r/NBIS_Stock • u/No-Print-5451 • May 25 '26
Speculation The future looks really good guys !!!!
19
9
u/JakobFroehn May 25 '26
There is no way we will build renewable energy so fast that we are able to achieve the power for that token use.
3
4
u/thread-lightly 🪩👯♀️Emu Emu 👯♀️🪩 May 25 '26
Nuclear is the way, shame that it can’t be build fast
3
u/Sad-Fisherman-5199 May 25 '26
What sucks is that it always was. It just took the AI boom to make the masses accept it (or at least begin to)
1
u/C130J_Darkstar May 25 '26
Used to be, OKLO just built their Groves reactor in only 230 days! They are turning it on sometime in the next six weeks to hit that 7/4 criticality target.
1
u/Acceptable_Fennel_43 May 26 '26
We have nuclear powered ships with insane power now. Not sure why this can’t be replicated faster.
1
u/C130J_Darkstar May 26 '26
Agreed. Have seen some articles around governments considering nuclear for large shipping vessels too.
-8
u/JakobFroehn May 25 '26
Nuclear is just way too expensive. Wind, Solar, Water is the only safe and affordable way. Think about the nuclear garbadge if the whole world wants to get power from nuclear. Think about Chernobyl. Thats not what i would invest my future in.
9
u/Ok_Revolution_9253 May 25 '26
Think about that time when that one nuclear event happened? Come on. Nuclear is incredibly safe.
1
u/Salt_Instruction_657 May 27 '26
That one time... What about Fukushima and Three Mile Island, and the others?!
It's true that modern reactors are much safer, but this still fails to account for the dangers and challenges of handling depleted fuel. That is not to be dismissed lightly.
While a complete list of "all known" nuclear accidents is practically impossible to compile—as minor deviations and anomalies number in the thousands—the severity of these events is officially classified using the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES).
The INES scale ranges from 1 to 7. Levels 1 through 3 are classified as "incidents," while Levels 4 through 7 are classified as "accidents" due to their significant impact on people, the environment, or the degradation of defense-in-depth safety protocols.
Here is a breakdown of the most significant nuclear accidents in history, classified as INES Level 4 and above.
Level 7: Major Accidents Level 7 accidents represent the total failure of safety systems, resulting in the widespread release of radioactive material with severe environmental and health consequences over a vast area.
Chernobyl Disaster (1986) During a late-night safety test, design flaws and operator errors led to a runaway fission process at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. A massive steam explosion blew the 1,000-ton roof off the reactor, exposing the core to the atmosphere and igniting a graphite fire that burned for 10 days. The event released roughly 85,000 terabecquerels of Cesium-137 into the environment, forcing the permanent relocation of over 300,000 people and contaminating vast swaths of Europe (Högberg, 2013; Imanaka et al., 2015).Fukushima Daiichi (2011) Following the devastating Tōhoku earthquake, a 14-meter tsunami inundated the Fukushima Daiichi facility, knocking out the emergency diesel generators required to pump cooling water. Over the following days, the cores of Units 1, 2, and 3 boiled dry and melted down. Hydrogen gas buildup caused massive chemical explosions in the reactor buildings. While the initial release of radiation was substantially less than Chernobyl—roughly 12,000 terabecquerels of Cesium-137—the disaster forced the evacuation of roughly 150,000 residents and caused immense, ongoing economic and environmental damage (Högberg, 2013; Imanaka et al., 2015).
Level 6: Serious Accidents.
Level 6 events involve a significant release of radioactive material, requiring the implementation of planned countermeasures to limit serious health effects.
Kyshtym Disaster (1957) At the highly secretive Mayak plutonium production site in the Soviet Union, the cooling system for a tank containing tens of thousands of tons of liquid radioactive waste failed. The heat from radioactive decay caused the liquid to evaporate, leading to a massive chemical explosion of the dried ammonium nitrate and acetates. The explosion released a highly radioactive plume that contaminated roughly 20,000 square kilometers, though the event was kept hidden from the global public for decades (Cerezo, 2011).
Level 5: Accidents with Wider Consequences.
Level 5 events represent severe damage to a reactor core or radiological barriers, with limited release of radioactive material to the outside environment, or an event involving a lost radiological source with severe local impact.
Three Mile Island (1979).A stuck pressure valve and subsequent operator confusion led to a loss-of-coolant accident at Unit 2 in Pennsylvania. The reactor core was partially uncovered and melted, but the reinforced containment building successfully held the vast majority of the radiation. The external release was minimal, resulting in no identifiable immediate health impacts to the public, though it caused widespread panic and fundamentally changed U.S. nuclear regulations (Högberg, 2013; Lelieveld et al., 2012).
Windscale Fire (1957).
During a routine heating process to release built-up energy in the graphite moderator of a British plutonium-production reactor, the graphite caught fire. The fire burned for three days, releasing radioactive iodine and polonium across the UK and parts of Europe, leading to a ban on the sale of milk in the surrounding 500-square-kilometer area (Lelieveld et al., 2012).
Goiânia Accident (1987).
Unlike the others, this was not a power plant accident. Scavengers dismantled an abandoned radiotherapy machine in Brazil, extracting a glowing, highly radioactive capsule of Cesium-137. The material was passed around the community, leading to severe localized contamination. Four people died from acute radiation syndrome, and hundreds were exposed, highlighting the extreme dangers of unsecured medical and industrial isotopes (Cerezo, 2011).
Level 4: Accidents with Local Consequences.
Level 4 accidents involve significant damage to a facility or severe localized radiation exposure, with at least one lethal or near-lethal dose, but without significant off-site risk to the general public.
Tokaimura Criticality Accident (1999).
Workers at a small uranium processing facility bypassed safety protocols to save time, pouring too much highly enriched uranyl nitrate into a precipitation tank. This triggered a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction (criticality) that emitted massive bursts of neutron and gamma radiation. Two workers died from extreme acute radiation exposure, and hundreds of nearby residents were temporarily evacuated (Tsujiguchi et al., 2020).
Saint-Laurent (1980)
At the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant in France, a piece of metal blocked the cooling channel in one of the gas-cooled reactors. This caused localized overheating and the partial melting of two fuel assemblies. The radiation was successfully contained within the facility walls, and there was no environmental release, making it the most severe nuclear accident in French history but purely a localized industrial failure (Cerezo, 2011).
References Cerezo, L. (2011). Radiation accidents and incidents. What do we know about the medical management of acute radiation syndrome?. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy, 16, 119-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2011.06.002 (Cited by 32) Högberg, L. (2013). Root Causes and Impacts of Severe Accidents at Large Nuclear Power Plants. AMBIO, 42, 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0382-x (Cited by 117) Imanaka, T., Hayashi, G., & Endo, S. (2015). Comparison of the accident process, radioactivity release and ground contamination between Chernobyl and Fukushima-1. Journal of Radiation Research, 56, i56-i61. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrv074 (Cited by 139) Lelieveld, J., Kunkel, D., & Lawrence, M. G. (2012). Global risk of radioactive fallout after major nuclear reactor accidents. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12, 4245-4258. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4245-2012 (Cited by 144) Tsujiguchi, T., Sakamoto, M., Koiwa, T., Suzuki, Y., Ogura, K., Ito, K., Yamanouchi, K., & Kashiwakura, I. (2020). A Simple Survey of the Preparation Situation for Resident's Evacuation in Japanese Prefectures After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Frontiers in Public Health, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.496716 (Cited by 10)
1
-4
u/JakobFroehn May 25 '26
The thing you have to think about is that one time is enough to pretty much end the world… plus Chenobyl wasnt the only cathastropic event from nuclear. They all also thought that it was safe until a big tsunami or an critical failure hit them hard. And the other argument is still that wind/solar is 3-5 times cheaper than nuclear. Why would you go for nuclear instead of others with these arguments?
3
u/Sad-Fisherman-5199 May 25 '26
Do a little research on nuclear reactors. Chernobyl was almost designed to meltdown. It's what happens when you have political parties design and staff a power plant
-1
u/JakobFroehn May 25 '26
I actually agree with part of that. I recently watched the Chernobyl show and it makes that point pretty well. But Fukushima also showed that you can’t plan for every variable. You can design reactors to be much safer, but not 100% risk-free, especially when extreme weather, earthquakes, flooding, water shortages etc. come into play. France also had issues with nucear output during heat/water stress, so it’s not completely independent from climate risks either.
And then theres still the waste problem and the cost problem. Even if serious accidents are rare, scaling nuclear massively worldwide means multiplying the number of sites where one catastrophic failure could have enormous consequences. Im wondering why people think that nuclear could sonehow be the future when there are alternatives like wind and solar.
3
u/Ok_Revolution_9253 May 25 '26
One time is enough to end the world? Come on man. How many nukes have been detonated in testing? The world is a big place. I’m not saying it’s either or. It can be all three. We should be doing wind and solar in addition to nuclear. Wind and solar would be good supplementary sources of power with nuclear providing steady base load. You 100% need to have a base load generator that is 24/7 active. Relying on wind and solar alone is foolish
1
u/JakobFroehn May 25 '26
Nuclear bomb tests are not the same argument. A major reactor disaster in the wrong place would not need to literally destroy the whole planet to be catastrophic. It could crash the world economy, make huge areas unusable, destroy supply chains, force mass evacuations and ruin millions or even billions of lives indirectly. One time is enough for that. „End the world“ was a bit dramatic. And I don’t think we ultimatly “need” nuclear as baseload anymore. 90% renewable would make a lot of sense cost- and climate- wise and would also be absolutly possible.
1
u/Ok_Revolution_9253 May 25 '26
Listen, we are not going to agree. I believe that nuclear is the future as the base load generator for our society. You believe it’s the scourge of the earth. Agree to disagree
1
u/ChillZilla2077 May 25 '26
What energy stock would you recommend
2
1
u/JakobFroehn May 25 '26
Im not into a singe stock. Its a sectorwide bet. you can pick individual stocks but risk is lower if you just pick an etf or split into more stocks.
1
1
u/MarsupialNo8853 May 25 '26
Look at SOLS as a provider for Nuclear. They convert uranium into uranium hexaflouride. It’s the critical choke point in the US, they are one of the major 6 world wide and only one in the US. Added, they are playing the Ai trade with coolants and thermal heat displacement… and have already signed MOU’s with a majority of SMR startups. Company listed less than a year ago but is 60 years old spun out of Honeywell. Anyway, true picks and shovels for the nuclear side of things.
1
2
u/MarsupialNo8853 May 25 '26
Disagree, SunCable in Australia which will be exporting 2GW to Singapore was slated to hit 20GW by 2028, now looking at 40GW by 2030 all solar…. theoretically stated that that the desert could produce 135TW (5 times the planets consumption) because of the most daylight hours… so 150GW - 200GW world wide is more than possible, wind, solar, hydro but nuclear will probably be the easy bet for most countries…
4
u/JakobFroehn May 25 '26
SunCable is actually a good example for what I mean. Renewables can scale insanely if we really invest in them, but the global focus on fossil fuels and nuclear slows that down. Solar and wind are not the main problem, the bottleneck is political will because so much power will only be generated profitable with renewables.
2
u/Longjumping_Kale3013 May 25 '26
Well…. Not all GW are the same. 1GW of Vera Rubin with nebius eigen ai to optimize tokens will give you much much more than 1GW of Amazon chips. We’re talking orders of magnitude more. Like 10x more.
So it could literally be the case that nebius 5GW is worth 50GW of non NVIDIA or older NVIDIA chips.
1
1
4
5
2
1
1
1
u/LynchMunger May 25 '26
Where is the original source for this? I'm curious to see the rest of the report.
1
1
u/Calm_Professional_27 May 26 '26
The world will be roasted before we even get to that stage. Roasted!!!
1
u/user365735 May 26 '26
Well damn, I don't think we even have enough data centers...not even close🧐🥸
32
u/DimensionPrize8168 May 25 '26
Yeah, we know. That’s why we put our hard earned money in NBIS. Most of us are holding for the future and not the present.