July 11, 2025

Jessica Lovering

Jessica Lovering is a nuclear policy expert and co-founder of Good Energy Collective, with fellowships at the Energy for Growth Hub and Nuclear Innovation Alliance...

February 12, 2024

Nuclear Energy: Now or Never

By Valerie Gardner, Managing Partner

UC Berkeley students' annual Energy Summit addresses the world's energy and resource challenges. This year's conference included a panel titled "Nuclear Energy: Now or Never." Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital's managing partner, participated on the panel, bringing her bullish outlook on the prospects for innovation in nuclear to have a significant impact on the world's ability to decarbonize. 

BERC's Nuclear Energy: Now or Never

This year's Berkeley Energy & Resources Collaborative (BERC) Energy Summit included a panel called "Nuclear Energy: Now or Never." There to discuss this topic were UC Berkeley professors, Dan Kamen and Per Peterson, who is also Chief Nuclear Officer at Kairos Power; former Berkeley Ph.D. student, Jessica Lovering, currently the Executive Director of Good Energy Collective; and myself, founder and managing partner of Nucleation Capital. This was, as it turned out, a lively conversation about nuclear power and its prospects in front of a diverse audience of mostly undergrad, graduate students and young professionals.

I'm always happy to talk to students. They are generally well-informed about what's happening with climate change and the risks that it poses to their future. This makes them concerned, distressed but also particularly open-minded. As a climate investor, I spend quite a bit of time reading the science and evaluating a wide range of potential solutions. It is easy to get frustrated and even discouraged by how little progress we are making. I can only imagine how they may feel having to face this crisis.

We're less than six years from 2030, when we are supposed to have achieved a 50% reduction in global emissions. Some countries, including the U.S. have made progress, but we've been unable to move the needle on a global scale, largely because the demand for energy keeps growing, especially in places where they don't have enough even now. But, as it turns out, demand for electricity is growing in the U.S., propelled by the growth of online services, vehicle electrification and technologies like AI and cryptocurrencies.

Unfortunately, even in the U.S. the majority of our power comes from coal and gas, which we cannot afford to continue using they way we have.  According to the latest reporting from Dr. James Hansen, we are already exceeding the "safe" limits of global warming, which was to limit heating to less than 1.5° Celsius of warming (equivalent to an increase of 2.7° Fahrenheit). Because of the scale of the "global warming in the pipeline," we've committed the planet to exceeding those limits and face an exceptionally difficult time securing a "propitious climate" for future generations. This should be a big wake up moment for everyone. It certainly makes me want to shake people out of complacency.

Places like California and Germany, which have leaned in to decarbonization and invested billions into wind and solar, are struggling to keep their grids reliable. While they should have focused on shutting down coal and gas, for mostly political reasons, nuclear was already in the crosshairs. This was a big mistake. Germany, against all climate reason, went ahead with a scheduled shut down of its nuclear power and is paying a huge price, having had to re-open coal plants after Russia invaded Ukraine, a far worse climate, health and energy outcome. California was also planning to shut down its remaining nuclear power plant. Fortunately,  it became clear that the state needed its nuclear plant to avoid blackouts—and, in doing so, could save $21 billion in decarbonization costs while helping it with its climate goals.

Increasingly, results like these establish that nuclear is a central part of a more effective clean energy solution set. Nuclear power, which uses the smallest land footprint, the least amount of material per kilowatt and which has the highest capacity factor, has an "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI) more than 3X that of fossil fuels and more 20X that of wind or solar. It stands alone with the greatest potential to leverage 21st century innovation to produce a new set of truly paradigm-shifting energy solutions. 

Which is what makes nuclear, despite all of its idiosyncratic risks, a compelling investment proposition. The threat to our societies by our continued use of fossil fuels vastly outweigh the risks of expanding the use of nuclear—especially when an advanced generation of designs promise enhanced capabilities, improved safety, boosted fuel efficiency and manufacturing cost-economies.

So, sharing my excitement for the potential of innovative nuclear energy solutions together with some those who are also working on bringing these advanced solutions to market, like Dr. Peterson and his team at Kairos and Dr. Lovering and her team at Good Energy Collective—was a way to help point students towards a future that may well include dozens of new types of energy—spanning fission, fusion and other technologies.

After the panel, a number of students thanked me for my comments, expressed both renewed optimism and an interest in learning more about nuclear. Hopefully, a few of those attending will be inspired to further explore opportunities in the industry.

July 21, 2020

Good Energy Collective seeks to rebuild nuclear’s climate credentials

A new non-profit, Good Energy Collective, has been founded to build the progressive case for nuclear energy as an essential part of the broader climate change agenda. The group, founded by Jessica Lovering and Suzy Hobbs Baker, seeks to develop and advocate for smart, nuclear-inclusive policies that will equip communities to meet their diverse energy needs with the most suitable and diverse energy solutions available, including deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.

Emerging from progressive concerns to give communities the tools to most effectively rout carbon emissions — whose impacts are being felt by the most vulnerable — the founders see opportunities for the new generation of nuclear plants, which are smaller, cheaper, and safer than their predecessors, to fit in  with the general movement toward distributed energy, microgrids, and community ownership.

Read the interview conducted by David Roberts with Jessica Lovering and Suzy Hobbs Baker at Vox: "Nuclear power has been top-down and hierarchical. These women want to change that."

October 7, 2019

Philanthropy’s Critical Nuclear Moment


Philanthropy’s potential role in the science and development of nuclear power is significantly constrained, both by the overlap with impact investors and the traditionally dominant role played by government, especially abroad. Yet, the urgency of the need to address climate with technical solutions demands more of those with the ability to donate.  So, it may not surprise many, that there are now dozens of funders, grantees and other nonprofit organizations working in the pro-nculear space, who are committed to the mission of ensuring that nuclear thrives and succeeds in helping to decarbonize the planet.

Inside Philanthropy reporters interviewed more than a dozen of these individuals who share the belief that the fate of the Earth is dependent upon mankind's ability to support the continued deployment of safe and abundant nuclear, since, according to the IPCC and numerous key scientists, like James Hansen, it will be impossible to decarbonize the entire global economy with it within the appropriate time frame.

Among those interviewed included Armond Cohen, executive director and co-found of the non-profit Clean Air Task Force and Rachel Pritzker, president and founder of the Pritzker Innovation Fund, one of the earliest and best-known funders in the space, who sees nuclear a piece of a larger puzzle.

Sam Mar, VP at Arnold Ventures, noted that most philanthropic funding has gone to organizations supporting other types of zero-emission energy and that nuclear groups are significantly underfunded as a technology and industry group.  This view was confirmed by Matthew Nisbet, who published a research paper analyzing climate funding and who found that no grants at all were focused on promoting nuclear energy but rather, if there were grants, they were used for opposing nuclear energy.

So the question is, if philanthropists do want to support nuclear power, how can they do it?  According to Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation, funders should be "helping to finish off the research and development on fourth-generation reactors, then helping develop poicies to implement and figure out where there is the support for siting new designs.

See Inside Philanthropy: Philanthropy's Critical Nuclear Moment or, if you don't have a subscription, see the reprint of the IP piece at Klean Industries.

© 2026 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies

Nucleation-Logo