Scott Nolan

You don't need to enrich.

I think that could be a win-win if they're willing to agree to that.

And I think at some point, if the US is producing a lot of fuel at low cost and we're willing to sell it at that low cost to other countries much cheaper than they could ever produce it for, and if they're new to nuclear and we're building new reactor types,

And we say, look, let us do this for you.

We're going to give you the reactors.

We're going to give you the fuel.

It's going to be far more economical than you could ever do it for.

And there's going to be some details that have to be worked out and who's in control of that.

But you have to imagine if they should say yes to that unless they have other goals through enrichment.

And so that quickly reveals who's being genuine about just wanting clean, safe nuclear power and who has other things in mind.

Great point.

Well, Scott, let's take a quick break.

I don't think everything.

I think grid, I think we're going to see a nuclear increase from just under 20% to hopefully much more than that.

Cars, I'm more skeptical.

The reason we use fossil fuel and batteries in cars is because it's so energy dense.

And while a nuclear

A piece of nuclear fuel is very energy dense.

A reactor is not quite as energy dense.

And you have safety concerns of that.