PROLOGIS VENTURESMay 2026

Nuclear (Fission) Market Map

SMR developers · stated vs realistic commercial operations date · grouped by reactor coolant
ForthcomingCompanion fusion market map in the next release.
Part 1 · The startup landscape
The startup landscapeWho's building, when they say they'll deliver, and when they actually will.
NoteBest viewed on tablet or desktop. The Gantt timeline below carries six columns of data per company across 34 companies — mobile compresses it past the point of usable comparison. If you're on phone, switch devices before reading further.
Read firstSchedule slippage is the base rate. Every company here has slipped, is slipping, or will — hence the “stated vs realistic” framing. Five structural drivers: (1) NRC licensing is sequential and discovery-driven, with each phase re-opening prior submittals; (2) HALEU/TRISO fuel supply is constrained to a handful of qualified lines and gates every non-LWR; (3) FOAK supply chain (forgings, salt loops, helium circulators) is single-source with multi-year lead times; (4) FOAK construction historically runs 1.5–2× stated cost and duration (Vogtle, Flamanville, Olkiluoto, V.C. Summer); (5) capital-stack timing — DOE cost-share, customer FID, project-finance close — rarely aligns with engineering milestones. Treat any stated COD inside 5 years with skepticism, inside 3 years as marketing. The realistic bar is the underwriting bar.
TOTAL
34
ENGAGED
10
PUBLIC
9
AVG SCHEDULE SLIP — DEMO
2.3 yr
AVG SCHEDULE SLIP — COMMERCIAL
3.2 yr
Example Co.μ 20 MWe🇺🇸 TX · 🏭 BF
2026203020352040
Top dashed bar = demo / pilot reactor. Open circle (○) = company's stated first-criticality date. Filled black dot (●) = our realistic estimate. The dashes show how the date has slipped.
Bottom solid bar = first commercial reactor (COD). Same convention.
A DEMO ✓ or DEMO … tag to the left of the timeline marks a demonstration reactor that is operational or under construction (8 companies today).
Engagement status
Engaged — green row and green commercial bar. Multiple meetings or touchpoints to date.
Monitoring — white row, grey bar. We track every company in the space; this one hasn't crossed into recurring dialogue yet.
Deployment site
🏭 BF · Brownfield — Reactor sited at land with prior industrial activity (retired/retiring fossil plant, decommissioned nuclear site, existing industrial complex). DOE estimates 15–35% lower overnight capex vs. greenfield by reusing T&D, cooling water rights, host-community permits, skilled workforce. Example: TerraPower at Naughton coal site, Wyoming.
🔄 CL · Co-located — New reactor pad built directly adjacent to existing energy operations (often an active power plant), sharing transmission interconnect, cooling infrastructure, and operations workforce next door, but on previously undeveloped land. Faster than greenfield, less remediation than brownfield. Example: GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 at Darlington, beside operating CANDU units.
🌱 GF · Greenfield — Virgin site, no prior development. Slower path (full environmental review, new infrastructure, host-community permits from zero) and ~30% higher overnight capex per DOE. Example: Blue Energy's offshore Gulf Coast site.
❓ TBD · Site not yet selected — Company has not publicly committed to a host site. Strong signal of pre-commercial maturity.
Every reactor has two dates: the stated date the company publicly targets, and the realistic date we assign after applying first-of-a-kind (FOAK) delay heuristics. Heuristics: +1 yr if active construction, +3 yr if construction permit in hand but no metal turning, +4–5 yr if still in licensing or design phase. The gap between the two — the slip — is shown as the length of the bar.
Slip color (in detail view)
≤2 yr on track3 yr watch4+ yr at risk
Average slip across all 34 companies today: 3.2 years. Realistic dates are our underwriting view, not vendor guidance.
Our confidence rating reflects five weighted factors. Each company is scored individually; the dot color reflects the composite view.
FactorWhat we evaluateWeight
Regulatory pathwayNRC/CNSC/ONR engagement stage (REG column)25%
Capital adequacyFunds raised vs. estimated capex to FOAK20%
Customer commitmentsFirm offtake (PPA) vs. MOUs vs. none20%
Technology readinessDemo built/operational vs. paper design20%
Execution track recordConstruction permits in hand, metal turning15%
HIGH
Three or more factors are strong. Construction permits in hand or active build is the typical anchor. Slip risk is manageable.
MEDIUM
A real path forward but one or two material risks open — HALEU supply, single customer dependency, FOAK execution, or regulatory pathway still unresolved.
LOW
Concept-stage, sub-critical capital, no firm customer, no regulatory engagement, or a combination. Pre-investment for venture risk-takers.
Composite view as of May 14, 2026 · hover any dot in the CONF column for company-specific rationale.
Smart FiltersToggle any chip to narrow the table below.
ShowTypeSizeSite
SortShowing 34 of 34

Water-cooled · PWR / BWR

11 companies · proven tech, regulatory familiar
The mature, regulator-familiar path. Uses pressurized water () or boiling water () as both coolant and neutron moderator. ~95% of operating reactors globally use this approach. The 'incumbent' tech in SMR clothing.
Pros
  • Well-understood by , CNSC, ONR — licensing pathway already exists with decades of precedent
  • Standard fuel (≤5% enrichment) — no supply constraint
  • Mature supply chain for forgings, pumps, instrumentation, fuel
  • Operational data spans 18,000+ reactor-years globally — failure modes known
  • Passive safety improvements (NuScale, BWRX-300) carry forward existing learnings
Cons
  • Higher pressure operation (~150 bar , 70 bar ) → thicker vessels, more shielding, more steel per
  • Lower thermal efficiency (~33%) than advanced reactors (~45-50%)
  • Not suitable for industrial process heat above ~280°C — caps the addressable market
  • Significant water requirement for cooling — siting constrained near rivers/coasts (except air-cooled Last Energy variant)
  • Limited cost reduction upside vs. proven baseline — hard to disrupt cost curve from inside the paradigm
Companies in this family (11)
CNNC Linglong OneOP
Last EnergyUR
GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300CP
Holtec SMR-300UR
Hadron EnergyPA
NuScale PowerOP
Westinghouse AP300PA
Steady EnergyPA
Blue EnergyNE
Rolls-Royce SMRUR
EDF NuwardPA
Tradeoffs · Lowest technology risk in the SMR universe, fastest plausible regulatory path, but the lowest theoretical upside on $/kWh. Best-fit for utilities, behind-the-meter electricity, and data centers where 'boring is good' beats 'exciting but uncertain.'
Company
Size
Raised
Public / parent
Geo
Site
Reg
Conf
Constr
20252027202920312033203520372039
CNNC Linglong One
M125 MWe
$CNNC·state
🇨🇳CN
🏭
BF
OP
DEMO …
Last Energy
μ20 MWe
$100M
private
🇬🇧UK/PL/RO
🏭
BF
UR
GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300
L300 MWe
$GEV·parent
🇨🇦ON
🔄
CL
CP
Holtec SMR-300
L300 MWe
private
🇺🇸MI
🏭
BF
UR
Hadron Energy
μ10 MWe
~$31M
$HDRN·Public (NASDAQ) — deSPAC May 26 2026
🇺🇸US
TBD
PA
NuScale Power
S77 MWe
$SMR·Public (NYSE) · ~$4–5B mcap (Jun 2026, market-dependent) — as of 2026-06-04, volatile, re-verify before external use
🇷🇴RO
🏭
BF
OP
Westinghouse AP300
L300 MWe
Brookfield (51%) + Cameco (49%)
🇺🇸US
🏭
BF
PA
Steady Energy
S50 MWe
$52M
private
🇫🇮FI
🏭
BF
PA
Blue Energy
L300 MWe
$380M
private
🇺🇸TX
🌱
GF
NE
Rolls-Royce SMR
L470 MWe
$RR.·Rolls-Royce (LSE: RR.)
🇬🇧UK
🏭
BF
UR
EDF Nuward
L400 MWe
state
🇫🇷FR
🏭
BF
PA

Gas-cooled · HTGR / heat-pipe

7 companies · TRISO fuel, high-temperature process heat
High-temperature gas reactors (typically helium-cooled) and solid-state heat-pipe microreactors. Output temperatures 600–950°C unlock industrial process heat and hydrogen production. Most use fuel — uranium kernels wrapped in ceramic layers that physically cannot melt below 1,800°C.
Pros
  • Walk-away passive safety — fuel is the safety envelope, not the containment building
  • Output temperature enables high-margin industrial heat applications (chemicals, refining, hydrogen) — electricity is the byproduct, not the product
  • High thermal efficiency (~45%) with potential for direct Brayton cycle
  • No phase-change coolant — no boiling, no pressurized water risk
  • Heat-pipe designs (Westinghouse eVinci, Antares) eliminate moving parts in primary loop
Cons
  • fuel requires (5–20% enrichment) — current global supply is constrained, Russia was the dominant supplier pre-Ukraine
  • Helium leakage is a chronic operational headache (hard to seal, expensive to replace)
  • Graphite moderator activation produces long-lived waste
  • Novel regulatory pathway — has limited experience post-Fort St. Vrain (1989 closure)
  • Lower power density → larger reactor footprint per than PWRs
Companies in this family (7)
NANO Nuclear — KRONOS MMRUR
JimmyPA
RadiantNE
Antares NuclearNE
Valar AtomicsNE
Westinghouse eVinciUR
X-energyUR
Tradeoffs · Best-fit for industrial customers, NOT utilities. The Dow-X-energy deal is the template — selling steam and electricity to a specific chemical complex. Premium product into premium market, but the bet is dependent on fuel ecosystem maturing in parallel.
Company
Size
Raised
Public / parent
Geo
Site
Reg
Conf
Constr
20252027202920312033203520372039
NANO Nuclear — KRONOS MMR
fka Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) MMR
μ15 MWe
$NNE·NANO Nuclear Energy (public, NASDAQ)
🇨🇦ON
🌱
GF
UR
Jimmy
μ10 MWe
~$110M
private
🇫🇷FR
🏭
BF
PA
Radiant
μ1 MWe
$569M
private · ~$1.8B post-money (Series D, Dec 2025)
🇺🇸ID
🏭
BF
NE
DEMO …
Antares Nuclear
μ1 MWe
~$579M
private
🇺🇸US
🏭
BF
NE
DEMO …
Valar Atomics
μ0.1 MWe
$450M
private · $2B valuation (Mar 2026)
🇺🇸US/PH
🏭
BF
NE
Westinghouse eVinci
μ5 MWe
Brookfield (51%) + Cameco (49%)
🇺🇸PA
🌱
GF
UR
X-energy
S80 MWe
$2.83B
$XE·Public (NASDAQ) · ~$11B mcap (Jun 2026, market-dependent) — as of 2026-06-04, volatile, re-verify before external use
🇺🇸TX
🏭
BF
UR
DEMO …

Liquid metal · sodium / lead fast

7 companies · fuel recycling, high thermal efficiency
Fast-spectrum reactors using molten sodium or lead/lead-bismuth as coolant. Operate at atmospheric pressure — no high-pressure vessel needed. The historical 'Generation IV' headline architecture, with 60+ years of test-reactor experience (EBR-II, Phénix, Monju, BN-600).
Pros
  • Atmospheric pressure operation → simpler/cheaper vessels and containment
  • Fast neutron spectrum enables fuel breeding and closed fuel cycles — burns spent fuel, dramatically reducing waste volumes
  • Very high thermal efficiency (~40%) and excellent heat transfer
  • 60+ year fuel cycles theoretically possible — capex amortizes over very long life
  • Strong national-security narrative (waste reduction, sovereign fuel cycle)
Cons
  • Sodium reacts violently with water and air — Monju (Japan) and Superphénix (France) had high-profile sodium incidents
  • Lead is corrosive to structural steel at operating temperatures — materials science is the bottleneck
  • fuel required for most designs — same supply constraint as gas-cooled
  • New regulatory framework needed ( Part 53) — pathway largely untested at commercial scale
  • Specialized operations and workforce — cannot draft on existing operator pool
Companies in this family (7)
OkloNE
Aalo AtomicsNE
TerraPowerCP
BlykallaPA
ARC Clean TechUR
newcleoPA
First American NuclearPA
Tradeoffs · Highest theoretical upside in the SMR universe (lowest fuel-cycle cost, smallest waste footprint, strongest dual-use proposition) but highest engineering and execution risk. Best-fit for patient sovereign customers and long-horizon investors with appetite for risk.
Company
Size
Raised
Public / parent
Geo
Site
Reg
Conf
Constr
20252027202920312033203520372039
Oklo
S75 MWe
$OKLO·Public (NYSE) · ~$11.7B mcap (Jun 2026, market-dependent) — as of 2026-06-04, volatile, re-verify before external use
🇺🇸ID
🏭
BF
NE
DEMO …
Aalo Atomics
μ10 MWe
~$136M
private
🇺🇸ID
🏭
BF
NE
DEMO …
TerraPower
L345 MWe
$1.66B
private
🇺🇸WY
🔄
CL
CP
Blykalla
fka LeadCold Reactors
S55 MWe
$106M
private
🇸🇪SE
🏭
BF
PA
ARC Clean Tech
fka Advanced Reactor Concepts
S100 MWe
$26M
private
🇨🇦NB
🏭
BF
UR
newcleo
M200 MWe
$763M
private
🇫🇷FR/IT/UK/SK
🌱
GF
PA
First American Nuclear
M240 MWe
private
🇺🇸IN
🌱
GF
PA

Molten salt

9 companies · passive safety, no meltdown by design
Fuel dissolved directly in liquid fluoride or chloride salt — the reactor literally cannot 'meltdown' because the fuel is already liquid. Operates at atmospheric pressure. Two sub-types: thermal-spectrum (Kairos, Terrestrial) and fast-spectrum (Moltex, Thorizon). Originally invented at ORNL in the 1960s; commercially dormant since 1969.
Pros
  • Inherently meltdown-proof by physics, not by engineering — strongest passive safety case
  • High output temperature (~700°C) enables industrial heat applications
  • Low pressure operation → thinner vessels, less concrete, lower civil cost per
  • Online refueling — no shutdown for fuel changes, higher capacity factor
  • Can use thorium fuel cycle — abundant fuel, proliferation-resistant, less long-lived waste
  • Negative temperature coefficient — reactor self-throttles if it overheats
Cons
  • Salt is highly corrosive to structural metals (Hastelloy-N is the standard, but commercial-scale validation is incomplete) — the unsolved engineering problem
  • Tritium production and migration through metal walls — radiological control challenge
  • Online chemistry control of dissolved fission products is operationally complex
  • Longest regulatory pathway of all four reactor types — framework still being defined
  • No commercial operating globally — every name in this category is
Companies in this family (9)
Kairos PowerCP
Natura ResourcesCP
Terrestrial EnergyUR
Moltex SSR-WPA
Copenhagen AtomicsPA
Saltfoss EnergyPA
CORE POWERPA
ThorizonPA
StellariaPA
Tradeoffs · Most disruptive long-term potential but furthest from commercial reality. The 'venture-iest' of the SMR categories — highest variance distribution of outcomes. Best-fit for patient capital with 15–20 year horizons. Public-market analog: bet only what you're comfortable writing off.
Company
Size
Raised
Public / parent
Geo
Site
Reg
Conf
Constr
20252027202920312033203520372039
Kairos Power
S75 MWe
private
private
🇺🇸TN
🏭
BF
CP
DEMO …
Natura Resources
S100 MWe
>$120M
private
🇺🇸TX
🏭
BF
CP
DEMO …
Terrestrial Energy
L390 MWe
$292M
$IMSR·Public (NASDAQ) · ~$2.8B implied mcap (Jun 2026, market-dependent)
🇺🇸TX/NC
🌱
GF
UR
Moltex SSR-W
L300 MWe
private
Nuclea Energy Inc. (assets acquired May 2026)
🇨🇦NB
🏭
BF
PA
Copenhagen Atomics
S100 MWe
~$21M
private
🇩🇰DK/CH/UK
🌱
GF
PA
Saltfoss Energy
fka Seaborg Technologies
M200 MWe
$87.3M
private
🇩🇰DK
🌱
GF
PA
CORE POWER
S100 MWe
~$100M+
private
🇬🇧UK/Mar.
🌱
GF
PA
Thorizon
S100 MWe
$34M
private
🇳🇱NL
TBD
PA
Stellaria
M250 MWe
$29M
private
🇫🇷FR
🏭
BF
PA
Sources: PitchBook (private funding, as of Feb 2025), public filings, market data (May 2026). Realistic CODs apply FOAK delay heuristics: +1 yr for active construction, +3 yr for construction permit in hand, +4–5 yr for licensing or design phase. Engagement reflects internal Prologis Ventures relationship history. Brownfield deployments reuse existing site infrastructure — typically 2–4 yr faster and 20–40% cheaper than greenfield equivalents.
Part 2 · Our frame
The Prologis LensWe won't know who wins until commercial data exists.

How Prologis buys real estate. We're a global owner-operator of logistics and industrial property, now extending into data centers. Two acquisition modes. Greenfield = new land, underwritten only with clear line-of-sight on power and entitlements (utility queue, substation, water, zoning). Brownfield = an existing industrial asset we already own — either run as-is, or converted into a Prologis data center. A conversion isn't a free reuse of the existing entitlements and ; we underwrite how cheaply they can be upgraded to data center spec, and how attractive the resulting asset is once that's done.

"Brownfield" means two different things. On the nuclear side, nuclear is a retrofit onto an existing nuclear or heavy-industrial site (retired coal plant, decommissioned reactor, active chemicals complex) — typically 2–4 years faster and 20–40% cheaper than greenfield nuclear. Prologis is narrower: it's an entitlements question on parcels we already own — logistics warehouses and infill industrial, not refineries or chemicals. X-energy at Dow Seadrift is nuclear but not Prologis-fit: a 4,700-acre chemicals complex isn't our asset class. The Dow and Kemmerer deployments prove the regulatory template; the underwritable opportunity for us is the infill-warehouse-to-data-center version of that template.

For an SMR to be relevant, it has to drop into greenfield land we're already buying or into an infill site we can convert. Today nothing pencils for Prologis either way — zero Western SMRs operating commercially, a moving target, no . The clearest path to engagement is patience: once a player has clarity on the four axioms below, that becomes the opening for Prologis Ventures and the business units to step in alongside them through the right structure.

Until then, Ventures' role is to keep close coverage on the most promising names so we can move the moment the data turns. demonstration and early commercial units tend to get bought directly by hyperscalers and large industrials taking the technology risk on their own balance sheet — the kind of underwriting where a developer partner adds little, and where the end customer typically prefers to own the relationship and the upside. Our value-add shows up later, when reactors are repeatable assets that drop onto land we already control.

AXIOM 1
Can we underwrite the $/MWh coming off this asset with conviction?
We sell industrial real estate and increasingly power-delivered. If we can't model the cost of power within a defensible range — technology, unproven fuel supply, moving-target capex — we can't underwrite the offtake or structure the lease. No , no underwriting.
AXIOM 2
Execution credibility
Can this team actually get it built, on this timeline, at this site?
We don't pick technology winners. We do recognize execution failure: pre-application status, sub-critical capital, single-customer dependency, founder timelines that contradict historical reactor build cadence. If metal isn't turning within 36 months, it's not real yet.
AXIOM 3
Entitlement compatibility
Can this get built in a township — not just permitted by a federal regulator?
approval is necessary but not sufficient. Real reactors get blocked by zoning boards, water boards, and host communities long before review matters. Prologis lives in this layer every day. A reactor that needs a 30-mile or triggers ballot-initiative opposition is a different asset than one that drops into existing industrial zoning.
AXIOM 4
Portfolio compatibility
Does the asset geometry fit where we own land?
Microreactors (<20 ) only pencil in stranded off-grid markets we don't own. Utility-scale (300+ ) needs siting away from labor and population we don't own either. The fit is 20–300 , -deployable, near data center load growth. Outside this band, we're not the right partner.
All four must clear. Three of four is a polite no. Two or fewer is a hard pass. Until then we cover the field — once the data exists, Ventures and the business units engage together.