The U.S. fell from 85% of global nuclear enrichment capacity to less than 0.1% due to the "megatons to megawatts" program. This post-Cold War initiative involved buying down-blended Russian weapons material, effectively outsourcing the fuel supply and allowing U.S. capability to atrophy.

Contrary to popular belief, the main obstacle for nuclear power is not engineering—safe reactors have existed since the 1960s. The real problem is a hyper-restrictive regulatory environment created in the 1980s that makes it incredibly difficult and slow to get new reactors approved and built.

Because uranium fuel is a minuscule fraction of a nuclear power plant's total operating cost, there is virtually no price at which a utility would stop buying it to shut down a reactor. This lack of demand destruction means uranium prices could spike to extreme levels, like $500/lb, without impacting consumption.

Breeder reactors, which can create more fuel than they consume, are the key to a multi-billion-year energy supply. However, they are currently more expensive than conventional designs. The transition to a breeder economy will be driven by a future economic crossover point when recycling 'waste' fuel becomes cheaper than mining new uranium.

The biggest bottlenecks for the nuclear sector aren't just reactor design. The industry needs a competitive, free market for nuclear fuel and enrichment, along with a centralized national repository for waste. Solving these systemic issues is a prerequisite for startups and the broader industry to thrive.

While current nuclear projects take 10-15 years in the US, the country used to build reactors in just three years. The goal is not just creating new technology, but streamlining paperwork and supply chains to restore past efficiency. The bottleneck is bureaucracy, not technical capability.

While the U.S. discusses a nuclear renaissance, most new reactors under construction globally are Chinese or Russian designs. The U.S. currently has no reactor model proven to be built on time and on budget, making it uncompetitive in the global export market and creating a significant geopolitical disadvantage.

The investment case for uranium until 2030 is not dependent on future technologies like Small Modular Reactors. Instead, it's a simple, 'boring' story of a structural deficit where current mine supply cannot meet the demand from the existing global fleet of nuclear reactors.

Proponents argue nuclear fusion will eventually be cheaper than fission. The core of this argument is not the reactor itself, but the complete elimination of the complex and costly front-end fuel supply chain: uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment. Fusion's fuel, derived from hydrogen isotopes, sidesteps these processes entirely.