Key Takeaways

Huhn expects uranium to reach $150 to $200 a pound, and possibly more. "We believe it's going to go minimally to $150 to $200 a pound during this cycle and probably higher," he says, arguing the eventual top will be set by the last marginal pound, not an incentive price.

He does not think the uranium bull case depends on AI. "It's not reliant whatsoever," he says of the AI connection; the larger tailwind, in his view, is simply that existing reactors are being life-extended across the board, often decades beyond what models assumed five years ago.

He thinks demand is unusually easy to forecast. "The demand is extremely derisked," he argues, since the operating fleet, reactors under construction and their startup dates are all known, unlike supply, which depends on a small number of mining projects.

He favors physical uranium over mining equities right now. Vehicles like the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and Yellow Cake give direct commodity exposure; in his view, this currently offers better risk-reward than picking individual uranium stocks.

He identifies GE Vernova's BWRX-300 as a likely SMR leader, citing its multiple deals in the pipeline, alongside demonstration projects from TerraPower and X-Energy, while cautioning that most of roughly 150 SMR designs globally will not succeed and a diversified approach makes more sense than picking one winner.

Key Moments

00:00 - Uranium could hit $150 to $200 per pound Huhn's headline price call and why he expects it to hold for the cycle.

00:25 - Google, Constellation and the nuclear energy boom Why a major uprate deal is more about de-risking than new uranium demand.

03:52 - Why AI hyperscalers are turning to nuclear power Power purchase agreements and the "low-hanging fruit" of existing reactors.

06:17 - Nuclear stocks vs. SMRs: where is the better investment? Established operators versus early-stage reactor designers.

14:11 - Why uranium stocks have struggled The 2026 sentiment swings, from the January spike to the summer capitulation.

20:23 - Does the uranium bull market depend on AI? Huhn's case that the real driver is reactor life extensions, not data centers.

32:05 - Why physical uranium may offer the best risk-reward The case for Sprott and Yellow Cake over individual mining stocks.

43:02 - Which SMR companies could win? His framework for separating likely winners from the rest of the field.

SMR Stocks: Which Companies Could Win? Justin Huhn's Nuclear and Uranium Playbook

With Google, Amazon and Meta all striking nuclear-related deals in recent months, investors are asking which SMR stocks and uranium plays actually stand to benefit. Justin Huhn, founder and publisher of Uranium Insider, told Wealthion his framework for separating durable winners from hype, why he still favors physical uranium over mining equities, and why he thinks the sector's bull case has little to do with artificial intelligence specifically. These are his attributed, independent views, not investment advice.

Which SMR stocks could win?

Huhn's method is to look at deal pipelines and regulatory progress rather than design ambition alone. Of the roughly 150 SMR designs and 70 to 90 companies pursuing them globally, he expects "a half dozen primary winners" to emerge, and names GE Vernova's BWRX-300 design as one of the clearest front-runners, citing multiple signed deals and the first unit already under construction in Darlington, Ontario, alongside expected US projects. He also flags two advanced demonstration projects already in early construction in the US, describing them factually as evidence of where capital and regulatory momentum are moving, not as recommendations. His broader advice is to avoid concentrating in any single SMR name: "I would not put all my eggs in any of these baskets," favoring a diversified basket of nuclear-adjacent companies instead. For related reading, see Wealthion's piece on the nuclear renaissance as a real-assets trade.

Is the uranium bull market dependent on AI?

No, Huhn argues, despite how the narrative is often framed. "It's not reliant whatsoever," he says, though he acknowledges the two stories are correlated. The dominant tailwind, in his telling, is the de-risking of the existing global reactor fleet: life extensions that were not in anyone's models five years ago, nearly 80 reactors under construction worldwide (the most in roughly three decades), and countries like France approving fleet-wide extensions to 60 years. He is careful to separate narrative from substance: recent AI-related headlines, including public comments about pausing AI buildout and competing political rhetoric about an AI race, caused uranium-linked stocks to wobble earlier this year purely because institutional "factor baskets" had lumped uranium miners in with AI infrastructure plays, not because the underlying uranium thesis changed. For the AI-demand side of this debate, see Wealthion's explainer on AI's power problem as a uranium trade and will the AI bubble burst.

Why have uranium stocks struggled even as the bull case built?

Huhn attributes most of 2026's volatility to sentiment swings rather than a change in fundamentals. A rapid January rally, driven partly by the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust raising over half a billion dollars and buying more than six million pounds of uranium in under two months, pushed spot prices above $100 before a quick pullback, which he calls a "rug pull" that soured sentiment for months. He also points to a seasonal pattern: a typical August bottom, a 15% to 25% rally over several weeks, then a deeper-than-usual pullback that triggered public capitulation. His takeaway, after years of watching the sector: "buying into terrible sentiment following" a washout "has been a reliable strategy for as long as I've been following this market."

How derisked is uranium demand, really?

Very, in Huhn's assessment, which is part of his contrarian case. "The demand is extremely derisked," he argues, because the operating global fleet (currently around 400 gigawatts, expected to reach 500 gigawatts within five years), planned life extensions and reactors already under construction can all be modeled with reasonable confidence five to seven years out. Supply is the harder side of the equation: his firm tracks only 50 to 60 global projects in production or development, nearly all of the recent supply growth has come from restarting existing ("brownfield") mines rather than new discoveries, and even after supply rose roughly 40% since 2021, prices have tripled over the same period, a combination he considers an important bullish signal rather than a sign of oversupply.

Should investors own physical uranium or mining stocks?

Huhn's current preference is physical exposure. He points to the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and London-listed Yellow Cake as vehicles that let investors own the commodity directly, arguing this currently offers better risk-reward than individual mining equities, particularly given how far some of those vehicles trade below net asset value in weak sentiment. On leading indicators, he emphasizes the long-term contract market over the more visible spot price: term contracts, with floors in the $70 to $80 range and ceilings near $150 for multi-year delivery, reflect what utilities are actually willing to commit to, while spot is often, in his words, "just noise" driven by surplus disposal and short-term trading. He also highlights enrichment and conversion prices, both near record highs after Western utilities diversified away from Russian supply following its invasion of Ukraine, as a signal that attention is now shifting toward uranium itself as the next bottleneck.

Is NIMBY opposition still a real obstacle to US nuclear buildout?

Less than commonly assumed, according to Huhn. He argues local opposition is not even among the top ten challenges to new US nuclear capacity right now, since most expansion is happening at existing plant sites where surrounding communities are, in his experience, broadly supportive because of the jobs and tax base these plants provide. He cites California's Diablo Canyon as an example: even in a state not typically associated with nuclear support, the surrounding community backs the plant's continued operation. As always on Wealthion, this is Huhn's attributed analysis, not investment advice; uranium and nuclear-linked equities are volatile, and individual circumstances vary.

What Investors Should Watch

• Long-term contract uranium prices, not just spot: Huhn's preferred leading indicator, currently around $96.50 a pound.
• SMR deal pipelines and regulatory milestones: which designs are securing early site permits and first customers.
• Enrichment and conversion prices: both near record highs, a signal he says points to uranium as the next bottleneck.
• Reactor life-extension announcements: the primary driver he says is independent of the AI narrative.
• Discount-to-NAV on physical uranium vehicles: a gauge of sentiment extremes in vehicles like Sprott's trust.

FAQ

Which SMR stocks could win? Justin Huhn expects a handful of primary winners among roughly 150 global SMR designs, citing GE Vernova's BWRX-300 as a likely leader given its multiple signed deals, alongside early-stage demonstration projects from other developers. He favors a diversified basket over concentrating in one name.

Is the uranium bull market just an AI story? No, according to Huhn. He argues the dominant driver is the de-risking and life extension of the existing global reactor fleet, which is unfolding independently of AI, even though the two narratives are often correlated in investor sentiment.

Should I own physical uranium or uranium mining stocks? Huhn currently favors physical uranium exposure through vehicles like the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and Yellow Cake, arguing this offers better risk-reward than individual mining equities given how far these vehicles can trade below net asset value in weak sentiment.

Why have uranium stocks lagged even as prices rose? Huhn attributes much of 2026's volatility to sentiment swings, including a rapid January spike and pullback, and uranium miners being grouped with AI-adjacent "factor baskets" that softened when AI headlines turned more cautious.

Which expert and interview does this article reference? This article draws on Wealthion's interview with Justin Huhn, founder and publisher of Uranium Insider: "Uranium's Supply Crunch Is Getting Worse, and Prices Could Go Much Higher."

If you want a professional read on how nuclear and uranium exposure might fit into your own portfolio, you can request a free portfolio review from an advisor who understands real assets at wealthion.com/advisors.

Full Transcript

Speakers: Maggie Lake (Wealthion host) and Justin Huhn (founder and publisher, Uranium Insider). ASR errors corrected (names, terms, company names) and filler removed; meaning preserved. A mid-interview Wealthion membership message has been noted rather than reproduced.

Justin Huhn (cold open): The biggest bottleneck that we see in the coming years is uranium. We believe it's going to go minimally to $150 to $200 a pound during the cycle and probably higher. We think this is going to be a very, very long-term secular bull market.

Maggie Lake: Joining us today, Justin Huhn, founder and publisher of Uranium Insider. I wanted to get your take on a development in the nuclear space that on the surface looks super bullish. Google and Constellation agreed to bring 890 megawatts of new nuclear capacity to the PJM grid, and Constellation's stock jumped about 12% on the news. Does this kind of news actually move the needle? What should investors focus on?

Justin Huhn: I'd argue the nitty-gritty details of this announcement are less bullish than the market's reaction, though we're coming off extremely oversold conditions and terrible sentiment across uranium and nuclear heading into this headline. On its face, it reads as hyperscalers wanting more nuclear, and that's what the sector is reacting to. This additional capacity is 100% via uprates, upgrades to existing operating plants across 11 reactors, representing over $4 billion in investment, mostly in steam generators, turbines and other infrastructure. These upgrades don't actually mean significantly more uranium demand directly. But narrative-wise, it's very bullish, and it increases the de-risking of these plants and the likelihood that a company like Constellation will pay up for fuel while selling electricity to some of the wealthiest companies on the planet. It's bullish for the space, but the size of today's move reflects short covering and weak hands getting washed out after a couple of rough months.

Maggie Lake: Is this the logical progression as everyone works out the energy-supply equation, or a sign that building new reactors is still too hard?

Justin Huhn: Not a sign that new reactors are too hard. Hyperscalers are trying to secure as much firm clean power as possible through power purchase agreements with incumbent producers running existing fleets that can be life-extended, the lowest-hanging fruit available. In the US, every reactor is expected to reach 60 years of operation, 25 to 30% of the fleet has already applied for 80-year extensions, and some operators believe they could reach 100 years. The average US reactor age is about 46. This is a huge de-risking tailwind for the world's largest operating nuclear fleet, especially with the US building four to five times more data-center capacity than the next largest builder. On new nuclear specifically, Amazon is heavily invested in X-Energy, Meta is partially funding two TerraPower Natrium reactors, and Google has a less binding deal with a fourth developer. I still think new nuclear capacity will get built, but right now we're mainly seeing the low-hanging fruit secured.

Maggie Lake: From an investment standpoint, is the risk profile very different between de-risking existing fleets versus building new capacity?

Justin Huhn: Very different. An established operator like Constellation, the largest nuclear operator in the US, looking at deals like this is an easier, more obviously bullish investment than putting money into advanced SMR companies still in their infancy, some not even public for a year, most still working through NRC licensing and permitting, with projects in preconstruction or very early construction. There are 70 to 90 companies and nearly 150 different SMR designs globally; in our estimation, a half dozen primary winners will emerge, and a few are starting to show themselves. You can build a diversified basket of these companies, but for risk-reward, especially for institutional investors needing liquidity, established operators like Vistra, Constellation, Duke or Dominion may be an easier choice. That said, when risk appetite returns to this sector, some of these SMR names can really take off, as we saw in late 2024 and early 2025, when a few became something close to meme stocks on retail trading forums. That's not an investment thesis, but the outlook for the large operating-fleet companies looks brighter than ever.

Maggie Lake: You came to this space as a retail investor who realized how little you knew. Can you walk us through that journey?

Justin Huhn: I first heard this thesis in December 2016 on a podcast interview about uranium miners, which, unbelievably, was the month spot uranium bottomed. I'd mostly been a technical, momentum-driven trader before that, so betting on something hated as a contrarian fundamental play was new to me. I quickly realized how little I understood about nuclear energy itself; after Fukushima, I assumed the hundreds of reactors worldwide were a looming disaster. But that accident had zero fatalities despite a full meltdown, and the industry responded by substantially strengthening safety protocols everywhere. Even including Fukushima, nuclear is statistically the safest form of electricity generation ever devised, something I hadn't appreciated. As I learned more, I saw a sector that was actually growing, actually safe, and where even Japan was turning back toward nuclear and restarting reactors. What started as a bet on the sector moving from hated to merely bad has, especially in recent years, become a full nuclear renaissance, with growth accelerating from roughly 1 to 2% annually to near 4 to 5%, alongside the first sustained US electricity-demand growth in two decades. Almost 80 reactors are under construction globally right now, the most simultaneously in nearly three decades. We believe this is a very long-term secular bull market, and our models can't identify what project would come online to balance supply and demand and cap prices, which says something on its own.

[Wealthion membership message noted.]

Maggie Lake: Given that bullish view, why has sentiment and price action been so poor?

Justin Huhn: The sector is small and extremely volatile, always has been. Even the biggest companies have market caps in the five-to-eight-billion-dollar range. This year specifically, we had a very strong January, the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust raised over half a billion dollars and bought more than six million pounds of uranium in under two months, and spot shot from about $80 to over $100 a pound very quickly, becoming backwardated versus the term price. Then it fell back just as fast, which soured sentiment, since investors were hoping for the kind of sustained multi-year run seen in 2004 to 2007. After that, the AI narrative softened somewhat, with headlines about pausing AI buildout competing against political rhetoric about winning an AI race. Uranium miners had gotten bundled into institutional "factor baskets" alongside Nvidia and hyperscalers as AI-adjacent plays; when that softened, money left the sector, retail sentiment followed, and a typical seasonal low in August, followed by a 15 to 25% rally and then a deeper-than-usual pullback, produced a wave of public capitulation. We've seen this pattern repeatedly, and buying into terrible sentiment after a washout has been a reliable strategy for as long as I've followed this market.

Maggie Lake: Is it a mistake to categorize the nuclear trade as AI-adjacent?

Justin Huhn: It's not reliant whatsoever, though it is correlated, and narratives often move markets more than the underlying fundamentals connecting them. Right now, AI and data-center growth are hugely bullish for the existing fleet's de-risking. Whether new nuclear capacity gets built specifically to supply data centers remains to be seen, though the signs point that way: hyperscaler investments in SMR developers, and companies like NexGen Energy, developing the large Rook I project in Saskatchewan, saying hyperscalers have expressed interest in future uranium offtake. I'd expect a headline confirming that kind of direct involvement within the next 18 to 24 months. But it isn't needed for the thesis: we can model the existing fleet's demand with high confidence and compare it to the roughly 50 to 60 supply projects we track globally. Supply has already responded meaningfully, up about 40% since 2021 to over 170 million pounds, almost entirely from restarting existing mines, yet prices have still tripled over that period, which is an important signal that this isn't an oversupplied, inventory-heavy market like the decade following Fukushima.

Maggie Lake: What about nuclear as part of national-security and energy-security strategy, given how central energy chokepoints have become geopolitically?

Justin Huhn: Very real. The closure risk around the Strait of Hormuz this year highlighted how central energy is to sovereign security. Countries with nuclear capacity are de-risking and life-extending their fleets, and inventory building is increasingly visible in the East. China has roughly 40 reactors under construction, close to half of all reactors under construction globally. Russia has a large nuclear export business, is building around 23 reactors in other countries, and remains the largest global player in enrichment, second-largest in conversion, and third-largest uranium producer, despite also being a uranium buyer through a joint venture, competing directly with utility customers. India is building more of its own heavy-water reactor designs while Russia builds more there too, and this year India's national nuclear operator signed large contracts totaling roughly 50 million pounds with two major suppliers, more volume than its existing fleet alone would require, alongside liability-law changes meant to attract international participation. China, beyond nuclear, is aggressively building out solar and coal as well, essentially pursuing every energy source at once. In the US, progress is slower given the public-private, more heavily regulated system, though a recent deal with South Korea involving six Westinghouse AP1000s and two Korean-designed APR1400 reactors is a promising, if not yet finalized, signal.

Maggie Lake: Is NIMBY opposition still a major issue for US nuclear, especially with the backlash around data centers?

Justin Huhn: I'd argue it's not really an issue right now, probably not even in the top ten challenges to building new nuclear capacity in the US. Most near-term expansion is happening at existing plant sites already permitted for more capacity, and the communities around those plants are almost universally supportive because of the jobs and economic benefit they provide. Diablo Canyon in California is a good example: even in that state, the surrounding community supports the plant's continued operation, it already has NRC approval to operate to 60 years and the backing of the California Coastal Commission, and it provides about 10% of the state's grid. I expect it to be extended.

Maggie Lake: From an investment lens, given that global demand picture, especially from state-directed buildouts in China, India and Russia, how should investors think about the commodity itself versus the equities?

Justin Huhn: The core of the thesis is betting that uranium prices keep moving higher, and I think they will. Right now, the physical commodity offers the best risk-reward and the least risk, through vehicles like the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and London-listed Yellow Cake. Sprott's trust is presently trading close to an eight or nine percent discount to net asset value, a discount that can widen to 15 to 16% in risk-off conditions and narrow back to NAV in stronger periods; when it trades above NAV, the trust issues new units and buys more uranium. Yellow Cake has historically traded at a larger discount and has a supply agreement running through next year to buy roughly $100 million of uranium annually, though it also raises capital opportunistically near NAV. With spot showing a fairly firm floor barring an unforeseen shock, and the sector already heavily sold off, we believe uranium goes minimally to $150 to $200 a pound during this cycle and probably higher, since the eventual top won't be set by an incentive price but by what the last marginal pound actually commands, over the five-to-seven-year period we can confidently model.

Maggie Lake: Should investors focus on spot prices for entry points, or does the long-term contract price matter more?

Justin Huhn: They're different, and the term price matters more. The current long-term contract price is about $96.50 a pound, a monthly figure representing the low offer over the prior 30 days for base-escalated or fixed-price contracts, though few of those get signed today. Most term contracts instead reference the market price at delivery, with floors around $70 to $80 and ceilings near $150, for delivery two to six years out, a sellers' market by those terms. Spot, by contrast, is largely a surplus-disposal market, where traders offload monthly offtake, often a few million pounds a month, though volumes have been thin lately, with more sellers than buyers even as spot hasn't fallen, because traders are positioned for higher prices based on contact with the physical market. Spot is often just noise, but it's not irrelevant, it's what investors can see daily, and it connects to the term market through the "carry trade," where a trader fills a utility's term order by buying in spot, holding the position, and delivering years later with a markup. Big disconnects between the two are informative: last spring, term sat around $80 while spot fell to roughly $64, a clear buying opportunity that preceded equities doubling and tripling by year-end. The opposite, an overheated, backwardated spot spike with a flat term price, tends to signal an unsustainable move worth selling into. Since far more volume happens in the term market, it's the better signal for the medium term, and that medium-term confidence can inform near-term equity decisions.

Maggie Lake: A mining executive once told me utilities buy enrichment before uranium itself, buying yellow cake last. Do you track that kind of fuel-cycle sequencing?

Justin Huhn: Generally true, though not a hard rule. Utility fuel buyers aren't contrarians or market-timers; they buy what they need when they need it, since mistimed, speculative inventory bets could cost a buyer their job even if directionally correct. Historically that meant utilities didn't stockpile cheap uranium even when it was abundant. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, many Western utilities have voluntarily shifted away from Russian enrichment and conversion given sanctions and supply-chain risk, which pushed enrichment and conversion prices to roughly triple, both near record highs today. Buying enrichment and conversion requires buying uranium to feed those services, and the full fuel-cycle process, from mined material through conversion, enrichment and fabrication, takes a minimum of about 18 months and usually two to two and a half years or longer. UXC, the main industry price reporter and consultant, has stated directly that uranium itself, not enrichment or conversion, is now the biggest bottleneck they see over the coming years, given a roughly 400-gigawatt global fleet expected to reach 500 gigawatts within five years, and the long lead time required to bring new uranium mines online.

Maggie Lake: On the equity side, there's a lot of enthusiasm around SMRs, with dozens of companies trying to commercialize designs that won't all survive. How do you separate likely winners from the rest?

Justin Huhn: Look at actual deal pipelines: who the first customers are, whether real projects are under construction, and how far along regulatory approval is. One clear standout is GE Vernova's BWRX-300 design, already under construction at Darlington, Ontario, with additional deals in the pipeline, including an expected build at the Clinch River site in Tennessee for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which recently received early NRC approval. It's also not a small pure-play; it's a large, diversified, well-established company, more of a long-term holding than a speculative bet. For more concentrated SMR exposure, two demonstration projects are already in early construction in the US: one backed partly by Amazon's roughly $500 to $700 million investment in a reactor design planned for a multi-unit site in Washington state, which also has a separate deal nearing an early site permit in South Texas; and another tied to Meta's funding. A handful of other established industrial companies and an emerging UK-based designer are also gaining traction, alongside several private, not-yet-public developers. Over the next five years, I expect the half-dozen winners to become clear, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in any single basket; a diversified approach across several of these names makes more sense given how early-stage most of them still are.

Maggie Lake: Does a divergence between uranium prices and equity performance argue for diversified exposure, including established, less purely uranium-dependent companies?

Justin Huhn: Yes. These are still stocks, so general capital-protection discipline applies regardless of sector. There are solid, larger, sometimes dividend-paying companies in the broader nuclear space that have sold off 20 to 30% or more from their highs alongside the purer uranium names, and holding a mix across those is sensible. For the smaller SMR developers specifically, some carry real risk, so a diversified basket there also makes sense rather than concentrating in one name, especially after this year's broad sector washout; many of these stocks would need to double, triple or quadruple just to revisit levels from a year ago.

Maggie Lake: Last question: there's talk of eventually placing nuclear reactors on the Moon, with the US, Russia and China all floating ambitions there. Real, or outlandish?

Justin Huhn: The underlying case for small nuclear reactors in space travel, and eventually power generation on the Moon, makes technical sense, but I'm not holding my breath on the timeline. Our models assume essentially none of that, or of nuclear-powered commercial shipping, even though nuclear naval vessels have existed for 60 years. Those are pure upside if they eventually happen, not something the core investment case requires, which is exactly what makes the core thesis comfortable to hold regardless.

Maggie Lake: Justin, we're so glad you went down this path years ago, and grateful you shared all of this with us today.

Justin Huhn: It's a pleasure. Thanks for having me back.

This article is educational and is not investment, tax, or legal advice. It does not recommend any security. Advisory services are provided by Greylock Peak Investments, LLC, a subsidiary of Wealthion. Wealthion is compensated for advisor introductions; see the Solicitor's Disclosure Document, ADV Part 2A and Form CRS. That arrangement does not influence editorial coverage.