YSK: If you invest through your bank or a standard fund, they may exclude nuclear energy investments as part of a list of &quot;social irresponsible&quot; stocks, which otherwise includes gambling, alcohol, weapons and tobacco Why YSK: I learned this recently because I wanted to ensure that my bank wasn&#039;t investing in fossil fuels. As far as I can tell, nuclear energy is often listed alongside undesirable investments as part of &quot;Responsible Investment&quot; policies, &quot;Environmental Social Governance&quot; policies (ironically), or &quot;Negative Screening&quot; policies. Here it is mentioned on Wikipedia: <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing#Negative_screening" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing#Negative_screening</a> And as part of a report on negative screens (PDF): <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="https://prod.schroders.com/el/sysglobalassets/digital/insights/2018/thought-leadership/demystifying-negative-screens---the-full-implications-of-esg-exclusions.pdf" target="_blank">https://prod.schroders.com/el/sysglobalassets/digital/insights/2018/thought-leadership/demystifying-negative-screens---the-full-implications-of-esg-exclusions.pdf</a> My guess is that this stigma is a holdover from decades ago, when the first generations of environmental activists were strongly against nuclear energy, and because of their association with nuclear weapons. Banks and funds take a general survey of stocks that people are against, and those surveys target an older generation of people who have money to invest. Personally, I believe nuclear energy is a crucial component of our future energy sources, and one that is still underrated and clearly biased against. I will be looking for nuclear energy companies to invest in, in order to offset this built-in bias.