Probably the biggest surprise in the investing world over the past two years is the extent to which the boom in artificial intelligence excitement among investors (and big-money tech firms) has led to a huge bull market for electricity… and eventually, in turn, to investor enthusiasm for nuclear power.

I was just beginning to pay attention to the world as a teenager in the 1980s, when nuclear power in the United States was essentially put on mothballs and hidden in the closet after the high-profile accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and, much more dramatically, Chernobyl in 1986. Nuclear power was widely seen as the savior of a civilized way of life in the 1950s and 1960s, a way to get electricity that was so cheap we might not even bother charging for it… but the fears of nuclear proliferation and nuclear accidents, along with the shocking rise in construction costs, put the kibosh on building new nuclear plants by the mid-1980s… and the growing litigiousness of American society, combined with an extremely slow and burdensome regulatory regime for building and operating any kind of new power plant, but especially a nuclear power plant, made it clear that nuclear power, despite the low cost of fuel, was not, in the real world, actually cheaper than coal or natural gas.

And that mindset seemed prevalent up to a few years ago — it’s true that the theoretical cost of financing a new nuclear power plant fell as interest rates fell, and nuclear power is the form of electricity that is most sensitive to interest rates and capital costs, because almost all the cost of a nuclear power plant comes in the initial construction, not in the refueling or maintenance, so you effectively have to pay for all of that energy up front (this is true of solar and wind, too, but the construction is much cheaper and faster)… but it’s also true that Plant Vogtle, the latest nuclear power plant built in the United States (the last of their reactors went online this year), was completed at least seven years late and $17 billion over budget, and is going to increase electricity prices pretty meaningfully over the next couple decades as the electricity consumers of Georgia pay off those construction costs (the last US reactor built before that opened in 2016… but started construction in 1973 and was put “on hold” in the 1980s for more than 20 years before construction resumed in 2007 and was finally completed in 2016). And while the US is probably the most expensive country in which to build nuclear power plants, it’s not the only place where it’s time consuming and expensive — the competition for “most expensive power plant,” with massive cost overruns and delays, might be the ~$50 billion Hinkley Point C power station in southern England that started construction in 2017 and is now expected to begin operations maybe by 2030.

So nuclear power has long been seen as prohibitively expensive, super-regulated and litigated to the point of almost not being viable, and also socially scary, which has led to many, many more nuclear reactors being decommissioned than built over the past 20 years. But several factors have combined to begin to change the thinking of both people and governments over the past few years…

First, new reactor designs are generally seen as safer, potentially less expensive, and less exposed to the risk of catastrophic meltdown (Three Mile Island in 1979 and Fukushima in 2011 were partial meltdowns, one caused by an accident and the other by a failure of the cooling systems after an earthquake, and both were later mostly assessed as being less serious than initially feared, though both also shut down nuclear power development in their respective countries… Chernobyl was an explosion that released a massive amount of radiation across much of Europe and was widely seen as the worst nuclear disaster in history, though the cooling failure explosion at Kyshtym in the Soviet Union and the fire at Windscale in the UK, both in 1957, were certainly huge as well). In general, the world has gotten smarter about backup safety systems and reactor design and monitoring over the past 60 years, so that should help reduce the risk of future meltdowns or accidents… but the push for entirely new reactors also offers hope of systems that are much less likely to melt down or otherwise release a lot of radiation — like many of the small modular reactor (SMR) designs, which developers think can safely be built in populated areas, and at much lower cost than the large reactors we’re accustomed to now.

Second, the looming challenges of carbon emissions and the climate crisis have shifted the concerns and the thinking about which risks are most worrisome. The risk of natural gas and coal power plants is no longer just the polluting emissions from those plants, or the cost of extracting fuel from the earth, it’s the long-term impact of adding more carbon to the atmosphere by burning those fuels… and that makes the environmental challenges and radiation risks of nuclear power seem relatively smaller to many people than, say, the risk of carbon and particulate emissions from coal power plants. It is not feasible (or fair) to imagine that the developing nations of the world will accept the idea of choosing not to have electricity, and telling Indonesia or Nigeria that they can’t have an industrial revolution like the ones which arguably lifted Europe, North America and China out of darkness and poverty because their emissions will add too much climate risk… that’s obviously a non-starter… so it seems clear that we need a lot more low-carbon or no-carbon electricity generation. That means replacing at least coal, and perhaps even much cleaner natural gas, as baseload sources of electricity generation. The only feasible replacement, at least today, is nuclear power. Maybe that changes in a decade, with more efficient solar and wind generation and much cheaper battery storage, but for now, the consensus has come around to the idea that the only way to reduce fossil fuel consumption without somehow convincing the people of the world to use less electricity, is nuclear power.

And Third, what seems to have pushed sentiment over the top, at least for investors, was the explosive launch of artificial intelligence as a commercial service a couple years ago, and the surprising predictions that electricity consumption might grow much faster than expected as a result, at least in the United States. There are probably several aspects to that expecation of growing electricity demand, it’s not just AI (we’ll also see electricity demand grow from electric vehicles to reduce gasoline consumption, electric heat pumps to reduce demand for natural gas and heating oil, etc.), but AI is definitely the poster child and created the tipping point… perhaps because several of the folks whose companies are spending heavily on AI, like Elon Musk and Sam Altman and Bill Gates, are also fascinated by nuclear power and, at least in the case of Gates and Altman, have invested pretty heavily into building he first small modular reactor projects in the US.

The dream of the big tech companies quickly became, “let’s put a small modular reactor at every data center, so we can still invest in all this wild AI development without breaking our ‘net zero’ promises”… and that started to play out in some real ways, with Amazon planning a data center next to an existing nuclear power plant, to get direct access to that electricity, and Microsoft agreeing to buy the electricity if Constellation Energy is able to restart the (undamaged) reactor that’s been sitting idle at Three Mile Island since 2019 (Three Mile Island was a two-reactor plant — the newer one was damaged in the accident in 1979, but the older one, which was commissioned in 1974, restarted in 1985 and had a license to operate through 2034, but closed down in 2019 for financial reasons, partly because nuclear power wasn’t getting any extra credit for being “clean” back then, and couldn’t compete on price with the plants using cheap natural gas coming out of the Marcellus Shale). And that got people awfully excited about the viability and value of nukes — though it’s hard to know whether that’s because of the symbolism of Three Mile Island, or the huge premium price Microsoft agreed to pay for that future baseload “zero carbon” electricity (reported as roughly twice the rate that folks in that area are paying for solar or wind energy right now).

As a caveat, all of this is based on projections and current panic and the potential “bubble” in AI infrastructure development (new data centers to house those power-hungry NVIDIA chips), and that could all change. As could electricity consumption more broadly, either because of fast or slow economic growth, like from industrial reshoring, or from technological changes, or for whatever surprising reason we can’t fathom at the moment. It’s hard to imagine, because humans are usually linear thinkers, but we should at least accept that people are terrible at predicting the future even a few months in advance, let alone ten or twenty years, and building even a pilot SMR project is likely to take at least five years.

There are some extraordinary possibilities out there in the world — Sam Altman was at the White House a couple weeks ago, pitching the President’s team on the idea of backing new mega data center development to help the US keep its lead in artificial intelligence and build the economy for the next 50 years, and maybe that will end up happening… but it’s also pretty clear that even if Sam Altman doesn’t like Elon Musk these days, he learned something from Musk’s first decade at Tesla: Lie about what you can do, make grandiose promises, and eventually you’ll be able to do something remarkable… even if it’s not as fantastic as your original promise, or takes ten or twenty years longer than you predicted. Altman is widely reported as advocating the rapid construction of half a dozen 5MW data centers throughout the US, presumably along with new power plants to support them, and that is somewhere between impossible (according to the power utilities) and Muskian. The biggest concentration of data centers in the world is currently in Northern Virginia, and that’s a total of about 4GW, spread across roughly 300 data center buildings… and that area is still trying to absorb close to 1GW of total new data center power hookups every year (mostly served by Dominion Energy). The power companies generally think that there might be a few sites around the country which could readily absorb a new 1GW project proposed today, but nobody can imagine trying to build up a single 5GW center from scratch. That’s roughly the power consumption of the city of Miami.

But still, disruptive tech companies sometimes find a way… and the engineers of the day often coalesce around a consensus opinion about the future that’s just wrong, with technology or society changing in ways we can’t predict.

This caught my eye, from a story about the initial expectations of electricity requirements and the need for nuclear power in the early decades of the nuclear age… the article, from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is focused primarily on the development of the molten salt reactor and the ongoing fascination with that reactor design (which was never commercialized in the US, but has inspired the designs used by the fission startups from both Sam Altman (Oklo) and Bill Gates (Terrapower)), but tells us a lot about how the accepted vision of the future was just wrong in 1959, as all the nuclear power plants built in the 1960s and 1970s were rushing onto the drawing board:

“The concern among nuclear power advocates about running out of uranium was also at the heart of another major nuclear development during this period: the liquid metal (sodium) cooled fast breeder reactor. These reactors were an effort to tap the energy present in the uranium-238 isotope that is not used in standard light and heavy water reactors by converting it into plutonium. Glenn Seaborg, who discovered the element and rose to become Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission from 1961 to 1971, predicted in 1970 that, by the year 2000, plutonium ‘can be expected to be a predominant energy source in our lives.’ By contrast, the molten salt reactors were mostly intended as a pathway to use thorium, which was more plentiful than uranium, by converting it into uranium-233.

“In retrospect, these expectations proved mistaken in three ways. First, energy demand has risen much more slowly, both in the United States and globally, than predicted. For example, in 1959, Weinberg assumed that the global population would stabilize at 7 billion and that it would need at least 1.9 billion, billion BTU per year. In comparison, in 2020, the world used a little over a quarter of this level of energy for nearly 8 billion people.

“Second, nuclear energy proved much more expensive than envisioned in the heady ‘too cheap to meter’ era. As nuclear power’s poor economics became apparent, reactor construction declined dramatically and has never achieved anywhere near the levels seen in the 1970s and 1980s. (Accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl only reinforced this trend.) The United States illustrates the drastic difference between expectation and reality. The Atomic Energy Commission projected that US nuclear power generating capacity in 2000 would be 1.1 million megawatts (or 1,100 gigawatts). In fact, US nuclear capacity only reached a maximum of 101 gigawatts, and it has since declined to less than 95 gigawatts as of June 2022 (after the Palisades reactor was shut down). Globally, nuclear energy’s share of electricity generation has sunk from a maximum of 17.5 percent in 1996 to just over 10 percent in 2020.

“Third, uranium proved to be more ubiquitous than anticipated, and global uranium resource estimates have continuously increased. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency calculate that the world’s resources of cheaply available uranium ore are adequate to fuel the global reactor fleet, even in the event of an increase in nuclear power generation.”

I don’t know if that article is unbiased or fair in its conclusion that molten salt reactors are too risky to pursue, obviously Bill Gates and Sam Altman disagree and the technology has evolved, but it’s important to remember that expectations about the future are not very likely to be accurate. Even among the leading experts.

A year or two ago, it was widely assumed that electricity consumption would be flat for years in the United States, as it has been for a while… but now, thanks largely to dramatically changed assumptions about how many data centers will be built, and how thirsty they’ll be, the assumption is that power consumption will increase by maybe 6% over the next few years. That may not seem like a huge number, but because the expectation was for flat or maybe even falling electricity demand, it requires more and different power generation, most likely, since there’s not a lot of surplus generation in most of the US… but that assumption could also be wrong. Maybe a recession causes a massive slowdown in data center construction or other power consumption, or the movement to more task-specific chips after this first wave of NVIDIA-led AI explosion will make data centers far more efficient. I do generally think it’s likely that US electricity consumption will grow, and that solar and wind aren’t growing fast enough to make up for the closure of old coal plants and the retirement of the oldest nuclear plants… but I could be wrong in that thinking, too.

So that’s the backdrop against which we’ve seen a dramatic surge of interest in nuclear power over the past year or so among investors… which means we’ve seen a dramatic surge of teaser pitches for companies related to nuclear power — the uranium miners and explorers, the fuel refiners and producers, the reactor builders and Small Modular Reactor (SMR) hopefuls, and even the publicly traded utilities which own most of the US fleet of (mostly very old) nuclear reactors today.

And given the massive push of teasers on this front, I thought we’d sum them all up — what are the nuclear power-related stocks we’ve seen teased by newsletters during this AI era, and who’s been recommending what? We’ll touch on each one quickly and share the links to the initial stories we wrote, as well as a chart showing what the stock has done during the past couple years (many of these have been teased by more than one newsletter over the past two years, so those charts do not indicate the performance of any one pick — they represent the performance of the stock since the public launch of ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, just to choose an arbitrary date for the dawn of the AI era, and they end on September 24, when I started pulling this data), and I added a comparison to the S&P 500 in each chart, just to give some perspective.  These are in alphabetical order…

BWX Technologies (BWXT) is both the primary nuclear contractor for the US Navy, building, refueling and maintaining reactors for aircraft carriers and submarines, and a meaningful contractor for other government nuclear work — and they have been recommended both because of the stability of that work, on very long-term contracts, and because they’re participating in other “nuclear renaissance” work, building a prototype of a portable reactor for military bases which could have civilian implications someday, and building parts for some of the other new reactor projects (they’re forging the reactor vessel for the first SMR being built in Canada, for example). The first pitches for BWXT came from Porter Stansberry at Porter & Co. back in May of 2023, when he called it the “Secret Energy Grid” and, in a variety of slightly different ads throughout 2023, tried to get attention by linking it to Ronald Reagan and Elon Musk (he highlighted the “War on Elon”), as well as tying it to mistakes made by Barack Obama, and later rebranded it as the “AI Keystone”. Porter’s argument in part was that BWXT is more “investable” than SMR hopefuls like NuScale (SMR), because it’s currently profitable, has a backlog of nuclear work, and doesn’t need a huge influx of capital to build anything. Also teased by Whitney Tilson in October of 2023 as part of his “Project E-92” pitch for the (now defunct) Energy Supercycle Investor newsletter, and again later, with “Nuclear Renaissance” ads starting starting in June of 2024, for the Stansberry Commodity Supercycles newsletter he took over after his own publications folded.

Cameco (CCJ) operates the largest uranium mines in North America, and is the second-largest-producer in the world, after Kazakhstan’s Kazatomprom (which went public in London during friendlier times, years before the invasion of Ukraine). It has also served as the typical stand in for “investing in uranium” among institutions, given its size and relative stability… and has survived decades of low uranium prices as well as company-specific challenges, like the flooding of their Cigar Lake mine in Saskatchewan in 2006 that wasn’t really fully remediated until 2011. Cameco operates both mines and mills for uranium ore. Teased by Whitney Tilson in October of 2023 as part of his “Project E-92” pitch for the (now defunct) Energy Supercycle Investor newsletter. Part of the challenge for the smaller uranium hopefuls is that both Cameco and Kazatomprom (KAP.L, NATKY) have huge reserves, are very profitable right now, and have a lot of capacity to borrow, so both are very able to ramp up production pretty meaningfully over the next few years if the market remains strong (Kazatomprom expects to increase production significantly through 2025, maybe by as much as 50% from 2023 levels)… which could put a lid on uranium prices at some point.

Centrus (LEU), formerly known as USEC, is an enrichment and fuel processing company, turning uranium ore into fuel rods for reactors, so their customers are generally the power plant owners, and they are widely seen as strategically important to ramping up production of uranium fuel, particularly of higher-octane HALEU fuel that some of the SMR projects will need (some SMRs use conventional LEU fuel, others need more-enriched HALEU) — though there’s some push and pull on the strategic side, because they’ve also been dependent on using imported Russian uranium for many years, so there are global and strategic reasons why they might be cut off from that source at some point and need a new source. Teased first by Adam O’Dell in May of 2024 as a way to profit from AI, then by Alex Koyfman as a monopoly fuel provider with 8,000% growth potential in June of 2024, and by Ian Wyatt in September of 2024.

Constellation Energy (CEG) is the largest owner of nuclear power plants in the United States, and is primarily a regulated utility but also sells power on the wholesale market. They caught investors attention recently because they’re the current owner of the Three Mile Island plant, whose undamaged reactor shut down for economic reasons in 2019… they announced last month that they want to restart Three Mile Island and sell that power to Microsoft, which seemed to provide a bullish signal to nuclear power investors in general. Teased by Whitney Tilson in October of 2023 as part of his “Project E-92” pitch for the (now defunct) Energy Supercycle Investor newsletter, and then, in what was almost a rerun of those ads, with his “Nuclear Renaissance” pitch starting starting in June of 2024, for the Stansberry Commodity Supercycles newsletter that Tilson took over after his own publications folded.

Denison Mines (DNN) is a uranium miner that has survived many ups and downs in the uranium market, with their mines in Canada depleted or shut down in the past, but they are trying to restart production at some high-potential mines over the next few years. Pitched by Ian Wyatt as the uranium mining part of his “Project Oppenheimer” spiel in September of 2024.

enCore Energy (EU) has a couple smallish US uranium production projects actually generating revenue in recent quarters, after building up a portfolio of In Situ Recovery (ISR) projects for many years, and they have other potential projects ready for development, though they’re not yet producing enough to be profitable. The stock was teased as a “next Paladin Energy” idea by Gerardo Del Real in ads for his Junior Resource Monthly starting in January of 2023, predicting a big surge for uranium prices, and repeated as part of his “three uranium juniors” pitch in October of 2023.

Energy Fuels (UUUU, EFR.TO) is the owner of the only conventional uranium mill in the US, processing mined uranium, as well as the developer of a number of In Situ Recovery (ISR) uranium production facilities, including one that is currently in operation — both Uranium Fuels and Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) have been teased in the past because of government preference for US-produced uranium, and the strategic imperative to have US production available. Teased by Whitney Tilson in October of 2023 as part of his “Project E-92” pitch for the (now defunct) Energy Supercycle Investor newsletter.

Lightbridge (LTBR) has been around for many years, first as a hopeful developer of Thorium reactor technology and later as a designer of a new uranium fuel rod that they’ve been trying to get adopted by government and power plant buyers. Keith Kohl spun that into a story about Lightbridge having a monopoly on the fuel that SMR developers will need, though I don’t know if anyone has yet chosen Lightbridge’s fuel, which has been “in development” and tested by various folks many times over the past decade — the “AI” version of this pitch ran starting in June of 2024, though Kohl has similarly pitched this little company at least as far back as the Summer of 2021, and his colleague was spinning a similar tale back in 2014.

NuScale Power (SMR) was the first of the new small modular reactor companies to go public, through a SPAC merger that closed in March of 2022. They are the only SMR company whose reactor design has been formally approved by the nuclear regulatory commission, though other SMR developers are at various points in a different approval process that they believe could be faster and cheaper (oversimplification: the new permitting process considers a complete package of site development and reactor design, as opposed to getting the reactor design approved first and then going through site selection and approval). They has a setback when their first reactor project, a multi-SMR site in Idaho that was expected to be the first major SMR project in the US, likely to go online as early as 2029, was canceled in November of 2023 because the coalition of utilities who had agreed to buy the electricity balked at the cost and pulled out. Teased by Whitney Tilson in October of 2023 as part of his “Project E-92” pitch for the (now defunct) Energy Supercycle Investor newsletter, by Adam O’Dell as an AI play in May of 2024, and in late Summer 2024 by Ian Wyatt in his “Oppenheimer Project” pitch. Before that, Nomi Prins touted the warrants on NuScale Power (SMR/WS) in March of 2023 for her now-defunct Rogue Strategic Trader, calling it a “next Exxon” opportunity.

Oklo (OKLO) was the second high-profile SMR company to come public through a SPAC merger, in the Spring of 2024 (with funding from Sam Altman, among others — the flatter period on that chart is when they were still a SPAC without a partner, before the OKLO deal was finalized), and they are still the most aggressive with their promoted timeline, with investor pitches that still say they expect their first SMR to be producing as soon as 2027, a couple years before anyone else is currently predicting. That’s pretty ambitious, particularly since they haven’t re-submitted their permit application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission yet (their first application was denied in 2022), but ambition and promises are part of what attracts investors. They have tentative agreements with a bunch of possible electricity buyers, should their reactor get built over the next few years (they call it a “power house,” and plan to build their first one at the Idaho National Laboratory, with tentative plans to move on to building two in Ohio after that), so they remain pretty high-profile, and that has meant the stock reacts pretty strongly to any positive nuclear power news, even if it’s not related specifically to Oklo’s plans. Pitched by Ian Wyatt as one of his “Oppenheimer Project” stocks in the Summer of 2024, and also by Alex Reid at Wealthpin Pro as the “Patriot Power Grid” play in September of 2024.

Rolls-Royce Holdings (RR.L, RYCEY, RYCEF) gets almost all of its revenue from manufacturing and servicing large jet engines for wide-body airliners, and that’s the primary focus of the teaser pitches we’ve seen from Karim Rahemtulla for this stock over the past few years (starting in March of 2022)… but it has also been a developer of nuclear reactors in the past, and has a plan to build new Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the UK, and for a while in mid-2023 Rahemtulla’s ads focused on the “nuclear miracle” aspect of the Rolls-Royce business instead of the “world’s best value stock” pitch for their annuity-like jet engine maintenance contracts. They’ve been chosen as one of the final candidates by the UK government, but it’s unclear when funding might be secured or construction might begin.

Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (U.TO, SRUUF) is essentially a closed-end fund that just buys and stores uranium ore, and generally is valued at pretty close to what that ore is currently worth. This fund/trust is probably the easiest way to invest in uranium directly, as an above-the-ground commodity, and it has been touted by several newsletters over the years, sometimes as the “free” pick in a teaser presentation. Ian Wyatt recommended it in September of 2024 as part of his “Project Oppenheimer” ad campaign, and Adam O’Dell in his “AI Energy Boom” pitch in May of 2024.

Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) was for many years an accumulator of past-producing or proven In Situ Recovery (ISR) uranium projects in the US, but has rarely moved to actually produce uranium or generate revenue — more of a “uranium banking” strategy. Both UEC and Uranium Fuels (UUUU) have been teased in the past because of government preference for US-produced uranium, and the strategic imperative to have US production available. Likely teased by Whitney Tilson in October of 2023 as part of his “Project E-92” pitch for the (now defunct) Energy Supercycle Investor newsletter, and also teased that same month by Gerardo Del Real as one of his three favorite uranium juniors, and in late Summer 2024 by Ian Wyatt in his “Oppenheimer Project” ads. Marin Katusa has also talked up UEC in the past, and sort of alluded to it in his “AI Kill Switch” pitch in July of 2024.

Vistra (VST) owns both a regulated utility in Texas and a bunch of renewable power generation projects and four nuclear power plants, making them one of the more nuclear-levered power generators in the US. Teased by Whitney Tilson in October of 2023 as part of his “Project E-92” pitch for the (now defunct) Energy Supercycle Investor newsletter, and then, in what was almost a rerun of those ads, with his “Nuclear Renaissance” pitch starting starting in June of 2024, for the Stansberry Commodity Supercycles newsletter that Tilson took over after his own publications folded.

There are other companies involved in nuclear power that we haven’t seen specifically teased by any investment newsletters over the past couple years, of course, including lots of uranium exploration hopefuls, other meaningful uranium miners that get less of their money from yellowcake, like BHP (BHP), some other large utilities which also own nuclear power plants but are arguably a bit less levered to that business than Constellation or Vistra (Duke Energy (DUK), Plant Vogtle operator Southern Co. (SO), NextEra Energy (NEE), Entergy (ETR), etc.), or the established nuclear players who are somehow investable and built and/or service or operate much of the current global fleet of nuclear reactors, like Hitachi (HTHIY), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHVIY), Westinghouse (owned by Brookfield funds), Siemens (SIEGY) or GE Vernova (GEV) (most of whom are also involved with SMR projects at one stage or another)… as well as some smaller contractors who are leaning into future growth in nuclear work, like Curtiss-Wright (CW), though less than 20% of their revenue is from nuclear projects today.  And, of course, much of the global nuclear power industry is either not publicly traded, not easily traded in the US, or directly controlled by governments.

And the financial world also provides us with several nuclear power ETFs that provide exposure to a lot of these themes, the most established are the VanEck Uranium & Nuclear ETF (NLR), which has the broadest portfolio of both uranium producers and nuclear energy businesses, and the more uranium-focused Global X Uranium ETF (URA), but there are also some little startup ETFs like Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ), and at least two other uranium miner-focused ETFs, Sprott Uranium Miners (URNM) and Sprott Junior Uranium Miners (URNJ).

So with that, dear friends, we’ll leave you to ponder — ready to bet on nuclear power?  Want to start at the beginning of the food chain with the uranium explorers and miners, at the end with the plant owners who sell electricity, or somewhere in between with fuel suppliers, contractors or “disruptive” hopefuls in the SMR space?  Let us know with a comment below… and if you’ve got a favorite way to invest in nuclear power, or electricity demand in general, please feel free to also share that in our friendly little comment box.  Thanks for reading!

Disclosure: Of the companies mentioned above, I currently own shares of Vistra, BWX Technologies, Brookfield Asst Management, Brookfield Corp., the Alerian MLP ETF, and Amazon.  I will not trade in any covered stock for at least three days after publication, per Stock Gumshoe’s trading rules.