PLUTONIUM BET

 

​

For decades, nuclear power in the United States has followed a familiar model: massive, custom-built reactors costing billions of dollars, justified only by producing enormous amounts of electricity over long operating lives. Oklo is attempting to upend that paradigm with small, factory-built microreactors—and an audacious fuel strategy that could either unlock enormous value or introduce substantial regulatory and reputational risk.

Oklo’s approach rests on two key departures from traditional nuclear design. First is scale. Rather than building gigawatt-sized plants, Oklo is developing compact reactors designed to be deployed incrementally, making nuclear power more flexible and potentially better suited to energy-hungry data centers, industrial sites, and remote locations. Second, and more controversial, is fuel. Instead of relying on conventional water-cooled reactors fueled by enriched uranium, Oklo plans to use liquid sodium as a coolant and, critically, to power some reactors with surplus plutonium left over from Cold War weapons programs.

From an investor perspective, the upside is clear. Liquid sodium cooling allows reactors to operate at much higher temperatures, improving efficiency and enabling the reactor to burn a larger portion of its fuel. In theory, this means Oklo’s reactors could consume some of the most toxic nuclear materials in existence while generating clean electricity. The U.S. government alone holds tens of metric tons of plutonium, material that would otherwise require costly long-term storage. By converting it into energy, Oklo positions itself as both a power producer and a waste-reduction solution.

Recent signals from the U.S. Department of Energy have strengthened this narrative. The Department paused plans to permanently dispose of plutonium and announced a new program to make the material available for reactor developers. Oklo is among the companies seeking access. If successful, it could secure fuel capable of generating an estimated 2.5 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power roughly 2.5 million U.S. homes. International stockpiles in the United Kingdom and Japan could expand that opportunity even further.

However, the risks are equally significant. Oklo currently has no revenue and carries a valuation around $12 billion, pricing in years of future success before commercial deployment. Regulatory hurdles remain formidable. Plutonium carries unique political and public perception risks, and any misstep could delay approvals or spark backlash that affects the entire advanced nuclear sector. There are also execution risks inherent in deploying first-of-a-kind technology at scale.

For investors, Oklo represents a classic high-conviction bet. If its technology works and regulators align, the company could sit at the center of a new nuclear renaissance, turning a costly national liability into a strategic energy asset. If not, its ambitious fuel strategy may prove to be a bridge too far.