Charles Oppenheimer spent his preschool years living off the grid in a log cabin in the Pecos Valley near Grass Mountain.
He later traded that frontier childhood for Santa Fe High School (Class of ’93), then an international relations degree at the University of Oregon — and, eventually, a career in the greater Silicon Valley. He still returns to New Mexico two to five times a year, mostly for family and Frito pie loaded with red chile, a recipe now carried on by his wife and daughters.
He is the grandson of J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project and became known as the father of the atomic bomb. But Charles Oppenheimer charted his own path: more than 20 years as a “startup guy” and technical architect.
In 2019, he founded the Oppenheimer Project, followed in 2023 by Oppenheimer Energy Ventures, to take on existential risk — nuclear weapons and climate change — using the tools of business as much as philanthropy. His focus is fission technology, not as a Cold War artifact, but as a scalable, carbon‑free power source that can be financed, built and deployed now.
He recently spoke about how his grandfather’s legacy shaped his views on science and responsibility, why he believes nuclear fission is essential for both decarbonization and arms control, and what it will take — politically, financially and culturally — to move nuclear to a practical climate solution. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Can you describe the mission of the Oppenheimer Project in your own words?
Answer: The Oppenheimer Project started from a simple question: If there’s going to be an “Oppenheimer” program in the world, why shouldn’t the family have a say in what it stands for? Conversations with the Department of Energy, when they launched the Oppenheimer Science and Energy Leadership Program in 2017, pushed me to think about that more seriously.
At its core, the Oppenheimer Project turns my grandfather’s philosophy — rooted in the moral responsibility of science and the need for international cooperation — into action today. We promote those values, focused on world peace and better decisions around powerful technologies, and apply them to challenges like nuclear energy, arms control and climate change. Think of it as a small team with a startup ethos tackling a big mission.
Question: How is Oppenheimer Energy different?
Answer: Oppenheimer Energy is a business, not a nonprofit, even though the mission overlaps. The question there is: How do we actually get nuclear energy deployed in the real world, at scale, to make electricity and cut carbon?
Instead of relying on donations, Oppenheimer Energy uses business tools — project finance, institutional capital, risk management — to make nuclear projects investable. … Ideally, success on the business side can support the nonprofit.
Question: How did your grandfather’s story shape your own view of science and responsibility?
Answer: Growing up in the 1980s, the world was filled with 70,000 nuclear warheads and a widespread sense that we might not make it through an arms race. My father talked about his father’s role, and the family felt the weight of historical scrutiny.
It was clear that my grandfather’s work was morally significant. But it wasn’t obvious how a kid — or even a college student — was supposed to translate that into a career path. Looking back, I wish I had leaned into it sooner.
Question: How have you reconciled the Manhattan Project legacy with your work today?
Answer: The moral complexity never fully goes away, and it shouldn’t. But over time, I’ve come to see that my grandfather’s views hold up remarkably well. If you look at what he said during and after the war — about the limits of military solutions — he doesn’t really have enemies anymore. When the movie [2023’s Oppenheimer] came out, there wasn’t some big “other side” trying to discredit him.
For me, reconciliation means separating nuclear weapons from nuclear energy. You can oppose weapons while supporting energy. The science is shared, but the roles in the world differ. My work applies that science to decarbonization and energy security.
Question: Are there particular family stories or lessons that continue to guide how you approach responsible innovation?
Answer: Inside the family, there was latitude. We weren’t told what to do or avoid. My father didn’t explicitly advocate for nuclear energy but also didn’t forbid it. The expectation was: Make your own way, but understand the weight of what you’re connected to.
What guides me most is my grandfather’s public record: cooperation, transparency and shared standards. Knowledge can’t be contained; piling up weapons doesn’t ensure safety. I think the way science actually works — the open exchange, the arguments, what we might today call “non-zero-sum thinking” — is the best model.
Question: How does your current work connect with the scientists and engineers at our national laboratories?
Answer: Historically, the family had little contact post-World War II. Department of Energy initiatives and attention from the movie changed that. My role with the labs isn’t to design experiments; it’s more about doing things an outside organization can do that government institutions can’t — public communication, convening, informal support.
Question: How do you communicate nuclear science to younger, climate-conscious audiences?
Answer: Young people don’t come in with the same baggage as older generations who grew up with “nuclear = apocalypse” messaging. So I walk through the basics: You break the strong bond in the atom, you get this huge amount of heat out, and nuclear is millions of times more energy‑dense than other fuels and produces no greenhouse gases while generating electricity.
Question: In your conversations with scientists and engineers, have there been any insights that changed how you think about nuclear technology?
Answer: The big surprise for me was realizing that the limiting factor isn’t some missing scientific breakthrough. Existing fission technology is already proven at scale in countries like France. What’s really holding us back are project and finance issues: cost overruns, regulatory timelines, risk allocation.
Question: Where do you see tangible, real-world scientific innovation happening today?
Answer: One of the most interesting areas is the fuel cycle. Right now, we mostly run a once‑through system: You use a small fraction of the potential energy in uranium and then treat the rest as waste. We know how to do much better — recycling fuel, breeding more fuel, using designs that dramatically increase fuel utilization. That could both reduce anxiety about spent fuel and move us closer to what feels like an almost unlimited energy cycle.
The real innovation now is commitment at scale. China’s repeated builds of proven designs cut costs down by a factor of five compared to the last U.S. project. That’s not magic. It’s repetition, standardization and political will.
Question: Are there particular technologies — like small modular reactors, advanced fission designs or fusion research — that you’re especially excited about in the near term?
Answer: We focus on advanced reactors, but we use a broader definition than “only brand-new things.” Large reactors like the Westinghouse AP1000, now operating at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, are among our best options for massive, low-cost electricity in the U.S. They have advanced passive cooling systems and produce the most electricity for the least operating cost.
I’m more skeptical of fusion startups at this stage; I think fusion should be heavily supported as a scientific pursuit by governments, but it hasn’t yet cleared the basic scientific hurdles to justify the same kind of project finance model we can apply to fission. Long term, I’d love for Oppenheimer Energy to deploy fusion once it’s proven.
Question: The New Mexico Legislature recently debated Senate Bill 78, a bill that would have added nuclear energy to the list of renewable sources in the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. From a scientific and climate perspective, do you think nuclear energy belongs in that category?
Answer: Yes. Around the world, especially in Europe, you’ve seen some of the strictest regulators move to classify nuclear alongside other low-carbon sources. What matters scientifically is carbon and lifecycle impact, not whether a term like “renewable” is politically convenient.
If you look at the material and land footprint, nuclear’s power density means it actually uses far less land and raw materials than solar or wind per unit of energy delivered .
Question: Proposed bills like California’s AB 2647 aim to modernize — not repeal — the state’s nuclear moratorium, while New York is advancing policies to support nuclear power for grid reliability and zero-emission goals. How are emerging technologies like small modular reactors — and potentially fusion — reshaping the conversation about nuclear’s role in clean energy?
Answer: In the U.S. and Europe, the shift is being driven in part by hindsight. Closing existing plants in places like New York and Germany sent emissions and electricity prices skyrocketing, with no real upside. There’s now broader recognition — even in California — that keeping plants like Diablo Canyon running was the right call.
Emerging technologies help politically by signaling a break from older designs and giving lawmakers room to act. In California, we’ve been careful to frame AB2647 not as repealing the moratorium but modernizing it; the original law was a stopgap, not a forever ban. Newer designs — small modular reactors, advanced fission concepts, and, further out, fusion — signal to lawmakers that this isn’t “old nuclear,” but a more flexible and climate‑driven toolkit.
Question: New Mexico is now using oil and gas revenues to invest in a future built on fusion, advanced manufacturing and defense-related technologies — many of which are high-risk and years away from commercial reality. Do you see this kind of state-led investment as a responsible path toward long-term energy transition, or does it risk repeating cycles of overpromising on technologies that aren’t yet ready to deliver?
Answer: I actually think New Mexico has enormous leadership potential here, especially through the State Investment Council. Using fossil revenue to invest in future technologies is, in principle, exactly what we should be doing. Where I’d push is on diversification. Right now, a lot of that money is pointed at high-risk, long-timeline bets like fusion. I’d like to see more of it directed toward fission projects that can reliably produce power with today’s technology.
There’s also a deeper obligation in New Mexico around uranium and tribal communities — people who were harmed in earlier eras and deserve not just compensation but a real stake in the future fuel cycle and energy projects. If New Mexico can marry responsible investment, tribal participation and proven fission technology, it could go from being a cautionary tale to a global model.
Question: The conflict in Iran is creating a paradox — higher fossil fuel prices are making renewables more attractive, but at the same time inflation, supply chain disruptions and higher capital costs are making them harder to build. Does this moment accelerate the clean energy transition, or risk delaying it in places like the U.S. where financing and infrastructure are already bottlenecks?
Answer: Geopolitical shocks cut both ways. Higher fossil prices and energy insecurity definitely increase interest in alternatives; Europe in particular is likely to double down on energy security and nuclear in the next five years.
Question: If war-driven energy shocks are both boosting demand for renewables and undermining their deployment, what does that say about the resilience of the clean energy transition — are we structurally unprepared to scale it during global crises?
Answer: We’re underprepared for global crises across the board, not just in clean energy. War and financial chaos are bad for everything. But the more we rely on fuels that are traded through chokepoints and vulnerable regions, the more exposed we are.
Nuclear’s role here is unique: It’s the only technology that can provide truly strategic energy independence at scale.
Question: Your grandfather advocated for international control of nuclear materials to prevent arms races. In today’s fragmented uranium market, how can that vision help secure fuel supply chains and unlock private investment?
Answer: If you want long-term project finance for nuclear, investors need to know that fuel won’t become a geopolitical weapon overnight. That argues for more multilateral approaches to enrichment, recycling and waste management — not less.
Question: Do you see younger generations — including in your own family — taking an interest in nuclear risk and climate issues? And what advice would you give to the next generation about engaging with challenges of that scale?
Answer: My daughters are interested in nuclear energy largely because I’ve exposed them to it, but more broadly, I see a lot of young people who are hungry for hope, not doom.
Students and activists are looking at the data and concluding, on their own, that nuclear has to be part of the solution. My advice to them is similar to the advice I wish I’d heard earlier: Lean into the places where your voice and background give you unique leverage, and don’t be afraid to connect your identity to big issues.
