Doomberg: “US Foreign Policy Adventures Standing In Way Of Nuclear Renaissance”

U.S. foreign policy is obstructing nuclear energy progress: “U.S. foreign policy adventures and various conflicts with perceived enemies is standing in the way of the nuclear renaissance.” Those were the words of energy and financial analyst Doomberg (who writes pseudonymously on Substack) from last evening’s ZeroHedge Debate with Mark Nelson of Radiant Energy Group, hosted by Erik Townsend of Macro Voices.

In a rational world, the U.S. would “put out to bid building parts or all of a fleet of envisioned reactors,” accepting proposals from countries like “Russia, China, and South Korea, Canada, and Westinghouse,” and selecting “the best of what’s available in the world.” While Trump may try to change course, beltway interests are not always aligned with what is rational. 

Other nations have already shown what’s possible, Doomberg argued. “The United Arab Emirates bought Korean technology and just implemented it very well,” with a “national project management type campaign,” including “multi-generational training” and “a holistic approach.” The result: “four now and counting immortal nuclear reactors” producing “steady 95% capacity factor, carbon-free, clean, marginally cheap electricity for generations.”

Meanwhile, Russia’s Rosatom—despite geopolitical tensions—has become “a technical powerhouse” with “35 or 40 reactors, either under construction or contracted all around the world.” From Turkey to Egypt to Bangladesh and even China and India, Rosatom’s record demonstrates that “you don’t have to be an extremely wealthy country for nuclear to make sense. You just need to execute your nuclear projects in a way that is far better than what the U.S. has done.”

pic.twitter.com/42HriK8ge7

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) August 1, 2025

Doomberg argued that the United States must treat nuclear energy as a public good, not merely a market commodity: “Once you build a nuclear reactor, properly maintained it is effectively immortal.” 

Just as the interstate system delivers near-free access to transportation, a fully developed nuclear grid could provide durable, low-cost power. But such infrastructure doesn’t arise from market forces alone. “There comes a point where market forces fail and government needs to get involved and government needs to subsidize,” Doomberg said.

The challenge, he insists, is not technical but political: “The cost to build nuclear in the US, in Western Europe, is a political choice.”

pic.twitter.com/dMTRK157zM

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) August 1, 2025

Watch the full debate via the link below — and if you are considering investing in the coming nuclear energy renaissance, take a look at the holdings in VanEck’s NLR ETF as the folks over at VanEck were kind enough to sponsor this discussion. Their ETF has exposure to uranium miners as well as utility providers.

Presenting the Nuclear Energy debate: Marc Nelson vs Doomberg
Watch live at 7pm ET https://t.co/loNIjQNlUc

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 31, 2025