Today, there’s another ad referring to nuclear energy as the “AI Master Key” and highlighting a different nuclear fuel-related company. Curious about the company? We’ll dissect the ad to uncover the details.
Keith Kohl’s Energy Investor advertisement ($99 for the first year, with an unspecified renewal rate and a six-month refund policy) starts with:
Almost every nuclear power company has some form of support from the Department of Energy (DoE). Additionally, significant expansion in nuclear power before 2027 is improbable; even by 2030, SMR testing may still be in the early stages. None of the current civilian SMR plans are likely to be operational by 2027—though the military could have a microreactor ready for remote base testing by then, significantly smaller than civilian SMR projects and often developed faster.
Let’s skip the “AI’s power needs are massive” pitch. U.S. electricity demand is expected to increase more rapidly over the next decade, partly due to data centers, NVIDIA-powered AI projects, and electrification in transportation and heating. Meanwhile, as older coal plants phase out and solar battery storage lags in providing reliable “baseload” power, this scenario points toward more natural gas or nuclear energy. With only nuclear being emissions-free, it’s increasingly seen as an appealing investment.
We’ve covered this before, so today’s focus is the stock being teased. Let’s see what hints emerge about this “tiny $3 company”:
Just a minor correction—electricity demand will not double in three years. The actual forecast suggests around 3% growth in global electricity demand over the next few years, notably in areas where data centers already draw a high share of energy. For instance, Ireland could see data centers account for a third of electricity use by 2026. U.S. data centers are estimated to consume around 8% of total electricity by 2030, up from about 3-4%.
Anyway, this “new, safer era” centers around SMRs:
It’s hard to believe that any of the current SMR (Small Modular Reactor) projects underway will cost under a billion dollars, especially considering how early they are in development and the overly optimistic projections of their backers. These reactors are designed to be much more scalable and quicker to build than traditional nuclear reactors. Progress on the first batch has been relatively slow, with regulatory hurdles remaining significant. Many SMR projects are still in the early stages of securing approvals and funding, and construction has yet to start. However, once the first U.S. SMR plants are operational, likely by 2029-2030, if everything proceeds smoothly, it should be much simpler to produce them on a larger scale and expand swiftly. So, while they’re theoretically faster and more flexible to build, practical proof is still needed. We need to get some up and running first and reassure the communities around them.
Here’s where the optimism comes in:
And here’s the investment pitch:
But hang on—Kohl’s colleague Alex Koyfman recently claimed his recommended company held the monopoly on SMR fuel! Maybe they should coordinate these messages better.
Koyfman was actually referring to HALEU, a fuel type that some SMR projects might require. Unlike Light Enriched Uranium (LEU) used in most nuclear plants, HALEU contains 5-20% U-235, while LEU has under 5%—going beyond 20% leads to “weapons-grade” HEU. Koyfman’s “monopoly” statement is also a bit misleading, as not all SMRs use HALEU; some are designed to operate on the same fuel as conventional reactors.
So what’s the story behind Kohl’s claim of a monopoly on an “essential fuel”? Here are a few more clues:
It’s astonishing to see that Kohl is using the same familiar images—again—to promote this stock he’s recommended time and again. It seems he’s merely polished his pitch with a sprinkle of “AI” for added allure.
To give you a bit more of the teaser, in case it doesn’t ring a bell yet:
This company has indeed had some level of involvement with the four largest U.S. civilian nuclear plant operators. However, Kohl’s has been promoting this same nuclear fuel stock for years, initially pegging it as a $7 billion opportunity. This started in 2015 when significant utilities approached the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to “prepare to review” Lightbridge’s fuel designs, hoping to apply for use by 2017 and possibly starting in reactors by 2020.
The publisher’s interest in this stock dates back nearly ten years, from when Christian DeHaemer began promoting it in 2014. At that time, the company had recently secured a patent for its unique reactor fuel design, which generated some excitement among investors.
Yes, Keith Kohl is again promoting Lightbridge (LTBR) as a potential game-changer for nuclear energy in the U.S. LTBR’s unique fuel rod design is claimed to be safer and to generate less heat than standard uranium fuel rods.
The claim Lightbridge has been making for over a decade is essentially the same: they can make conventional reactors safer and more efficient. While this might hold some truth, market adoption still needs to be discovered. In fact, LTBR has posted zero revenue in the past six years, investing only around $10-12 million in R&D during that period. Interestingly, they spend over $7 million annually on “general and administrative” expenses, seemingly prioritizing salaries. Previously, they did generate some revenue, though more was needed to approach profitability.
Where has all this investment taken them? Recently, they touted a “significant milestone” in their Idaho National Laboratory project, a hub for next-generation nuclear work. They completed a partial-length rod and plan to produce “coupon samples” for testing in the Advanced Test Reactor next year. Here’s how the CEO described it in a recent press release:
Sounds good, I guess, but here’s what they were saying the last time I looked at Lightbridge, three years ago:
So… three years ago, they were “setting the stage” to test the fuel samples in the test reactor. Now, they’re planning to produce those samples next year.
This doesn’t imply failure nor negate the value of nuclear fuel innovation; it’s just a reminder that everything in nuclear power progresses very slowly. If you’re optimistic about this nuclear fuel redesign, there’s time to consider your investment carefully. Testing fuel rods in an operational reactor could begin next year, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the risk-averse operators of $30-billion nuclear power plants will quickly adopt it.
Lightbridge’s recent annual report highlights their collaboration with Centrus (LEU), where they’re exploring a fuel fabrication pilot plant concept at Centrus’ Piketon, Ohio facility. Additionally, they adopted the OECD’s “technology readiness level” (TRL) scale to communicate their progress. Here’s how they position themselves:
Essentially, they’re still verifying their design in a test environment, hoping to move closer to prototypes for actual reactors in the years ahead.
Whether SMR developers will favor the design is uncertain, especially since many SMR projects remain in the early stages, where fuel design specifics are not yet in focus. Lightbridge suggests its flexible design—particularly shorter rods—would suit water-cooled SMRs like those from NuScale, though it claims adaptability for heavy-water reactors as well.
Lightbridge has ongoing tests in Idaho and recently signed an agreement for an engineering study in Romania to evaluate whether its fuel can work in CANDU reactors (pressurized heavy water reactors). They also have several Department of Energy (DOE)–funded research projects at universities, bolstered by political support, potential customer partnerships, and claims that their fuel is safer and more efficient in conventional reactors. While this sounds promising for future commercialization, it has yet to become a viable business.
Their latest presentation suggests their first fuel rods will be tested next year, but commercialization is unlikely. Given that they don’t expect to become a commercial fuel supplier for at least three more years, they currently resemble more of a venture-funded startup than a traditional publicly-traded company, despite their $35 million valuation. With nuclear power interest on the rise, the real question is whether they can sustain themselves until they have enough test data to propose a commercial fuel rod manufacturing facility and start securing firm contracts—likely several years away, maybe closer to 2030 or beyond.
For some, this might feel like a speculative investment, especially as even companies with operational facilities, like Centrus (LEU), which supplies HALEU fuel and serves conventional reactors, also carry risk. So, do you find Kohl’s “TriFuel” savior pitch intriguing? Do you think the surge in nuclear interest will finally accelerate their commercialization? Or is this a bit too speculative, given the lengthy timeline? Share your thoughts in the comments.
