On Friday afternoon, in what he called a "huge day for the nuclear industry", president Trump signed a series of executive orders designed to support the nuclear energy industry through improving the regulatory process as well as supply chains, as well as to fast-track the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors culminating a dramatic policy shift aimed at revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy sector. 

The executive order invokes the Defense Production Act to declare a national emergency regarding the US' dependence of uranium from China and Russia, specifically enriched uranium, processing capabilities, and other inputs. The order will dramatically ease the regulatory process on new reactors as well as support the build out of supply chains.

Understandably, nuclear and uranium stocks soared - including such ZeroHedge favorites as Cameco (CCJ) and Oklo - hitting multi-year highs.

Ahead of the widely telegraphed announcement, Goldman published an initiation note titled "The Nuclear Playbook For Energy Transition" (available to pro subs) which is a must-read report for anyone who wishes to profit from the coming resource reallocation and transition.

While we will take a closer look at the report shortly, in a separate note from the bank's trading desk, Goldman trader Brian Lee writes that he "maintains a constructive view on the nuclear opportunity, both near-to-medium term as it relates to the fuel supply and upstream portion of the value chain" and reiterates a Buy rating on what has long been our favorite nuclear name, CCJ, adding that "the long-term prospects for growing demand and faster deployment also would seem to bode well for technology-oriented plays like SMR (Neutral rated)."

Recapping Goldman's stock implications from Trump's nuclear order.

• CCJ/CCO.TO is set to benefit as a uranium producer, in our view, as increased nuclear generating capacity would increase demand for physical uranium and conversion services as demand for fuel would likely increase. We note this would likely be a longer term tailwind. Additionally, CCJ/CCO.TO has a 49% stake in Westinghouse which we view would be a more immediate winner given Westinghouse's exposure to new reactor builds and operations and services. We view the Westinghouse segment would likely see an uplift as construction on new nuclear plants begins, if the AP1000 technology is chosen for these new builds.
   

• SMR could potentially benefit if there is additional allocations for loan dollars earmarked for SMRs, as well as a push for SMRs to be used for either civilian or defense power applications.

Separately, Goldman's Adam Wijaya opines that the desk has "seen an uptick in interest across the nuclear/uranium space over the last few days – but would not say we are anywhere close to the September/October levels during the hyperscaler announcement craze... that said – incremental interest seems to be directed towards the infrastructure names over the miners/tech names in this tape… names that continue to come up in recent conversations = BWXT, CW, ATRL, FLR…" 

With that in mind we turn back to the Goldman Nuclear Playbook report, and excerpt from some of the key sections below:

PM Summary: Nuclear Energy emerges as a key Energy Transition driver

Nuclear Energy has been a viable and proven technology since first being pioneered in the 1950s. But a volatile history of shifts in policy, as well as public support, in the midst of cost and safety challenges has led to inconsistent growth over time. Today, increasing momentum in innovation, investment, and policy support has nuclear technology poised to see a significant growth inflection at a time when more and more power demand globally is being driven by the need for reliable, around-the-clock, and clean sources of electricity. Nowhere is this more evident than the growing list of countries backing a COP28 declaration to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, with the total nuclear fleet of ~440 reactors today set to expand to ~500 by 2030 while well over 400 additional reactors are planned and proposed in the coming few decades according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA). With this as a backdrop, we highlight the broad-ranging materials, technologies and services opportunities across the nuclear value chain, with our investor roadmap for gaining leverage to the nuclear theme highlighting 14 stocks across our GS coverage, including Cameco, Mirion Technologies, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Southern Company among our Buy-rated ideas with the most exposure.

What is nuclear used for?

Nuclear’s use cases span all the way from nuclear power to weapons (which use uranium-235) and radio activity/ treatment/ imaging (which use a different subset of isotopes). As of recent years, nuclear energy, in particular, has become a key area of focus globally as countries revisit the technology after many years of underinvestment. We highlight that nuclear power generation is one of the cleanest sources of power generation and one of the most reliable.

Current drivers of the renewed demand for nuclear in the energy complex include:

• Increasing power consumption, owing to expanding populations, electrification, EVs, data centers, etc.

• Ongoing shift toward cleaner power, as countries seek lower emissions alternatives such as renewables, battery storage, nuclear, and others.

• Need for more baseload power, as renewables like solar, wind and hydro are intermittent and don’t run 24/7 reliably, whereas nuclear power is bothemissions-free and available as a high capacity factor, baseload power generation resource akin to coal/gas.

From a cost perspective, levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) across both traditional nuclear and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) can vary widely. Our base case assumes that traditional nuclear LCOE is roughly ~$125/MWh while SMRs, once they reach nth-of-a kind, can see LCOE in the range of ~$100/MWh or less. This will vary widely based on the actual cost to build new nuclear - where estimates are still fairly wide-ranging and differ from country to country. Notably, nuclear has higher capital costs than the majority of power generation types due to specialized construction needs for these types of power generation builds, as well as what have historically been cost overruns relative to initial projections. This causes a wide variance in construction costs for these projects, which makes them generally difficult to estimate. Compared to traditional nuclear, SMRs, especially High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) fueled SMRs, have a higher fuel cost as a % of LCOE since HALEU will be more expensive than traditional fuel and SMRs maintain lower initial construction costs. We believe HALEU fuel for SMRs will be at least ~25% of the total LCOE cost, while having more general supply chain risk given lack of wide availability today.

Nuclear Energy - growth to stagnant back to growth again?

Nuclear’s history in the energy complex dates back to the 1950s when the first nuclear reactor was powered on in the US. Yet, despite nuclear being one of the cleaner and more reliable power generation sources available on the grid, public perception and support for nuclear has ebbed and mostly waned after multiple high-profile accidents across the world led to doubts on the technology. Indeed, leading up to the first incident at Three Mile Island in 1979, there had been roughly 10 new nuclear reactor starts for every 1 reactor shut down over a 25-year time frame, signaling the growing importance of nuclear in the energy mix. Then Chernobyl happened in 1986, only a short seven years following Three Mile Island and the pace of nuclear build out slowed significantly with only 6 new nuclear reactors turned on per year vs. an average of 4 shutdowns per year into the early 2010s. Then the Fukushima accident occurred in 2011 and appears to have significantly hampered the global perception of nuclear technology, and its safety/reliability, with new nuclear reactor starts and shutdowns basically balancing each other out annually over the past decade and a half, and thus leading to a long period of underinvestment across the entire nuclear value chain owing to limited new growth across the nuclear energy complex.

Nuclear’s importance in the global power mix has waned, as has investment in the industry

At its peak, nuclear power represented ~17% of the total global electricity generation mix in the 1980s (pre-Chernobyl) before dropping to 10% by 2010. Post-Fukishima, the generation mix represented by nuclear power generation slipped even further to roughly 9% of the global total where it currently stands. In the US, nuclear power has remained somewhat more resilient, representing 18% of today’s electricity generation mix, or roughly around the same levels from three decades ago.

The waning popularity of nuclear as an energy resource, in the face of growing safety concerns, resulted in significant underinvestment across the space in terms of new builds. As spending on development of new nuclear reactors pulled back, the effect was seen across the value chain all the way from downstream reactor builds back up to upstream materials sectors, such as uranium mining, exploration, and development. Importantly, these upstream companies require positive consumption trends to support investments such that the price of uranium - and related products - remains high enough to incentivize spending the required capital to bring more uranium supply into the market.

The global nuclear fleet is aging and geographically concentrated

Globally, as of 2024, there are 440 operable reactors. However, only 417 are currently operating since 19 reactors in Japan and 4 in India are suspended but still operable. While there are currently 31 countries that have operating nuclear reactors, a majority of the generation comes from the top 10 countries, which are home to roughly 80% of all global reactors and ~85% of total global nuclear generating capacity. 

The current global nuclear reactor fleet is aging rapidly due to underinvestment and lack of interest in the technology due to fears around safety and other renewables trying to take the place of nuclear. Furthermore, the shale boom in 2008 resulted in natural gas being another source of relatively clean and substantially cheaper fuel source for power generation. The result of the decades of nuclear underinvestment is a global nuclear reactor fleet which has a median age of ~32 years, with 66% of total global reactors over 31 years old.

What is driving nuclear to grow again?

Recently, nuclear power has become a more front-and-center driver of current Energy Transition frameworks across the globe, with global investment in nuclear power generation having grown at a CAGR of ~14% between 2020 and 2024 after nearly a half-decade of no growth in spending. This has come on the heels of improving policy support globally, underscored by the growing demand for power and less emission-intensive alternatives in a world that is retiring coal plants at a rate much faster than it is building new ones. While nuclear power in this context would appear to be quite desirable given its large-scale capacity (e.g., most plants are 1GW or more in scale) and around-the-clock availability as long as nuclear fuel is available, years of underinvestment have left the supply chain in a challenged position to ramp quickly. Case in point: nuclear reactors take between 6-12 years on average to build and in countries that don’t have existing nuclear supply chains, it can take much longer. The current solution to bridge this issue until new reactors are built is nuclear power plant life extensions for existing reactors, a dynamic that has started to see more momentum, of late. While the average nuclear power plant in the global fleet is now aged 32 years, operating licenses for nuclear plants in the US average about 40 years per the EIA, meaning many plants likely require license extensions in the coming years to continue operating. With that said, we anticipate a healthy portion of the global nuclear fleet will seek extensions, which should help bridge the gap to new reactor builds coming online.

The pipeline for new reactors is growing

Current data shows that there are 61 reactors under construction across 15 different countries with roughly 1/2 located in China. Importantly, 59 of 61 reactors are scheduled to come online between 2025-2032, assuming no delays. Furthermore, the 19 reactors in Japan and 4 in India that are suspended that could also be restarted during that time frame.

In addition to the 61 reactors currently under construction, there are roughly 85 reactors currently planned across the globe and another 359 proposed. While we do not anticipate all of these planned and proposed reactors to come online, we think this statistic is still noteworthy in highlighting the level of activity in the industry, as underscored by 31 countries pledging to triple global nuclear capacity 2050 at COP29

New technology coming alongside new reactors

As investment in nuclear has started to pick up globally, countries are not only looking at building out large nuclear fleets but there has also been growing investment allocated to new technologies such as SMRs. This represents a largely greenfield growth opportunity for the sector as currently there are only 2 licensed, approved, and operating small modular reactors and 1 test reactor operating across the globe. In China, the HTR-PM, which is a high-temp gas-cooled reactor, is operational with 210MWe and was connected to the grid in 2021 and entered commercial operation in 2023 according to World Nuclear News. In Russia, the KLT-40S is an operating PWR reactor with 35MWe and it is classified as a floating nuclear power plant according to the World Nuclear Association. There is also a high temperature test reactor (HTTR) in Japan that is being tested as well.

With SMR technology still years away from deploying at scale, our forecasts for nuclear generation are largely driven by life extensions, restarts, and new traditional reactors coming online that are under construction and planned. By 2040, we estimate nuclear generating capacity will grow to 575GW globally, representing 12% of the global electricity mix, up from about 9% today and representing ~200GW of incremental growth in nuclear generating capacity from today’s baseline of 378GW.

Both policy and public support are growing for nuclear

From a policy perspective, nuclear has seen a resurgence in government support across the globe. At COP28 in December 2023, 25 countries set a goal to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050 from 2020 levels. This group was subsequently expanded to 31 countries in November 2024. This pledge also has the support of 140 nuclear industry companies and 14 large financial institutions. Importantly, during CERAWeek in March 2025, a group of major energy users, which included Amazon, Google, Meta, Dow, Occidental, Allseas, and OSGE, also signed the pledge to support the goal of at least tripling global nuclear capacity by 2050.

We note that tripling global nuclear energy capacity suggests more than 1,100 GW of total capacity, up from ~370 GW in 2020. While this estimate is higher than the IAEA’s most aggressive forecast at 890 GW, it still highlights the increasing support to expand global nuclear energy capacity.

In the US, the government set a target to triple its nuclear capacity by 2050, which implies adding ~200 GW of new capacity. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 provides several tax credits and incentives for nuclear energy. This includes a production tax credit of up to $15/MWh (assuming labor and wage requirements are met) for facilities in service in 2024, and would last through 2032. Additionally, advanced reactors can claim either a $25/MWh production tax credit or a 30% investment tax credit. Lastly, the IRA set aside $700mn to support the development of a domestic supply chain for HALEU. Importantly, in April 2025, the DOE made conditional commitments to five advanced reactor developers (Kairos Power, Radiant Industries, TerraPower, TRISO-X, and Westinghouse) to receive the first allocations of HALEU from its HALEU Availability Program. Lastly, the IRA allocated $150mn for infrastructure improvements at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to improve nuclear energy research and development, supporting almost a dozen advanced nuclear technologies.

Outside of the IRA, in December 2024, the DOE announced that it selected six companies (American Centrifuge Operating, General Matter, Global Laser Enrichment, Louisiana Energy Services, Laser Isotope Separation Technologies, and Orano Federal Services) that can sign contracts to purchase low enriched uranium to support the expansion of new uranium enrichment capacity in the US. These contracts are expected to last for up to 10 years, with each company receiving a minimum contract of $2mn.

In addition to incremental government support for nuclear, public support has also been improving. As highlighted by a recent opinion survey, public support for nuclear energy has been steadily increasing since the lows experienced in 2015. In particular, a poll from Gallup shows that 61% of US citizens support nuclear energy, up meaningfully from 44% in 2016, which coincided with relatively low gas prices. Additionally, energy consultancy company Radiant Energy Group commissioned a survey through Savanta that found that support for nuclear outweighed opposition by 1.5x within 23 US states (40% supported while 27% opposed). The majority of those that support nuclear energy were Republicans (74%) and independents (64%), with 46% of Democrats supporting nuclear.