The Patriot Energy Network: A Wealth Opportunity You Can’t Afford to Ignore

Alex Reid sells a special report Titled “Patriot Energy Network: A Small Company Poised to Fuel the Future.” What’s the stock, and what’s the story? Read on to find out…

Alex Reid has released an advertisement for his entry-level Wealthpin Pro newsletter, priced at $299 per year. The hook for potential subscribers is a “secret stock” poised to benefit from the “Patriot Power Grid.” Let’s delve into what he’s claiming…

He opens with the assertion that President Trump “set the stage” for the “Patriot Power Grid,” stating:

Like many teaser ads, this strategy leverages political allegiance. People tend to have strong feelings about Donald Trump—whether they admire or oppose him—so invoking his name and image can quickly build a connection with his supporters. This tactic is commonly employed in financial newsletter marketing, as the typical audience—affluent individuals in their 60s and 70s interested in finance—often has conservative leanings. Marketers can create an impression of shared values by referencing high-profile political figures like Trump, Obama, Clinton, and Reagan, encouraging readers to engage further with their pitches, often in seconds.

Whether you plan to vote for any other candidate, it’s crucial that your investment decisions remain separate from political affiliations. Newsletter marketers and stock promoters often exploit political divisions to provoke strong reactions, manipulating readers into subscribing or investing based on emotions. However, this approach can be detrimental to your portfolio in the long term, as emotional impulses may cloud your judgment.

Now, stepping away from that perspective, let’s focus on the stock Alex Reid refers to. What matters isn’t how we find out about it but how we evaluate the company with a clear mindset—preferably without the emotional bias that often comes from spending money to uncover a “secret” stock. This financial psychology can make individuals irrationally favor the stock they’ve just learned about. Instead, we can conduct research to provide a foundation for assessing the company on your own terms—at no cost. Does that sound fair?

To begin with, let’s examine Reid’s clues about the ‘Patriot Power Grid’ and how he presents them…

He adds a political angle to keep your interest…

He also mentions the usual names among those “reaping profits from the rise” of the “Patriot Power Grid” — Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Sam Altman, and others.

So, what’s the background here?

As you may have surmised, this is yet another narrative about nuclear energy and the potential “renaissance” it may undergo if the next generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) receives approval and is constructed to scale up for clean energy production.

This discussion primarily began as a response to the rising demand for electricity, mainly triggered by concerns regarding the impact of power-hungry AI data centers on the power grid… but nuclear energy has also been experiencing a quiet revival over the last decade, fueled by the prospects of SMRs and the increasing acceptance of nuclear technology worldwide. As the fears surrounding incidents like Chornobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island have somewhat diminished, technology has advanced, and we’ve started to weigh the risks of escalating carbon emissions against the benefits of nuclear power, which is both carbon-free and pollution-free. There was even a recent agreement to restart the undamaged reactor at Three Mile Island, with Microsoft committing to purchase its electricity.

By design, Small Modular Reactors are intended to be significantly safer than traditional large nuclear power plants, avoiding the same meltdown risks that older 1960s-era light water reactors must consider. They are expected to be more cost-effective and quicker to construct since they can be largely prefabricated in factories and assembled on-site while also operating more efficiently, resulting in less nuclear waste. To date, they have yet to be built at a commercial scale, with existing tests remaining either theoretical or limited to government testing facilities. However, this is the prevailing expectation, and experts are optimistic about this outlook, so I’m inclined to trust their judgment. Even so, it’s important to note that the initial wave of SMRs is unlikely to be “inexpensive,” it will likely take considerable time to reach optimal speed and efficiency given the complexities of this new manufacturing process.

With every new trend, there’s always the allure of a few high-potential startups and the hope for significant gains…

Possibly. The U.S. government has recently been pushing for more nuclear development, supported by last year’s incentive-filled legislation aimed at funding new reactors and extending the life of older ones. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, known for its focus on safety above all else, has historically moved slowly, and increasing acceptance of nuclear power doesn’t necessarily mean that many Americans will welcome small reactors in their neighborhoods.

So, while the outlook for new nuclear plants—tiny modular reactors (SMRs)—is probably more optimistic than ever, there’s no certainty this trend will endure. Additionally, no new civilian reactors are yet under construction, which raises concerns about whether investor interest will hold steady during the long process of establishing a robust SMR industry in the U.S.

But now that you’ve glimpsed my cautious take let’s dive into some of Reid’s hype about his “secret stock” (or, as we’d call them, “clues”):

What else do we learn about this stock?

Sure, but it’s important to remember that no one is advancing new reactor designs without collaborating with the Department of Energy (DoE). The government closely monitors nuclear developments—especially anything involving uranium. Nearly all reactor innovation and testing is actually conducted within DoE facilities.

So, which stock does Reid favor in this space? Here’s more from the pitch:

This is a refreshingly transparent approach—acknowledging that investor interest, not immediate profits, might drive share prices up. What else?

So, who’s the mystery company? For those who guessed, it is indeed Oklo (OKLO), one of two “pure play” SMR (small modular reactor) startups that have gone public through SPAC mergers in recent years. Oklo started trading about few months ago, positioning them as a relative newcomer, though like their peer, NuScale (ticker: SMR), they’ve been developing their technology for over a decade. Their public debut was supported by OpenAI’s Sam Altman, whose SPAC provided Oklo with a path to the market (Altman was already a significant investor before the SPAC merger).

Oklo completed its SPAC IPO in May and has been promoting its progress through quarterly investor letters. The latest states its goal to deploy its first SMR unit, or “powerhouse,” as it calls it, by 2027.

Reaching that 2027 target, however, seems ambitious. They have yet to reapply for a license after having their initial application denied in 2022. The company is counting on a streamlined process that combines construction and operation permits, aiming to significantly shorten the timeline. Whether this approach will work remains to be seen.l

I doubt Oklo’s combined license process will be as swift as they anticipate. Even if they submit their application by the end of this year, realistically, potential approval will occur between late 2026 and the end of 2027, leaving limited time for actual construction.

They could surprise us with rapid progress, especially if there’s a breakthrough that appeals to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). With increasing pressure to streamline their processes, it’s conceivable that the NRC might expedite their review, allowing Oklo to build quickly after approval. However, this is an entirely new reactor design, and the NRC is known for its highly independent, safety-first approach, which is why expecting authorization in time to build by 2027 seems overly optimistic, at least to me.

Oklo’s proposed reactor has a fast-fission liquid sodium design, different from the water-cooled reactors that dominate the U.S. and global commercial reactor landscape. While liquid sodium reactors are in operation, particularly in Russia and at test sites like Argonne National Laboratory, they are still uncommon. This design could be safer and more efficient than conventional water-cooled reactors, but that doesn’t guarantee a quick or easy path to licensing and construction.

TerraPower, spearheaded by Bill Gates (with Warren Buffett also involved), is another prominent project pushing forward with a similar technology—fast fission reactors cooled by liquid sodium. Their planned Natrium reactor in Wyoming is notable as it’s the only one to have used the NRC’s “Combined License” process so far. TerraPower submitted an initial construction permit application, initiating a review focused on safety and environmental impact, with evaluations projected to take around 26 months. If all goes according to plan, there could be a hearing and potential permit decision after August 2026. That timeline aligns with Oklo’s ambitions, though TerraPower has already started initial site preparations (without reactor work) and has tentatively set a goal of starting operations by 2030.

But unlike Oklo, TerraPower isn’t publicly traded, so it doesn’t face pressure to keep investor enthusiasm high. With Gates’ substantial backing and strong partnerships, TerraPower doesn’t need to overpromise, but Oklo might.

I do appreciate Oklo’s approach and would love to see it succeed, but I’d place my bets beyond a 2027 launch. Even hitting 2030 for their first “Powerhouse” reactor seems challenging—though possible. Most SMR projects in the U.S. aim optimistically for 2029-2030 as a start date. Oklo has made strides in securing non-binding power agreements with potential buyers like a data center in Wyoming and Diamondback Energy in Texas, which could translate to actual contracts as construction advances. These deals and government incentives could help fund the projects, though no one will pay for power until reactors are fully operational.

Any new reactor, especially in this first wave, is likely to be both fast and costly to build. Even restarting the dormant reactor at Three Mile Island, an existing facility with a proven design, is estimated to cost $1.6 billion and will not be operational until at least 2

Progress is likely to will pick up speed over time; once a few companies manage to build reactors, we should have a clearer regulatory framework, established financing structures, and a supply chain for parts and fuel suppliers that will streamline the process for new modular reactor designs. SMRs aim to reach a point where components can be manufactured in a factory, transported to the site, and assembled into a reactor within a year or two. However, the first test projects may take more work.

As for OKLO’s stock, its long-term outlook will likely depend on regulatory developments, potential government incentives, and the timeline and financial projections that Oklo’s management provides once reactors are built. In the short term, investor enthusiasm for the 5+ year potential will primarily influence the stock’s performance. Much like early-stage biotech companies, regulatory milestones, partnerships, and media coverage may initially impact the stock more than financial results. However, Oklo must ensure they have sufficient funding to advance the approval process and build their first reactor (ideally, get several others into planning).

In their initial SPAC presentations over a year ago, Oklo estimated the capital costs for their first 15MW plant to be $107 million. With around $235 million in cash and plans to use $40 million this year, they could initiate the project. However, if they aim to pursue additional projects before completing the first plant, they’ll likely need to secure further funding. This could come from sources beyond stock sales, such as loans, government grants loans tied to nuclear incentives or even upfront partnerships with cash-rich companies.

To highlight how sentiment drives the market for nuclear power stocks these days, you might have noticed that OKLO shares surged about 25% last Friday, rising back to levels not seen since early August and now only 20% below their SPAC deal price from May. What’s behind this spike? It’s not due to any specific action by Oklo itself; instead, it’s a resurgence of interest in nuclear power, at least temporarily, sparked mainly by the significant deal between Microsoft and Constellation Energy announced. Constellation Energy (CEG) plans to restart one of the reactors at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, sending all nuclear stocks upward. While there’s no direct link to Oklo or any specific SMR project, this news reignited excitement about the atomic sector, demonstrating that major tech firms are willing to invest heavily in carbon-free electricity. However, it’s worth noting that Constellation still needs to apply for a permit to restart the reactor, and there may be challenges ahead if local residents oppose the reopening. Restarting the plant could also take years if permission is granted.

The symbolic nature of this announcement is what truly captured investor interest in nuclear power stocks. The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, coupled with the release of the film The China Syndrome the same year, played a significant role in turning public opinion against nuclear energy in the U.S. even before the Chornobyl disaster in 1986, resulting in a 30-year halt in new reactor construction. Thus, the potential reopening of this troubled facility (at least the part that didn’t experience the meltdown) could represent a shift in public sentiment in favor of nuclear energy, which may help expedite the permitting and construction process for emerging SMR projects. The narrative surrounding atomic power is improving, but sustaining momentum in the next five years will likely require ongoing exciting developments in the sector.

Reid also points out, echoing claims made by other newsletters, that the U.S. Air Force had initially placed an order for a small modular reactor (SMR) from Oklo for a base in Alaska, with plans to complete it by 2027. While this was true about a year ago, the order was rescinded last November after a competitor raised concerns about the bidding process, and procurement for the project is currently “on hold.” This indicates that completion by 2027 is unlikely, even if Oklo ultimately secures that contract.

I genuinely wish Oklo success, but the uncertainty surrounding the licensing and construction phases makes this investment too speculative for my taste. With revenue and profits still very much in the realm of the hypothetical and a growing list of other SMR contenders poised to enter the market, it takes time to predict outcomes. The next five years should be fascinating for all SMR advocates, especially as more companies may go public if interest continues to rise, alongside established players in the nuclear industry like Westinghouse, GE-Hitachi, BWX Technologies, Rolls-Royce, and fuel fabricators such as Centrus, all of whom are looking to capitalize on the potential of SMRs. However, the journey will likely be marked by fluctuations, and we can expect billions to be invested by both the government and these early-stage project developers, making it premature to draw any definitive conclusions about future financial results.

As Reid suggests, this is primarily seen as a means to invest in a “pure play” company well-positioned as an “early mover” in the industry. As demonstrated on Friday, this can significantly boost the stock when the “nuclear renaissance” narrative gains traction. Given that the operational side of the business tends to be slow-moving, investors in OKLO will need to exercise patience and hope for positive outcomes. However, as we saw recently, this stock is also driven by narratives that may not directly relate to the company itself, which can lead to substantial gains or losses depending on market movements. For instance, if a new reactor is approved and begins construction, it could trigger a surge in stock prices across the sector. Conversely, an incident at any nuclear facility or a denial of an SMR permit could result in a decline.

Looking ahead, unless unexpected developments arise, the following significant updates for Oklo are likely to occur during their upcoming quarterly report, anticipated around mid-November, and when they submit their combined license application or at least provide a “pre-application readiness review,” which could happen by the end of 2024. They might also update their expected timeline for potential construction. However, it’s important to note that this is a “story” stock, disconnected from immediate financial realities and centered on a business that may take 5-10 years to fully develop. Therefore, fluctuations in investor sentiment toward nuclear energy and SMR advancement will be the primary drivers of the stock’s price in the short term.