Peter Zeihan

Because if you have to have the infrastructure that goes with it, and if that infrastructure is there, why would you burn that power source?

Nukes are getting interesting.

The United States seems to, in bits and pieces, be moving on from 1973, finally.

It's only been 51 years, 52 years.

The hope is that the small modulars will work.

But right now we still have yet to build a prototype.

And so until there is a prototype, I can't tell you what the supply chain might look like.

But the sexy nature of it is if you can fit a nuclear reactor into a 20-foot container unit and just plug it into a decommissioned coal plant's transformer network...

and basically produce as much power as the old coal plant did for 5% of the cost of building a new power plant?

Well, that sounds great.

if the technology works.

We were supposed to get the prototype last November, and then the company went belly up.

We've had three more companies say that they're working on it.

I have not seen what I consider to be a reliable timeframe for when their prototype will come online.

The national labs are involved.

People are working on it.

Yeah.

Nuclear, if you're going to build a large plant, let's just put the regulatory and the NIMBY concerns to the side for a moment.

From the day that you put a shovel in the ground and you have every dollar that you need to get it set up, you're talking about four to eight years, probably closer to eight.

And that assumes that the power grid can take the power.