The Wall Street Journal did not mince words earlier this year when it ran an essay with the title Only Nuclear Energy Can Save the Planet.
The message was clear: Do the math on replacing fossil fuels. To move fast enough, the world needs to build lots of reactors.
I've been saying this for years, telling anyone who'd listen that nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest form of baseload electricity the world has ever seen.
And as the world wakes up to that fact - and make no mistake, it's a mathematical fact - uranium investors are going to make lots of money.
That's because, right now, uranium prices are so low that no company can make money mining it.
But as the coming wave of nuclear expansion unfolds, the price is going to have to rise many times over to stimulate the necessary production.
Don't take it from me. Just look at France, which last week announced it will simply be unable to reduce its use of nuclear energy for at least the next decade if it wants to meet its climate goals.
Solar and wind mathematically could not make up the difference fast enough in France, and that is true all over the world.
It's pretty simple to understand. Here's how the Financial Times put it:
France will delay by 10 years the shutdown of part of its nuclear power industry in order to fulfill President Emmanuel Macron's aim of making the country carbon-neutral by 2050.
President Trump understands this.
He is currently reviewing a Department of Commerce report about securing America's supply of uranium. And I expect him to make a special uranium announcement by July 14th.
You see, America runs the world's largest fleet of nuclear reactors.
There are 100 nuclear reactors in the U.S., but we only produce enough uranium to supply one.
One in five American homes relies on nuclear for electricity. Two-thirds of our clean energy consumption is nuclear.
Uranium production in the U.S. is currently near a 70-year low, yet it's the largest nuclear nation, leaving it reliant on foreign imports for more than 95% of its uranium needs.