Sector

Uranium

Everything our editor has picked under this sector, best first.

36 stories

@convequity

Convequity on X

Our least-favoured bet on next-generation nuclear: light-water SMRs. Smaller does not automatically mean cheaper. A 50–300 MW small modular reactor produces far less power than a 1 GW plant, but containment, site infrastructure and other costs may not shrink proportionately. Factory production and simpler safety systems can help, but those savings must outweigh the loss of scale. The result could be a higher cost per installed kilowatt, not a lower one. Advanced alternatives offer higher temperatures and more industrial uses. But we think many face a bigger obstacle than licensing: securing enough fuel. To understand the investment trade-offs, separate two questions: what cools the reactor, and what fuels it? Light water → Proven technology, established fuel supply. Uses ordinary water and fuel typically enriched below 5% uranium-235. Runs at around 300°C under pressure, producing electricity and lower-temperature heat. Its advantage is maturity; its limitation is that it cannot directly supply the hottest industrial processes. Shrinking it does not necessarily improve its economics. Sodium → Higher temperatures without high pressure. Transfers heat efficiently and operates near atmospheric pressure, reducing the need for heavy pressure-containing equipment. The catch: sodium burns in air and reacts violently with water, requiring strict separation and additional safeguards. Helium → High-temperature heat without a chemically reactive coolant. Can reach roughly 750°C or more, supporting more efficient electricity generation and industrial heat. Helium does not burn or react chemically, but the system operates under pressure and must stay leak-tight. Leading designs also require specialised TRISO fuel. Fluoride salts → High-temperature heat at low pressure, without sodium’s fire risk. The challenges are corrosion, suitable materials and preventing the salt from freezing. Some designs, such as Kairos Power’s, use salt to cool solid TRISO fuel. Others dissolve the fuel in the salt itself. These are different designs with different fuel requirements. Then come two separate fuel bottlenecks: HALEU is about uranium enrichment. It contains more than 5% but less than 20% uranium-235. Many leading sodium-, helium- and fluoride-salt-cooled designs need it, although not every advanced reactor does. Western production remains limited. Centrus Energy ($LEU) has produced small quantities with demonstration equipment and targets new enrichment capacity in 2029. We do not expect sufficient supply for broad deployment before the late 2020s at the earliest. TRISO is about fuel manufacturing — not a type of coolant. Tiny uranium-bearing particles are wrapped in carbon and ceramic layers designed to retain radioactive fission products even at roughly 1,600°C. That is a major safety advantage, but manufacturing and quality control are demanding. US production already exists, but capacity needs to expand substantially. X-energy’s ( $XE) larger TX-1 facility is still under construction. Helium-cooled and some salt-cooled designs therefore face both bottlenecks: getting HALEU, then turning it into finished TRISO fuel. For investors, a reactor licence is not a fuel supply chain. And a smaller reactor is not automatically a better investment.
@StableBread 2 clicks

Fajasy on X

Energy Fuels $UUUU, the largest U.S. uranium producer, fell 10% to $8.34 on October 14, a new 52-week low, the day after it filed to sell another $500M of stock through its at-the-market offering (ATM). Energy Fuels had already sold ~$300M of stock through the program, and at $8.34, another $500M would be ~60M more shares, or ~22.6% of the 264.8M outstanding. On October 13, Energy Fuels also amended its deal for VAC, the German magnet maker it agreed to buy in June, over a dispute at VAC's U.S. plant. VAC's Sumter, South Carolina plant "was constructed in connection with an offtake agreement," and that customer sent a termination notice on July 1, eight days after Energy Fuels signed the deal. VAC started arbitration on July 7, arguing the termination was wrongful and seeking the payments left on the contract. Energy Fuels says it knew about the dispute during negotiations and built in a purchase price adjustment. VAC itself lost €87.9M (~$99M) in 2025 and €57.4M (~$67M) in H1 2026, even as H1 revenue rose 34.8%. In June, my bear case was $8-10/share: The ATM keeps diluting and the rare earth premium drains out. At $8.34, the stock already sits in that range, while Energy Fuels still plans to pay $718M of cash, 65.9M shares, and up to $135M of preferred stock for a magnet maker in arbitration with the customer its U.S. plant was built for.
@StableBread

Fajasy on X

BWX Technologies’ $BWXT commercial segment grew Q2 2026 revenue 72% to $302.5M, while its government segment grew just 2% to $601.3M. $BWXT reported Q2 2026 on August 3, and CEO Rex Geveden called it “another strong quarter characterized by excellent execution across the company”: → Revenue: $901.6M, up 18% y/y (9% organic). → Adjusted EBITDA: $155.5M, up 7%, a 17.2% margin vs. 19.1%. The government segment fell 5% to $126.5M, but grew 22.1% excluding a $29.4M one-time contract gain in Q2 2025, while the commercial segment more than doubled to $36.1M. → EPS: $0.97 GAAP (+14%) and $1.07 non-GAAP (+5%). → FCF: $115.0M, down 9%, as capex rose 27% to $41.4M. → Backlog: $8.4B, up 40% y/y, including $2.26B of government contracts not yet funded by Congress. Q2 bookings were $648.9M vs. $1,640.5M a year earlier, but over the past 12 months, new orders still ran 1.7x revenue. The 2026 guide now calls for $3.8B of revenue, $662-672M of adjusted EBITDA (a 17.5% margin), $4.70-4.80 of non-GAAP EPS, and $345-360M of FCF. In August, $BWXT also changed its guidance for both segments: 1) Government Operations: Lower revenue growth (high single digits, down from low teens) but a higher margin (20.5%, up from 19% at the start of 2026). CFO Mike Fitzgerald said on the Q2 call that high-purity depleted uranium (HPDU) costs are coming in under budget. Most of the segment’s contracts pay $BWXT its costs plus a fee, and the fee goes up when $BWXT spends less than the target cost, so lower HPDU costs mean less revenue but more profit. 2) Commercial Operations: Higher revenue growth (45%, up from 30%), with Precision Components Group (PCG), acquired July 1, adding slightly more than half of the increase, but a lower margin (13%, down from 14%) as $BWXT spends on U.S. capacity and new hires.
@StableBread

Fajasy on X

Four of BWX Technologies’ $BWXT six top executives took their current roles in 2025, but all four were promoted from inside the company. $BWXT’s 2030 plan depends most on the executives below: → Rex Geveden (President and CEO): CEO since 2017 after joining as COO in 2015. Previously an EVP at Teledyne Technologies $TDY and 17 years at NASA, where he was COO. → Mike Fitzgerald (CFO): CFO since July 2025, interim from May 2025. Joined in 2022 as chief accounting officer; previously at MorganFranklin Consulting and Deloitte. → Joe Miller (President, Government Operations): Since June 2025. Served on the submarine USS Norfolk, joined $BWXT in 2011 as an engineer, and ran Advanced Technologies before taking over the segment. → John MacQuarrie (President, Commercial Operations): More than 28 years at $BWXT, and more than 30 in the nuclear industry. → Kevin McCoy (Chief Nuclear Officer): Moved from Government Operations president in June 2025 to help speed up Columbia- and Virginia-class production. Retired vice admiral and former commander of Naval Sea Systems Command. → Kate Kelly (President, Advanced Technologies): Has run Advanced Technologies, home to Pele, BANR, and TRISO (its microreactor and fuel programs), since June 2025, after joining $BWXT in 2012. Several senior roles turned over in 2025 and 2026: → CFO: Robb LeMasters stepped down in May 2025 and stayed on as a special adviser; Fitzgerald replaced him. → General counsel: Ronald Whitford stepped down on November 4, 2025, and Toby Smith, previously corporate secretary at elevator maker Otis Worldwide $OTIS, replaced him. The 8-K says the exit wasn’t tied to “any legal issue or any disagreement.” → Strategy: Rik Geiersbach, previously head of strategy and corporate development for the defense unit of Boeing $BA, joined as chief strategy officer in September 2025. → Nuclear Operations Group: Retired Rear Admiral Howard Markle now runs the naval reactor plants in place of Gary Camper, with no release announcing the change. $BWXT’s board includes Adm. John Richardson, the former Chief of Naval Operations and former director of Naval Reactors.
@StableBread

Fajasy on X

Excluding medical isotopes, commercial power revenue at BWX Technologies $BWXT nearly tripled, from ~$400M in 2023 to ~$1.1B expected in 2026. $BWXT’s commercial segment is growing much faster than its government segment, driven by (1) Ontario rebuilding its reactors, (2) Canada’s plan for new ones, and (3) the U.S. push for new AP1000 reactors. Its commercial backlog more than doubled to $1.6B. Kinectrics, a Toronto-based nuclear engineering and testing firm acquired in May 2025, explains part of the jump. Commercial revenue grew 72% in Q2 2026, or 33% excluding the acquisition. In Ontario, utilities are rebuilding reactors to run for decades longer. $BWXT is building 48 steam generators for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) Pickering refurbishment, part of more than CAD$1B (~$700M) of contracts. The same contracts cover the reactor pressure vessel for the first BWRX-300 at OPG’s Darlington station, a 300 MWe small modular reactor (SMR) designed by GE Vernova Hitachi. The 10-K calls $BWXT “the only commercial heavy nuclear component manufacturer in North America.” Notably, its Cambridge, Ontario plant is turning out more than 1.5 steam generators/month vs. the 1/month its schedule requires, per $BWXT’s Investor Day on September 29, 2026. Beyond refurbishments, Canada’s June 2026 nuclear strategy calls for “up to ten new large-scale reactors,” with two under construction by 2035 and five more planned or under development by 2040. $BWXT already has licensing and early engineering contracts for the large reactors planned by OPG and Bruce Power, the private operator of Ontario’s Bruce nuclear station. John MacQuarrie, president of Commercial Operations, estimated Canada’s new-build market at CAD$120-150B (~$84-105B) at Investor Day. Slide 31 shows $BWXT’s potential revenue per new reactor: → CANDU (Canada’s heavy-water reactor design): $350-700M per reactor. → AP1000 (Westinghouse’s large U.S. design): Low hundreds of millions of dollars. → SMRs: $50-100M.
@StableBread

Fajasy on X

The Department of Energy conditionally committed $17.5B in loans in June 2026 for long-lead equipment for up to 10 AP1000 reactors (Westinghouse’s large U.S. design), and only “a limited number of heavy engineering plants” can make the components, per World Nuclear News. BWX Technologies $BWXT bought Precision Components Group (PCG) in July 2026 to get a U.S. foothold. PCG makes heat exchangers and other heavy components at plants in York, Pennsylvania, and Florence, New Jersey, but it can’t make the largest parts, like an AP1000 reactor pressure vessel, CEO Rex Geveden said on the Q2 call. So $BWXT is weighing New Jersey, Indiana, and one other location for a new U.S. large-component plant, and Geveden expects “a final investment decision in the coming months.” He also expected at least one new-build equipment order by the end of 2026, from the three additional small modular reactors (SMRs) planned at Darlington in Ontario, the AP1000 projects, or BWRX-300 SMR projects in the U.S. John MacQuarrie, president of Commercial Operations, widened that window at $BWXT’s Investor Day on September 29, 2026, saying awards should start “either later this year or early in 2027.” $BWXT’s Investor Day targets call for high-teens annual revenue growth in the commercial segment through 2030, with adjusted EBITDA margins rising to the high teens from 13% in 2026. Reading “high teens” as 16-19%, commercial revenue would grow from ~$1.1B in 2026 to ~$2.0-2.2B by 2030, and adjusted EBITDA from ~$140M to ~$320-420M. That would make commercial about a third of $BWXT’s adjusted EBITDA, up from about a fifth.
@StableBread 2 clicks

Fajasy on X

“Tens of billions of new opportunity” is how BWX Technologies $BWXT CEO Rex Geveden describes uranium enrichment, the middle of the nuclear fuel chain. After naval reactors, $BWXT’s other big government business is uranium, which it calls special materials. It covers processing, downblending (diluting Cold War-era high-enriched uranium into lower-enriched fuel), and now enrichment for defense use. $BWXT says revenue grew from ~$285M in 2023 to ~$550M in 2026 guidance, 24%/year, and expects high-single to low-double-digit growth from there to 2030. Geveden named its two largest growth programs on the August 3 call, high-purity depleted uranium (HPDU) and defense fuels enrichment. $BWXT’s release on its purchase of Aerojet Ordnance Tennessee (A.O.T.) from L3Harris $LHX calls the unit the “sole provider of depleted uranium to the U.S. government.” Nine months after the purchase closed, $BWXT won a $1.6B, 10-year contract to produce up to 300 metric tons/year of HPDU at A.O.T.’s Jonesborough, Tennessee site. HPDU is depleted uranium metal refined to the purity the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Department of Energy (DOE) agency running the nuclear weapons complex, needs at its Y-12 plant to maintain the deterrent. Construction starts in late 2026, per $BWXT’s Investor Day on September 29, 2026. For defense fuels, the military needs unobligated uranium, meaning uranium free of the peaceful-use pledges attached to foreign-supplied material. An August 2026 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s audit arm, says the last U.S. plant able to enrich unobligated material, the Paducah plant in Kentucky, stopped in 2013. In September 2025, NNSA awarded $BWXT a sole-source contract valued at $1.5B to license, build, and run a pilot enrichment plant at Erwin, Tennessee, per the same report. $BWXT built a centrifuge manufacturing facility in Oak Ridge in seven months, plans to test its first prototype centrifuge by the end of 2026, and expects to file the Erwin license application in Q1 2027, with the plant running ~2035. Enrichment sits in the middle of the fuel chain, between uranium producers like Energy Fuels $UUUU and fuel plants like Erwin. The Investor Day deck says what’s “required to meet defense fuel needs through 2052” is $36.8B or more, citing the GAO and $BWXT’s own estimates. NNSA projects enough high-enriched uranium for naval propulsion “until the 2050s,” and enough unobligated low-enriched uranium for tritium (a hydrogen isotope used in nuclear warheads) through the early 2040s, per the same GAO report. Still, $BWXT earns revenue while it develops, licenses, and builds the plant, which is why the enrichment program drove most of the government segment’s Q2 2026 revenue growth.
@StableBread

Fajasy on X

Nuclear should bring in $3.7B of the $3.8B of revenue BWX Technologies $BWXT expects in 2026. $BWXT builds nuclear reactors and their heavy components, manufactures nuclear fuel, then services reactors once they’re running. It reports two segments: → Government Operations (73% of 2025 segment revenue, $2,350.1M): Reactors and fuel for the Navy’s submarines and aircraft carriers, uranium processing for the government, microreactor programs, and stakes in the joint ventures running government nuclear sites (booked as equity income, not revenue). → Commercial Operations (27%, $853.1M): Steam generators (heat exchangers turning reactor heat into steam), reactor pressure vessels, fuel, and field services for power utilities, mostly in Ontario. Also Kinectrics (a Toronto-based nuclear engineering and testing firm acquired in 2025) and a medical isotope unit $BWXT is selling. Naval propulsion is the core, at “a little bit less than 1/2” of revenue, CEO Rex Geveden said at $BWXT’s Investor Day on September 29, 2026. Special materials (the government uranium business) makes up 15-20%, and commercial power ~30%. The U.S. government accounted for 68% of 2025 revenue, directly or through prime contractors, down from 76% in 2024 as the commercial side grew. Four large utilities accounted for another 17%, per the FY2025 10-K. What keeps the Navy from switching suppliers is licensing. Only two plants in the U.S. hold Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses to produce fuel from high-enriched uranium (HEU, enriched to 20% or more, which is what naval reactors run on). Both belong to $BWXT (Nuclear Fuel Services in Erwin, Tennessee, and its Lynchburg plant), and the 10-K calls Nuclear Fuel Services “the sole provider of nuclear fuel for the U.S. Navy.”
@StableBread

Fajasy on X

The Pentagon wants every major U.S. military installation to generate its own power. In August 2026, the Army chose five companies for Janus, a program expected to put more than 20 commercial microreactors on military bases. One of the five already builds the reactors for the Navy’s submarines and aircraft carriers, and its stock is down almost 40%. That company is BWX Technologies $BWXT, and even after a 7.6% jump on October 6, the stock is down 38.9% from its $238.42/share peak on April 15. $BWXT didn’t fall alone: → The VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF $NLR is down 33.4% from its January high, even after rising 5.5% on October 6. → Curtiss-Wright $CW, which supplies pumps and valves for the same submarines and carriers, is down 30.2% from its July high. So $BWXT got caught in a broader nuclear and defense selloff, but it fell further than both $NLR and $CW after guiding to slower growth in 2027. Meanwhile, $BWXT’s business got stronger: → Guidance up twice: 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance rose from $645-660M in February to $662-672M in August. → An $8.4B backlog, more than double the $4.0B $BWXT had at the end of 2023. → CEO Rex Geveden calls $BWXT “the sole provider for naval reactors.” The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan, released in May, calls for a new carrier every four years instead of every five. → The Army chose $BWXT’s 20-megawatt reactor for Janus at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on August 26. On October 5, Prodigy Clean Energy, a Montreal-based developer of factory-built nuclear plants, chose the same reactor for a transportable power plant in New Brunswick. → 2030 targets: $BWXT targeted $5.5-6.0B of revenue and $1.1-1.2B of adjusted EBITDA in 2030. It’s on track to meet or beat all three targets it set in February 2024. Still, here’s what could hold the stock back: → $BWXT expects growth to slow in 2027. Its preliminary framework calls for high-single-digit growth in both revenue and adjusted EBITDA. → Even after the 38.9% drop, $BWXT isn’t cheap in absolute terms. It trades at 20.9x NTM EV/EBITDA and 29.3x earnings. → By CFO Mike Fitzgerald’s count, only a little over half of the revenue growth to 2030 comes from what $BWXT calls its “predictable core,” the programs backed by backlog and long-term contracts. The rest depends on new orders and acquisitions. → $BWXT’s Janus release discloses no dollar figure. Owning reactors is a new business model for $BWXT, with capital commitments it hasn’t disclosed. → No $BWXT insider has bought stock in the open market since at least January 2025, including during the drop from $238 to $135. → The government is running on a continuing resolution through December 11. At $145.70/share, BWXT has a market cap of $13.35B and an EV of $15.0B ($13.35B + $2.05B of debt - $0.40B of cash). It trades at 22.5x 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance and 30.7x non-GAAP EPS guidance. In return, you get an $8.4B backlog, more than double the $4.0B BWXT had at the end of 2023. And on NTM estimates, its EV/EBITDA has dropped to 20.9x from ~35x in March, back to its 2024 levels. So is the Navy’s reactor supplier on sale, or does the market see a slowdown the numbers don’t show yet? That's what I answer in my new ~6,800 word deep dive on $BWXT! Credit to @GrumpierBTDay for the idea.
OKLO · short

Oklo INC

Oklo is framed as a portfolio basket short and a concept company that could become a compounding short.