Amazon, Google, Meta and Nvidia are backing advanced-fission companies through a mix of equity investment, development capital and future power agreements. Those arrangements are commercially significant, but they do not mean Big Tech already has a fleet of working small modular reactors. Most projects still face licensing, financing, fuel, construction and first-of-a-kind technology risks.
The companies most clearly connected to major technology corporations are X-energy, TerraPower, Oklo, Kairos Power and Elementl Power. Saltfoss belongs in a separate category because its reported backers are technology founders and private investors, not the corporations themselves.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What “backed by Big Tech” actually means
“Backed” can describe several very different relationships:
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →- Corporate investment: a technology company or its venture arm buys an ownership stake.
- Development capital: money or assistance for site selection, permitting and early project work.
- Offtake agreement: a commitment to purchase electricity that a future reactor may produce.
- Project partnership: cooperation on sites, construction, procurement or deployment.
- Founder investment: money from an individual technology founder rather than that founder’s company.
An electricity-purchase agreement can help a developer attract financing, but it is not the same as equity ownership. Likewise, a announced gigawatt pipeline is not operating capacity.
#1 Best Overall
Why hyperscalers are turning to nuclear power
Artificial-intelligence data centers need enormous quantities of reliable electricity. Nuclear plants can provide firm, around-the-clock generation, complementing wind and solar rather than depending on weather conditions. Advanced-reactor companies also promise smaller units, modular construction, flexible output or alternative cooling systems.
The commercial argument is not that first-of-a-kind reactors are already the cheapest source of power. It is that reliable, low-carbon electricity may be valuable enough to data-center operators to justify long-term commitments while developers try to reduce costs through standardization and factory production. A major customer can improve a project’s financing prospects and provide a reason to begin site and procurement work.
That rationale is described in reporting from The Associated Press and TechCrunch.
The companies with corporate Big Tech connections
| Company | Technology or business | Technology connection | Type of support | What the headline number means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-energy | Xe-100 high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor | Amazon | Direct venture investment and project agreements | Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund led a reported $700 million Series C-1; the company is targeting more than 5 GW of projects over 15 years |
| TerraPower | Natrium sodium-cooled reactor with molten-salt storage | Nvidia, Meta and Bill Gates | Investment, development support and potential offtake | A Natrium reactor is designed for about 345 MW; Meta announced support for potential projects totaling up to 2.8 GW of baseload generation plus 1.2 GW of storage |
| Oklo | Aurora compact fast reactor cooled by liquid metal | Meta | Development funding and energy agreement | Meta described a potential Ohio campus of up to 1.2 GW, possibly beginning around 2030 |
| Kairos Power | Molten-fluoride-salt-cooled reactor with ceramic-coated pebble fuel | Future power purchase and development support | Google announced an agreement covering about 500 MW from multiple planned reactors, with the first targeted for 2030 and additional capacity through 2035 | |
| Elementl Power | Advanced-nuclear project developer | Early-stage capital and possible future power purchases | Three potential U.S. sites were described, each targeting at least 600 MW |
The capacity figures above are planned, potential or targeted amounts—not proof that the reactors are operating or that all projects will be built.
X-energy: Amazon’s direct investment in an advanced-reactor developer
Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund led a reported $700 million Series C-1 financing for X-energy. Amazon says the investment is intended to help the company scale and advance more than 5 GW of new nuclear projects over 15 years.
X-energy’s Xe-100 is a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor. It uses helium coolant and spherical fuel elements commonly described as TRISO fuel pebbles. Each reactor is expected to generate about 80 MW of electricity.
Rank #2
Amazon has also worked with Energy Northwest on a possible deployment in Washington and explored a small-modular-reactor project near Dominion Energy’s North Anna station in Virginia. These arrangements show how Amazon’s role extends beyond venture funding into potential project development.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The important qualification is that 5 GW describes a future development target or pipeline. It is not current generation and does not guarantee that every proposed unit will receive approval, financing or construction authorization. Amazon’s description of its nuclear plans is available here.
TerraPower: Nvidia investment and Meta’s potential Natrium projects
TerraPower was founded by Bill Gates and is developing the Natrium reactor. The design combines a sodium-cooled reactor, expected to produce about 345 MW, with molten-salt energy storage. Storage is intended to give the plant greater flexibility when electricity demand rises.
TerraPower began preparatory construction work in Wyoming in 2024. Later funding coverage identified Nvidia’s venture arm, NVentures, as a participant in a reported $650 million financing. That is a direct corporate technology connection, unlike Bill Gates’s status as founder and investor.
In January 2026, Meta announced support for potential TerraPower projects. Its announcement described two units capable of producing up to 690 MW combined, with rights to energy from six additional units totaling about 2.1 GW. Meta characterized the broader opportunity as 2.8 GW of baseload generation plus 1.2 GW of storage, with delivery targets extending into the 2030s.
These figures describe potential projects and commercial arrangements. They should not be read as 2.8 GW of installed nuclear capacity. TerraPower’s company information is available at TerraPower, while Meta’s announcement is available here.
Rank #3
Oklo: Meta support for Aurora and a founder investment that is not OpenAI backing
Oklo is developing the Aurora Powerhouse, a compact fast reactor cooled by liquid metal. Sam Altman invested in Oklo personally and helped take the company public through its merger with AltC. That personal investment should not be described as an investment by OpenAI.
Meta later announced a funding and development agreement supporting multiple Aurora reactors in Ohio. Meta described a potential campus with up to 1.2 GW of clean baseload power, possibly coming online as early as 2030. “Up to” and “possibly” matter: the project still depends on regulatory, financial, construction and supply-chain milestones.
Oklo’s first Nuclear Regulatory Commission application was denied in January 2022. That historic decision should be distinguished from any later application, licensing work or revised regulatory path. A previous application denial does not by itself establish the outcome of a later proposal.
Recommended Free Tools
Oklo has also been associated with a separate agreement with data-center operator Switch targeting as much as 12 GW by 2044. That is a future commercial commitment, not current generation. Oklo’s company information is available at Oklo, and NRC regulatory information is available at the NRC.
Kairos Power: Google is primarily a future customer
Google announced an agreement to purchase approximately 500 MW from multiple Kairos reactors. The first reactor was targeted for 2030, with more capacity expected through 2035.
Kairos uses molten-fluoride salt as coolant and ceramic-coated fuel pebbles. The NRC approved construction of two demonstration reactors in Tennessee in November 2024. Commercial Kairos reactors have been described as roughly 75 MW each, although reactor capacity figures can vary depending on whether a source is referring to thermal or electric output.
Google’s publicly described relationship is principally a future-power offtake agreement and development support—not necessarily an equity investment in Kairos. The distinction is important: Google may become a major customer without owning part of the reactor company.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Google’s announcement is available here.
Elementl Power: Google is funding the project-development layer
Elementl Power is not simply a reactor manufacturer. It is an advanced-nuclear project developer focused on preparing sites and projects for future deployment.
In May 2025, Google announced a strategic agreement under which it would provide early-stage capital to help prepare three potential U.S. sites. Each site was described as targeting at least 600 MW. Google would also have the option to purchase power from completed projects.
Elementl illustrates a less visible but important part of the nuclear market. Before a reactor can generate electricity, developers must identify suitable sites, navigate permitting, arrange grid connections, establish supply chains and assemble financing. Google’s role here is development capital and potential procurement, not necessarily ownership of a reactor vendor.
Google’s announcement is available here, and Elementl’s own site is here.
Separate category: technology-founder backing
Saltfoss
Saltfoss, formerly known as Seaborg, is developing molten-salt reactors intended for floating Power Barge platforms. The concept envisions multiple reactors installed on a ship-based system, and the company has reportedly worked with Samsung Heavy Industries on ship construction.
Best Value
Saltfoss has been associated with investment from Bill Gates and Peter Thiel. That makes it relevant to the broader technology-investor story, but it is not the same as a disclosed investment by Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft or Nvidia. It should therefore be labeled technology-founder-backed, not corporate Big Tech-backed.
More information is available from Saltfoss.
Where Microsoft fits—and where it does not
Microsoft is central to the technology industry’s nuclear-power push, but its best-known fission arrangements have focused on purchasing power from existing or planned nuclear facilities, including the proposed restart of Three Mile Island. Microsoft has also been associated with fusion-company agreements, such as its relationship with Helion.
Fusion is not fission. Fission splits heavy atomic nuclei and powers today’s commercial nuclear reactors; fusion remains experimental. Microsoft’s nuclear procurement activity should therefore be discussed as context rather than presented as evidence that Microsoft invested in one of the fission startups above.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsWhat should not be counted in this list
- Fusion companies: Helion, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, TAE Technologies and similar companies belong in a separate category.
- Established utilities: Constellation, Vistra, Talen Energy and Dominion are important to the data-center power market but are not venture-backed reactor startups.
- Government programs: Department of Energy grants and public support are not Big Tech backing.
- Rumored investments: An unannounced or unverified deal should not be presented as fact.
- Founder investments: Bill Gates, Sam Altman and Peter Thiel may invest personally; that does not automatically make Microsoft, OpenAI or another company an investor.
Why the announced gigawatts are easy to misunderstand
A project can be announced years before it becomes an operating power plant. Developers still need to secure a suitable site, complete licensing, obtain fuel, close construction financing, manage supply chains, connect to the grid and demonstrate that the design works at commercial scale.
Advanced reactors may ultimately be smaller or more modular than conventional gigawatt-scale plants, but the first units are not automatically cheaper or easier to build. First-of-a-kind projects face engineering, manufacturing, regulatory and cost-overrun risks. Their business case depends partly on repeating standardized designs at much larger scale.
Nuclear power is also not impact-free. Projects must address radioactive-waste management, uranium or other fuel supplies, cooling and water use, emergency planning, physical security, transmission, decommissioning and regulatory oversight.
How to read a Big Tech nuclear announcement
- Identify the counterparty: Is the money coming from a corporation, a venture arm or an individual founder?
- Identify the mechanism: Is it equity, development capital, a loan, a project partnership or an offtake agreement?
- Separate capacity types: Treat “planned,” “potential,” “targeted” and “up to” as forecasts or commitments—not operating megawatts.
- Check the milestone: A site announcement, NRC approval, construction start, grid connection and commercial operation are different events.
- Check the technology: Confirm whether the company is developing fission, fusion, a reactor design or merely a project.
Viewed this way, Big Tech is acting as an early investor, customer and project sponsor for advanced fission. That can improve a developer’s access to capital and help create demand, but it does not remove the technical, regulatory or economic risks of building new nuclear plants.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
