“Nuclear Energy Is Not Scary,” Says Oppenheimer Project Director

After a long nuclear lull, money and policy are moving. During Climate Week in New York in September 2024, fourteen major financial institutions (including Citi, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley) publicly backed the goal of tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050, signaling that nuclear is no longer off-limits in mainstream finance. In June 2025, the World Bank reversed its long-standing practice of excluding nuclear power from its energy portfolio and said it will consider funding life extensions and small modular reactors. In the United States, President Trump issued a series of executive orders in May 2025 to accelerate advanced reactors, streamline licensing, secure domestic fuel, and expand U.S. nuclear exports. Surging electricity demand from artificial intelligence and data centers is pushing utilities and tech giants such as Amazon, Microsoft, and Google to explore nuclear power as a backbone for digital growth.

The question now is how philanthropy will engage with the nuclear sector. With billions of dollars earmarked for charitable giving, philanthropic capital could help unlock meaningful progress in nuclear energy, a technology with the potential to cut emissions and deliver clean, reliable power to developing economies. I sat down with Theo Kalionzes, Senior Director at the Oppenheimer Project, to discuss how foundations and private donors can accelerate nuclear innovation while ensuring safety, equity, and public trust.

Nuclear Energy Is Already Part of the Philanthropic Conversation

Interviewer: Can you tell us about your work at the Oppenheimer Project and your professional background?

Theo: At the Oppenheimer Project, where I work with the descendants of J. Robert Oppenheimer, we apply his wisdom to modern challenges. We advocate for international cooperation in the face of rapid technological change and support more energy and fewer weapons. But can philanthropy truly move the needle on the future of nuclear power?

Before joining the Oppenheimer Project, I spent a decade as a grant maker in private philanthropy. My background is in nuclear risk reduction, that is reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, materials, and technologies. I also worked at the United Nations in Vienna on banning nuclear testing under international law. Later, at the MacArthur Foundation, I helped allocate more than 80 million dollars in grants to nuclear risk reduction.

When I joined MacArthur in 2015, the same year the Paris Climate Agreement was adopted, the foundation launched its “Big Bets” strategy, including climate solutions. That was when I realized that thinking about nuclear risk in isolation from global challenges such as climate change was a mistake. Philanthropy, I believed, could help reorient this debate.

By funding credible experts in climate and energy policy on one hand, and in nonproliferation and governance on the other, we explored what a more nuclearized world might look like and how to manage it safely. Of the tens of millions of dollars in grants I oversaw, roughly seven to ten million went to projects at the intersection of nuclear and climate issues. Looking back, that was the most impactful part of my portfolio.

The Public Perception Gap and Nuclear Necessity

Interviewer: It seems like the nuclear and climate communities could be “best friends.” Yet a 2025 public opinion survey by Public First, involving more than 2,000 American adults, shows that respondents do not instinctively associate nuclear energy with climate action. Is this disconnect a major obstacle?

Theo: Yes, it is. Experts increasingly agree that decarbonization without nuclear power is unrealistic. Roughly 80 percent of global energy still comes from fossil fuels. Meeting new demand from electrification, artificial intelligence, and economic growth in the Global South will require enormous clean energy expansion. Nuclear must play a role.

However, many people still see nuclear as both frightening and unnecessary. Philanthropy can help by supporting experts and community leaders who communicate the concept of “nuclear necessity.” Solving a problem as large as climate change requires confronting uncomfortable truths.

Where I live in Sebastopol, California, the town sign still says “Nuclear Free Zone.” That mindset is understandable. The technology’s association with weapons and accidents evokes fear. I have been inside a decommissioned missile silo in Arkansas that once held a warhead with the explosive force of eight million tons of TNT. I have visited Fukushima. These experiences remind me that fear is not irrational, but it should not dominate the conversation.

Philanthropy can help set the record straight. If we can “nuclearize” the energy transition, the world could move closer to true energy abundance and shared prosperity. Nuclear and renewables are the ultimate power couple.

The global governance system already recognizes this. Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 191 states have agreed that non-nuclear states have an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technologies: for clean power, medicine, and agriculture. The International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that these uses remain peaceful, but it operates on a flat budget despite a global mandate. Philanthropy could help ensure that governance keeps pace with a coming wave of nuclear expansion.

Through the Oppenheimer Dialogues, we bring together existing funders and the “nuclear-curious” to learn from each other and chart new philanthropic pathways. The opportunity is vast. Out of every 1,000 dollars of climate philanthropy, only one or two go to nuclear energy. That imbalance can and should change.

Nuclear and the Fight Against Energy Poverty in the Global South

Interviewer: Are you suggesting philanthropy should help finance nuclear deployment, particularly in developing countries?

Theo: Philanthropy has traditionally focused on research, policy, and regulatory reform, which remain critical. But some funders care deeply about energy poverty in the Global South and see nuclear as a solution. Each foundation must define its mission, yet there is real potential for philanthropy to act as a catalyst for creative financing.

The World Bank recently lifted its ban on supporting nuclear energy, which is a major shift. The challenge remains with high upfront costs. Foundations could play a role in designing financial mechanisms that unlock private and multilateral capital for nuclear development.

Earning Public Trust, Especially from Women

Interviewer: Coming back to building public trust, polls show men in the United States are twice as likely as women to support nuclear power. Is bringing women into the conversation essential?

Theo: Absolutely. It will take everyone to rethink nuclear energy. I am inspired by women leading in this space, from Mothers for Nuclear to authors like Isabelle Boemeke, who wrote Rad Future, and even Miss America, Grace Stanke, who is a nuclear engineer and advocate.

For me, the goal is not to evangelize for nuclear but to remove the emotion and add data. As former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz says, this is not even mathematics, it is arithmetic. A Deloitte study this year projected U.S. data centers alone could require up to 176 gigawatts of new electricity. We need every clean tool available. Philanthropy can help ensure public and policymaker support keeps pace.

Bridging the Political Divide

Interviewer: Nuclear is said to enjoy bipartisan support, yet Trump voters remain more enthusiastic than Harris voters. How can this gap be closed?

Theo: Nuclear energy truly has something for everyone. Conservatives view it as a proven, reliable technology that enhances American energy dominance. Progressives see it as the largest source of clean energy in the United States. In California, Diablo Canyon alone provides round-the-clock clean power to four million people.

Our Oppenheimer Dialogues are designed to lower barriers to entry for these conversations. Philanthropy can play a unifying role, helping both sides see their interests reflected. Encouragingly, several major funders are now reassessing nuclear, which suggests the tide may be turning.

The Not-In-My-Back Yard Challenge

Interviewer: Support often drops when nuclear plants are proposed locally. How do you think about NIMBYism?

Theo: It is a challenge for all large energy infrastructure. Sometimes it feels more like BANANA (“build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything”). A recent Pew poll found 56 percent of Americans support more nuclear power, up thirteen points since 2020. Yet support can be fragile when actual siting begins.

Philanthropy can again help by supporting local engagement, ensuring residents understand the safety record and climate value of nuclear energy. While the data show nuclear is among the safest and cleanest energy sources, public fears persist. We must also acknowledge real historical harms, such as uranium mining on Native lands and the environmental legacy of the Manhattan Project. At MacArthur we funded groups like the Good Energy Collective to address these issues. Healing and transparency are prerequisites for future trust.

What Comes Next

Interviewer: What are the Oppenheimer Project’s priorities for the coming year?

Theo: We will continue hosting the Oppenheimer Dialogues and expanding our role as an ecosystem builder connecting climate experts, non-proliferation specialists, industry, finance, and philanthropy. There is genuine momentum now, and our goal is to ensure it translates into durable collaboration.

We also work directly with foundations exploring nuclear for the first time, connecting them to the best scientific and policy expertise available. The future of nuclear energy will require much more philanthropic engagement to ensure that this next wave of development is safe, secure, and globally beneficial.