The U.S. nuclear sector just received another strong signal of federal backing.
On February 21, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) finalized a $303 million Technology Investment Agreement with Kairos Power to advance its Hermes demonstration reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The deal supports the company’s selection under the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), first announced in December 2020.
But this is not a traditional federal grant. Instead, DOE structured the agreement as a performance-based, fixed-price milestone contract. Kairos will only receive payments once it achieves clearly defined technical milestones.
This funding model was previously used by the Department of Defense and NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. It aims to accelerate innovation while protecting public funds. Now, DOE is applying that same discipline to advanced nuclear technology.
Hermes: The First Gen IV Reactor Approved in Decades
At the center of the agreement is Hermes — a low-power demonstration reactor based on Kairos Power’s fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature reactor (KP-FHR) design.
In December 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted Hermes a construction permit. That approval marked a historic milestone. Hermes became the first non-light-water reactor approved for construction in the United States in more than 50 years. It is also the first Generation IV reactor cleared for building.
The reactor is expected to be operational in 2027. While it will not generate commercial electricity, it serves a critical role. Hermes will demonstrate Kairos Power’s ability to safely deliver low-cost nuclear heat and operate a fully integrated advanced nuclear system.
Its design combines two established technologies that originated in Oak Ridge: TRISO-coated particle fuel and Flibe molten fluoride salt coolant. Together, these systems enhance safety and simplify operations.
The molten salt coolant improves heat transfer and stability, while TRISO fuel provides strong containment of radioactive materials. The result is a reactor design that emphasizes inherent safety without relying on overly complex backup systems.
Significantly, Hermes represents Kairos Power’s first nuclear build, and it acts as a stepping stone toward commercial deployment.
Mike Laufer, Kairos Power co-founder and CEO, said:
“With the use of fixed-price milestone payments, this innovative contract provides real benefits to both Kairos Power and DOE to ensure the successful completion of the Hermes reactor. It allows us to remain focused on achieving the most important goals of the project while retaining agility and flexibility to move quickly as we learn key lessons through our iterative development approach.”
Risk Reduction and Private Capital Alignment
The DOE’s investment complements significant private funding already committed by Kairos Power. Since its ARDP selection, the company has built extensive testing facilities and manufacturing infrastructure to support its Engineering Test Unit series. It has also advanced its fuel development and molten salt coolant systems.
Unlike traditional large-scale nuclear projects that often suffer cost overruns, Kairos is pursuing an iterative development pathway. This approach allows the company to test, refine, and improve reactor components before full commercial rollout.
Fuel manufacturing plays a key role in that strategy. Kairos Power is working in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory to produce fuel for Hermes. Through its Low Enriched Fuel Fabrication Facility (LEFFF), the company aims to control quality, reduce delays, and manage costs more effectively.
Vertical integration is central to its business model. By managing more of the supply chain internally, Kairos hopes to deliver greater cost certainty for future commercial reactors — an area where traditional nuclear projects have struggled.
Key Features
Nuclear’s Return to the Energy Spotlight
The Hermes agreement comes at a time when nuclear energy is regaining political and investor attention.
Federal policy has shifted in favor of accelerating the development of next-generation reactors. In 2025, the U.S. administration introduced measures to shorten licensing timelines and rebuild domestic nuclear fuel supply chains. The Department of Energy has articulated an ambitious goal: expand U.S. nuclear capacity from roughly 100 gigawatts in 2024 to 400 gigawatts by 2050.
Programs such as the Energy Dominance Financing initiative aim to provide additional support for nuclear infrastructure. Once built, reactors can operate for up to 80 years, making them long-term strategic assets.
At the same time, electricity demand is rising. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), U.S. electricity demand grew 2.8% in 2024 and another 2.1% in 2025. The country is projected to add more than 420 terawatt-hours of new demand over the next five years.
Data centers are driving much of that growth. The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and cloud computing infrastructure could account for nearly half of total demand growth through 2030.
This dynamic is reshaping energy investment decisions. Technology companies require reliable, always-on power. However, they must also meet emissions reduction targets. Nuclear energy provides steady, low-carbon electricity, making it increasingly attractive for both policymakers and corporate buyers.
Small Reactors, Big Strategic Impact
Small modular and advanced reactors are the keys to this renewed momentum. Compared to traditional gigawatt-scale plants, smaller reactors offer shorter construction timelines and lower upfront capital requirements. Developers can deploy them incrementally, reducing financial risk and improving flexibility.
Hermes, although it is a demonstration project, it represents a critical validation step. If successful, it could pave the way for commercial-scale KP-FHR reactors that supply industrial heat and electricity at competitive costs.
Dr. Kathryn Huff, Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy, made an important statement, noting:
“The Hermes reactor is an important step toward realizing advanced nuclear energy’s role in ushering forward the nation’s clean energy transition. Partnerships like this one play a significant role in making advanced nuclear technology commercially competitive.”
For investors, this shift signals opportunity. Supportive government policy, rising electricity demand, AI-driven load growth, and decarbonization commitments are converging. Nuclear power, once viewed as a legacy industry, is re-emerging as a strategic solution.
A Measured Step Toward a Nuclear Renaissance
The DOE-Kairos agreement does not guarantee success. Advanced reactor development remains technically complex and capital-intensive. However, the deal’s structure reflects lessons learned from past nuclear projects.
By tying federal funding to performance milestones, DOE is promoting accountability. By combining public and private capital, the government is reducing financial risk while accelerating innovation.
Hermes now stands as one of the most closely watched advanced reactor projects in the United States. If Kairos delivers on schedule, the project could mark a turning point. Not just for one company but for the broader U.S. nuclear renaissance that policymakers increasingly envision.
In a world of rising electricity demand and tightening climate targets, advanced nuclear energy is inevitably essential. And with Hermes moving forward, it is becoming tangible infrastructure.
The post DOE’s $303M Bet on Kairos Power Signals America’s Advanced Nuclear Push appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits