Reddit Posts
Uranium: Start of a Commodity Supercycle part Deux!
$LTBR a gem in coming in nuclear energy field
Centrus Energy ($LEU) announces positive results in Q3 report.
Volume of 35 with an ask of $199,999.99 and a total outstanding share value (13.98 million) that outweighs the current free float (9.92 million) on $LEU (Centrus Energy). Company used to be worth 6,874.47 at peak in 2007. Y'all apes have any thoughts on this?
The Strongest Stock in a Hot Sector. Get ☢️Uranium Exposure☢️ with $LEU.
Centrus Energy (LEU) to be added to the RUSSEL 3000. Very low float..8.93 mil shares.
☢ (LEU)Centrus Energy ☢LEU LEU, skip to my LEU. Skip to my LEU my darling! STOCK float of only 8.93 MILLION. A bet worthy of WSB..easy mover. 🚀
(LEU) CENTRUS ENERGY. ☢ A bet worthy of WSB. "LEU LEU, skip to my LEU..skip to my LEU my darlin!" STOCK FLOAT OF ONLY 8.93 mil. ☢
Centrus Energy (LEU) Float is 8.93 million. Primed for takeoff?
Centrus Energy $LEU announced to start production of HALEU in 2022
LEU stock help the cause Bill Gates Natrium reactor for clean energy push recently highlighted on 60 minutes.
Mentions
Thought I was late to LEU… I was not lol
You're late. The 200%+ moves already happened. * Valuations are stretched. MP at 44x sales, LEU at 41x earnings. * Catalyst is longer-dated. Reactor builds and utility contracting take years, not months. * Insider selling. MP's CEO sold $24M in December. If you believe the 10-year thesis (nuclear renaissance, AI power demand, supply deficit), this could still work - but it's a hold-and-wait play, not a momentum trade.
Few? Majority of the serious SMR vendors will run on LEU, the availabilty of LEU are probably IMSR last problems.
Surely LEU is the winner here? What am I missing?
I just hope you make a ton of money in the future if this goes through and goes well. but for me - I am not a fan of betting on something that happens 15 years out. Also I did not have balls to bet on OKLO in the end of 2020 and now they are even worse bet given the pump. If anything then UUUU or LEU since they already do things outside of powerpoint. but it is certain that USA currently is taking energy independence seriously so the nuclear sector will receive some TLC
Nope. SMRs are the future. UUUU and CCJ and LEU are NOW. This is a NOW issue.
LEU has been flying lately. Thank you Venezuela.
UUUU, LEU, and CCJ for uranium (I don’t play with the mines in development but if you have balls and want highest upside - Global Atomic maybe?) For rare earths, LYSDY and MP and UUUU (energy fuels is a dual threat and is the majority of my portfolio).
LEU (Centrus) already shot to the moon. They’re already up 25% today.
SMR, OKLO, LEU, or BWXT? I could see some good news come out on Wednesday after the sub-committee hearing that pops these players, but since you posted this. Who is your highest conviction play?
About to flip green on LEU after a month of dump
LEU been dumping after crazy returns this year but I’m holding 🥲
There is zero telling when utilities will be pushed to start contracting again - but likely it’s either this year till 2030, but it’s happening. It will make many millionaires. If you look at 07’ look at how much it fell and then retraced up. It may fall back to $11 or it will continue up after it was already compressed. I’d just jump in. The first time I got in (before selling and taking a break to buy an apartment) I lost money for first 6 months then it went mental (due to supply issue). This is now a demand problem so yes it will go f’n nuts. Just hold on and enjoy the ride. UUUU CCJ LEU - only refiner and processor. Will go ballistic. And for other major rare earths coverage— Neodynium (similar situation to uranium): MP Lynas UUUU (also a rare earths play - why it’s my fave stock)
Whoops - problem with how I tried to filter it. $41k in LEU.
Why are you betting on UUUU the most? And where is LEU
My energy holdings: TPL (oil royalties), CCJ (uranium), LEU (haleu producer), LTBR (LEU before it growned up), MP (rare earffs), UUUU (Uranium + rare earff)
Sorry not trying to pick **the** winner, definitely trying to pick winners lol, just not concentrating into a singular 'AI' winner. Just want to benefit nicely from AI generally winning overall. For instance my two biggest single stock positions are Googl and MSFT (although I think LEU will be competitive to overtake this year). Same with ANET / ALAB, hell my long-term is AMKR, just saying they provide solid opportunity near here.
What vol measure are you using? Long term vols are steady as ever. Fuck man. Check out LEU if you want to see high IVs. And there's two MASSIVE converts outstanding too.
Other half is in self picked stocks and a small amout relegated to self picked options. LEU is responsible for most of my gains this year. I was in for 40k and out for 250k.
LEU, CCJ, ASPI, UUUU, USAR, EGO, IAG, GOLD If it shines or glows, it's going to the moon.
Uuuu is a big uranium mining stock. Has been very known and traded. I held it from 2020 to 2023. Take a look at the rest of the uranium sector.. especially US uranium stocks like LEU or SMR
LEU going back to 300+
Grok told me to buy ORCL and LEU yesterday so I did. I am so happy today. WTF is this LEU rally.
I held or traded most of these names in the summer, I only have a few shares of IREN and some cash secured puts on it at this point. I love the idea of LEU and in the long run I think it will be a powerhouse, but unfortunately still just way too overvalued to go in on. All of these names will have a random big day but very high risk at this point in the cycle.
I’d nibble OKLO tiny; prefer picks-and-shovels like BWXT and LEU. Watch NRC docketing, HALEU supply, and firm PPAs; slips mean dilution. CCJ for uranium beta. For idle cash, I use Vanguard Treasury money market, TreasuryDirect I Bonds, and a small Gainbridge fixed annuity. Barbell it: small OKLO, core BWXT/LEU.
Thanks for sharing. I will look into LEU and also you earned a new follower!
https://preview.redd.it/m6zubmpelu5g1.jpeg?width=1320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2331cc142a54f2e322baaabbebadbd8351300039 Gonna tax harvest 8k tomorrow to free up 40k for AMD, AVAV, NFLX and LEU
LEU lost 70% of it's gains this week, on Friday. What pump did I miss?
CVNA - sold early this year and locked in almost 10x TERN - could crater any day, yolo LEU
60% VOO, 40% nuclear energy stocks (OKLO, LEU. CEG, VST, VRT, NNE, SMR)
Sadly, I keep a list with sold prices, current price, and how much more i would have if i didn't sell. Yes. I am a masochist. And none of these are "kinda regret", they are full "please God, let me go back in time so i can prevent this". ABBV GOOGL IBM LEU MSFT MPLX PLTR VOO
Really rough is LEU. I was looking at that one around $35 a few years back. It's at $225 now.
Yes, I have calls in $MU, $TE, $LEU, and $SILJ. Have fun
Bought AMD, META, LEU and CRWD at top. Sitting on my sofa and watching my portfolio crying.
I like the graph on LEU. Looks way over sold, short term. PE in the forties compared to the other ones in the ~90s, even after dumping.
My holdings: CCJ, LEU and LTBR for energy. CEG, VST and TLN for utilities. GEV and FIX for infrastructure.
LEU and AMPX I think are starting to look like good buys.
LEU, the only producer of low enriched uranium in the US.
LEU; NXE; UUUUranium
seems like the market is re pricing the AI bubble. Oh, we r still in a bubble. but looks like energy and industrial bottleneck finally catching up with data center investment ROI. Semis will lose market share while production capacity can’t keep up with chip demand. expecting a big run towards natural gas, batteries and general industrial sector over next 3-6 months. so far the only “us-ready” viable short term solution to put data centers online are natural gas turbines, followed by emerging modular battery systems with a medium time horizon. Longer term, DOE about to be shitting out money to the nuclear sector for reactors and LEU while it continues to make enemies with renewables (stupid)
I have a position in a few nuclear stocks - Lightbridge, OKLO, Centrus, Constellation, SMR, and a couple others. I opened the position around July. SMR is the worst performer so far, and the only one that actually dipped into negative from open. Best performer was Oklo, at one point reaching 200% gain, now to about 100% gain due to the recent dip. LEU and LTBR are also great performers, they recently took a strong dip but peaked at around 100% a couple weeks back
LEU is a buy at this price. The only uranium fuel producer in the US for the next decade. This stock is going to $1000+ as demand ratchets up. Buy and hold.
Buying opportunity for LEU?
Any thoughts on DOCN (digital ocean), Uranium stocks (CCJ, LTBR, LEU), and BKSY?
I'm loaded with META, RDDT, LEU calls..but also some puts on PLTR, TSLA, AMD, NVDA..maybe I'll come out even.
Start with this graph, then rethink your assumptions [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0254477100A](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0254477100A)
There are so many competing designs in the SMR market and I'm not sure there are that many buyers lining up. Impossible to pick a winner now but if I had to it would be one of the established builders like Rolls Royce who have orders in the UK/EU, or the Bill Gates funded Terrapower. First-movers who can build economies of scale have a huge advantage when it comes to building SMRs. Using a (SA)LEU design is definitely in their favour though. Fuel supply chain security (and cost) is likely to ward buyers away from the experimental HALEU approach for at least a decade.
Centrus Energy: $LEU : “It’s a good company...I think you’re fine it it.” USA Rare Earth: $USAR : “You have to stay away for now.” --- Jim Cramer
ETF is NUKZ. CCJ, SMR, OKLO, LEU etc.
There’s another stock you guys are sleeping on in wsb that benefits from our country embracing nuclear energy. LEU
Anyone that didn’t jump on NBIS sub 100 or LEU sub 300 is beyond retarded
huge dip!? all the Uranium miners are near ATH, the smr start-up space is bloated with >$10B market cap companies with no revenue with 400% gains from a year ago, LEU (enricher) is 800% gain from 18 months ago. What dip are you talking about? Don't get me wrong, it's a great sector with more runway ahead, but ain't nothing dippy about it.
LEU is legit if you want exposure to the nuclear power industry.
LEU and OKLO are so bipolar I always get FOMO on these rips but breathe sighs of reliefs on times like the past two days
>If true (and a big if, as inflation data has been much less reliable lately due to low survey response rates), that's a very new trend. Is it? Seems to have been going on since 2015: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=LEU0252881600Q, Median because I couldn't find another metric. But there's also real personal income which is basically just a straight line up for over 50 years: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI >Also, doesn't necessarily account for income growth largely going to the highest earners. The S&P 500 doesn't care about where the money is coming from, though. Consumption up -> earnings up. That's more about social commentary than stocks unless you're talking about particular companies like Target.
LEU. It’s a good value right now, after a recent drop. And a critical choke point for HALEU uranium refinement as they’ve distinguished themselves as the only refiners capable of doing this in America.
If you think this is crazy. You should look into MTRN, LEU, BWXT. Those guys are the real key players in this puzzle for nuclear energy. Not financial advice.
Makes sense. They ran up gold hard then take profits. Probably need to keep an eye on China too. Where are you long. I got UUUU an eyeing LEU. But first love is gold.
ASPI being the supplier of critical isotopes for the West. Notably Si28 for quantum computing and HALEU for SMRs. They use quantum enrichment separation instead of traditional centrifuge methods which has lower Capex. LEU ran had already this stock only mildly up. Recent offering at $11.5 per share and current SP is $10
Or LEU. They actually deliver stuff. Or so says the press.
I have loved nuclear power since I wrote a paper on it in high school. I also love blowing shit up. Invest in what you love. LEU, LMT.
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the early 2030s before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first commercial Aurora reactor by 2027, which is a huge first mover advantage. Your point that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the primary bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. Terrestrial’s upcoming merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s current $4B (post-merger) valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. This also doesn’t factor in the close connections that OKLO has with DOE leadership (Chris Wright), Sam Altman, and the current administration- which to many investors, means a lot more than everything else.
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the early 2030s before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first commercial Aurora reactor by 2027, which is a huge lead in a sector where first mover advantage is everything. Your point that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the primary bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. This combined with the fact that they recently announced a $1.7B HALEU recycling center in Tennessee is a hedge against fuel sourcing risk and provides a strong moat. And let’s talk money, because that’s what most people miss. Terrestrial’s upcoming merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. And the “valuation gap” argument is just frankly lazy math. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s current $4B (post-merger) valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. This also doesn’t factor in the close connections that OKLO has with DOE leadership (Chris Wright), Sam Altman, and the current administration- which to many investors, means a lot more than everything else.
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the early 2030s before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first commercial Aurora reactor by 2027, which is a huge lead in a sector where first mover advantage is everything. Your point that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the primary bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. This combined with the fact that they recently announced a $1.7B HALEU recycling center in Tennessee is a hedge against fuel sourcing risk and provides a strong moat. And let’s talk money, because that’s what most people miss. Terrestrial’s upcoming merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. Regulatory progress also isn’t in the same league. Oklo’s topical report was accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an accelerated review, and they represent 3 out of the 11 projects for the DOE’s pilot reactor program. Terrestrial, meanwhile, is still navigating pre-licensing stages in both the U.S. and Canada. That’s not insignificant, but there’s a big difference between being in pre-app review versus actually pouring concrete on U.S. federal land. And the “valuation gap” argument is just frankly lazy math. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s current $4B (post-merger) valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. This also doesn’t factor in the close connections that OKLO has with DOE leadership (Chris Wright), Sam Altman, and the current administration- which to many investors, means a lot more than everything else.
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the early 2030s before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first commercial Aurora reactor by 2027, which is a huge lead in a sector where first mover advantage is everything. Your point that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the primary bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. This combined with the fact that they recently announced a $1.7B HALEU recycling center in Tennessee is a hedge against fuel sourcing risk and provides a strong moat. And let’s talk money, because that’s what most people miss. Terrestrial’s upcoming merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. Regulatory progress also isn’t in the same league. Oklo’s topical report was accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an accelerated review, and they represent 3 out of the 11 projects for the DOE’s pilot reactor program. Terrestrial, meanwhile, is still navigating pre-licensing stages in both the U.S. and Canada. That’s not insignificant, but there’s a big difference between being in pre-app review versus actually pouring concrete on U.S. federal land. And the “valuation gap” argument is just frankly lazy math. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s current $4B (post-merger) valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. This also doesn’t factor in the close connections that OKLO has with DOE leadership (Chris Wright), Sam Altman, and the current administration- which to many investors, means a lot more than everything else. At the end of the day, HOND is a concept stock where Oklo is actively transitioning into an execution story. Oklo is already building on a reactor design that literally powered the grid decades ago, has government fuel supply support, and is the first microreactor company to break ground at a national lab. Terrestrial’s molten salt approach is exciting, but it’s still theoretical at the commercial level. If we’re talking asymmetric upside, I’d rather put my money in the company that’s already proving it works instead of one that hopes to by the 2030s.
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the early 2030s before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first commercial Aurora reactor by 2027, which is a huge lead in a sector where first mover advantage is everything. Your point that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the primary bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. This combined with the fact that they recently announced a $1.7B HALEU recycling center in Tennessee is a hedge against fuel sourcing risk and provides a strong moat. And let’s talk money, because that’s what most people miss. Terrestrial’s SPAC merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. Regulatory progress also isn’t in the same league. Oklo’s topical report was accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an accelerated review, and they represent 3 out of the 11 projects for the DOE’s pilot reactor program. Terrestrial, meanwhile, is still navigating pre-licensing stages in both the U.S. and Canada. That’s not insignificant, but there’s a big difference between being in pre-app review versus actually pouring concrete on U.S. federal land. And the “valuation gap” argument is just frankly lazy math. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s current $4B (post-merger) valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. This also doesn’t factor in the close connections that OKLO has with DOE leadership (Chris Wright), Sam Altman, and the current administration- which to many investors, means a lot more than everything else. At the end of the day, HOND is a concept stock where Oklo is actively transitioning into an execution story. Oklo is already building on a reactor design that literally powered the grid decades ago, has government fuel supply support, and is the first microreactor company to break ground at a national lab. Terrestrial’s molten salt approach is exciting, but it’s still theoretical at the commercial level. If we’re talking asymmetric upside, I’d rather put my money in the company that’s already proving it works instead of one that hopes to by the 2030s.
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the early 2030s before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first commercial Aurora reactor by 2027, which is a huge lead in a sector where first mover advantage is everything. Your point that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the primary bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. This combined with the fact that they recently announced a $1.7B HALEU recycling center in Tennessee is a hedge against fuel sourcing risk and provides a strong moat. And let’s talk money, because that’s what most people miss. Terrestrial’s SPAC merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. Regulatory progress also isn’t in the same league. Oklo’s topical report was accepted by the NRC for an accelerated review, and they represent 3 out of the 11 projects for the DOE’s pilot reactor program. Terrestrial, meanwhile, is still navigating pre-licensing stages in both the U.S. and Canada. That’s not insignificant, but there’s a big difference between being in pre-app review versus actually pouring concrete on U.S. federal land. And the “valuation gap” argument is just frankly lazy math. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s current $4B (post-merger) valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. This also doesn’t factor in the close connections that OKLO has with DOE leadership (Chris Wright), Sam Altman, and the current administration- which to many investors, means a lot more than everything else. At the end of the day, HOND is a concept stock where Oklo is actively transitioning into an execution story. Oklo is already building on a reactor design that literally powered the grid decades ago, has government fuel supply support, and is the first microreactor company to break ground at a national lab. Terrestrial’s molten salt approach is exciting, but it’s still theoretical at the commercial level. If we’re talking asymmetric upside, I’d rather put my money in the company that’s already proving it works instead of one that hopes to by the 2030s.
Also check out the value of LEU 59 days ago it’ll blow your mind
I’ve dug deep into both OKLO and HOND, and I just don’t see how anyone can claim HOND is the “safer” or “smarter” play here. On paper, Terrestrial Energy’s molten salt design sounds great- efficient, high-temp, low-pressure… but investors keep glossing over the fact that it’s still pre-commercial and years away from deployment. Their own public timelines point to the **early 2030s** before first power, and that’s assuming no regulatory or engineering delays (which are almost guaranteed in nuclear). Oklo, on the other hand, has already broken ground at Idaho National Lab, has multiple DOE pilot awards, and is targeting operation of its first Aurora reactor by 2027–2028, which is a huge lead in a sector where first mover advantage is everything. The idea that HOND is “less risky” because it uses LEU is pretty shallow. Sure, low-enriched uranium is easier to source, but fuel isn’t the bottleneck in the U.S. right now, licensing and demonstration are. Oklo’s design is based on the EBR-II, a reactor that ran safely for three decades at INL. That gives it a proven operational lineage that molten salt reactors simply don’t have. Oklo is also one of the few companies with a DOE HALEU fuel award, and their fuel assembly testing at Argonne is already validating their core models. This combined with the fact that they recently announced a $1.7B HALEU recycling center in Tennessee is a hedge against fuel sourcing risk and provides a strong moat. And let’s talk money, because that’s what most people miss. Terrestrial’s SPAC merger brings in about $280M in gross proceeds. That’s not nothing, but for a company that doesn’t plan to produce a single watt until the next decade, it’s a short runway. Oklo, by contrast, already has over half a billion dollars in cash, multiple government-backed contracts, and major framework agreements with partners like Switch and Equinix. They’re also vertically integrated- meaning they build, own, and operate- which takes more upfront capital, but it also means when their reactors come online, they’ll be generating recurring revenue directly. Terrestrial is pursuing a licensing model that sounds leaner but puts control in other people’s hands. It’s dependent on third-party builders actually licensing and constructing those reactors… good luck keeping that on schedule. Regulatory progress also isn’t in the same league. Oklo’s topical report was accepted by the NRC for an accelerated review, and they represent 3 out of the 11 projects for the DOE’s pilot reactor program. Terrestrial, meanwhile, is still navigating pre-licensing stages in both the U.S. and Canada. That’s not insignificant, but there’s a big difference between being in pre-app review versus actually pouring concrete on U.S. federal land. And the “valuation gap” argument is just frankly lazy math. The market isn’t mispricing Terrestrial- it’s pricing in risk. A $26B market cap for Oklo isn’t irrational when you consider its cash reserves, DOE backing, licensing progress, and 2027 operational timeline. Terrestrial’s $600–700M valuation makes sense because it’s effectively a decade out with higher technical and regulatory uncertainty. The idea that it “should” 7x just to match Oklo assumes the two are on equal footing… they’re not even close. At the end of the day, HOND is a concept stock. Oklo is an emerging execution story. Oklo is already building on a reactor design that literally powered the grid decades ago, has government fuel supply support, and is the first microreactor company to break ground at a national lab. Terrestrial’s molten salt approach is exciting, but it’s still theoretical at the commercial level. If we’re talking asymmetric upside, I’d rather put my money in the company that’s already proving it works instead of one that hopes to by the 2030s.
My 401k was locked up during my divorce. A year ago i finally got my portion separated and I moved it to Roth and Traditional IRA and I started actively trading it. Up 77% (traditional) and 63% (Roth) in 1 year. My biggest winners are LEU @ $60, CRWV @ $34, UURAF @ $1.24, and GOOG @ $180, but I also did a lot of swing trading leveraged ETFs https://preview.redd.it/yut4ppnuldvf1.jpeg?width=3264&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2fcc9f06cfea256c0308920a6ebca74487e35514
Unless you need the money for something big now (like buying a house) or you're closing in on retirement, leave them alone! I just posted crying about my own stupid sell, 220 shares of LEU at about 175/share. It's currently about 440/share. I robbed myself out of about 80k in gains by trying to time the market. Now, if you're close to retirement, it makes sense regardless of how well they've performed to rebalance into lower-risk commodities, but if you've got 10, 20 or more years before you'll need it, just let it ride. A correction, even a big one, will almost certainly work itself out by the time you need to sell.
LEU doing some funny stuff pre market, think it'll drop right at open?
What is your view on LEU. It's up by 360% this year. What's driving it and does it have room to climb more?
I bought $LEU in 2021 @ $30 basis. Round tripped to $88 & back to $30s again. So pissed at myself I doubled down @ $30ish. Still holdind my 1250 shares @ $400 today. No stops. No trimming. Long term cap tax rate keeps me in. I do plan to sell 50 shares @ $700ish.
LEU is up 500% in the last 6m
LEU is one of the most disgusting stocks lately and nobody talks about it.
I’ve been holding and purchasing many uranium stocks since early 2020 my average is $3.30 for UUUU. I also have a bunch of short & long calls. My average is also $23 in LEU….some of us do hold for 5 years. It’s rare but some of us do
I sorta fucked around a lot with TSLA puts, NVO/UNH calls. Those mainly were what sent me to -30%. I saved my account by buying some puts on LEU, AMD (when it pumped 34% that one day) and some other smaller plays. https://preview.redd.it/qrexioi8lwuf1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf6be2588a03448ea260070535153f56c068ffd7
I had about 50k of Centrus (LEU) in an IRA. I started to DCA aggressively when I found that they were basically the only provider of low-enrichment uranium, which every modern reactor will need. I started buying when it was $50ish. I changed brokerage firms earlier this year and didn't do an in-kind transfer, so it sold at $110ish and I never rebought in the new IRA. LEU closed at $365 on Friday. But hey, I didn't lose money, which is rule #1!
All the miner positions saved me today. MP, LEU, CCJ, URG all spiked.
LEU is my new tendie machine nom nom nom
Been saying it for the last 12 months, $LEU is the real champ
Everyone freaking out over PATH meanwhile I’ve been holding LEU since $58 and y’all be sleeping on it