TVA becomes the first U.S. utility to order Gen IV nuclear power under a new agreement with Google and Kairos Power.
Regulatory reforms and fuel innovations are accelerating America’s nuclear revival — with Radiant, Aalo, and Deep Isolation in the mix...
Türkiye’s first nuclear plant has entered its commissioning phase, with Unit 1 on track to supply 2.5% of the country’s electricity by 2025...
By Ian Brusewitz and Valerie Gardner
Over just the past 12 months, the US has spent nearly $1 trillion on climate-related disaster recovery and infrastructure damage. That’s 3% of GDP — money that could have gone toward innovation, productivity, benefits, or debt reduction. Instead, it's being rerouted into extreme weather damage cleanup, reconstruction, and emergency response. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, this surge in climate-related spending has effectively become a "stealth tariff" on Americans: a hidden cost that shows up not as a line item, but in the form of higher prices, larger insurance premiums, and government spending that collectively erode household budgets and wealth without being labeled for what it is. The conversation around climate change often centers on long-term risk — but the reality is that US citizens are already paying an average of almost $3,000 annually towards covering the costs of our worsening climate, even if these costs are not specifically identified as such.
This economic burden isn’t theoretical — it’s already bleeding into the real economy in visible, destabilizing ways. Climate-related costs are no longer confined to isolated events or specific regions. Climate change is indifferent to boundaries, and its financial impacts are bleeding into housing markets, food systems, labor dynamics, consumer prices, and state and federal budgets. As these disruptions grow more frequent and severe, as last evidenced by the devastating fires in Los Angeles and deadly flash floods in Texas — no sector, geography, demographic, or business is immune. This suggests that as the capital allocations necessary for climate recovery grow, the environmental risks bleed increasingly into financial risks. Not only are our physical assets vulnerable, but so are our financial assets. This then raises the stakes of where and how to invest.
As the economic footprint of climate disruption expands, the institutions we’ve historically relied on to manage risk are showing cracks. Insurance is becoming a visible point of failure in that equation. In 2024, Hurricane Helene hit Florida as the strongest storm ever recorded in the state’s Panhandle. Days later, Hurricane Milton followed. Combined, the two storms caused $113 billion in damage. Then came the devastating California wildfires in January 2025, burning through L.A. suburbs, which added another $65 billion to the total. The LA Times has since estimated total fire damage could exceed $250 billion, making it one of the costliest fire seasons in U.S. history. And, most recently, the devastating Texas floods — with damage estimated at upward of $22 billion — don't even account for the tragic loss of life from these events.
Historically, the federal government covered about one-third of climate-related disaster costs. That share has since dropped to around 2%, leaving municipalities and states to issue debt or delay recovery projects, and shifting more of the burden onto insurers and property owners. In 2023, insurers covered approximately 70% of the $114 billion in U.S. climate-related losses, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Because of rising costs, insurance premiums have doubled since 2017, including a 22% spike in 2023 alone. These increases aren’t reflected in the Consumer Price Index, which means that what we’re calling "inflation" may actually be something distinctly different. The question we can ask is whether or not people would make different choices if these embedded costs were more clearly labeled as a "Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium" or something similar. This lack of clarity and failure to accurately attribute these rising costs to what we think of as cheap fossil fuels means that we understate the full costs and consequences of our use of these fuels.
In 2015, former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney coined the phrase "Tragedy of the Horizons" to describe the problem that results from the fact that people want what's cheap for them today and are unwilling to pay more for something even if it is better for them or their children in the future. The same problem exists at every level in the investment world: financial actors operate on quarterly cycles, while climate impacts unfold over years or decades. This mismatch between how we invest today versus what we need for tomorrow means markets routinely discount the long-term consequences of inaction, prioritizing short-term returns over long-term stability, even when instability is well predicted. The result of this short-term orientation is a structural disconnect that undercuts our ability to invest in climate action and solutions, so as to limit the long-term damage we will inevitably have to pay for, before it gets really bad.
A decade later, this structural blind spot surrounding investing in climate solutions persists. At a recent Financial Stability Board meeting, a U.S. Treasury official dismissed climate concerns unless they posed an "imminent" financial risk. But that logic depends upon people not recognizing the growing annual Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium that they are already paying. In addition to revealing an utter failure to understand the real-world progression of climate impacts and looming tipping points, which are beyond "imminent," they are being expressed with disasters everywhere, even if these costs are economically masked and not clearly identified as climate costs. This disconnect is one of the clearest reasons capital hasn’t shifted meaningfully towards investing in the technologies that can enable the energy transition to the extent that we should. So long as people don't realize how expensive climate inaction actually is, human nature tragically rewards inertia, which means that both the damage done in the interim and the costs of solving climate change will continue to rise.
Surveys from Yale’s Climate Change in the American Mind series show rising concern among Americans about climate change. Yet, far fewer people connect climate change directly to the rising costs of food, insurance, consumer products, or energy prices. This perception gap matters. When the public doesn’t see their rising costs as climate-driven, there’s less support for regional climate mitigation efforts, long-term adaptation investments, or even innovative clean energy investments that can help accelerate the energy transition, reduce the impacts of future extreme weather events, a hedge the rising climate risks to their overall portfolio.
While consumer awareness lags, markets have begun to price in climate risks. Bloomberg tracks a basket of 100 companies in insurance, infrastructure, and disaster response that have outperformed the S&P 500 by 7% annually. Capital is adapting faster than federal policy — and faster than public awareness. This divergence captures a core tension. While markets have begun reallocating capital toward climate adaptation — outpacing both federal policy and public awareness — the broader system still treats climate disruption as a distant risk, even though the costs are already embedded in household budgets increasingly squeezed by insurance premiums, rising costs, and disaster recovery bills not covered by insurance or the government. Climate impacts and costs are no longer theoretical or negligible. They are already large, compounding, and for many households, causing significant budgetary pain. And yet, despite the mounting data, policy and public sentiment lag. Yet, there is very little recognition of how these climate costs are escalating or communication to the public about the real price of our government's climate ignorance and inaction.
The trillion-dollar annual cost of climate inaction isn’t a projection — it’s already here. It reflects not just extreme weather, but the fallout from underbuilt systems and delayed clean energy investment. We haven’t invested adequately in low-carbon technologies that can reduce and eliminate carbon emissions at scale and possibly even begin to repair the damage that has already been done to the climate. Investments lagged because investors doubted the need for these technologies as well as their commercial viability. Clean energy technologies that were seen as more expensive than fossil fuels were deemed less competitive in today's market and hence, not a good investment. But if we begin to factor in today's Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium plus the growing costs of not having those technologies — namely the ever-escalating costs of climate damage — then these clean energy solutions really start to seem attractive.
This is where next-generation nuclear becomes decisively appealing. Not only does it deliver clean, dense, reliable, and dispatchable power — but it generates power (and so earns money) without relying on the weather or being vulnerable to it, which is a growing risk to renewables projects reliant on the weather cooperating. As both a hedge against the systemic economic risks of climate disruption and as a source of long-term returns and near-term risk reduction, nuclear power offers a uniquely strategic return. If the Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium is now a recurring cost, the only rational move is to invest in the most scalable solutions that cut exposure to climate risk, preserve economic value, and secure a livable future.
Bloomberg, “US Spending on Climate Damage Nears $1 Trillion Per Year,” by Eric Roston, June 17, 2025.
Bloomberg, “Carney’s Risk Warning Reverberates as Global Regulators Disagree Over Climate,” by Alastair Marsh, June 19, 2025.
Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Insurance and Disaster Spending”, September 2023.
Los Angeles Times, “Estimated Cost of Fire Damage Balloons to More Than $250 Billion”, by Sammy Roth, January 24, 2025.
MSN, “Texas Flood Damage to Homes May Cost Up to $22B”, by Michael Walrath, May 2025.
Nature, “Warming Accelerates Global Drought Severity,” by Solomon H. Gebrechorkos et al., June 4, 2025.
NOAA, “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters”, 2024 Report.
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, “Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes”, Fall 2024.
Texas passed HB14, launching a $350M fund and new nuclear office — the largest state push for advanced reactors in the U.S.
Copenhagen Atomics, the Danish developer of a thorium molten salt reactor that turns nuclear waste into fuel, was among 40 startups selected in the latest round of EIC Accelerator funding…
Ajay Banga, the World Bank president, announced that it would lift its decades-long ban on financing nuclear energy and “begin to re-enter the nuclear energy space” in partnership with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This policy shift is aimed at accelerating development of the low-emissions nuclear technology to meet surging electricity demand in the developing world.
Los Angeles is still reeling from a series of horrific fires that devasted multiple communities, particularly Palisades and Eaton in early 2025. Recent reports found that these fires caused between $28 and $54 billion in property damange, along with what may be $9 billion in related economic losses in LA County alone. The fires have caused a loss of almost 50,000 job-years in the region, reducing area wages, business income, and federal, state and local tax revenue.
Lack of rain, hotter and drier conditions and high winds helped fuel the fires while combating the fires was hindered by the excess heat and widespread shortage of divertable water resources. These are conditions that have been exascerbated by global warming, which is caused by humanity's growing carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. Gigatonnes of these heat-trapping waste CO2 emissions have amassed within the atmosphere causing the planet to get warmer. Scientists now believe that we've exceeded 1.5°Celsius average increase or 2.7°Fahrenheit and the heating is continuing to rise at an accelerating rate.
While Los Angeles is working to recover, rebuild and repair, the question of how to begin to reverse the damage we're continuing to do to the climate remains. We know with total certainty that we must stop burning fossil fuels. But demand for energy is not just growing around the world, demand is surging—particularly due to AI usage. This means not only do we need to focus on building only new clean energy plants but we also need to replace the 80% of global energy still using fossil fuels with equivalent sources of clean power as well.
We've been building wind and solar as fast as possible but these have never been able to keep up with even the historically lower level of energy growth. Additionally, the enormous costs of "firming" all that dilute and intermittent power (i.e. adding batteries, duplicative generation, and other fossil back up for when the sun and wind aren't cooperating) have increased California ratepayer costs. Meanwhile, we are still reliant on burning fossil fuels for some 60% of our power here in California and new fossil plants continue to get built that lock in continued emissions for decades more, which is extraordinarily bad for our future.
We clearly need better solutions. From our perspective, the only good news on the climate horizon is that energy experts, tech hyperscalers, government officials, industrial companies and investors are increasingly recognizing the importance of nuclear power for addressing our energy and climate needs. Nuclear (fission) power produces massive amounts of energy with zero emissions and runs reliably 24/7 (except for refuelings). It also cleans the air (as it emits zero toxins, unlike coal and gas), it provides good-paying jobs and has one of the smallest possible ecologic footprints. Best of all, there's a race on to develop next-generation nuclear power plants that better meet our 21st century energy needs. (Nuclear fusion may play a role in the future but commercialization of that technology is still much further off.)
Nuclear power—and especially newer, advanced designs—has seen bipartisan support in the Congress since the Obama Administration. Both Biden and Trump have increased funding for development of next-gen nuclear and signed multiples bills to accelerate new deployments for energy security, for climate change and for national security goals. Public support for nuclear power is currently at its highest level in decades. Yet, support by men exceeds that of women overall. Among women, surprisingly, those most concerned about climate change, primarily progressive Democrats, report the least support for nuclear power. This appears to be a function of less awareness and knowledge about the technology and a residual sense that nuclear is dangerous, even though it has been found to be among the safest and cleanest forms of energy ever developed. That does not appear to be common knowledge among women yet.
Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital's managing partner, is working to help set the record straight. She is co-hosting a luncheon gathering for an intimate gathering of women in Los Angeles to discuss nuclear power and share what she has learned over the past 15 years of research and investigation, to dispell myths that still infuse women's thinking about nuclear energy.
Join a small group of women gathering at an LA restaurant to enjoy a hosted lunch and discussion exploring the proposition that nuclear power could be exactly what we need to meet the surging demand for energy and solve climate climate safely, sustainably and cost-effectively.
As data centers, cloud computing, vehicle electrification, crypto mining, manufacturing and more create unprecedented demand, energy buyers and the broader utility sector in general are facing a pivotal moment. Will we meet this demand with more cheap but often volatile fossil fuel power generation and continue to make our climate crisis worse? Or will we push forward and accelerate the commercialization of revolutionary advanced nuclear technologies that are clean, dense, low-impact, reliable and climate resilient—everything we need! What if next-generation nuclear is able to compete on every level with fossil fuels, including price? This could change our planet's trajectory for the better, reduce emissions, lessen the threat from climate change and help save our children's future.
Event Details:
Date: July 9th, 2025
Time: 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm
Location in LA: To be provided upon registration
Join us to explore ideas that will define the next generation of energy systems. Click here to request an invitation!
Looking forward to seeing everyone in L.A.!
The blackout that left millions of people across the Iberian peninsula without power, including at the Madrid Open, ignited debate over renewables and fuelled rising interest in nuclear power. More Europeans are questioning whether renewable energy can be relied on to provide a stable source of clean energy. It also fuelled a renewed interest in the global nuclear power renaissance already under way.
For those tracking the state of the climate, the report published by the BBC showing that tropical forests were being destroyed at the fastest recorded rate over the last year, was frightening, with the prospect of total forest dieback and "savannisation" of these areas is a growing risk.
Compounding the loss of old-growth tropical forests in 2024 (estimated to have covered an area as large as Ireland) and the release of their carbon stores, is the loss of the moisture and climate systems maintained by those forest ecosystems, which previously provided localized cooling effects, produced cloud cover and contributed to the atmospheric moisture necessary for rain. These had also helped to brighten the earth, thereby reflecting more of the sunlight that otherwise would cause heating. This moisture and water cycle activity gets destroyed along with the trees, plants and animal life. This climatic loss to broad areas may be having more of a negative feedback effective on the planet's overall warming than has previously been recognized.
Global Surface Temperature Change (published 2/3/25)
This news add yet more data to the alarming report published in February by Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Pushker Kharecha and a team of sixteen other climate scientists plainly titled "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed? In it, Dr. Hansen's team explains that global temperatures have leaped up more than a half degree (0.7°F or 0.4°C) over the last 2 years, with a total average temperature rise of +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). This reflects a temperature rise over the +1.5°C (or 2.7°F) level that we set as our goal for maximum increase. As of the last year, we've already exceeded that level.
These increases have, according to Hansen, baffled Earth scientists, as the increase's magnitude was literally off the charts. There were multiple explanations presented as to what could have caused such a big increase. Declining aerosol pollution was seen as a key contributor, by reducing nuclei that aided cloud formation and thus reflection of sunlight, thereby effectively darkening earth and allowing more heat to be absorbed. These are very troubling and portentious changes that may, in fact, show that feedback effects are already accelerating the heating impacts of our CO2 emissions, such that they no longer follow a direct relationship.
Dr. Hansen's report received considerable criticism both because it departed scientifically from the mainstream's more conservative consensus of a lower rate of warming and climate "sensitivity," as determined by the IPCC, and because it called for "a complement to the IPCC approach" to "avoid handing young people a dire situation that is out of their control." In a response to some of that criticism, Drs. Hansen and Karecha decried the ad hoc opinions, ad hominem attacks and sense that the media has gravitated towards reporting the opinions of just a small handful of scientists, rather than covering the total community and range of analyses, including their own.
Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, responded to this debate with a substack post titled "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." In it she agreed with Drs. Hansen and Karecha that many scientists were understating the degree of climate forcing but also shared her sense that many of the climate models in use, including Dr. Hansen's, erroneously ignored the major role of the biosphere in the climate destabilization that we are now experiencing. Which may, she argued, partially explain why none of the models predicted the heat anomaly of the 2023 - 2024 time period. Dr. Makarieva writes:
Why is this [i.e. accurate climate models] so important? Unless external causes of this recent temperature anomaly are identified, we may be dealing with a self-reinforcing process — for example, of reduced cloud cover causing more warming, this warming causing even less clouds and so forth until something truly ugly happens to our planet. But, if so, such a process could be started by many factors and does not necessarily need CO2 to kick off. For example, deforestation-induced reduction of evapotranspiration in the Amazon is associated with extreme heat events. This alone could trigger the warming that could then self-amplify via cloud (or some other) feedbacks.
Whether or not we have permanent self-reinforcing amplification happening with the climate now is being debated, partially thanks to new voices like Dr. Makarieva's, entering the field. What is clear, however, is that the fewer clouds, aerosols, snow cover, sea ice and also more invisible sources of water vapor (such produced by tropical forests and other natural ecosystems) the darker the earth is and the more sunlight gets through and heats the ground, the oceans and the air. This heating further impacts existing vegetation, ice sheets, permafrost and bodies of water negatively, which then also contribute more CO2, more fires, and further darkening of earth's surface. Earth's climate has been in a state of equilibrium for eons. Given what is happening with the climate now, it appears that it is leaving that state of equilibrium.
Dr. Hansen continues to urge immediate action and has proposed that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."
BBC, Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year, by Mark Poynting and Esme Stallard, May 20, 2025.
Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, published in Taylor & Francis, February 3, 2025 by James E. Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, George Tselioudis, Joseph Kelly, Susanne E. Bauer, Reto Ruedy, Eunbi Jeong, Qinjian Jin, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Mark R. Schoeberl, Karina von Schuckmann, Joshua Amponsem, Junji Cao, Anton Keskinen, Jing Li, and Anni Pokela
Biotic Regulation and Biotic Pump Substack, "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." by Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, May 19, 2025.
Sign up to receive Nucleation Insights
For Current Investors
(Note: Must be logged in at AngelList)
Nucleation Direct Messages
Nucleation (Fund I) Posts
Your Portfolio Dashboard
Your Funding Page
How to Contact Us
© 2025 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies
To provide the best experiences, our website uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.