World's largest windfarm gets green light

U.S. Energy Transition Delays stem from grid bottlenecks, permitting red tape, solar tariff uncertainty, supply-chain shocks, and scarce affordable EVs, risking deeper fossil fuel lock-in despite climate targets for renewables, transmission expansion, and decarbonization.

Key Points

Delays driven by grid limits, permitting, and supply shocks that slow renewables, transmission, EVs, and decarbonization.

✅ Grid interconnection and transmission backlogs stall renewables

✅ Tariff probes and supply chains disrupt utility-scale solar

✅ Permitting, policy gaps, and EV costs sustain fossil fuel use

Big solar projects are facing major delays. Plans to adapt the grid to clean energy are confronting mountains of red tape. Affordable electric vehicles are in short supply.

The United States is struggling to squeeze opportunity out of an energy crisis that should have been a catalyst for cleaner, domestically produced power. After decades of putting the climate on the back burner, the country is finding itself unprepared to seize the moment and at risk of emerging from the crisis even more reliant on fossil fuels.

10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The problem is not entirely unique to the United States. Across the globe, climate leaders are warning that energy shortages including coal and nuclear disruptions prompted by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and high gas prices driven by inflation threaten to make the energy transition an afterthought — potentially thwarting efforts to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“The energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine has seen a perilous doubling down on fossil fuels by the major economies,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said at a conference in Vienna on Tuesday, according to prepared remarks. He warned governments and investors that a failure to immediately and more aggressively embrace clean energy could be disastrous for the planet.

U.S. climate envoy John F. Kerry suggested that nations are falling prey to a flawed logic that fossil fuels will help them weather this period of instability, undermining U.S. national security and climate goals, which has seen gas prices climb to a record-high national average of $5 per gallon. “You have this new revisionism suggesting that we have to be pumping oil like crazy, and we have to be moving into long-term [fossil fuel] infrastructure building,” he said at the Time100 Summit in New York this month. “We have to push back.”

Climate envoy John F. Kerry attends the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles on June 8. Kerry has criticized the tendency to turn toward fossil fuels in times of uncertainty. (Apu Gomes/AFP/Getty Images)
In the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China — the hurdles go beyond the supply-chain crisis and sanctions linked to the war in Ukraine. The country’s lofty goals for all carbon pollution to be gone from the electricity sector by 2035 and for half the cars sold to be electric by 2030 are jeopardized by years of neglect of the electrical grid, regulatory hurdles that have set projects back years, and failures by Congress and policymakers to plan ahead.
The challenges are further compounded by plans to build costly new infrastructure for drilling and exporting natural gas that will make it even harder to transition away from the fossil fuel.

“We are running into structural challenges preventing consumers and businesses from going cleaner, even at this time of high oil and gas prices,” said Paul Bledsoe, a climate adviser in the Clinton administration who now works on strategy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank. “It is a little alarming that even now, Congress is barely talking about clean energy.”

Consumers are eager for more wind and solar. Companies looking to go carbon-neutral are facing growing waitlists for access to green energy, and a Pew Research Center poll in late January found that two-thirds of Americans want the United States to prioritize alternative energy over fossil fuel production.

But lawmakers have balked for more than a decade at making most of the fundamental economic and policy changes such as a clean electricity standard that experts widely agree are crucial to an orderly and accelerated energy transition. The United States does not have a tax on carbon, nor a national cap-and-trade program that would reorient markets toward lowering emissions. The unraveling in Congress of President Biden’s $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan has added to the head winds that green-energy developers face, even as climate law results remain mixed.

Vice President Harris tours electric school buses at Meridian High School in Falls Church, Va., on May 20. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
“There is literally nothing pushing this forward in the U.S. beyond the tax code and some state laws,” said Heather Zichal, a former White House climate adviser who is now the chief executive of the American Clean Power Association.

The effects of the U.S. government’s halting approach are being felt by solar-panel installers, who saw the number of projects in the most recent quarter fall to the lowest level since the pandemic began. There was 24 percent less solar installed in the first quarter of 2022 than in the same quarter of 2021.

The holdup largely stems from a Commerce Department investigation into alleged tariff-dodging by Chinese manufacturers. Faced with the potential for steep retroactive penalties, hundreds of industrial-scale solar projects were frozen in early April. Weak federal policies to encourage investment in solar manufacturing left American companies ill-equipped to fill the void.

“We shut down multiple projects and had to lay off dozens of people,” said George Hershman, chief executive of SOLV Energy, which specializes in large solar installations. SOLV, like dozens of other solar companies, is now scrambling to reassemble those projects after the administration announced a pause of the tariffs.

Meanwhile, adding clean electricity to the aging power grid has become an increasingly complicated undertaking, given the failure to plan for adequate transmission lines and long delays connecting viable wind and solar projects to the electricity network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Scottish Renewable Grid Upgrades address outdated infrastructure, expanding transmission lines, pylons, and substations to move clean energy, meet rising electricity demand, and integrate onshore wind, offshore wind, and battery storage across Scotland.

Key Points

Planned transmission upgrades in Scotland to move clean power via new lines and substations for a low-carbon grid.

✅ Fivefold expansion of transmission lines by 2030

✅ Enables onshore and offshore wind integration

✅ New pylons, substations, and routes face local opposition

Renewable energy in Scotland is being held back by outdated grid infrastructure, industry leaders said, with projects stuck on hold underscoring their warning that new pylons and power lines are needed to "ensure our lights stay on".

Scottish Renewables said new infrastructure is required to transmit the electricity generated by green power sources and help develop "a clean energy future" informed by a broader green recovery agenda.

A new report from the organisation - which represents companies working across the renewables sector - makes the case for electricity infrastructure to be updated, aligning with global network priorities identified elsewhere.

But it comes as electricity firms looking to build new lines or pylons face protests, with groups such as the Strathpeffer and Contin Better Cable Route challenging power giant SSEN over the route chosen for a network of pylons that will run for about 100 miles from Spittal in Caithness to Beauly, near Inverness.

Scottish Renewables said it is "time to be upfront and honest" about the need for updated infrastructure.

It said previous work by the UK National Grid estimated "five times more transmission lines need to be built by 2030 than have been built in the past 30 years, at a cost of more than £50bn".

The Scottish Renewables report said: "Scotland is the UK's renewable energy powerhouse. Our winds, tides, rainfall and longer daylight hours already provide tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of economic activity.

"But we're being held back from doing more by an electricity grid designed for fossil fuels almost a century ago, a challenge also seen in the Pacific Northwest today."

Investment in the UK transmission network has "remained flat, and even decreased since 2017", echoing stalled grid spending trends elsewhere, the report said.

It added: "We must build more power lines, pylons and substations to carry that cheap power to the people who need it - including to people in Scotland.

"Electricity demand is set to increase by 50% in the next decade and double by mid-century, so it's therefore wrong to say that Scottish households don't need more power lines, pylons and substations.

Renewable energy in Scotland is being held back by outdated grid infrastructure, industry leaders said, as they warned new pylons and power lines are needed to "ensure our lights stay on".

Scottish Renewables said new infrastructure is required to transmit the electricity generated by green power sources and help develop "a clean energy future".

A new report from the organisation - which represents companies working across the renewables sector - makes the case for electricity infrastructure to be updated.

But it comes as electricity firms looking to build new lines or pylons face protests, with groups such as the Strathpeffer and Contin Better Cable Route challenging power giant SSEN over the route chosen for a network of pylons that will run for about 100 miles from Spittal in Caithness to Beauly, near Inverness.

Scottish Renewables said it is "time to be upfront and honest" about the need for updated infrastructure.

It said previous work by the UK National Grid estimated "five times more transmission lines need to be built by 2030 than have been built in the past 30 years, at a cost of more than £50bn".

The Scottish Renewables report said: "Scotland is the UK's renewable energy powerhouse. Our winds, tides, rainfall and longer daylight hours already provide tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of economic activity.

"But we're being held back from doing more by an electricity grid designed for fossil fuels almost a century ago."

Investment in the UK transmission network has "remained flat, and even decreased since 2017", the report said.

It added: "We must build more power lines, pylons and substations to carry that cheap power to the people who need it - including to people in Scotland.

"Electricity demand is set to increase by 50% in the next decade and double by mid-century, so it's therefore wrong to say that Scottish households don't need more power lines, pylons and substations.

"We need them to ensure our lights stay on, as excess solar can strain networks in the same way consumers elsewhere in the UK need them.

"With abundant natural resources, Scotland's home-grown renewables can be at the heart of delivering the clean energy needed to end our reliance on imported, expensive fossil fuel.

"To do this, we need a national electricity grid capable of transmitting more electricity where and when it is needed, echoing New Zealand's electricity debate as well."

Click to subscribe to ClimateCast with Tom Heap wherever you get your podcasts

Nick Sharpe, director of communications and strategy at Scottish Renewables, said the current electricity network is "not fit for purpose".

He added: "Groups and individuals who object to the construction of power lines, pylons and substations largely do so because they do not like the way they look.

"By the end of this year, there will be just over 70 months left to achieve our targets of 11 gigawatts (GW) offshore and 12 GW onshore wind.

"To ensure we maximise the enormous socioeconomic benefits this will bring to local communities, we will need a grid fit for the 21st century."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

DOE Grid Resilience Pricing Rule faces FERC review as energy groups challenge an expedited timeline to reward coal and nuclear for reliability in wholesale markets, impacting natural gas, renewables, baseload economics, and grid pricing.

Key Points

A DOE proposal directing FERC to compensate coal and nuclear plants for reliability attributes in wholesale markets.

✅ Industry coalition seeks normal FERC timeline and review

✅ Impacts wholesale pricing, baseload economics, reliability

✅ Request for 90-day comments and reply period

A coalition of 11 industry groups is pushing back on Energy Secretary Rick Perry's efforts to quickly implement a major change to the way electric power is priced in the United States.

The Energy Department on Friday proposed a rule that stands to bolster coal and nuclear power plants by forcing the regional markets that set electricity prices to compensate them for the reliability they provide. Perry asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider and finalize the rule within 60 days, including a 45-day period during which stakeholders can issue comments.

On Monday, groups representing petroleum, natural gas, electric power and renewable energy interests including ACORE urged FERC to reject the expedited process, as well as the Department of Energy's request that the regulatory commission consider putting in place an interim rule.

They say the time frame is "aggressive" and the department didn't provide adequate justification for fast-tracking a process that could have huge impacts on wholesale electricity markets.

"This is one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry and, if finalized, would unquestionably have significant ramifications for wholesale markets under the Commission's jurisdiction," the groups said in the motion filed with FERC.

"The Energy Industry Associations urge the Commission to reject the proposed unreasonable timelines and instead proceed in a manner that would afford meaningful consideration of public comments and be consistent with the normal deliberative process that it typically affords such major undertakings," they said.

The groups are requesting a 90-day comment period, as well as another period for reply comments. FERC, which has authority to regulate interstate transmission and sale of electricity and natural gas, is not required to decide in favor of the rule but, amid a recent FERC decision that drew industry criticism, must consider it.

Expediting the process or imposing an interim rule is generally limited to emergencies, the groups said. The Energy Department's letter to FERC does not even attempt to establish that an immediate threat to U.S. electricity reliability exists, they allege.

• A coalition of energy industry groups asked regulators to reject a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy on Friday.
• The rule would bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants by requiring wholesale markets to compensate them for certain attributes.
• The groups say the Energy Department proposed "unreasonable timelines" for stakeholders to offer feedback on a rule with "significant ramifications for wholesale markets."

The groups cite a recent Energy Department report on grid reliability that concluded: "reliability is adequate today despite the retirement of 11 percent of the generating capacity available in 2002, as significant additions from natural gas, wind, and solar have come online since then."

The Department of Energy did not return a request for comment.

The Energy Department's rule marks a flashpoint in the battle between natural gas-fired and renewable energy and so-called baseload power sources like coal and nuclear.

Separately, coal and business groups have supported the EPA in litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule, as documented in legal challenges brought during the rule's defense.

Gas, wind and solar power have eaten into coal and nuclear's share of U.S. electric power generation in recent years. That is thanks to a boom in U.S. gas production that has pushed down prices, the rapid adoption of subsidized renewable energy and President Barack Obama's efforts to mitigate emissions from power plants, which the Trump administration has sought to replace with a tune-up as policies shift.

Electric power is priced in deregulated, wholesale markets in many parts of the country. Utilities typically draw on the cheapest power sources first.

Some worry that the retirement of coal-fired and nuclear power plants undermines the nation's ability to reliably and affordably deliver electricity to households and businesses.

President Donald Trump has vowed to revive the ailing coal industry, declaring an end to the 'war on coal' in public remarks. Trump, Perry and other administration officials reject the consensus among climate scientists that carbon emissions from sources like coal-fired plants are the primary cause of global warming.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New York faces soaring energy bills as utilities seek record rate hikes, aging grid infrastructure demands upgrades, and federal renewable policies shift. Consumers struggle with affordability, late payments, and rising costs of delivery and energy supply across the state.

Why is New York Facing Soaring Energy Bills?

New York faces soaring energy bills because utilities are raising rates to cover the costs of grid upgrades, inflation, and policy-driven changes in energy supply.

✅ Utilities seek double-digit rate hikes across the state

✅ Aging infrastructure and storm repairs increase delivery costs

✅ Federal policies and gas dependence push energy prices higher

New Yorkers are bracing for another wave of energy bill increases as utilities seek record-high rate hikes and policy changes ripple through the state’s power system. Electric bills in New York are the highest they’ve been in over a decade, and more than a million households are now at least two months behind on payments, a sign of pandemic energy insecurity that continues to strain budgets, owing utilities nearly $2 billion.

Record numbers of households have had their electricity or gas shut off this year — more than 61,000 in May alone — despite pandemic shut-off suspensions that had offered temporary relief, the highest the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) has ever recorded. “This August was the group’s busiest month ever,” said Laurie Wheelock, PULP’s executive director, citing a surge in calls to its hotline. “The top concern on people’s minds: rate hikes.”

Utilities across the state are pushing for significant price increases, citing aging infrastructure, the need for climate adaptation, and higher operating costs, as California regulators face calls for action amid rising bills. “We used to see single-digit rate hikes and now we see double-digit rate hikes,” said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy. “That’s a new normal that is unacceptable.”

Several utilities have requested delivery rate increases of 25 percent or more, with some proposals as high as 39 percent. Upstate utilities NYSEG and RG&E are seeking to raise electric and gas bills by about $33 a month, although regulators are unlikely to approve the full amount.

The companies argue the hikes are needed “to pay for rebuilding an aging grid and expanding its capacity to meet residents’ and businesses’ service demands,” including storm repairs. They also claim the plan would create more than 1,000 jobs.

James Denn, a spokesperson for the Public Service Commission (PSC), said much of the cost pressure stems from “inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain disruptions, the global push to upgrade electrical infrastructure, and, most recently, the rising risk and uncertainty from tariffs,” trends reflected in U.S. electricity price data over the past two years.

While some have blamed New York’s clean-energy transition, a PSC report found that state climate policies account for only 5 to 9.5 percent of the average household’s electric bill, or approximately $10 to $12 per month. The bulk of the increases still come from traditional spending on infrastructure, storm resilience, and system expansion.

On the supply side, costs are rising too. President Donald Trump’s recent policies have threatened renewable-energy investment nationwide, even as states’ renewable ambitions carry significant costs, potentially adding to New York’s woes. His July “megabill” phases out a 30 percent federal tax credit for solar and wind unless projects begin construction by mid-2026. Industry experts warn that the changes could make renewables “more expensive to build” and “increase reliance on gas.”

“It just means more expensive power,” said Marguerite Wells of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

The state estimates Trump’s policy shifts could cost New York $60 billion in lost renewable investment. With fewer clean-energy projects moving forward, gas — which already supplies roughly half of the state’s electricity — will remain the dominant source, tying energy prices to volatile global markets and the kinds of price drivers seen in California in recent years.

Governor Kathy Hochul has called affordability “our greatest short-term challenge,” while consumer advocates are demanding reforms to reduce utility profits and overhaul “rate design,” and to strengthen protections such as the emergency disconnection moratorium that applies during declared emergencies.

“There is definitely a groundswell of concern,” Wheelock said. “We go to meetings and we’re getting questions about rate design, like, ‘What is the revenue decoupling mechanism?’ Never had that question before.”

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

Wall Street backs Rick Perry’s $19 billion nuclear-powered data center venture, Fermi America, combining nuclear energy, AI infrastructure, and data centers to meet soaring electricity demand and attract major investors betting on America’s clean energy technology future.

What is "Wall Street Backs Rick Perry’s $19 Billion Nuclear-Powered Data Center Venture”?

Wall Street is backing Rick Perry’s $19 billion nuclear-powered data center venture because it combines the explosive growth of AI with the promise of clean, reliable nuclear energy.

✅ Addresses AI’s massive power demands with nuclear generation

✅ Positions Fermi America as a pioneer in energy-tech convergence

✅ Reflects investor confidence in long-term clean energy solutions

Former Texas Governor and U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has returned to the energy spotlight, this time leading a bold experiment at the intersection of nuclear power and artificial intelligence. His startup, Fermi America, headquartered in Amarillo, Texas, went public this week with an initial valuation of $19 billion after its shares surged 55 percent above the opening price on the first day of trading.

The company aims to tackle one of the most pressing challenges in modern technology: the staggering energy demand of AI data centers. “Artificial intelligence, which is getting more and more embedded in all parts of our lives, the servers that host the data for artificial intelligence are stored in these massive warehouses called data centers,” said Houston Chronicle energy reporter Claire Hao. “And data centers use a ton of electricity.”

Fermi America’s plan, Hao explained, is as ambitious as it is unconventional. Fermi America has a proposal to build what it claims will be the world’s largest data center, powered by what it asserts will be the country’s largest nuclear complex. So very ambitious plans.”

According to the company’s roadmap, Fermi aims to bring its first mega reactor online by 2032, followed by three additional large reactors. In the meantime, the firm intends to integrate natural gas and solar energy by the end of next year to support early-stage operations.

While much of the energy sector’s attention has turned toward small modular reactors, Fermi’s approach focuses on traditional large-scale nuclear technology. “What Fermi is talking about building are large traditional reactors,” Hao said. “These very large traditional reactors are a tried and true technology. But the nuclear industry has a history of taking a very long time to build them, and they are also very expensive to build.” She noted that the most recent example, completed in 2023 by a Georgia utility, came in $17 billion over budget and several years late.

To mitigate such risks, Fermi has recruited specialists with international experience. “They’ve hired folks that have successfully built these projects in China and in other countries where it has been a lot smoother to build these,” Hao said. “Fermi wants to try to make it a quicker process.”

Perry’s involvement lends both visibility and controversy. In addition to co-founding the company, Griffin Perry, his son, plays a role in its management. The firm has hinted that it might even name reactors after former President Donald Trump, under whom Perry served as Secretary of Energy. Perry has framed the project as part of a national effort to regain technological ground. “He really wants to help the U.S. catch up to countries like China when it comes to delivering nuclear power for the AI race,” Hao explained. “He says we’re already behind.”

Despite the fanfare, Fermi America is still a fledgling enterprise. Founded in January and announced publicly in June, the company reported a $6.4 million loss in the first half of the year and has yet to generate any revenue. Still, its IPO exceeded expectations, opening at $21 a share and closing above $32 on the first day.

“I think that just shows there’s a lot of hype on Wall Street around artificial intelligence-related ventures,” Hao said. “Fermi, in the four months since it announced itself as a company, has found a lot of different ways to grab people’s attention.”

For now, the project represents both a technological gamble and a test of investor faith — a fusion of nuclear ambition and AI optimism that has Wall Street watching closely.

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News