Welcome to the 103rd edition of Deep Tech Catalyst, the educational channel from The Scenarionist where science meets venture!
Nuclear energy is back in the spotlight as a practical response to a world that is about to consume far more electricity than it does today.
Alongside the engineering, though, there is a quieter but decisive layer: the product and financing logic that determines what can actually get built, who buys first, and how quickly deployment can move once safety and regulation are factored in.
Within that layer, hard truths emerge.
Generation IV designs are framed less as scientific novelty and more as a credibility reset around “meltdown-safe” outcomes.
At the same time, nuclear still prices as a premium product, shaped by stalled learning curves, fragile supply chains, and planning burdens that materially affect timelines and capital requirements.
In that environment, early adoption is not about serving the whole grid. It is about finding the segments that already pay the most for energy—or that value speed of access to power above almost everything else.
To explore what makes a nuclear project commercially viable—and investable—we’re joined by Will Dufton, Partner at Giant Ventures!
Key takeaways from the episode (TL;DR):
⚛️ Gen IV Is a Safety Narrative That Enables Scale
The defining promise is “meltdown-safe” design and advanced fuels that reduce catastrophic failure risk and reshape how nuclear is perceived and regulated.
🧱 Nuclear Still Prices as a Premium Product
Costs remain high because the industry hasn’t been building at scale, supply chains have degraded, components are complex, and regulatory and planning overhead is structurally expensive.
🏔️ First Customers Are the Ones Already Paying the Most
The most credible early markets are the “high-cost power” pockets of the economy—places where electricity is scarce or resilience and autonomy justify a premium long before the grid does.
🖥️ Data Centers Care Less About Price Than Timing
Hyperscalers face grid access constraints and build behind-the-meter generation to move faster than competitors, which is why firm power options like nuclear attract renewed attention.
💸 FOAK Is Equity; Cheaper Capital Comes After Proof
Risk-off lenders look to historical precedent, so first-of-a-kind deployments are typically equity-financed until multiple projects prove repeatability—while the nuclear supply chain itself offers parallel opportunities.
🚨 COMING SOON…
Our Deep Tech Handbook is Coming 🚀
After 100 episodes of Deep Tech Catalyst, we distilled the recurring patterns behind what actually gets Deep Tech ventures funded—across capital, timelines, and risk from lab to market.
The result: a practical handbook for Deep Tech founders (and the teams and partners backing them) to turn breakthrough technology into a fundable company.
It will be released soon…
Want it before everyone else?
BEYOND THE CONVERSATION — STRATEGIC INSIGHTS FROM THE EPISODE
Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
Generation IV reactors are best understood as a design response to the two issues that have historically constrained nuclear power: public trust and safety risk.
The core proposition is straightforward. If the dominant concern is the potential for catastrophic failure, then the next wave of reactor technology needs to be engineered around preventing those outcomes by design.
In that framing, Gen IV is compelling because it aims to shift the conversation from “How do we manage the risk?” to “How do we reduce the risk profile at the design level?”
What “meltdown-safe” means in practical terms
A central claim of many Gen IV designs is that they are “meltdown-safe” or, in some cases, physically incapable of reaching the conditions that would cause a meltdown.
The emphasis is on inherent safety characteristics that reduce the probability of the specific failure modes that shaped nuclear’s modern reputation.
In other words, the value proposition is not merely incremental efficiency. It is the reduction of tail-risk scenarios that have outsized impact on public acceptance, regulatory scrutiny, and project viability.
Alongside reactor design, advanced fuel types are often presented as part of this safety and risk-reduction package. A frequently cited example is TRISO fuel, which is described as improving safety characteristics and reducing the likelihood of severe failure outcomes.
In addition, these fuel approaches are often discussed in relation to limiting the proliferation risk associated with fissile materials, which matters not only in geopolitical terms but also in how nuclear projects are perceived and regulated.
Testing history versus deployment reality
A second defining feature of Gen IV is that many of the underlying concepts have already been tested over decades. Several reactor concepts have been tested over decades, including historical deployments such as high-temperature gas reactor work in the United States in the 1970s.
The practical lesson is that technical validation in controlled settings does not automatically translate into commercial rollout.
Technologies can be demonstrably feasible and still fail to scale if the surrounding ecosystem—manufacturing readiness, supply chains, regulatory pathways, and cost structure—cannot support repeatable deployment.
That gap is visible today.
The number of Gen IV reactors operating commercially and connected to the grid remains extremely limited.
This is not a mature buildout phase; it is a transition period where the promise is clear on paper, but widespread replication has not yet occurred.
The investment implication: a safety narrative that can enable scale, if economics follow
From a commercialization standpoint, Gen IV’s value lies in its potential to make nuclear expansion more politically and socially tenable by addressing the failure modes most associated with nuclear’s reputational burden.
If safety outcomes are credibly improved, the technology can, in principle, support a broader buildout of clean, dispatchable power.
The remaining question is whether that safety-driven advantage can be translated into repeatable projects that regulators can approve, supply chains can support, and customers can buy at prices that sustain a viable business.
Deep Tech Monthly in Review - November 2025
Field notes from last month in Deep Tech startups and private markets — a strategic recap for Builders and Backers.
Why Nuclear Power Still Prices as a Premium Product
A central constraint in nuclear today is that cost reduction has not followed the familiar pattern seen in other complex industries. The underlying logic is simple.
When a technology is built repeatedly, organizations learn, suppliers standardize, labor becomes more specialized, and a predictable “learning rate” drives costs down over time.
In nuclear, that dynamic has been weak for years because the industry has not been constructing new projects at the cadence required to accumulate those efficiencies.
When build cycles slow or stop, the system does not merely pause. It deteriorates. Capabilities become fragmented, institutional knowledge disperses, and the industrial base loses the rhythm that makes complex construction repeatable.
In practice, this means each new project can feel closer to a bespoke effort than a scaled manufacturing process, which keeps costs high and outcomes uncertain.
Supply-chain fragility and the complexity of advanced hardware
Nuclear reactors are not standardized consumer products. They are intricate machines that rely on advanced materials and specialized components, many of which require tight tolerances and highly controlled processes.
If the supporting supply chain is thin, inconsistent, or geographically concentrated, costs rise and lead times stretch.
That becomes a strategic issue, not a procurement inconvenience, because the economics of a reactor are shaped long before it produces a single unit of electricity.
In this context, “broken supply chains” is not a rhetorical phrase. It describes an industrial environment in which inputs are hard to source reliably, vendors may be limited in number, and reconstituting production capacity takes time.
When the ecosystem is not operating at scale, the reactor developer bears more integration risk, more scheduling risk, and often more direct responsibility for ensuring that components can be produced to specification.
Regulation and planning as a cost driver, not a footnote
The other major factor is the regulatory and planning burden. In nuclear, regulatory requirements are not marginal costs. They are a defining feature of the operating environment, shaping timelines, project structures, and total capital required.
Compliance is expensive, and the planning process itself can be prolonged.
Even when regulation is justified by the stakes involved, its economic impact is still real: long development cycles increase financing costs, slow iteration, and make it harder to benefit from repetition.
This is why nuclear is an outlier even among regulated sectors. The downside risk is large, the oversight is intensive, and the pathway from concept to operating asset is demanding.
The combined effect is that nuclear projects carry substantial “soft costs” in addition to the physical build, and those soft costs compound because time is a direct input into capital intensity.
How high build cost translates into expensive electricity—and what that implies commercially
When a reactor is expensive to build, the electricity it produces will generally be expensive, especially in the early deployments where the industry has not yet regained momentum on learning and standardization.
From a commercialization perspective, that reality forces a clear question: if the product is premium-priced power, who has both the willingness and the need to pay for it?
The practical implication is not that nuclear cannot compete, but that it cannot compete everywhere at once. Early market selection becomes an economic necessity.
The near-term opportunity is most credible where existing alternatives are already expensive, unreliable, or logistically difficult—conditions under which premium-priced clean power can still be rational and even cost-competitive relative to the status quo.
Who’s Willing to Pay the Most for Energy?
Customer discovery in early nuclear starts with the highest-cost baseline, not the largest addressable market. If nuclear power is expensive to build in the near term, then commercialization becomes a disciplined pricing and segmentation exercise.
The objective is not to win the broad grid immediately. The objective is to identify end users who already face high energy costs and limited alternatives, such that the value of dependable supply can justify a premium price per kilowatt-hour.
That framing treats nuclear as a product that initially competes against the most expensive marginal power in the system, rather than against low-cost grid electricity in well-served regions.
In early deployments, this distinction is decisive: it determines whether unit economics can work before the broader ecosystem—supply chains, repeatability, and financing—has matured enough to push costs down.
The case of Radiant: remote communities and diesel replacement as a pragmatic entry point
One of the clearest early wedges is remote communities and industrial sites that rely on diesel generation. In these contexts, the alternative is not cheap grid electricity. It is fuel shipped over long distances—sometimes by road, sometimes by air freight—burned in aging generators, and priced with logistics risk embedded in every gallon.
The cost per unit of energy can be extremely high, and reliability is often constrained by weather, transport capacity, or disruption risk.
In the case described of Radiant, this is the commercial logic: if early nuclear power is expensive, it should be sold first into markets where the incumbent baseline is already expensive.
The argument is that a reactor can be cost-competitive not because it beats grid power everywhere, but because it displaces diesel in places where diesel is the default. That makes willingness to pay observable and the comparison set concrete.
Beyond price, the value proposition is operational. Reducing dependence on fuel delivery can improve resilience and simplify planning for remote operators. In practical terms, the episode points to remote mining operations, isolated towns, and similar environments where energy is both costly and mission-critical.
These are niche markets by global electricity demand, but they can be credible first markets because the baseline is expensive and the need is urgent.
Defense as an early buyer
Defense is another segment with high willingness to pay, but for a different reason. Military buyers often evaluate energy through security of supply, operational autonomy, and the cost of failure—not only the nominal cost per kilowatt-hour.
In that framework, paying a premium for dependable, deployable power can be rational if it reduces exposure to fuel logistics and increases flexibility.
This procurement environment differs from civilian grid markets, but the commercial point is consistent. Early nuclear products are most viable where power is both valuable and constrained, and where decision-makers are used to paying for resilience.
Data centers: less about price, more about timing and access to power
Data centers are a distinct case because the binding constraint is often time, not price. Large operators can tolerate high energy costs if electricity availability is the gating factor on growth. What they need is access to power quickly enough to bring new capacity online.
That is why “behind-the-meter” generation matters. In many regions, grid connection timelines and capacity constraints make it hard to secure power at the required pace, so operators build generation next to the facility rather than waiting for the grid.
Today, a common solution is natural gas turbines, but lead times can be long and costs high. Renewables can be fast to build, but they are not always baseload, which creates challenges for continuous, high-reliability demand without additional firming.
In that context, nuclear and geothermal receive attention because, in theory, they can provide firm power behind the meter. The strategic rationale is competitive: if a company can secure dependable generation faster than rivals, it can build data centers faster—and in an AI-driven race, speed becomes an advantage in its own right.
What this segmentation implies for early nuclear go-to-market
Across remote diesel replacement, defense applications, and data centers, the common thread is not ideology. It is economic and operational fit.
Early nuclear products are most credible where customers already face very high energy costs or severe constraints on access and timing.
In those environments, premium-priced, reliable power can be rationally purchased, creating a path to initial deployments that can later support broader scaling as learning effects, supply-chain maturity, and financing conditions improve.
💸 A seed that looks like a Series C; Series A stacks in satellites, undersea, and closed-loop labs; growth capital backs execution | Deep Tech Capital Movements n.50
The Week’s State of Deep Tech Capital: who’s Raising, who’s Betting, and why.
What an Investor Wants to See Early in a Nuclear Company
In nuclear, technical sophistication is necessary but not sufficient.
The first screening question is commercial: is the company building a product that specific customers will buy, at a price that supports the business?
Because nuclear projects are capital-intensive and slow-moving, weak demand assumptions are punished more severely than in software markets.
If the initial customer segment is not clearly defined—or if the willingness to pay is vague—the project risks becoming a technically impressive effort without a viable path to early revenue or repeatable deployment.
This is why early nuclear companies need to be explicit about who their first customers are and why those customers will choose nuclear over incumbent alternatives.
The logic must be grounded in the customer’s current cost structure and operational constraints, not in a generalized belief that the world “needs nuclear.”
In practical terms, this ties directly to the premium pricing reality: if early energy will be expensive, the company must demonstrate that it is targeting buyers already paying high prices or facing urgent access constraints.
Modularity as a financing strategy, not a slogan
A second major consideration is modularity. The concept is often discussed as an engineering preference, but in early-stage nuclear, it functions primarily as a financing strategy.
The advantage of modularity is that it reduces the amount of capital at risk at each step and increases the feasibility of iterative deployment.
The most financeable configuration is an “atomic unit” that can be built at the same physical scale as the eventual production unit, that has credible unit economics on its own, and that can be manufactured repeatedly with a high degree of standardization.
The strategic benefit is that scaling becomes a matter of replication—building one smaller system many times and linking deployments—rather than betting on a single, large, first-of-a-kind infrastructure project.
From a capital provider’s perspective, this matters because it changes the risk profile. If the first deployment is smaller, the upfront commitment is lower.
If the design is repeatable, evidence from one build can carry forward into subsequent builds. This is the type of structure that can eventually make projects more legible to non-venture capital providers, even if early financing still relies heavily on equity.
Why “small modular reactor” language can mislead
It is also important to be precise about what “modular” means in the nuclear context. The term “SMR” is widely used, but it can create false expectations. Many so-called small modular reactors are neither meaningfully small nor modular in the sense that matters for capital risk.
Regulatory and safety requirements can drive designs toward large physical footprints and substantial civil infrastructure, even when the output is lower than traditional gigawatt-scale plants.
As a result, there is a spectrum. Some designs still resemble major infrastructure projects, with many of the associated financing and construction risks. Others aim for far smaller units, which can be more attractive from a capital-at-risk perspective, even if they introduce different engineering constraints.
The investor question is less about the label and more about the underlying deployment logic: how much capital must be committed before the project produces value, and how quickly can the company prove repeatability?
The non-negotiables: regulatory strategy, government support, and team quality
Because nuclear sits at the far end of the spectrum on capital intensity, regulatory burden, and downside risk, early-stage credibility depends on how the company responds to those constraints.
Three factors become decisive.
First, regulatory strategy is not an operational detail. It is core to the business model. A company needs a realistic plan for navigating licensing, approvals, and planning processes, and it needs to demonstrate that it understands the timelines and costs involved.
Second, government support is often essential. In a sector where public policy, national security considerations, and regulatory frameworks shape the playing field, alignment with government priorities—and the ability to work constructively within those systems—can materially affect the probability of execution.
Third, the team must be unusually strong. Nuclear requires not only scientific and engineering capability, but also the ability to mobilize capital, manage complex stakeholder environments, and sustain credibility over long time horizons. The requirement is not generic talent. It is the ability to attract attention and resources in a sector where both are constrained by risk perception and institutional friction.
Taken together, these criteria reflect a pragmatic stance. Nuclear can be transformative, but it is not forgiving. Early-stage companies that succeed tend to be those that treat commercialization, financing, and regulation as integrated parts of the product—rather than as downstream challenges to solve after the technology is built.
The Reality of the Capital Stack: Equity First, Cheaper Capital Later
A recurring misunderstanding in industrial technology is the belief that first-of-a-kind projects can be financed as if they were already proven infrastructure.
The logic is appealing: if an asset will eventually generate stable cash flows, then it should be possible to fund it with low-cost debt or other non-dilutive instruments. In practice, that assumption breaks down at the point of first deployment.
Banks and other traditional capital providers are not designed to underwrite technology risk. They are structured to avoid it. Their mandate is to preserve capital through predictability, and they achieve that by referencing historical outcomes.
When the historical record for nuclear project financing is mixed or negative—and when project timelines, regulatory exposure, and construction risk are all high—risk-off providers rationally step back.
The result is that early projects tend to be equity-financed, even when the long-term vision is infrastructure-like.
This dynamic is not unique to nuclear, but nuclear amplifies it. The downside risk profile is extreme relative to many other regulated sectors, and that pushes cautious capital further away.
Even where the strategic case for nuclear is strong, the financing reality remains: if the project is genuinely first-of-a-kind at a meaningful scale, it is difficult to make it compatible with low-cost capital from the outset.
Modularity as the bridge from venture risk to infrastructure finance
This is where modularity becomes more than a design preference. It can function as a stepwise de-risking mechanism that makes later, cheaper capital more plausible.
The core idea is to reduce the size of the first bet.
If a company can build a smaller unit—at the same scale it intends to replicate—and demonstrate it works, it creates an evidence base that can be carried into subsequent deployments.
In that model, the pathway to cheaper capital is incremental.
The first unit is still likely to require expensive capital, because it is the point where uncertainty is highest. But once a unit has been built and operated successfully, the second and third deployments begin to look less like speculative technology and more like repeatable projects.
That is the transition that risk-off capital needs: proof of performance, proof of process, and proof that a build is not a one-time exception.
This is also why building one small reactor many times is structurally different from building one large reactor once.
The former creates a series of learning events and proof points, each requiring less capital than a single, large infrastructure commitment. Even if the ultimate scale is large, the financing journey becomes more modular as well.
The specific constraint in nuclear: limited availability of non-dilutive capital
Even with a strong de-risking story, nuclear faces an added hurdle: many banks have traditionally been cautious about lending to nuclear projects—especially in the early stages.
That is beginning to change, but the starting point remains restrictive. As a result, the menu of non-dilutive options is narrower than founders might expect, and it is not realistic to assume a wide range of low-cost instruments will be available early.
Non-dilutive funding in this context often implies government support, but it should not be treated as a guaranteed substitute for equity.
Grants and public programs can help, but they do not eliminate the fundamental problem that the first deployment is a high-risk activity.
Where non-dilutive capital becomes more plausible is after the initial proof points, when the project can be framed as replication rather than invention.
The milestone logic that turns risk-off counterparties back on
The gating factor for cheaper capital is not ambition. It is demonstrated performance.
Risk-off providers look for evidence that a technology has crossed from hypothetical to operational, and they seek precedents they can defend internally.
Until multiple projects have been delivered and operated successfully, the “financing tap” remains relatively off. Once a few have come to market and proven that they work, the basis for underwriting begins to change.
This creates a clear sequence. Early capital is likely to be expensive and equity-heavy. The role of the company is to use that capital to generate the proof points that make subsequent deployments financeable on better terms.
For founders, the practical takeaway is that capital strategy must align with a realistic view of counterparties. Banks are not venture investors, and they will not behave like them. The pathway to their participation is through proven deployments that make the risk legible and defensible.
Supply chain as an adjacent opportunity set, not just a bottleneck
Finally, the financing and deployment discussion connects directly to the supply chain. If supply chains are fragile and regulated inputs are difficult to procure, there is not only risk but also opportunity.
A nuclear resurgence requires supporting infrastructure: enriched fuel supply, maintenance and compliance capabilities, and technologies that improve the performance and economics of the existing fleet.
From an investment perspective, this creates multiple entry points into the broader nuclear renaissance beyond reactor development itself.
Building in the supply chain can be attractive because it targets clear bottlenecks and concentrated markets, often characterized by limited competition and high friction.
In those environments, technology-enabled disruption can be meaningful, and it can allow companies to capture value even while large-scale reactor deployment remains early in its cycle.
