CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has finalized an order banning General Motors (GM) from disclosing consumers’ geolocation and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies for a period of five years, the agency said in a Jan. 14 statement.

The FTC had filed a complaint against GM and its subsidiary OnStar LLC in January 2025.

GM “collected, used, and sold drivers’ precise geolocation data and driving behavior information from millions of vehicles—data that can be used to set insurance rates—without adequately notifying consumers and obtaining their affirmative consent,” the agency said at the time.

GM was encouraging customers to sign up for its OnStar connected vehicle service and the OnStar Smart Driver feature through a “misleading enrollment process,” the FTC said at the time.

During enrollment, the company did not “clearly disclose” that collected information—including data regarding speeding, late-night driving, and instances of hard braking—would be sold to third parties such as consumer reporting agencies, the commission said.

This information was used by reporting agencies to compile credit reports that were subsequently utilized by insurance companies to set rates and deny insurance, the commission said. The FTC said that tracking and collecting geolocation data was an invasion of privacy.

The five-year ban is part of the FTC’s settlement order with GM. The ban is appropriate “given GM’s egregious betrayal of consumers’ trust,” the FTC statement said. The order was issued against OnStar LLC, General Motors LLC, and General Motors Holdings LLC, which are all owned by the General Motors Company.

In addition, for the next 20 years of the order, GM is required to obtain “affirmative express consent from consumers prior to collecting, using, or sharing connected vehicle data” except under certain circumstances, such as providing location data to emergency first responders, the FTC said.

During that period, GM must ensure that U.S. customers can request a copy of their data, ask for their data to be deleted, and opt out of geolocation and driver behavior data collection.

“The Federal Trade Commission has formally approved the agreement reached last year with General Motors to address concerns,” a GM spokesperson told The Epoch Times on Jan. 15.

“As vehicle connectivity becomes increasingly integral to the driving experience, GM remains committed to protecting customer privacy, maintaining trust, and ensuring customers have a clear understanding of our practices.”

In a statement on Jan. 16, 2025, GM said that although Smart Driver was created to promote safer driving among users, the company ended the program following customer feedback.

“Last year, we discontinued Smart Driver across all GM vehicles, unenrolled all customers, and ended our third-party telematics relationships with LexisNexis and Verisk,” GM said at the time.

“The FTC consent order includes new measures that go above and beyond existing law, while capturing steps we’ve already taken to establish choices for customer data collection and communications about how the information is used.”

GM had affirmed that it would obtain customer consent before collecting, using, or disclosing certain types of connected vehicle data, in line with its agreement with the FTC.

Vehicle Data Collection

Multiple other car companies admit to collecting driver data as part of their privacy policies.

For instance, Honda gathers geolocation and driver behavior data, according to its data privacy practices webpage.

Driver behavior information includes “vehicle speed, vehicle acceleration and deceleration, pedal positions, engine speed, direction and time of travel, steering angle, yaw rate, vehicle control, and Honda Sensing or Acura Watch system settings and usage,” it said.

In a Jan. 6 statement, Toyota said it collects a vehicle’s precise location, within 1,850 feet. The company clarified that it does not use the location or driving data for marketing purposes or offer it to third parties.

Kia’s privacy policy states that the company collects geolocation data and other vehicle information that could be shared with third parties for purposes such as crash notification assistance, content-based services, roadside assistance, and determining driving score and usage-based insurance.

In April, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) introduced the Connected Vehicle National Security Review Act, which would allow the Department of Commerce to ban or restrict connected vehicles or components coming from China or other nations of concern if deemed to pose a threat to national security, according to an April 10, 2025, statement from the lawmaker’s office.

“Chinese vehicles, which are dirt cheap thanks to state subsidies, could collect full motion video of sensitive sites, 3-D mapping, and geolocation of individual drivers—all of which could be sent back to Beijing,” Slotkin said.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in June 2025.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

It is expected that AI productivity increases will vastly transform the U.S. economy. Firms are utilizing AI productivity enhancements to automate repetitive tasks, and research and coding functions have already been implemented. The obvious problem is that when machines perform functions once done by humans, what are the humans supposed to do for income? This increase in AI productivity is measurable across various sectors, as supply chains operate more efficiently, data analysis accelerates, and customer service utilizes automated agents to streamline tasks. Manufacturing, once considered a stable sector of the economy, is increasingly using robotics to reduce labor costs. Professional services are also increasingly displacing workers in medical, legal, and other areas of the service economy to improve output (read: profits) per worker.

This is not a new thing. It has been accelerating since the invention of the fax machine and phone answering devices. The use of AI productivity-enhancing technology is becoming increasingly apparent. But as shown, the shift by corporations to focus on worker productivity is ongoing.

Recent corporate statements confirm this shift. At a 2025 financial conference, JPMorgan Chase reported that AI adoption doubled productivity gains in certain operations from 3% to 6%, with some roles seeing efficiency increases of 40%?to?50%. Other banks said AI allows them to accomplish more work with the same headcount.

In theory, the promise of AI productivity increases is alluring. While firms can produce more with fewer inputs, humans will have more time to pursue education, leisure, and spend time with their families, increasing overall health and happiness. Again, that is theory, and the subject of today’s commentary.

Productivity Set To Surge

The strict definition of “productivity” is the output per unit of input. In other words, if output rises, it should correspond to an increase in employee compensation, as economic demand leads to the production of more products. Since 1947, a correlation has existed between economic output and the 3-month average of the annual rate of change in employee compensation.

Between 2004 and the pandemic, annual labor productivity growth averaged just 1.5% per year, significantly below the pace required for sustained real wage improvement.?Recent gains measured in 2023 showed a temporary uptick; however, whether this marks a trend driven by AI rather than short-term business cycles remains unclear.

Furthermore, emerging research suggests that AI has the potential to deliver significant productivity improvements. A study of generative AI usage found that average workers using tools like ChatGPT completed tasks 40% faster with higher quality, implying substantial productivity enhancements when AI is integrated into work processes. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis estimated that generative AI contributed a roughly 1.1% boost to aggregate productivity, with individual workers saving multiple hours per week on routine tasks. Lastly, a TIME-published analysis of Anthropic research suggests that AI has the potential to double U.S. labor productivity growth, increasing it by approximately 1.8% if widespread adoption occurs.

These projections also align with broader institutional forecasts. The IMF reports that AI could significantly impact nearly 40% of jobs worldwide, presenting both opportunities and risks for income growth and inequality.?Yet, productivity gains alone do not automatically lead to wage increases or employment growth.

The Problem

The problem arises when productivity increases without a corresponding demand for labor. AI operates without downtime, 24/7, and does not require traditional wages, benefits, or breaks. If AI performs tasks that previously employed millions of workers, the question of how displaced workers earn income becomes central. Corporate leaders acknowledge this challenge. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has highlighted the unpredictability of AI’s impact, noting that productivity gains may come with labor market disruptions that current policy tools are ill-equipped to manage.

Historical examples show how technological shifts displace workers in the short term. For instance, during the “Industrial Revolution,” artisans lost jobs to mechanized production. Horse-drawn carriage drivers disappeared with the advent of automobiles. Yes, workers eventually moved into new fields, but the transition involved hardship and community upheaval. Automation in prior eras often created new kinds of jobs, but the pace and breadth of AI disruption could set this wave apart. Instead of merely replacing manual labor, AI now substitutes for tasks across both blue-collar and white-collar jobs. Research by Oxford economists Carl Frey and Michael Osborne highlighted that many occupations have tasks that are susceptible to automation, and could disappear entirely.

Compounding the challenge, since the late 1970s, productivity gains started diverging from typical worker compensation. According to the Economic Policy Institute, productivity growth far outpaced wage growth for the median worker, signaling that gains from technology and economic expansion have accrued disproportionately to capital owners and high-skill labor. This productivity-pay gap signals that, even before AI’s full impact arrives, workers were not sharing equitably in productivity-driven prosperity.

The pace of technological change means millions of Americans face an uncertain labor market. Young workers entering the workforce find fewer traditional hiring pathways and rising expectations around digital and AI-related skills. Older workers frequently lack the time or resources to retrain in rapidly shifting skill environments. Across age groups, employers deploying AI experience reduced labor costs and increased productivity, which simultaneously puts pressure on wages and job security.

The reality is stark. The economy may grow, but how the gains are distributed will determine whether everyday Americans thrive or struggle. Without structural policy interventions, technological displacement risks widening income inequality and weakening labor market attachment. The promise of more leisure, education, and family time from productivity gains remains theoretical. If workers lack stable incomes, employment opportunities, or bridging support, the rest won’t matter.

But, this is where the “cries for UBI” become most vocal.

The Wrong Solution

Legendary investor Howard Marks has described AI’s impact on employment as “terrifying.” He emphasized that work provides purpose and identity beyond mere income. Notably, he stated that “…financial support alone will not replace the psychological and social benefits of employment.” That is a crucially important statement, which we now have the data to support. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the default proposal to offset the impacts of increased AI productivity. The logic sounds simple enough: “If AI displaces workers, send checks to households to replace lost wages and economic stability returns.”

The problem is that the evidence does not support this conclusion.

Following the pandemic-driven shutdown of the economy, we sent checks to households, which was a form of Universal Basic Income. Many articles espoused the benefits of such an operation, but the results were far less appealing. Surging inflation eroded the benefits of the stimulus and left Americans far worse off than they would have been otherwise. However, other real-time tests have also yielded less than promising outcomes.

We previously discussed one of the UBI experiments, which found predictable results. Short-term relief did not translate into higher employment, improved skills, or long-term income growth. Cash transfers temporarily increased consumption but did not raise productivity, increase labor force participation, or improve economic mobility.

“Participants in the study generally did not use the extra time to seek new or better jobs—even though younger participants were slightly more likely to pursue additional education. There was no clear indication that the participants in the study were more likely to take the risk of starting a new business, although Vivalt points out that there was a significant uptick in “precursors” to entrepreneurialism. Instead, the largest increases were in categories that the researchers termed social and solo leisure activities.”

The Argument magazine also reviewed multiple studies on guaranteed income and reached a similar conclusion. While recipients reported lower stress and higher short-term satisfaction, these gains faded quickly. Employment outcomes showed little improvement, job search intensity declined in several cases, and participation in education and retraining did not rise significantly.

In other words, giving people money without purpose helped much less than promised.

The core flaw in UBI is structural, as it treats income as the problem. Employment is the real issue. Yes, work provides wages, but it also offers skill development, social structure, and a sense of purpose, along with long-term stability. A simple check replaces none of those, and unfortunately, as 2020 shows, when producers realize that checks are being sent, they raise prices to capitalize on it. In other words, an artificial increase in incomes will quickly be absorbed by higher prices (inflation), effectively rendering the UBI useless.

Here is the most critical point.

“An economy cannot function on transfers alone; production must precede consumption. UBI reverses this order.“

Cost also matters. A national UBI program large enough to offset AI-driven displacement would require trillions of dollars annually. Funding such a program would either require higher taxes, debt expansion, or both. While each option will reduce future growth, higher taxes reduce investment incentives, while increased debt raises interest costs and crowds out private capital. Neither path supports long-term prosperity.

UBI also weakens the labor signal. Wages communicate where labor is needed, and training follows opportunity. UBI dulls this signal by separating income from work, and, over time, workforce attachment erodes, skills decay, and reentry into employment becomes increasingly complex. This dynamic showed up repeatedly in pilot programs.

Most importantly, UBI avoids the hard work of reform. It sidesteps education reform, workforce retraining, mobility assistance, and pro-growth labor policy. It accepts displacement as inevitable and permanent. History shows this approach fails, and past technological shifts succeeded because workers moved into new roles. In other words, policy supported adaptation, not withdrawal.

AI productivity gains will demand active solutions, not government gifts. Skill development, apprenticeships, employer-based training, wage insurance, and mobility support. These tools address displacement directly, while UBI does not.

Defaulting to UBI is an admission of policy failure and signals surrender to the disruption rather than managing it. The United States grew prosperous by expanding opportunity, not replacing work with checks. That lesson remains relevant today as AI continues to reshape the economy.

LIS Technologies announced a $1.4 billion uranium enrichment project in Oakridge, Tennessee at the former iconic K-25 site, which until 1987 was a massive gaseous diffusion facility built for the Manhattan Project to enrich uranium-235 for atomic bombs. The company will set up shop on the 206-acre on Duct Island, which will be renamed to LIST Island.

Following the renaming of the 206-acre Duct Island to LIST Island and its redevelopment to house the Company's commercial laser-based uranium enrichment headquarters, Oak Ridge, TN is expected to become the site of the world's first US-origin commercial laser uranium enrichment facility, supporting U.S. utilities, next-generation reactor developers, and national defense requirements while helping to reestablish a resilient domestic nuclear fuel supply chain.

"Tennessee continues to lead the nation in advancing American energy independence, which is why innovative companies like LIS Technologies recognize our efforts through projects like this," said Tennessee Governor Bill Lee. "By creating the Nuclear Energy Fund, we have uniquely positioned our state at the forefront of cutting-edge R&D, and I look forward to the positive impact this project will have for Tennesseans across our state."

The company intends to break ground and begin site preparation and civil construction in 2026 subject to licensing, permitting, and final investment decisions.

LIST is targeting initial commercial operations before 2030, positioning its laser enrichment facility to meet accelerating demand for domestically sourced uranium enrichment.

LIST has partnered with Nano Nuclear to vertically integrate the nuclear fuel chain with reactor development and deployment. The companies are working together to commercialize the Kronos, Zeus, and Loki reactors and supply the necessary fuel for them to operate.

As the push for US nuclear development goes into high gear, the 3rd-generation laser enrichment technology from LIST could be used to produce low enriched uranium (LEU) and high-assay LEU (HALEU) for use in both traditional commercial reactors and advanced reactors throughout the US. The Department of Energy is pursuing the revitalization of the nuclear supply chain due to a current heavy reliance on foreign imports to fuel the nation's reactor fleet. LIST's major advantage over its peers in the laser enrichment field is that its process is the only US-origin technology in development. 

LIST states they will pursue site characterization and the initial phases of construction during this calendar year. It is then anticipated the company will begin discussions with the NRC to submit an application for the new nuclear fuel facility.

Nano Nuclear, a developer of small modular reactors, first invested in LIST in 2024, which included an enriched uranium supply agreement between the two companies and a potential for future collaboration on fuel fabrication facilities. Nano is still exploring the potential for entering the fabrication market, but has yet to make any announcements regarding land acquisition or regulatory engagement.

Nano recently entered into an engineering agreement with Ameresco for eventual commercialization of their reactor designs, and most recently started the process for preparing the Loki design for use in space applications. Nano Nuclear acquired the Kronos and Loki designs from the now-defunct Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp during bankruptcy proceedings at the end of 2024.

Nano claims the Kronos design is in a high technical readiness state and is one of the leading high-temperature gas-cooled reactor designs in development. It is expected to enter commercial production by the end of the decade.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The new J6 Committee has started its hearings and, unlike the prior Committee, Republicans have allowed Democrats to select members to sit in opposition. That has led to sharp exchanges, but one of the more interesting occurred between Rep. Harriet Hageman (R., Wyo.) and Jamie Raskin (D., Md.). After Hageman got a witness to admit that no one was charged with incitement, Raskin made the clearly false statement that a few defendants charged with seditious conspiracy was the same thing as incitement. It is not.

Rep. Raskin triggered the confrontation by making a clearly false claim about one of those charged by the Biden Administration: “I would just commend to everybody the testimony of Pamela Hemphill, who was a convicted insurrectionist that was pardoned. She rejected her pardon.”

In reality, Hemphill was charged (like most of the rioters) with relatively minor misdemeanors. She pleaded guilty to one count of demonstrating, picketing, or parading in a Capitol building and received just 60 days in prison, 36 months of probation, and a $500 fine for restitution. She was never charged with insurrection or any felony.

Rep. Hageman pounced on the comment and asked former Justice Department prosecutor Michael Romano whether any January 6 protester had actually been convicted under the federal insurrection statute.

Romano tried to dodge the question but admitted that no one, not Trump nor any rioter, was ever charged with insurrection. Notably, after January 6th, there was a great amount of coverage on Trump and his aides being possibly charged with insurrection or incitement. Despite some of us noting that the speech was clearly protected under the First Amendment, the press portrayed such a charge as credible and heaped coverage on District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, who announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. It never happened. The reason is obvious. It could not be legally maintained.

While the FBI launched a massive national investigation, it did not find evidence of an insurrection. While a few were charged with seditious conspiracy, no one was charged with insurrection.

The Supreme Court later reduced charges further by rejecting obstruction charges in some cases.

Yet that did not stop members and the media from repeating the false mantra that this was an insurrection, despite some of us immediately rejecting it as legally unsustainable. Indeed, Democrats used the false claim to seek to disqualify Trump and dozens of Republicans from ballots.

Now back to the hearing.

Hageman asked the witness, “Mr. Romano, did you prosecute anyone related to January 6th for engaging in an insurrection?” she asked. Romano responded, “No, congresswoman.”

That is when Raskin objected and tried to interrupt the confirmation that, in fact, there never was an insurrection or any such charges.

Hageman persisted, “So, Mr. Raskin’s statement that someone was a ‘convicted insurrectionist’ is actually inaccurate, isn’t that correct?”

When Romano again tried to pivot, she pressed further, “She wasn’t a convicted insurrectionist, was she?”

“For the crime of insurrection, no,” he admitted.

Raskin shouted, “Do you accept seditious conspiracy as insurrection?”

It was a telling statement.

For the record, I have long been a critic of sedition crimes. As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,”sedition was a noxious import from Great Britain. British judges had balked at the effort to accuse citizens of treason for things like telling bawdy jokes about the queen in some pub.

However, putting that aside, the handful of charges for seditious conspiracy are not legally the same or even close to an insurrection charge. Rep. Raskin, a former law professor, must know that.

The provision in 18 U.S.C. 2384 has long been controversial because it is so sweeping and includes any effort “by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law.” While the provision can also entail an intent to overthrow the country, the provision covers any interference with federal proceedings or laws.

Ironically, Raskin opposes the invocation of the Insurrection Act in cities like Minneapolis on the basis of the interference with federal officials in the enforcement of federal law. However, he seems to view this provision as endlessly malleable, so that anyone accused of hindering the execution of a federal law is an insurrectionist.

After January 6th, Justice Department official Michael Sherwin publicly declared that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe” in hitting people with a maximal level of charges. Yet, despite that “shock and awe” effort, not a single charge for insurrection was ever brought — an inconvenient truth for members like Raskin.

None of this excuses the outrageous riot that occurred on that terrible day. However, seeking to conform the criminal code to the political narrative serves neither the Congress nor the public.

When in doubt, just change the rules - or so goes the thinking in Brussels as it seeks to get creative on ways to allow Ukraine's quick accession to the European Union, despite it being consistently ranked among the most corrupt governments on earth.

EU officials have described that a current plan being taken seriously is a 'limited' membership tier, part of a proposed European peace deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war, but which would withhold full membership rights for Kiev, which later must be "earned" according to a phrased transition.

Financial Times puts it this way: "Brussels is drafting proposals to tear up the EU accession system used since the cold war, replacing it with a contentious two-tier model that could fast-track Ukraine's entry in any peace deal to end Russia’s invasion."

These alternative plans have taken greater urgency after "Ukrainian EU membership in 2027" was added into the 20-point peace plan which has been subject of intense back-and-forth between the US, Ukraine, and EU.

As far as drastically changing the accession process for merely a single 'exception' - one EU official who is a proponent was quoted in NBC as saying, "We have to recognize that we are in a very different reality than when the (accession) rules were first drawn up."

And yet immense hurdles would remain, regardless, especially those states seen as 'Russia-friendly' and heavily reliant on Russian energy, Hungary and Slovakia. Joining the bloc requires formal approval of all 27 EU member nations. On top of this, as NBC points out:

But many E.U. governments believe that date, or any other fixed date, is completely unrealistic, because E.U. accession is currently a merit-based process, moving forward only when there is progress in adjusting a country's laws to E.U. standards.

Joining the bloc also requires sign-off from the national parliaments of the EU's 27 member states. Some kind of 'staged access' plan could then open the flood gates for others who are not ready, and whose economies would be a drag and drain and the rest of the EU.

A somewhat recent member like Poland was not even at war when it joined in the 2004 membership wave during the Bush era. Poland itself could stand in the way of fast-tracking Ukraine, with the two eastern European neighbors recently being engaged in several tense diplomatic disputes.

But one unnamed diplomat has argued:

"It is Europe’s interest to have Ukraine in the E.U., because of our own security," an E.U. diplomat said.

"It is why we need to look for creative solutions - how to get Ukraine in the E.U. quickly. The reversed membership concept reflects this idea - to have Ukraine joining the E.U. politically and then getting full rights and full-fledged membership once all conditions are met," the diplomat said.

The European Union has meanwhile continued full steam ahead in efforts to ramp up support to Ukraine's defense sector, even as Washington has been seen as largely withdrawing. For example last November European Parliament voted to approve a 1.5 billion euros ($1.7bn) program which seeks to deepen integration between Ukraine and Europe on military-industrial relations.

Harold Hamm says low oil prices are forcing a step he hasn’t taken in decades: shutting down drilling in North Dakota’s Bakken, according to Bloomberg.

“This will be the first time in over 30 years that Harold Hamm has not had an operation with drilling rigs in North Dakota,” he said. “That tells you a whole lot right there: There’s no need to drill it when margins are basically gone.”

The decision underscores how far conditions have shifted in the region that once defined the US shale boom. The Bakken was where Hamm showed that fracking could unlock oil long thought unreachable, helping transform the US into the world’s leading producer and reshaping global energy markets.

Bloomberg writes that the pullback reflects pressure across the industry. Even as Hamm backs President Donald Trump, producers are feeling the strain from policies aimed at pushing oil prices lower to fight inflation, at the expense of profitability.

Costs are rising just as prices fall. BloombergNEF estimates that a typical Bakken well now needs about $58 a barrel to break even, nearly 4% higher than a year ago. At the same time, US benchmark crude has slid about 25% over the past year to roughly $59, weighed down by fears of oversupply and expectations of more barrels entering the market, including from Venezuela.

Drilling activity has dropped nationwide, with US rig counts down 15% over the past year and the biggest reductions coming from the Permian Basin.

“A lot of people are assessing their activity in all the basins,” Hamm said.

He made clear the pause may not be permanent. “We’re price takers, as you’re aware — not price makers,” he said with a laugh. “See what we can get.”

Submitted by TightSpreads 

Many smart investors are catching up to the nuclear story already, but there is another angle to it that is grossly uncovered: isotopes.

This educational primer provides a useful starting point for understanding isotope market opportunities and the nuclear equities or advanced materials companies to be featured soon.

Why is this timely?

• Because Oklo management has told the street that radioisotope revenues could begin as early as Q1-2026.
• Isotopes are about to drastically change the semiconductor, industrial, and medical industries.

What is an isotope?

Isotopes are atoms of the same element with identical chemical properties (same protons/electrons) but differing neutron counts, leading to variations in atomic mass and nuclear behavior. So if elements are families, isotopes are siblings. Being that sibings are similar, but not identical. They arise naturally as the result of ancient stellar explosions, cosmic ray interactions, and radioactive decay; or artificially via nuclear reactors/particle accelerators.

There are two types of isotopes: stable and unstable/radioactive. Stable isotopes have energetically balanced nucleus (protons/neutrons) and don’t decay. They are ideal for long-term uses like environmental tracking and are more ‘commoditized’ compared to radioactive isotopes. In contrast, radioactive isotopes have an imbalanced nucleus. This imbalance of energy, typically caused by an excess or deficiency of neutrons, forces the isotope to undergo spontaneous radioactive decay

Radioactive decay is a process exclusive to radioisotopes. It’s the transformation of an unstable atomic nucleus rebalancing into a more stable configuration. This process involves the release of energy through various decay modes, primarily alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. It is important to note that decay often occurs in sequences known as decay chains, where a parent isotope transforms into one or more daughter isotopes before reaching a final, stable state. The opportunity set of daughter isotopes have been increasingly researched and pursued in private markets, and more recently, public equity markets.

The rate of this transformation is measured by an isotope's half-life—the time required for half of a given sample to undergo decay. Half-lives vary significantly across the isotopic spectrum. This especially important for logistical considerations of isotope production and end-market delivery. Radioactive half-lives can be as short as septillionths of a second, but most commonly-used radioactive isotopes will have half-life spans of a few hours or days.

Major Applications

• Nuclear Energy & Fuel Cycle:

  • Enrichment Services: Focus on Enriched U-235 for the existing fleet and HALEU (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium) for next-generation SMRs (Small Modular Reactors). Exacerbated by the “Russia Exit” play to shift the U.S. from Russian enrichment reliance and assert our own nuclear and material dominance.

  • Specialty Lithium: Lithium-7 is critical for pH control in pressurized water reactors (PWRs) to prevent corrosion, while Lithium-6 is the primary precursor for Tritium in the burgeoning fusion energy sector.

  • Market Tailwinds: The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates the nuclear fuel enrichment opportunity will grow from ~18.0 MT/ year in 2024 to ~613.8 MT/ year in 2035, reflecting a ~37.8% CAGR.

• Medical (Primary Growth Engine):

  • Diagnostics: Technetium-99m (Tc-99m) remains the industry workhorse, utilized in approximately 80–85% of all nuclear diagnostic scans worldwide.

  • Theranostics (Targeted Therapies): The “Oncology Boom” is driven by Actinium-225 and Lutetium-177, which allow for “search and destroy” cancer treatments.

  • Market Tailwinds: According to Allied Market Research, the nuclear medical isotope market was estimated at ~$6.6B in 2025 and is projected to reach ~$14B by 2034 (8.8% CAGR). Growth is catalyzed by: the targeted oncology boom, a massive influx of biotech capital into radiopharmaceutical pipelines, aging global demographics, and the urgent need to diversify supply away from aging legacy reactors.

Supply Chain Fragility: The medical isotope market is notoriously fragile because it relies on a linear, "just-in-time" supply chain with almost no buffer for error. Much of the world’s supply currently relies on a handful of aging legacy reactors

• High-Value Industrial & Tech Niches:

  • Semiconductors and Quantum Computing: Isolating and enriching materials like Silicon-28 or Phosphorus-31, can unlock significant technological performance enhancements. McKinsey estimates the global semiconductor market will reach ~$1T by 2030, up from ~$527B in 2023 (~7.7% CAGR).

  • Industrial and Tech: Germanium isotope end use cases span electronics, infrared optics, solar cells, and fiber optics, among other applications.

  • Industrial/Research: Helium-3 for cryogenics and neutron detection; Carbon-13 for metabolic research and gas tracing.

  • Resource Management: Isotopes are essential for oil/gas reservoir tracing and high-precision environmental monitoring (e.g., tracking carbon sources or water table movement).

Isotope Production and Enrichment

As we recently mentionef, elements come as a mix of “heavy” and “light” versions of their atomic masses. Thus, elements may have a variety of isotopes found and to be made. Production methods work by bombarding target materials with high-energy particles—such as neutrons in nuclear reactors to create neutron-rich isotopes or protons in cyclotrons to create proton-rich isotopes. Enrichment takes a natural mixture (like raw Uranium) and use precision methods such as lasers to "sort" or separate the isotopes that are already there.

In a high-tech supply chain, you often need both enrichment and production to get to a final product.

Production Methods:

The Future, Nuclear Reactors

• The Process: Reactors act as “controlled furnaces” that generate a dense flux of neutrons. Target materials are inserted into the reactor core where they are “baked” or irradiated by these neutrons to create a radioactive isotope.

• The Reaction (Neutron Capture): Because neutrons have no electrical charge, they easily enter the nucleus of a target atom. The nucleus absorbs the neutron, becoming a heavier and often unstable isotope that then decays into the desired material.

Why it’s better:

• Massive Scale: Reactors are the only cost-competitive machines capable of “bulk” production, irradiating dozens of targets simultaneously. Making nuclear reactor isotope producers such as Oklo’s Versatile Isotope Production Reactors (VIPR) a strong contender for scaling U.S. domestic supply amid global shortages with uniform distribution.

• Unique Capabilities: Only reactors can produce the neutron-rich therapeutic isotopes and industrial dopants that represent the current largest growth drivers in healthcare and AI.

The Specialized Alternative, Cyclotrons

• The Process: Magnets and electricity fire a high-speed “proton beam” in an ever-widening spiral at a target.

• The Result: This “proton bombardment” creates proton-rich isotopes.

Status: Commercially scaled and widely distributed, often found directly in or near hospitals due to the short half-lives of the isotopes they produce.

 

The Precision Straight-Line, Linear Accelerators (Linacs)

• The Process: Propels charged particles in a straight line through a long vacuum tube using electric fields.

• The Result: Produces a wide range of isotopes with high precision and reduced beam loss compared to cyclotrons.

• Status: Commercially scaled for both isotope production and medical radiotherapy, though they often require significantly more physical space than cyclotrons.

The High-Energy Ring, Synchrotrons

• The Process: Guides particles in a circular path using variable magnetic fields to keep them in a fixed ring as they gain extreme energy.

• The Result: Capable of reaching GeV energy levels, far beyond what standard cyclotrons can achieve.

• Status: Not typically used for commercial isotope production; they are primarily “frontier” machines for high-energy physics research and specialized cancer treatments like carbon-ion therapy.

Enrichment Methods:

The Current Standard, Gas Centrifuge

• The Process: The material is turned into a gas and spun at incredibly high speeds in a cylinder.

• The Result: The “heavy” pieces are thrown to the outside walls, while the “lighter” ones stay in the center. By repeating this hundreds of times through a cascade of centrifuges, the desired isotope is concentrated.

The Retired Method, Gaseous Diffusion

• The Process: Pumping gas through miles of filters with tiny holes.

• Status: This was the original Cold War method. It is now obsolete because it uses massive amounts of electricity and is far too expensive compared to modern spinning.

The Future, Laser Enrichment

After 50 years of development, laser technology is the “next frontier.” Unlike the methods above, lasers are surgical and precise. The only downfall has been their ability to scale lasers for mass commercialization.

• How it works: Scientists “tune” a laser to a specific frequency that only hits the target isotope. It’s like using a specialized magnet to pull only the copper pennies out of a jar of mixed coins.

• Why it’s better: It is much more efficient and can handle materials that centrifuges can’t.

Key laser types:

• Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS): Heat the element to gas atoms ? lasers selectively charge (ionize) the target isotope ? charged atoms stick to a collector plate (opposites attract). Was not scaled due to technical challenges.

• Molecular Laser Isotope Separation (MLIS): Convert to a gas molecule ? lasers excite/break bonds in molecules with the target isotope ? enriched part is collected via collector plate.

SILEX (most advanced version, from Australia’s Silex Systems): A smarter MLIS approach. Lasers excite target molecules ? in a fast-moving gas jet, excited (lighter) ones resist clumping/condensing and separate differently.

Avlis technique:

* * * 

Read more at the TightSpreads substack.

Talen Energy is following in the footsteps of utility peers Vistra and Constellation by spending billions of dollars acquiring gas generation assets to expand their capacity and grow market share in the growing power demand market.

After spending about $3.5 billion to acquire gas generation capacity in Pennsylvania and Ohio back in July 2025, the company announced it spent another $3.5 billion to acquire two more gas facilities in Ohio. With the newly announced 2.6 GW added to last year’s 2.9 GW, Talen is getting just as aggressive as others with acquiring as much capacity as possible.

We previously discussed Vistra’s stock price popping after they purchased multiple gas plants for $4 billion, adding 5.5 GW to their portfolio across the US. The PJM market seems to be a focus of much of the capacity expansion efforts due to the extreme strain on the grid with data centers growing like weeds in places like northern Virginia. That acquisition is also in addition to their $2 billion Q4 purchase of seven gas plants for 2.6 GW.

Acquisitions by Talen and Vistra are still dwarfed by Constellation’s massive acquisition of Calpine announced one year ago. Acquiring 23 GW of mostly gas power, Constellation paid about $30 billion to further expand their generation capabilities. Constellation also currently holds ownership of the most commercial nuclear reactions in the US.

The frantic scramble to acquire as much capacity as possible, as quickly as possible, is due to the desperation for answering the demand from the US grid as it struggles to keep up with new demand growth not seen in decades due to electrification and AI data centers.

While it is far from being as dangerous as coal plants to the environment, gas generation is far from being considered as friendly as renewable and carbon-free sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear. This is one of the main reasons nuclear energy has come back into the conversation as more people than ever now approve of the use and construction of new nuclear power plants.

But, with data centers being built right now, the only way to meet their current demands is with gas and existing nuclear while the industry prepares to transfer to new and advanced nuclear in the future, most likely after 2030. There is a general concern that the nuclear bullishness of the Trump administration could be overridden by a left-wing government should parties switch after the next election, but due to nuclear being one of the most “purple” means a power production, those fears could be mostly over blown. 

Regardless, Energy Secretary Chris Wright is promoting and pushing nuclear developments harder than anyone since Admiral Rickover, with the near-term potential to bring at least three new reactor designs critical by July 4 of this year.