Oklo's, and its lead times are commensurately longer. But grid-scale SMRs may have a bright future, since utilities also want to bring low-carbon, reliable baseload power online as quickly as possible to avoid brownouts and onerous rate hikes.
If you're unsure of which SMR stock has a superior go-to-market strategy, buying shares of both Oklo and NuScale gives you more diversified exposure. It should be noted that, long term, other diversified industrial conglomerates are also pursuing SMRs, so the full competitive landscape is yet to fully take shape.
Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, 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 NuScale Power 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 $463,900! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,294,401!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 978% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 211% 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 May 31, 2026. *
Ryan Vanzo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. 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.
Bốn mô hình AI hàng đầu thảo luận bài viết này
"Regulatory and deployment timelines for these SMR developers will likely stretch well beyond the 2026-2027 AI power crunch the article assumes."
The article correctly flags AI-driven power demand as a tailwind for nuclear, but it underplays execution risk for both Oklo and NuScale. OKLO's microreactor timeline of 6-12 months post-scaling assumes rapid NRC approvals that have historically taken far longer, while its Meta deal remains non-binding on deployment. NuScale's TVA project faces similar permitting and supply-chain hurdles, plus competition from GE Hitachi and Rolls-Royce SMRs that already have deeper utility relationships. Both stocks trade at premiums detached from near-term revenue, leaving them vulnerable to any delay or cost overrun.
If hyperscalers accelerate direct SMR offtake and the NRC fast-tracks designs as promised in recent policy signals, both companies could secure multi-gigawatt backlogs within 24 months and justify current valuations.
"The article treats SMR deployment timelines and cost competitiveness as solved problems when both remain unvalidated at commercial scale, and conflates AI's real energy demand with SMRs' ability to capture it profitably."
The article conflates two separate theses: AI driving electricity demand (credible) and SMRs solving it (speculative). U.S. electricity generation rose in 2024-25, yes—but the article omits that natural gas and renewables captured most new capacity, not nuclear. Oklo's 6-12 month licensing claim is unproven; NuScale's TVA deal has slipped repeatedly. Neither company is profitable or has deployed a commercial unit at scale. The Meta deal (1.2 GW) is a letter of intent, not a binding contract. SMRs face per-megawatt cost disadvantages vs. utility-scale reactors and renewables+storage. Timing risk is acute: if data centers solve cooling via alternative tech or demand moderates, the entire thesis collapses.
If Oklo and NuScale execute on timelines and secure 3-5 major data center contracts each, they could become essential infrastructure plays worth 10x+ current valuations—and the article's omission of execution risk doesn't mean it won't happen.
"The market is significantly underestimating the regulatory and capital-expenditure risks that typically plague nuclear infrastructure projects, regardless of AI-driven demand."
The narrative linking AI energy demand to SMRs is structurally sound, but the article ignores the 'valley of death' facing pre-revenue nuclear startups. Oklo and NuScale are currently speculative R&D plays, not energy utilities. While the Meta and TVA deals provide headlines, the regulatory hurdles with the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) are historically brutal, often leading to multi-year delays and massive cost overruns. Investors are pricing in a 'when' rather than an 'if,' ignoring the reality that these firms lack the balance sheets to survive a 3-5 year deployment delay. I am cautious; the valuation premium here assumes perfection in a sector where perfection is historically impossible.
If AI energy demand grows exponentially as projected, the scarcity of carbon-free baseload power will force federal regulators to fast-track SMR licensing, potentially creating a 'space race' environment that renders current cost-overrun concerns obsolete.
"Regulatory, financing, and scale challenges could cap SMR upside even if AI-driven demand strengthens."
AI-driven electricity demand could be a near-term catalyst for SMR players like Oklo and NuScale, but the deployment math is the risk. SMRs need regulatory approvals, capex, and siting certainty scalable to data centers or utilities; timelines can miss. Oklo’s claim of six-to-twelve months licensing and a 1.2 GW data-center deal with Meta strike me as optimistic given NRC history and financing hurdles. NuScale’s TVA 6 GW project reads more credible on a pathway to grid-scale, but multi-GW deployments demand vast capital, modular buildout, PPA certainty, and public acceptance. The AI demand thesis matters, but load growth could soften if efficiency gains or policy shifts reduce power intensity.
The AI-driven demand thesis may be overstated; efficiency gains, cooling tech, and demand-side management could cap growth, making SMR deployment timelines and capex hurdles even tougher than assumed.
"HALEU uranium supply constraints represent a critical unmentioned bottleneck for SMR commercialization."
Claude notes gas and renewables captured new capacity, yet overlooks interconnection queues surpassing 2,000 GW where nuclear's reliability offers an edge amid transmission constraints. An overlooked risk is HALEU fuel supply: US production is minimal, far below what's required for multiple SMR deployments. This bottleneck could extend delays beyond regulatory or financing issues that Grok and Gemini highlighted.
"HALEU fuel supply is a harder constraint than NRC licensing and deserves equal weight in valuation risk."
Grok's HALEU bottleneck is the sharpest execution risk nobody quantified. US production is ~20 MT/year; a single 300 MW SMR needs ~15 MT annually. Scaling to Oklo's implied 5-10 unit pipeline within 36 months requires either massive upstream capex or foreign dependency—both regulatory minefields. This isn't regulatory delay; it's a physical constraint that makes current timelines mathematically impossible without prior fuel stockpiling we haven't seen announced.
"Geopolitical competition will force the U.S. government to subsidize and accelerate the HALEU supply chain, overriding current market-based deployment hurdles."
Claude and Grok are right about the HALEU bottleneck, but you are all missing the geopolitical dimension. The U.S. government views SMRs as a national security asset to counter Russia and China’s nuclear export dominance. This won't be a pure market play; expect massive DOE subsidies and 'Project Apollo' style regulatory waivers. The physical fuel constraint isn't a dealbreaker; it’s the catalyst for the federal government to socialize the supply chain risk and fast-track fuel production.
"HALEU bottleneck is a real risk, but not insurmountable; timing hinges on accelerated fuel supply solutions and policy actions."
Claude’s emphasis on HALEU bottlenecks is a critical risk, but declaring it mathematically impossible over 24–36 months overstates the certainty. There are potential mitigants—foreign fuel contracts, enrichment partnerships, or accelerated DOE support—that could unlock supply. If fuel access remains tight, Oklo/NuScale face multi-quarter delays that crush deployment-driven upside; if policy and sourcing accelerates, the thesis could re-rate sharply. The discussion should quantify supply-path timelines, not just the bottleneck.
The panel consensus is bearish on Oklo and NuScale's near-term prospects due to regulatory, financing, and fuel supply hurdles. While AI-driven electricity demand could be a catalyst, the timeline for SMR deployment is uncertain and risky.
Government support for SMRs as a national security asset
HALEU fuel supply bottleneck