+0.0
net board stance
what this means
124.53
+3.8% · close 2026-09-08
+6% / +4% / +6%
1m / 3m / 12m
+60%
vs SPY since 2021-06-13
35%
of 52w range · -24.2% off high
—
hit rate as primary
Where we stand — 0 live ideas
No active idea holds this ticker. Anything below is history.
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 46 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. Replayed from
score_events; an idea counts from birth until its window closes.
PRICE VS SPY OVER THE SAME WINDOW, % — did the
talk lead the tape or follow it?
Who's pushing which way
each voice's net push ON THIS TICKER — their most recent stance per idea × the idea's direction × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
Track record on NLR
No closed window has used this ticker as its primary play, so there is no scored record here yet. Adjacent plays are listed but never scored.
| idea | call | play | verdict | R | α | closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚡ Nuclear is the fastest path to carbon neutral — uranium is being cornered | ▲ LONG | adjacent | PARTIAL | -2.4% | +8.2 | 2022-06-13 |
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding NLR, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
our overreliance on Russian hydrocarbons could have been mitigated with nuclear, but we fell for shoddy science and we fell for a bunch of uninformed people who ran this banner of environmental protection ... And those people now have meaningfully less credibility.
And the Germans fell for it and turned off nuclear. And now all of a sudden, they're dependent on Russia.
Well, and also you could have Germany could start turning back on nuclear power plants if they could get their citizens to pick nuclear over war. And that seems like a pretty easy choice.
I think it's never going to happen. ... I think America's America's ability to scale nuclear, I think, is a very difficult proposition. ... But it still leaves the policy and the societal level challenges that I think are very difficult to overcome.
I would immediately deregulate nuclear and make nuclear fission reactors a mainstay of energy production here in the US ... It is estimated that nuclear power production should drop to about four cents, but could be as low as one cent per kilowatt hour if operated at scale with perfect efficiency ... but also where economic advantage lies in investing in nuclear infrastructure ... I love nuclear.
And geopolitically wiser to not have a dependency. And after the Fukushima, they went, turned them all off. They accelerated it.
So at somewhere along the way, nobody took a science class in Germany and figured out that nuclear was both safer and cleaner. Instead, burning fossil fuels is the answer.
every time you protested at, you know, to shut down a nuclear plant, the resulting effect 40 years later was another 100 megatons of CO2 was put into the air. And it just goes to yet again, another example of we virtue signal nuclear reactors and nuclear power. We go and we get them all shut down. It turned out that we ingested or we we put out as a result an enormous amount of more CO2 than had to be put.
I know of at least half a dozen nuclear power companies that are in advanced stages of doing first installation design right now. And so, it seems like this is going to be a reality. I think it would be an incredible boom to clean energy in the United States and globally if we can get more of these built. I mean, what was the staff? China is building 150 nuclear power plants? They've commissioned 150 nuclear power plants? I mean, it's a no-brainer that that's what we need in the 21st century. It's the best renewable source, very small footprint, very reliable, can run 24-7.
Mark Andreessen had a good term. He said we're living in a vetocracy, as in the word veto. ... And whether you want to call it NIMBYism or vetocracy, there are just too many people and groups who have the right to say no to anything and block anything important from happening.
Great. That's a 20-year project and you got to build ... I'm not sure it solves our acute problems. It solves long-term problems associated with climate change and energy and security.
Do we want to deal with high energy prices and brownouts and all kinds of problems and rolling blackouts? Or do we want to put this issue behind us? If we just go on a Manhattan project literally to make new nuclear, we would be, this issue would be behind us and we could focus on something else like education.
And now you impose it on something like nuclear energy, which is consistently proven to provide an enormously abundant, cheap and clean form of sustainable energy. ... if we have small forms of sustainable, abundant energy that can be basically hyper localized and located where we can do these jobs, the jobs to be done, it's transformational.
Nobody wants nuclear. There's a huge NIMBY problem with nuclear, right? Which is who really wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard? I mean, not going to happen. I don't think it's realistic.
There is a massive play right now going on in the uranium market. ... So when I cleared all of that bias away and I learned about it, then I'm like, why aren't nuclear reactors everywhere? Because it is the fastest way for us to get to carbon neutral.