The alternative is gas, so I hope we can make nuclear cheaper. Projects are completed far faster in Asia, so perhaps we could learn from them. This is the issue which climate activists don’t seem to understand. There is no 100% renewable scenario right now. We’re decades away cost effective grid scale storage technology to smooth volatility. In the mean time we need something to keep the lights on and (with some rare exceptions like locations suitable for hydro) it’s going to be coal, gas, or nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest of those, but I agree, there are challenges.

If people keep fighting against reducing energy bills, political sentiment is going to keep turning against green energy, and once we reach an inflection point in the EU (and we’re surprisingly close), there is going to be a wave of new coal and LNG projects all over Europe. Either we make electricity much cheaper RIGHT NOW, or we lose this political battle for a generation.

Rosatom controls about 14 % of global uranium mining output and they don’t hold any trade secrets on enrichment or fabrication. They are a non-issue, and if they ever became an issue, they could quickly be made a non-issue.

Most of the comments here do not understand how democracies work. The green transition has cost Europe hundreds of billions to date in just direct subsidies and investments. Hundreds of billions more in indirect costs. Voters were told it would result in lower energy bills, but bills continue to skyrocket all over Europe. So they feel lied to now. Unless politicians make energy prices considerably cheaper, fast, voters are going to vote for cheaper production methods: gas and nuclear. Nuclear is better for the environment so it would behoove us to get ahead of this. If activists somehow prevent nations from building nuclear, the victory will be entirely pyrrhic. Voters will kill any more green transition investment and go right back to what they know is cheaper.

For posterity, with more costs imputed (volatility, futures pricing, grid restructuring, storage, etc.), LNG is much cheaper than either solar or wind. Also no particulate pollution. In fact, if we were to go 100% renewables (solar and wind) or 100% nuclear, nuclear would be 4-5 times cheaper, and LNG would be up to 14 times cheaper.

Just google where nuclear fuel comes from and then think again, spoilers it’s russia.

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of natural uranium during 2024.

Kazakhstan: US$4.5 billion (48.8% of natural uranium exports)

Canada: $3.3 billion (35.6%)

United States: $963.2 million (10.4%)

Niger: $239.5 million (2.6%)

Ukraine: $78.3 million (0.8%)

South Africa: $58.6 million (0.63%)

France: $58.3 million (0.63%)

Russian Federation: $44.8 million (0.5%)

Germany: $4.4 million (0.05%)

Netherlands: $2.4 million (0.03%)

United Kingdom: $188,000 (0.002%)

Indonesia: $164,000 (0.002%)

Switzerland: $56,000 (0.0006%)

Israel: $44,000 (0.0005%)

Belgium: $5,000 (0.0001%)

Canada is a solid partner. Australia also produces a lot, but doesn’t export much (right now). The EU is Kazakhstan’s largest trading partner, and we have great trade relations with them.

Sourcing uranium is not now, nor will it ever be, a problem.