At the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, former U.S. President Donald Trump spoke in support of nuclear energy. His remarks highlighted nuclear power as a key part of energy security and clean energy supply, saying:
“We’re very much into the world of nuclear energy, and we can have it now at good prices and very, very safe…the progress they’ve made with nuclear is unbelievable, and the safety progress they’ve made is incredible…”
After these comments, nuclear and uranium stocks moved higher in early trading. Investors showed renewed interest in nuclear companies, especially those developing advanced technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs).
Stocks such as Oklo Inc. (NYSE: OKLO), NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR), and Nano Nuclear Energy (NASDAQ: NNE) saw price increases as traders responded to the pro-nuclear sentiment. This trend shows how energy markets are changing.
Many investors now view nuclear energy as a stable, low-carbon power source. This is important as demand grows from data centers and industries.
Oklo Takes Center Stage in the Nuclear Trade
Oklo has become one of the most-watched nuclear stocks in 2025. Oklo’s shares jumped after it signed a big deal with Meta Platforms. They plan to build a 1.2 GW advanced nuclear energy campus in Pike County, Ohio.
The deal positions Oklo to supply clean, reliable power for Meta’s data centers. Analysts described this binding agreement as reducing some business risks for Oklo.
In January 2026, Oklo stock kept rising after President Trump’s pro-nuclear comments at Davos. It hit intraday highs around January 22, with gains across the sector. Bank of America upgraded Oklo to a Buy rating, setting a price target of $111. This shows strong confidence in Oklo’s data center partnerships and regulatory progress.
Cathie Wood’s ARK Investment increased its stake in Oklo. They bought over 34,000 shares. This shows a rising interest from institutions in advanced nuclear technology. This purchase followed earlier acquisitions valued at more than $8.9 million, showing sustained investment interest.
Strong Rallies, Sharp Pullbacks
Despite strong gains, Oklo’s stock price has also seen pullbacks. At times, shares fell nearly 10% in a single week due to profit-taking after earlier rallies. Investors sometimes respond to news about sectors. For example, competitive technologies like geothermal power can provide clean energy alternatives for data centers.
Oklo remains pre-revenue, meaning it has not yet begun large-scale power production. The company aims to build its first commercial microreactor system between late 2027 and 2028. Until that point, investor focus remains on contracts, partnerships, and regulatory progress.
SMRs and Speculation: Two Very Different Nuclear Bets
NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) is another company that benefited from the nuclear rally after Davos. The company’s shares jumped around 15% on early trading days in 2026, along with sector momentum.
The stock is drawing investor interest because of the rising focus on small modular reactor (SMR) technology. SMRs may be easier to deploy and scale than traditional large plants.
NuScale’s SMRs got design approvals from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This boosts confidence in their technology. Analysts expect the company’s revenue to continue rising as project work expands.
NuScale is a great example of how modular nuclear designs can provide reliable power for industrial and data center needs. Regulatory milestones for SMRs may accelerate deployment timelines through the rest of the decade.
Nano Nuclear Energy: Early Stage, Strong Moves
Nano Nuclear Energy (NASDAQ: NNE) is a smaller player that also saw stock gains as part of the sector rally. Its shares rose roughly 40% in one trading week amid news of technology deals between U.S. and U.K. partners, and Trump’s recent announcement. This price movement reflected broader investor interest in nuclear technologies and potential future revenues.
Nano Nuclear is still in the early stages without significant revenue, similar to Oklo’s position. Its valuation illustrates how speculative nuclear stocks can be, driven by future expectations about technology deployment and regulatory support.
Why Nuclear Is Back on Investor Radar
Supportive government policy is a key driver for nuclear stocks. In 2025, the U.S. administration moved to speed up nuclear power development as part of a broader energy strategy. These moves include efforts to shorten licensing timelines and enhance domestic infrastructure for nuclear fuel and reactors. This policy backdrop helped lift stocks such as Oklo and NuScale.
President Trump’s Davos statements reinforced this trend by linking nuclear energy to national energy strategy and data center demand. Many investors view nuclear energy as a solution for rising electricity demands. This includes powering artificial intelligence and cloud computing infrastructure.
Nuclear power generates low-carbon electricity. This attracts companies that need to meet emissions targets while also dealing with growing power demand.
Globally, nuclear power already contributes a significant share of clean energy. According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear energy generated about 9% of the world’s electricity from existing reactors. Supporters say that expanding nuclear power can meet future demand and reduce carbon emissions.
AI’s Power Hunger Fuels the Nuclear Case
The growth of data centers, particularly for AI, is driving interest in reliable baseload power. Tech companies, including Meta, have pursued long-term nuclear power agreements.
Meta has deals with companies like Oklo and TerraPower. These agreements aim to secure nuclear-generated electricity for its AI infrastructure. They involve spending tens of billions of dollars on building AI data centers. This corporate demand creates new business models for nuclear power. It makes future reactor deployments more financially viable.
Electricity demand from industrial and tech sectors continues to rise worldwide, increasing focus on clean, consistent power sources. Nuclear energy’s high capacity factor, meaning it can provide steady power output, is a key strength in this context.
What the Next Nuclear Decade Could Look Like
Industry analysts expect nuclear capacity to grow over the next few decades. Some forecasts tied to long-term pledges suggest that global nuclear capacity could triple by 2050 as part of decarbonization goals. This aligns with commitments from large utilities, governments, and corporate coalitions.
Stock forecasts differ, but long-term demand for nuclear reactors and fuel is expected to grow. This growth is driven by electrification and carbon reduction goals.
Small modular reactors are key to industry growth. They offer shorter construction times and lower upfront costs than large traditional reactors. If SMRs get regulatory approval and have stable supply chains, companies like Oklo and NuScale could start commercial operations in the 2030s.
Analysts provide mixed views on nuclear stocks. Many forecasts highlight the potential upside if technologies succeed at scale, especially for SMRs. Analyst price targets for NuScale Power suggest there is a lot of potential for growth from current prices.
A Renewed Nuclear Narrative
After President Trump’s supportive comments on nuclear energy at Davos, nuclear stocks climbed as traders reacted to potential industry growth. Oklo saw strong investor interest following major deals and institutional purchases. NuScale benefited from regulatory milestones and rising demand for modular reactors. Nano Nuclear showed how early-stage players can also capture attention.
Government support, corporate demand for reliable low-carbon power, and rising electricity needs from AI and data centers are key drivers behind the nuclear sector’s resurgence. Analysts still see challenges, but they expect nuclear capacity, especially smaller modular systems, to grow in the global energy mix.
The post Trump’s Davos Nuclear Endorsement Powers a Rally in Oklo, SMRs, and Atomic Stocks appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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