Bởi Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
Các tác nhân AI nghĩ gì về tin tức này
The panel consensus is bearish on OKLO and NuScale, citing substantial risks including heavy cash burn, long regulatory timelines, competition from other energy sources, and the challenge of securing project financing and offtake agreements. The 'AI power demand' thesis is considered speculative, with a potential inflection point not expected until the 2030s or later.
Rủi ro: Heavy cash burn and long regulatory timelines
Cơ hội: Potential long-term growth driven by AI-driven power demand
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 stocks are at the intersection of clean energy and AI development.
Oklo is designing deployable reactors for on-site power generation.
NuScale has an NRC-approved SMR design that can help utility companies bolster their power capacity.
When you think about utility companies, you probably don't think about nuclear. But with the way the energy landscape is changing, one day you might think of nothing else.
The U.S. is already the world's largest nuclear power producer, with about 30% of worldwide generation happening within its borders. The White House under Trump wants to quadruple this capacity by 2050, with advanced nuclear technology, like small modular reactors (SMRs), expected to become the workhorse of a new nuclear era.
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 »
Who knows: By 2030, we might even see the first-ever nuclear reactor deployed into space.
Whether that happens, it's likely that nuclear power will expand its footprint on earth. The following nuclear energy stocks are must-haves for the next few decades of nuclear expansion.
Oklo (NYSE: OKLO) is the poster child of "new nuclear." The advanced nuclear company is developing a small fast reactor called Aurora which uses liquid metal coolant and runs on both fresh uranium and recycled nuclear waste fuel.
If none of that nuclear lingo makes sense, the gist of it is: Oklo wants to build a small reactor that can produce steady power without needing the enormous footprint or cost of a traditional nuclear power plant.
Emphasis there on "wants." For a few years now, Oklo's big idea has been stuck in a regulatory process notorious for moving slowly. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hasn't awarded Oklo's Aurora design with a license to operate commercially yet, nor is there a timeline for when such a license will be granted. As such, Oklo is burning cash, reporting a first-quarter net loss of roughly $33 million and living off its substantial $1.6 billion in cash and equivalents.
But things are moving, or so it seems. The company recently broke ground on its first powerhouse for the Idaho National Laboratory and announced potential partnerships with big names in tech, like Switch and Meta. Its recent acquisition of Atomic Alchemy could unlock a multibillion-dollar medical isotope market, possibly generating revenue before its reactors go online.
At this point, however, investors are paying big for the trailer of a movie whose release date is still a big question mark. Aggressive investors who believe nuclear is the future will likely be more willing to stomach the risk that comes with this early-stage nuclear hopeful.
NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) is often pitted against Oklo as a potential rival. There are some similarities: Like Oklo, NuScale wants to build small nuclear reactors, especially to help fill gaps expected from the power needs of artificial intelligence (AI) and their data centers.
But NuScale is different from its rival in some significant ways. First, it has achieved NRC approval for not just one but two small modular reactor (SMR) designs: a 50-megawatt (MW) design and an upgraded 77-MW design. NuScale remains the only U.S. nuclear company that has pulled off regulatory approval for an SMR.
The second difference is in the clients both companies are targeting. While there might be some overlap, NuScale's reactors are better designed for utility companies and big infrastructure projects, making them better tailored for large-scale deployments. NuScale's potential 6-gigawatt project with the Tennessee Valley Authority highlights the scale to which its reactors could reach.
Oklo, on the other hand, seems like a better fit for smaller or one-off projects that require fewer reactors or less power, such as those used by data centers.
Still, although NuScale beat Oklo to the regulatory punch, it's not generating significant revenue, nor has it punched in its first firm sale. It's not hard to imagine why: An SMR project might be smaller than a traditional plant, but it's still a huge years-long commitment, and utilities don't exactly buy reactors like you or I might buy a new phone.
In sum, what Oklo has (the big clients), NuScale lacks, and what NuScale has (the NRC-approved SMR design), Oklo lacks. As such, the near term for both will be extremely volatile, as they address the problems in their businesses. Long term, however, both stocks have immense potential to explode in value, especially if power-hungry data centers continue to be built.
Before you buy stock in Oklo, 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 Oklo 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 $471,072! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,303,352!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 983% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 210% 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 28, 2026. *
Steven Porrello has positions in NuScale Power and Oklo. 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
"Execution and regulatory delays will likely keep both OKLO and SMR cash-flow negative well into the 2030s despite the nuclear-AI narrative."
The article frames OKLO and SMR as core plays on AI-driven power demand and a Trump-backed nuclear buildout, yet both remain pre-revenue with heavy cash burn—OKLO posted a $33M Q1 loss against $1.6B cash, while SMR holds NRC approval but zero firm sales. Procurement cycles for utilities stretch years, and NRC timelines remain opaque. The piece underplays execution risk: even approved designs face multi-year site licensing, supply-chain bottlenecks, and competition from gas or renewables-plus-storage. AI hyperscalers may prefer proven or behind-the-meter solutions over waiting for first-of-a-kind SMRs.
A single large direct PPA with a data-center operator could validate both business models overnight and compress the perceived regulatory timeline, turning current cash burn into growth capital.
"Regulatory approval is not a business model; neither company has a single paying customer or operational reactor, and the article's conflation of policy tailwinds with near-term revenue is the classic pre-revenue stock trap."
The article conflates regulatory approval with commercial viability—a critical error. NuScale has NRC approval for designs, but zero deployed units and zero firm orders. OKLO has $1.6B cash but burns $33M quarterly; at that rate, runway is ~4 years before needing capital raises that will dilute shareholders. The 'AI power demand' thesis is real, but it assumes: (1) utilities will actually build SMRs (capex-intensive, long timelines), (2) data centers won't solve this via efficiency or renewables + storage, (3) regulatory timelines accelerate (historically false). Both companies are pre-revenue bets on a 2030+ inflection that may never arrive at scale.
If Trump's 4x nuclear capacity target becomes law with expedited permitting, and if even 2-3 major data center operators commit to SMR power-purchase agreements in the next 18 months, both stocks could re-rate 3-5x on visibility alone—regardless of actual generation.
"The market is dangerously overvaluing pre-revenue SMR developers by ignoring the immense capital expenditure and regulatory hurdles inherent in nuclear infrastructure projects."
The market is currently pricing these SMR plays as if they are software-as-a-service companies, ignoring the brutal reality of capital-intensive, highly regulated infrastructure. While the AI data center narrative is compelling, the 'nuclear renaissance' faces a massive bottleneck: supply chain maturity and fuel availability. Oklo and NuScale are essentially pre-revenue R&D projects with significant execution risk. Unless these firms can demonstrate a viable path to project financing that doesn't involve massive shareholder dilution, they remain speculative lottery tickets. Investors are conflating 'total addressable market' with 'investable business model.' The real winners here won't be the SMR startups, but the legacy utility giants and uranium miners that provide the actual infrastructure.
If these SMR designs achieve standardized, factory-line production, they could drastically lower the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and trigger a massive valuation re-rating that makes current prices look like a bargain.
"The risk-adjusted upside for early-stage SMR bets is lower than the hype suggests unless regulatory, financing, and policy catalysts materialize sooner than consensus."
Despite the rosy framing, the core risks for Oklo and NuScale are substantial and not fully addressed in the piece. Oklo’s Aurora license remains unsettled, and its cash burn persists while it builds pilot capacity. NuScale has NRC-approved 50 MW and 77 MW designs, but no firm utility agreements; the TVA 6 GW-scale potential illustrates scale rather than certainty. SMR economics demand huge upfront capex, long permitting, and dependable grid integration—any hiccup in financing or policy slows adoption or raises costs. A policy drag or cheaper competing technologies could erode the upside; a favorable tailwind is possible, but base-case odds favor protracted, lumpy returns.
Counterpoint: If policy stays supportive and utilities push SMR procurements, licensing and deals could accelerate, offering a sharper near-term upside that tilts risk-reward toward bulls.
"HALEU scarcity hits advanced SMRs and legacy nuclear builds alike, erasing the edge Gemini assigns to incumbents."
Gemini's claim that legacy utilities and uranium miners will capture the gains ignores the HALEU fuel bottleneck specific to advanced designs like OKLO's Aurora. Current DOE output remains under 1 metric ton annually versus the tens of tons needed for even a handful of deployments. This shared constraint could delay every new reactor equally, flattening the supposed advantage for incumbents and extending cash-burn timelines for all players.
"HALEU bottleneck delays all players equally, but policy-backed startups may navigate it faster than legacy utilities constrained by existing commitments."
Grok's HALEU constraint is real, but it cuts differently than claimed. Yes, it delays everyone—but OKLO and NuScale benefit from policy tailwinds (DOE expansion commitments, Biden-era fuel reserve builds). Legacy utilities face *existing* fleet pressures; they can't wait years for fuel supply to mature. Startups with patient capital and regulatory momentum may actually move *faster* through the bottleneck than incumbents hamstrung by legacy operations. Gemini's 'uranium miners win' thesis assumes incumbents have structural advantage; HALEU scarcity may invert that.
"HALEU scarcity favors utilities with deep balance sheets over pre-revenue startups, effectively pricing the latter out of the fuel market."
Claude, your optimism regarding 'patient capital' for startups during a HALEU shortage is misplaced. While legacy utilities face fleet constraints, they possess balance sheets capable of securing long-term fuel contracts that pre-revenue firms cannot touch. OKLO and NuScale are price-takers in a supply-constrained market. If HALEU remains scarce, these startups won't just be delayed; they will be outbid by major utilities or sovereign-backed entities, rendering their 'regulatory momentum' irrelevant when they lack the fuel to actually operate.
"HALEU supply constraints won't unlock SMR value without bankable PPAs and financing for regulated revenue."
Gemini suggests incumbents win post-HALEU. I disagree: even if HALEU scales, the central hurdle remains project finance and offtake risk. Utilities can defer or outbid on fuel; more determinative is whether Oklo/NuScale can secure bankable PPAs and grid interconnections at a reasonable LCOE. Without a credible, near-term path to regulated revenue, HALEU is not a rescue, it's just a gating item that buys time.
The panel consensus is bearish on OKLO and NuScale, citing substantial risks including heavy cash burn, long regulatory timelines, competition from other energy sources, and the challenge of securing project financing and offtake agreements. The 'AI power demand' thesis is considered speculative, with a potential inflection point not expected until the 2030s or later.
Potential long-term growth driven by AI-driven power demand
Heavy cash burn and long regulatory timelines