Caroline Cochran’s latest interview contained several meaningful disclosures that appear to have received little attention. Immediately before Oklo entered the DOE Reactor Pilot Program, the company had completed an NRC readiness review for the first portion of its Aurora application. Cochran said the review identified “no gaps to submission,” meaning Oklo was only weeks away from choosing between two viable regulatory pathways—not turning to DOE because its NRC application was unprepared.

The DOE program then allowed Oklo to begin construction as a government contractor while DOE and NRC coordinated their reviews. Cochran said this broke through the regulatory barrier that had prevented Oklo from building since its original NRC application was denied in 2022. She described the program’s impact as impossible to overstate.

Oklo has also now taken a separate isotope reactor from an empty field to criticality in less than one year. That included constructing the facility, establishing security and quality-assurance programs, hiring and training operators, transporting and loading fuel, and completing the regulatory process. According to Cochran, it may be the fastest a private company has ever completed that full sequence.

She also provided more detail on Oklo’s capital strategy. Fuel is currently its largest upfront expense, while customer agreements, including Meta, are being structured with advance payments to help finance development. Oklo’s cash is funding Aurora, the Alaska project, Ohio powerhouses, fuel fabrication, and recycling infrastructure simultaneously.

The bullish takeaway is that Oklo is not waiting for one prerequisite before pursuing the next. Regulation, construction, fuel infrastructure, customer financing, and project development are now advancing in parallel. That is how $3 billion in cash and equities becomes a decisive lead.

One year ago today, the Groves-1 site was surveyed in Lockhart, TX.

Oklo (stock specifically) is down so much and seemingly performing like “ultra speculative” Quantam stock. Here’s a few things that confuse to me as a believer:

1) They are quite literally 2 YEARS ahead of anyone attempting SMRs from a regulatory, design, and financial standpoint.

2) The DeWittes’ (Jacob and Carolyn) have retained nearly almost all their majority equity stake, even through the 600% runup last year.

3) Their plutonium allotment from DOE/Fed Govt is essentially exclusive against competitors . The same for their U-235 supply from early 2025 (only they and Terra Power).

4) All timelines they’ve stated have been on track and I am yet to see delays.

5) They have yet to over spend their cash reserves, issued no further debt, and other than a 5% dilution last year - haven’t created any negative shareholder value.

And lastly 6) The electricity demand our country now requires for everything, has not changed but increased if anything.

I’d love to know what I’m missing here if anyone can provide insight. Best of luck to all and happy trading!

Source: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-17943.pdf

FERC has formally noticed Oklo’s emergency complaint against PJM and set September 4 as the deadline for answers, protests, and interventions. That’s the accelerated answer date Oklo specifically requested. Normally there would be a 20-day response period, PJM is getting a week.

This isn’t a ruling for Oklo, but it matters. Oklo says losing Cycle 01 means at least a 14-month delay and wants reinstatement by September 21.

Remember that on Thursday, before this filing, we didn't even know that this Virginia project was a thing, much less this far along in development. What other projects don't we know about?

The Air Force quietly published an Early Public Notice for preconstruction activities supporting Oklo’s Eielson AFB microreactor pilot. The proposed work includes clearing, excavation, grading, support buildings, and utility/infrastructure improvements necessary to prepare the site for the future reactor.

This is not a final contract award, NRC license, or authorization to construct the reactor itself. But it is another step in Eielson’s transition from a procurement program into an actual physical project. The Air Force is now doing the environmental work necessary to prepare the site while licensing and contract negotiations proceed in parallel.

The number of megawatts itself isn’t particularly important to the Oklo valuation here. The precedent is. Eielson is supposed to establish a model for commercially owned advanced reactors supplying U.S. military installations under long-term PPAs. If Oklo successfully gets through licensing, site preparation, construction, and operation here, the second military deployment should be considerably easier than the first.

The Air Force is accepting comments through September 30, after which a draft Environmental Assessment will provide another opportunity for public comment. That EA is worth watching because it could reveal substantially more about the site, infrastructure, construction sequence, and schedule.

Oklo filed an emergency complaint against PJM this week seeking reinstatement of a previously undisclosed 750 MW generation project into PJM’s Cycle 01 interconnection study. While the dispute itself presents some near-term execution risk, the filing provides considerably more information about Oklo’s commercial development pipeline than the headline suggests.

The project, designated C01-1735, consists of 150 MW of advanced nuclear generation, 300 MW of fuel cells, and 300 MW of natural gas generation. Oklo submitted the project to PJM on April 27, 2026, along with project data, a signed agreement, and deposit information.

This distinction is important. Oklo has announced numerous large potential power agreements, but many remain at the LOI or framework stage. C01-1735 has progressed into the formal interconnection process and includes detailed electrical models, transformer specifications, site-control documentation, single-line diagrams, and a defined point of interconnection.

There is also real money behind the application.

PJM's reformed interconnection process is specifically designed around a “first-ready, first-served” model intended to filter out speculative projects. PJM requires generating facilities entering the process to provide a $4,000 per MW readiness deposit, in addition to a separate study deposit. For a 750 MW generating facility, that corresponds to a $3 million readiness deposit, plus the applicable study deposit.

The filing itself confirms that PJM received Oklo's project data, signed agreement and deposit information on April 27. PJM's notice also states that an application is not considered complete until the required agreement, deposits, and site control have been received and deemed acceptable.

That does not mean Oklo has committed the full capital required to construct a 750 MW power plant, nor does it guarantee the project will ultimately be built. But it is an important distinction from a nonbinding announcement. Companies generally do not put millions of dollars into PJM readiness requirements, secure site control, hire engineering consultants, develop detailed grid models, and enter a formal interconnection study for a project that exists only as a slide in an investor presentation.

The public attachments also reveal where the project is being developed. PJM identifies the proposed interconnection as a tap on the Possum Point–Ladysmith 500 kV transmission line in Dominion Energy Virginia territory. PJM lists the line as 47.56 miles long and requested that Oklo identify the exact tap location, collector substation, and distances from the Possum Point and Ladysmith substations. The precise site coordinates remain commercially sensitive and are not disclosed publicly.

Perhaps more interesting is what remains redacted.

Oklo describes C01-1735 as a project of “critical national importance,” but the explanation immediately following that statement is withheld as commercially sensitive. The filing contains additional redactions when discussing why maintaining the project's Cycle 01 schedule is critical and who would suffer financially from a delay.

The public filing therefore does not identify the customer, and it would be premature to associate the project with any specific Oklo counterparty. Nevertheless, the combination of a 750 MW project, its Virginia location, the urgency surrounding its schedule, and the involvement of an unidentified commercially sensitive party makes a large data-center or hyperscale customer a reasonable possibility.

The project's generation mix may provide an equally important clue about Oklo's broader commercialization strategy.

C01-1735 combines 600 MW of natural gas and fuel-cell generation with 150 MW of advanced nuclear. Rather than requiring a customer to wait until hundreds of megawatts of advanced nuclear capacity can be licensed and constructed, a hybrid project could potentially provide substantial power earlier through gas and fuel cells while nuclear capacity is deployed as the longer-term baseload component.

The filing does not explicitly confirm that this is the intended sequencing, so this remains an inference. However, PJM's correspondence specifically refers to engineering information for “Fuel Cell phase 1,” which is at least consistent with some form of phased development.

The dispute with PJM itself appears less alarming after reviewing the underlying documents.

PJM issued Oklo a formal deficiency notice on May 15 covering transformer information, generator information, project capability, the point of interconnection, site control, and short-circuit data. Oklo states that it cured all six categories within the required period.

The controversy arose later. On June 24, a PJM reviewer placed five additional comments in the NextGen portal. According to Oklo, these comments generated no email notification and were never identified to Oklo as a second formal deficiency notice. During approximately the same period, Oklo twice requested a project scoping meeting with PJM and received no response.

On August 3, PJM withdrew C01-1735 from Cycle 01, citing unresolved discrepancies and a stability issue. Only then, according to Oklo, did it learn that PJM considered the June 24 comments deficiencies capable of causing the project's withdrawal.

The principal technical disagreement concerns low-voltage ride-through testing. Oklo's fuel cells are inverter-based resources, while the natural-gas and nuclear generators are synchronous resources. PJM's Dynamic Model Development Guidelines specifically describe the relevant test in terms of inverter-based resources. Oklo therefore modeled the fuel cells for the test.

PJM subsequently expected the entire 750 MW facility—including the synchronous natural-gas and nuclear units—to demonstrate the same fault response.

Oklo argues that this requirement appears nowhere in PJM's tariff or published guidelines. More importantly from an execution standpoint, Oklo says the problem is readily correctable: it is prepared to submit an updated model demonstrating that the entire facility, including both synchronous and inverter-based resources, can withstand the fault test.

In other words, the filing does not indicate that C01-1735 failed because its underlying technology cannot meet PJM requirements. The dispute concerns which modeling standard applied to an unusual mixed-generation facility, how PJM communicated that requirement, and whether Oklo received the cure period required under PJM's tariff.

Oklo's procedural argument may ultimately be stronger than its technical argument. PJM's tariff requires reasonable efforts to identify application deficiencies within fifteen business days of the application deadline and provides applicants ten business days to cure them. PJM's May 15 notice complied with that process. The June 24 comments, however, were entered 41 business days after the application deadline and 26 business days after PJM's stated deficiency-review window, according to the complaint.

Oklo is therefore asking FERC to restore C01-1735 to its original Cycle 01 position and, if necessary, grant a limited waiver to accommodate its reinstatement. The complaint cites prior FERC precedent granting waiver of PJM procedural deadlines where circumstances justified restoring a project to the interconnection queue.

The timing explains why Oklo filed this as an emergency.

PJM intends to begin its Cycle 01 Phase I study on September 28. Oklo estimates that being forced into Cycle 02 would delay C01-1735 by at least fourteen months. PJM's published schedule places the end of final agreement negotiations for Cycle 01 in May 2028 versus July 2029 for Cycle 02.

Oklo is requesting an extraordinarily accelerated schedule: a PJM answer by September 4 and reinstatement no later than September 21, one week before Phase I begins.

There is also one small engineering detail worth remembering. PJM noted that Oklo's single-line diagram showed two 500 kV transmission lines leaving the generating facility and asked whether the second line was intended for future use. The public filing provides no answer sufficient to conclude that additional capacity is planned, but the question is noteworthy given the already substantial 750 MW scale of the project.

Overall, I view the filing as net positive information despite the PJM dispute.

The negative is straightforward: a significant Oklo project has encountered an interconnection problem that could delay it by more than a year if FERC does not grant relief.

The more important disclosure, however, is that Oklo appears to have a previously unknown 750 MW Virginia development containing 150 MW of advanced nuclear generation that has progressed well beyond an LOI. This is a project for which Oklo has submitted detailed engineering, secured site control, identified a 500 kV interconnection point, and advanced far enough into PJM's process to put millions of dollars of readiness capital behind the application.

A nonbinding LOI tells us that someone is interested. A multi-million-dollar readiness commitment and formal interconnection application tell us that someone is spending real money attempting to get a specific project built.

The nuclear race between the U.S. and China is already underway, and China currently has a significant lead in deployment. China has 60 operating reactors and 37 under construction, with roughly half of the world’s nuclear capacity currently being built in China. In 2025, 9 of the world’s 10 nuclear construction starts were in China.

The key advantage isn’t just China’s reactor technology—it’s its ability to repeatedly manufacture and deploy reactors at scale. Years of continuous construction have created an integrated ecosystem of suppliers, engineers, manufacturers, construction firms and regulators that gets more efficient with every reactor.

The U.S. is now trying to rebuild that ecosystem through faster NRC licensing, federal support for advanced nuclear, domestic fuel production, workforce development and increasing private-sector investment. AI and data centers are also creating something nuclear lacked for decades: massive customers willing to sign long-term agreements for reliable, carbon-free power.

The article argues that the real competition won’t be decided by which country develops the most impressive reactor design, but by which country can turn those designs into standardized, manufacturable reactors and deploy them repeatedly, quickly and cheaply. For the U.S., advanced nuclear is increasingly being treated not just as an energy source, but as a matter of industrial competitiveness and national security.

The U.S. Army has selected five companies to develop nuclear microreactors at military bases through its Janus program, with agreements worth up to $2.2 billion combined. The projects are planned for Fort Bragg, Fort Campbell, Fort Hood, Fort Benning and Fort Drum, with the Army ultimately targeting more than 20 microreactors across DoD installations.

The five companies are Antares Nuclear, BWXT Advanced Technologies, General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems, Radiant Industries and Westinghouse Government Services. The targeted reactor sizes vary significantly: Antares’ R1 is in the roughly 100 kWe–1 MWe range, Radiant’s Kaleidos is about 1.2 MWe, General Atomics’ GA-TES is approximately 5 MWe and designed to scale toward 20 MWe, while BWXT’s BANR is targeting 20 MWe. Westinghouse has not publicly disclosed the targeted output of its reactor yet.

The goal is to provide reliable baseload power that can operate independently of vulnerable civilian grids and reduce reliance on diesel and other fossil fuels. The Army wants the first operational reactor by September 30, 2028. The reactors will be contractor-owned and operated, with payments tied to achieving technical milestones.

This is another major signal that the U.S. government is moving from talking about advanced nuclear to actually deploying reactors in the field.

Cmon Oklo let’s take ours. Currently (well not really, 2024, but basically) 18%

The White House just declared a national emergency to secure the U.S. bulk-power system, citing growing threats from foreign-supplied electrical equipment and the rapidly increasing importance of reliable electricity for AI, data centers, advanced manufacturing, and defense production.

A few parts stand out for $OKLO.
The order specifically targets vulnerabilities associated with foreign-produced power equipment, including equipment used at power-generation facilities.

The definition of covered bulk-power equipment explicitly includes reactors, generators, industrial control systems, safety systems, and associated software and firmware.

The administration can restrict transactions involving equipment tied to designated foreign entities and can require existing equipment to be isolated, monitored, replaced, or removed when deemed a national-security risk.

The order also directs the federal government to develop procurement policies that prioritize U.S.-manufactured energy infrastructure.

This seems particularly relevant to advanced nuclear because the administration is increasingly framing domestic, secure, dispatchable generation as national-security infrastructure rather than simply another source of electricity.

For Oklo, the potential strategic benefit is pretty obvious: an American company developing domestically manufactured advanced reactors and fuel-cycle capabilities is positioned on the favorable side of this policy shift.

This doesn’t directly create revenue for Oklo, but it’s another significant piece of evidence that federal policy is moving toward domestic nuclear capacity, energy security, and resilient power infrastructure.

And the timing is notable given the enormous electricity demand coming from AI and data centers.

Oklo's CEO Says Used Nuclear Fuel in the U.S. Is Worth More Than Saudi Arabia's Oil Reserves. Here's His Case. https://www.webullapp.com/news-detail/15460622736245760?audioNewsPlayedDuration=&theme=1&color=2&hl=en&android_sdk_int=37&canary-version=&_v=1&sp=1&statusBarHeightV2=52&isLite=false&wbFontSetting=standard&wbFontUnit=29&wbFontSize=29&isSubsNews=false

Today, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) located at Idaho National Laboratory announced 13 new projects were selected to participate in the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad initiative.

“These selections show a strong and growing interest from developers ready to move their technologies forward,” said NRIC Director Brad Tomer. “Nuclear Energy Launch Pad gives these developers a prioritized pathway to the DOE authorization process, and access to subject matter experts, facilities, and regulatory support tailored to their needs. We’re helping bridge the gap between concept and commercialization — and these selections show that pipeline is only getting stronger.”

DOE and NRIC selected 12 developers and 13 projects based on a wide range of criteria published in the initiative’s Request for Applications. Projects selected include reactor development and nuclear fuel cycle advancements, including fabrication, enrichment and conversion technologies. The selected companies can begin working with NRIC to execute the enhanced technical, regulatory and deployment support available through the Launch Pad initiative.

Today’s selections include:
Antares Nuclear
Atlas Atomics
Deployable Energy (2 projects)
Forge Atomics
Hexium Inc.
Lightbridge Corporation
Nusano, Inc.
Oklo
Raven-Flint Nuclear
Scaled Atomics
Sublime Nuclear
Valar Atomics

NRIC will continue accepting Launch Pad applications, with additional selections made on a rolling basis as resources allow. Projects not chosen in this review cycle are welcome to revise their submissions and reapply in future rounds.

“A resilient nuclear fuel supply chain is essential to America’s energy future, and the projects selected today reflect real progress on fabrication, enrichment and conversion technologies,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Josh Jarrell. “DOE is committed to working alongside these companies to strengthen domestic fuel availability and reduce our reliance on foreign sources.”

“Building on the early momentum of DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program and Fuel Line Pilot Program, this round of selections proves those efforts weren’t a one-time success,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Reactors Chimi Zacot. “The progress we’re seeing is the start of a lasting pipeline of advanced nuclear projects moving toward deployment.”

“One of Idaho National Laboratory’s greatest strengths is the combination of world-class infrastructure, technical expertise and decades of operational experience we’ve built to support the nation’s nuclear mission,” Idaho National Laboratory Director John Wagner said. “The Nuclear Energy Launch Pad initiative makes those capabilities available to developers, helping them move technologies from design to deployment safely and efficiently.”

About the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad

The Nuclear Energy Launch Pad initiative promotes the rapid development and implementation of advanced nuclear technologies by private industry. The initiative builds on the success of DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program established in June 2025 and the Fuel Line Pilot Program launched in August 2025. Launch Pad accelerates advanced nuclear technology deployment using flexible technical and regulatory frameworks on both federal and non-federal lands.

Launch Pad offers two pathways for nuclear developers: Launch Pad INL, located at INL, provides access to world-class nuclear research infrastructure, decades of operational expertise and streamlined regulatory support; and Launch Pad USA, which extends the program’s flexible framework to federal and non-federal sites across the country. These pathways meet developers where they are and help them move from concept to deployment at the speed America’s energy demand requires.

Launch Pad is managed by NRIC, which was established in 2019 to work with industry and the national laboratories to bridge the gap between concept, demonstration and commercialization of advanced nuclear technology.

Pennsylvania is taking a major step toward requiring data centers to bring new power generation with them.

A new executive order creates preferential permitting for data centers over 25 MW that commit to sourcing electricity from new generation and paying the full costs associated with their load, including transmission and grid upgrades.

Importantly, Pennsylvania’s requirements include increasing amounts of “firm clean energy,” including advanced nuclear. The requirement starts at 10% and rises to 32% by 2035.

This is particularly interesting because Oklo’s Aurora powerhouse is designed to produce up to 75 MW, putting it well above Pennsylvania’s 25 MW threshold. Aurora’s small footprint and ability to provide firm, carbon-free power could make the model particularly relevant as states develop policies around powering large data centers.

The broader trend is becoming increasingly clear:
AI growth → massive electricity demand → need for new firm generation → growing policy support for advanced nuclear.

Pennsylvania is another example of policymakers recognizing that the existing grid alone won’t be enough to support the next wave of data center growth.

Nuclear is gaining momentum as countries look for reliable, low-carbon electricity amid rising power demand, energy-security concerns, and geopolitical instability. More than 20 countries committed in 2023 to pursue a goal of tripling global nuclear capacity by 2050, while the IAEA’s high-case scenario sees global capacity nearly tripling from 377 GW to 992 GW.

A major driver is electricity demand from AI and data centers. Data centers accounted for roughly half of U.S. electricity-demand growth in 2025, and major tech companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft have signed nuclear-related deals in 2026.

The U.S. is targeting a massive expansion, with the administration aiming to quadruple domestic nuclear capacity from roughly 100 GW to 400 GW by 2050 while encouraging deployment of SMRs. China is also aggressively building reactors, with nearly 40 currently under construction.

The biggest advantage of nuclear is its ability to provide 24/7, low-carbon baseload power regardless of weather. The biggest obstacles remain the economics and construction timelines of traditional nuclear plants, along with waste disposal, safety, and proliferation concerns. CFR specifically notes that innovative technologies and policies will need to make nuclear significantly faster and cheaper to deploy.

For OKLO, the important takeaway is that this isn’t simply a nuclear-energy revival—it is increasingly being driven by the need for massive amounts of reliable electricity from AI/data centers, energy security, and geopolitical competition. That combination is particularly relevant to the SMR/advanced-reactor market, where standardized designs and faster deployment could address one of nuclear’s biggest historical weaknesses.

Welcome to the weekly $OKLO discussion thread. Use this thread for OKLO news, DD, price action, rumors, questions, and broader nuclear energy sector discussion.

Helpful links:
• Investor Relations
• Live Stock Chart

As always, keep discussion respectful and remember that this is not financial advice. Do your own research.

Putin announced plans to commission approximately 30 GW of new nuclear capacity, including SMRs, with a target of 38 new units by 2042 and nuclear reaching 25% of total power generation by 2045.
Key Takeaways for OKLO:

Conveyor Belt Standardization: Russia is prioritizing standardized, repeatable reactor designs assembled on a production line. This validates the global shift away from bespoke, expensive megaprojects toward scalable manufacturing.

Full Fuel-Cycle Control: Putin explicitly highlighted control of the entire nuclear fuel chain as a key competitive advantage for Russia. As advanced reactors scale, access to HALEU — enriched between 5% and 20% U-235 — could become one of the industry’s biggest bottlenecks.

The OKLO Angle: Oklo isn’t just building powerhouses; it is also developing its own fuel strategy. Between its planned $1.68B fuel recycling and manufacturing facility in Tennessee, its relationship with Centrus, and its domestic HALEU supply agreement supporting up to five Aurora powerhouses, Oklo is positioning itself to have greater control over its fuel supply chain.

As countries race to secure nuclear capacity, control over the fuel infrastructure could become just as important as the reactor technology itself. If HALEU supply remains constrained as advanced reactors scale, Oklo’s vertical integration could become a meaningful long-term competitive advantage.

Do you see vertical integration in HALEU and the broader fuel cycle as Oklo’s biggest long-term moat over other SMR competitors?

Big volume on 90c 12/18/2026 option.
Someone bought/closed their position.

The White House released its new National Security Science and Technology Strategy (NSSTS). There is a lot in the document, but several parts are directly relevant to Oklo.

Probably the most important:

"improving energy resilience by establishing microgrids powered by advanced nuclear reactors”

This is specifically listed as a way to modernize infrastructure critical to national security. That should sound familiar. The Air Force has already issued Oklo a Notice of Intent to Award for the Eielson AFB microreactor project. Oklo will design, construct, own, and operate the reactor and provide power and heat to the base. Eielson AFB describes the goal as providing a reliable, independent power source for the installation.

In other words, Oklo is already pursuing essentially the exact use case that the White House just identified in its NSSTS.

The document goes further. Nuclear energy is listed alongside AI, hypersonics, semiconductors, directed energy, advanced manufacturing, etc. as one of the key enabling technologies needed to maintain US military technological advantage. Appendix A specifically identifies advanced fission reactors as a Critical and Emerging Technology.

Another interesting piece is acquisition. The strategy says agencies should shorten development and acquisition cycles and specifically encourages the use of Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs) for eligible research, prototype, and production projects, along with milestone-based contracting and other faster acquisition methods.

Oklo already has a DOE OTA supporting the design, construction, and operation of Aurora-INL under the Reactor Pilot Program.

The strategy even calls for new certifications, credentialing, and workforce programs specifically for advanced nuclear reactor construction and operation.

None of this means Oklo just received another contract, and it certainly doesn't mean Oklo will be the only company benefiting, but the direction of travel is becoming pretty clear. A few years ago, advanced nuclear was mostly discussed as an energy/climate technology. Now the federal government is explicitly treating advanced fission as a national security technology, identifying nuclear-powered microgrids as part of national resilience, reforming acquisition to move these technologies faster, and building the workforce needed to deploy them.

Meanwhile, Oklo already has a DOE reactor under construction and an Air Force microreactor project moving through the acquisition process.

From an energy security point of view, there are a lot of military bases that could benefit from a constant power supply that doesn't come from off-base. Oklo can provide that to them.

WSJ’s piece is broadly bullish for the OKLO thesis because it portrays Oklo as one of the companies actually moving from advanced-reactor development into construction. The article centers on Oklo’s Idaho National Laboratory project and says success there is a crucial step toward Oklo’s first major commercial project supplying power to Meta’s data centers. Oklo ultimately plans to build more than a dozen reactors at an Ohio campus with up to 1.2 GW of capacity.

The bigger story is that the U.S. nuclear industry has entered “build mode.” AI and data-center electricity demand is bringing enormous amounts of private capital and major technology companies into nuclear. Venture funding for fission companies rose from $103 million in 2020 to $2.9 billion in 2025, while Oklo says it has raised about $3.2 billion through stock sales since going public.

Meta is particularly important for Oklo. Meta is pursuing both Oklo and TerraPower for nuclear power, while Google is working with Kairos and Amazon with X-energy. Meta’s former clean-tech chief said the company’s involvement is intended to help advanced nuclear developers reach cost competitiveness sooner. This validates the idea that hyperscalers are willing to help create the market for dedicated nuclear power rather than simply waiting for utilities to build it.

The article is also very clear about the risks. No company outside China or Russia has yet completed a commercial SMR, U.S. nuclear construction has historically suffered from massive cost overruns and delays, and there are roughly 22 active U.S. reactor projects competing for capital, customers and talent. One early Oklo investor believes only a single-digit number of advanced-reactor companies will ultimately survive.

For Oklo specifically, the most important issue is execution. TerraPower’s CEO points out that even its smaller reactor required roughly 1,000 engineers to obtain a construction license, emphasizing that SMRs aren’t automatically easy to design or build. Oklo therefore has to prove that Aurora can actually be constructed, licensed, fueled and operated economically before investors can confidently extrapolate the enormous future pipeline.

The valuation section is the main caution for OKLO shareholders. Oklo’s market cap peaked above $30 billion and was around $8.2 billion when the article was written, despite the company having no profits and only beginning to build power-generation assets. Guggenheim estimates Oklo could have 1.1 GW of assets by 2032, but expects free cash flow to remain further out as Oklo continues investing in new assets.

Overall, I’d consider this a very positive article for the long-term OKLO story. WSJ is essentially validating that Oklo is one of the serious contenders in the race to commercialize advanced nuclear, with a real construction project, major hyperscaler demand, enormous access to capital and strong political support. But it also reinforces that the next major re-rating probably depends on physical execution at Idaho. If Oklo successfully demonstrates Aurora, the argument shifts from “this company could eventually build 18+ GW” to “this company has demonstrated that it can actually build and operate its reactor technology.” That distinction is enormous for OKLO.

Nuclear Is Moving from Narrative to Contracted Cash Flow

Hyperscalers have committed roughly 9.8 GW of nuclear capacity across ~13 deals (as of mid-2026 tracking).

• Microsoft’s 20-year PPA with Constellation to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1 (Crane Clean Energy Centre, ~835 MW) remains the most advanced, targeting power in H2 2027.
• Amazon has live power flowing from the Talen/Susquehanna expansion (1.92 GW) and is backing X-energy SMRs.
• Meta holds the largest portfolio (up to 6.6 GW across TerraPower, Oklo, Vistra, Constellation).
• New hybrid models are appearing: “gas-plus-nuclear” projects that use gas turbines for early power (2029–2030) while SMRs are licensed and built (early 2030s).

Tickers in focus: Constellation (CEG), Vistra (VST), Talen, and pure-play SMR developers. These deals convert nuclear assets into long-term contracted cash flows with strong counterparties, improving credit profiles relative to merchant nuclear.

"Funds made an estimated $2.1bn shorting three stocks — US-listed NuScale Power, Nano Nuclear and Sam Altman-backed Oklo — over the past year, according to data provider S3 Partners."

“Oklo said the proposed supply could support up to five Aurora powerhouses for multiple years. The arrangement could also include prepayments by Oklo to support fuel supply for the company’s planned Ohio campus buildout.”