newcleo, a European nuclear technology company, announced that it has raised €75 million (about USD $88 million) in a new funding round. The cash will help the company build and develop advanced small nuclear reactors powered by recycled nuclear waste. The financing is a sign of growing investor interest in clean and low-carbon energy solutions.
Newcleo also said that it has now raised more than $124 million in total for 2025. The company was founded in September 2021 and is based in Paris, France. The nuclear energy developer also operates in Italy, the UK, Belgium, and Slovakia, with roughly 1,000 employees.
What newcleo’s Technology Does: Turning Nuclear Waste into Usable Fuel
newcleo develops a type of advanced nuclear technology known as lead-cooled fast reactors (LFRs). These reactors are a form of small modular reactor (SMR).
Unlike traditional nuclear reactors that use fresh uranium fuel, newcleo’s design aims to use reprocessed nuclear waste as fuel. This means existing waste from older reactors could become a power source.
Using nuclear waste as fuel is intended to have two benefits:
- It could reduce long-term waste storage needs.
- It may help lower the carbon footprint of nuclear power.
Lead-cooled fast reactors also use liquid lead to transfer heat out of the core. The liquid lead acts as a coolant and enables the reactor to operate at high temperatures without high pressure.
This reactor type is still under development and not yet in wide commercial operation. But companies like newcleo believe it could play a role in future clean energy systems.
Heavy Industry and Investors Double Down
The €75 million funding round brought in both new and existing investors. New industrial backers included heavy industry groups such as:
- Danieli & C, a steel mill manufacturer
- Cementir Holding, a cement and concrete producer
- Orion Valves, an industrial valve maker
- NextChem, an energy engineering firm
Existing financial backers also participated. These included Kairos, Indaco Ventures, Azimut Investments, the CERN pension fund, and Walter Tosto (industrial engineering).
The mix of industrial and financial investors shows that newcleo’s technology draws interest from companies looking for reliable, low-carbon power and firms focused on clean energy investments.
Scaling from Design to Deployment
newcleo said the fresh funding will support several key parts of its business. The company highlighted progress in:
- Licensing and regulatory approval processes
- Research and development (R&D) of reactors and fuel systems
- Vertical integration of technology and manufacturing
- Geographic expansion in key markets like Europe and the United States
This means newcleo is working not just on reactor design, but on building the skills and facilities needed to support production, testing, and commercial deployment. The company also has partnerships and projects in multiple countries, including France, Italy, Slovakia, and the U.S. These collaborations relate to licensing and siting work, research facilities, and future commercial reactor projects.
Closing the Nuclear Fuel Loop
Nuclear power is often seen as a low-carbon energy source because it produces virtually no direct CO₂ emissions during operation. However, it leaves behind radioactive waste that can remain hazardous for thousands of years.
Traditional reactors use uranium fuel once and store the resulting waste. newcleo’s approach aims to reuse existing waste as reactor fuel. This could potentially reduce the volume and hazard of waste that needs long-term storage.
Lead-cooled fast reactors are one class of Generation IV nuclear technology. These designs are intended to be safer and more efficient than older reactors. They can run on fuels that traditional reactors cannot and may help make nuclear energy more sustainable in the long term.
Using recycled radioactive fuel helps close the nuclear fuel cycle. This means sourcing more energy from mined uranium, which leaves less waste behind.
Building a Cross-Border Nuclear Footprint
newcleo has stated that it plans to roll out its technology in several countries with active regulatory frameworks for advanced nuclear projects. The company has started licensing and planning partnerships in Europe and the U.S. These moves aim to make it a major supplier of advanced nuclear power systems.
In France, newcleo is preparing regulatory filings for both fuel and reactor projects. In Italy, it is building R&D infrastructure and test systems, while in Slovakia, it has formed a joint venture to deploy multiple reactors at a nuclear site. And in the U.S., it is engaging in collaborations to build fuel manufacturing and fabrication capabilities.
The company’s CEO, Stefano Buono, said investors view newcleo’s progress in licensing, R&D, and global expansion as a key advantage. He further added,
“Our ability to deliver impactful low-carbon energy solutions for energy-intensive firms is proving an attractive investment rationale for both industrial and financial investors. Our tangible progress in licensing, R&D, vertical integration, and geographic expansion is seen by investors as a key differentiator in the race to deliver clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy.”
Small Modular Reactors Gain Global Traction
Interest in small modular reactors is rising as countries look for reliable, low-carbon power. Governments and industry groups also track SMRs more closely than before.
One sign is the growing number of designs in development. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) reported that its latest SMR Dashboard found 98 SMR technologies globally. It detailed 56 of these SMRs in its dashboard set.
A separate NEA summary shows a larger count of designs tracked over editions. This highlights how quickly the pipeline is expanding.
-
Forecasts also show wider deployment in the coming decades. The International Energy Agency (IEA) publishes scenario data on global SMR capacity from 2025 to 2050.
In its analysis, SMR capacity rises from near-zero today to tens of gigawatts by 2050 in its main scenarios (39 GW), and it grows even higher in its “high SMR” case (190 GW). This suggests that SMRs could move from pilot projects to meaningful scale if costs fall and licensing speeds up.
International institutions also expect nuclear growth overall, with SMRs playing a bigger role. In September 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it raised its long-term nuclear outlook again.
In its best-case scenario, the IAEA predicts that global nuclear capacity could grow to 2.6 times the 2024 level by 2050. It also noted that SMRs will be key to this growth.
Policy signals further support this direction. The NEA reports that over 20 countries at COP28 pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
These forecasts do not guarantee fast deployment. SMRs still face key hurdles such as licensing timelines, supply chains, fuel availability, and first-of-a-kind costs.
SMRs are increasingly central to global nuclear talks. The NEA tracks more designs, and the IEA outlines new deployment pathways. And interest from investors and policymakers has grown as countries look for reliable low-carbon baseload power.
- SEE MORE: From Now to 2060: How Canada’s SMRs and Maritime Nuclear Power Will Drive a Net-Zero Future
The €75 million funding round adds to newcleo’s growing capital base. It boosts the company’s ability to advance its technology and work toward deployment. As of early 2026, newcleo has raised more than $124 million over the past year, with total funding since 2021 likely exceeding €645 million.
Private Capital Signals a Nuclear Comeback
The investment in newcleo highlights a broader trend: private capital is moving into advanced nuclear technologies.
Investors in heavy industry and finance are now seeing nuclear power as key to global decarbonization efforts. Some countries have recently updated their policies. This supports nuclear research and licensing. It shows a focus on energy security and climate goals.
Lead-cooled fast reactors and similar designs remain in early stages of testing and regulatory review. Newcleo and similar companies think their technologies can provide clean, reliable power. They also believe these systems create less waste over their life cycles compared to older reactors.
If successful, this approach could expand the role of nuclear power in the energy transition. But much work remains in testing, licensing, manufacturing, and cost reduction before commercial deployment at scale.
The post Nuclear’s Next Chapter: newcleo Raises $88M to Scale SMR Powered by Nuclear Waste 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