VST is a bull thesis; its existing nuclear infrastructure allows for efficient capacity expansion (uprating) to serve AI demand, backed by government funding and corporate contracts.

First, I want to talk about the company "Vistra". Its stock symbol is VST. There are many investors who are enthusiastic about nuclear energy companies that have not yet turned a profit.

And I say to them: "Why don't you look at an actual, existing nuclear company ?"

Of course, " Vestra" does not rely solely on nuclear power. It generates energy from diverse sources, including solar power, coal, and gas. I mean, it covers almost the entire range of energy sources.

It sells electricity directly to customers in some areas. However, it also supplies major network operators such as ERCOT in Texas. Therefore, it actually supplies many customers from Texas all the way north. I believe its coverage extends as far as Ohio.

The reason I'm highlighting this company today is that the US government is going to give it a loan of approximately $4 billion.

Now, why is the government doing this? Because the company already owns existing nuclear facilities . Instead of needing to build new facilities, it can increase the amount of electricity produced by existing facilities.

This is called " uprating" (increasing productivity). Therefore, it can increase the capacity of existing facilities and utilize the existing network infrastructure . From my point of view, this is a more efficient use, or more efficient deployment, of energy.

If you look at the nuclear power plants whose capacity may be increased thanks to this government loan, you will find that one of them directly feeds the Meta data center, which is a major beneficiary of this.

Another example is Amazon Web Services (AWS). One of these centers could benefit from Vestra simply increasing the capacity of the nuclear power plants it already owns.

To clarify, the part we are talking about in "Vestra" here is what is called an " Independent Power Producer" ( IPP). Many of these utility companies operate with both a regulated side of the business and an unregulated side.

In most states, the regulated side means that you pay your electricity bill, and that price is negotiated and capped because they have a regulated monopoly. The side of independent energy producers is the unregulated side.

Here they build a power plant, and if they find a customer willing to buy, perhaps on a long-term contract, that's great, you can make a profit margin from it. But they take greater risks, because if there is no customer, and if you only sell in the wholesale market, sometimes you will make huge profits, and other times the profits will not be big .

Therefore, there are greater risks in the market, but I currently believe that the momentum behind artificial intelligence and demand will be the real driver for companies like Vistura.

And I think you are right about owning those existing assets that are already connected to the network. Incidentally, this represents a large part of the problem. It's not just about building a power plant, whether it's a gas or nuclear plant, but also about building transmission lines to connect it to the grid or to the data center you're trying to run.

So, they will find more and more of these opportunities, saying, "Here is something that is currently neglected, can we get it back up and running?" We've seen this, you know, since the early days, like " Three Mile Island".

I believe that was a Microsoft project, wasn't it? They signed a long-term contract and said, " Can we get this back to work?" Because they are in dire need of energy. Therefore, this will be a long-term incentive, perhaps lasting for decades, for companies like Vistura.