Speaker 1it's not a matter of whether or not we want to transition to nuclear. It's a matter of when, because if you compare those same numbers with oil and gas, oil and gas will only last us 50 more years worldwide to run civilization.
Speaker 2That was Allo Atomics co-founder and CTO Yasser Arafat. I'm Eric Townsend, and this is Macro Voices, the free weekly podcast targeting professional finance and sophisticated private investors. Episode 554 was produced on October 15th, 2026. This week, I'm pleased to introduce you to Yasser Arafat, co-founder and chief technology officer of Allo Atomics. You heard Yasser's partner and Allo CEO, Matt Lozak, introduce Allo's plan to mass produce not just nuclear reactors, but entire nuclear power plants in Macro Voices episode 522, which aired on March 5th, 2026. This week, we're going to move beyond Allo's immediate plans to deliver behind-the-meter nuclear energy for data centers and talk about what it's really going to take, not just for Allo, but for the entire U.S. advanced nuclear industry to scale nuclear energy using advanced technology up while bringing the cost of nuclear energy down to the point that it eventually costs less than coal and gas. And I'll tell you up front, Yasser really surprised me in this interview. I thought he was going to say it takes at least 15 years to get to that point where we can make nuclear energy cost less than coal and gas, because I say that's where the demand absolutely explodes and we see a change in the course of human history. Yasser thinks it comes much earlier than I was thinking. So I think you're really going to enjoy this interview, folks. I let it run a little bit longer than usual, but I think you'll find it's worth it.
Speaker 3And I'm Patrick Ceresna. Let's dive straight into the story.
Speaker 2In the interest of full disclosure, I want to acknowledge that I am an early investor in Yasser's company, Allo Atomics. In fact, it's the biggest private equity position I've ever held. So I clearly have a vested interest in the company's success, and I want to be transparent with our listeners about that interest. Nothing in this interview is investment advice. Yasser, it's great to have you on the program. I'm really looking forward to this one. Our longtime listeners have already heard your partner, Matt Lozak, in Allo's plan to offer behind-the-meter nuclear power for AI data centers. So today, I want to focus on the longer term, what happens next, and how we really scale nuclear energy up to a whole new level. But for anybody who didn't catch that interview with Matt, let's just start with a quick refresher. What business is Allo in today, and what are your current plans? Thank
Speaker 1you, Eric, for having me on and interviewing Matt and also bringing the Allo story to light and your continued support. Thank you, Eric, for having me on and interviewing Matt and also bringing the support and supporting Allo. So for those of the audience who are not familiar or need a refresher, Allo is building mass-manufactured nuclear reactors. Now, when we do this, our first market we are targeting is AI data centers because they're the ones who need energy most urgently than anyone else. Once we deploy there and essentially come down the cost curve, that unlocks other markets for us, right? It's not just the energy industry. It's the It's very similar to how Bezos, when he started Amazon, he started with books initially. And then later, he came up with the everything store, right? So just like books for Amazon, data centers are sort of our books, right? We start up with data centers, but then when we come down the cost curve, every other country who is importing energy to keep their lights on, our communities who are struggling with energy, all of that opens up for us.
Speaker 2Thanks, Yasser. Listeners, in case you missed it, I strongly recommend listening to Allo CEO Matt Lozak's interview back on Macro Voices episode 522, which aired on March 5th, 2026. Yasser, the nuclear industry has been around for 75 years, and we still have less than 450 power reactors operating worldwide. That's about six units a year of established long-run demand. And frankly, that's hardly enough to justify any kind of grown-up conversation. about mass-producing anything. Yet, you're already building a factory right now in Texas to mass-produce 100 nuclear reactors per year on an assembly line. Now, this is not my personal view, but I know a lot of investors are going to be very skeptical and maybe even think you're crazy because they're going to say, look, there's obviously not enough volume to justify assembly line production of nuclear reactors, which historically take a decade to build and cost tens of billions of dollars. And so, I think it's important to think about that. And I think it's important to think about that. And I think
Speaker 1every other rocket company is essentially copying off of his model, including China. And the other thing to remember is we are not mass-producing our grandfather reactors, right? These are not this giant mega-scale project that we have seen with massive cooling towers. I mean, this country spent like, what, the last 70 years trying to make nuclear cheap by building one really perfect reactor. Each time it gets bigger, every single time we build it, it gets bigger. And I think we build it until it became so big that no one can really predict how long it'll take or how much it'll cost. But if you think about Vogel, which is the first nuclear plant the country has built after 35 years of not building anything, it took twice as long and more than twice the budget, right? So, what we're talking about here in Analo is really trying to reinvent how we go about nuclear. You don't make nuclear cheap by building nuclear plants. You don't make one perfect reactor and hope that it works out. You make it cheap by building the same good reactor a thousand times and improving it at every generation. So, when we picked out our design, we didn't think about, okay, what is the nicest thing that can work on paper? We said we picked out our design that can produce the most power you can put on the back of a truck. So, we have designed that once and built many. That's our starting point. If you go to any race, you have to pick out the best one. You have to pick out the best one. You have to pick out the best horse. And the best horse that we picked was sodium-cooled reactor technology. This can give us the highest density reactor technology and still get to market in the near term. But what's interesting, Eric, is that, you know, yes, we are going from a 40,000 square feet facility to a million square feet and scale up our production to 100 reactors. It's so interesting to see, like, how the market is so real. Because when we talk to customers, they're calling us up and saying, hey, I don't want one reactor or five reactors or 10. They're asking us literally, like, hey, I want to reserve 20% of your factory production capacity. And that's kind of an interesting model. We haven't thought about that first. If other, three other customers say, I want the next 20% and the next 20% and get up to all the way to 80%, that should give us a signal to go build the second factory, right? So, that way, we can keep supply and demand in these two closely tied steps. You don't want to take supply too far out in the demand. You don't want to have a massive demand and not be able to supply it. This is one way how to keep those two things in a synchronous way.
Speaker 2Well, Yasir, I've done a bunch of my own analysis of this, and I'm very much with you. I wanted to start with that objection that I know a lot of other investors would have, because that's where I started. When somebody first said to me, mass-producing nuclear reactors on an assembly line, I'm like, what are you crazy? There's only 450 of them. When you look at the demand and you look at the desire of energy transition away from fossil fuels that's shared by almost every government on Earth, it's a whole other story. And I'm going to come back to that longer-term story later in this interview. But I want to start with how you justify your current plans for AI data centers, because that question is what's going to be on the mind of investors who haven't yet done the arithmetic on what the demand could eventually look like. Now, I have done that arithmetic, and I think there's already considerably more demand just from the AI data centers alone over the next few years. So I predict that the one gigawatt per year, that's 100 of your modular nuclear reactors that you're going to build in the factory that you have under construction right now in Texas. Some critics think that's overkill. I think it's going to be woefully insufficient. And I would actually go, if you want to know my idea on a business plan, yeah, having some investors come in and say, I want to build a nuclear reactor, I'm going to build a nuclear reactor. I'm going to build a nuclear reactor. I'm going to help you build the next factory. But what I'd say is sell 50% of your capacity and then auction the rest of them as they become available and say who wants it fastest and who wants to pay up. Anyway, that's a little bit of a tangent. So let me come back to what we wanted to talk about. We'll get back to the crazy stuff later on in the interview. What you're building right now is going to make 100 reactors a year. They're 10 megawatts electric each. That's one gigawatt per year. Some people think that's too much or it's crazy. The way that's going to work is these reactors basically come together in what you call pods. A pod is a pre-manufactured nuclear power plant. It has five reactors and three steam turbines so that you can run at full nameplate capacity even after one of those steam turbines trips offline. So it's redundant. It's designed for data centers. It's modular. It's built in a factory, and your factory is going to build 20 of those pods. Each pod has five reactors, so that's your 100 reactors. How big? I think it's actually bigger than you think, frankly, but I want to get your numbers. How much demand do you think there is in the behind-the-meter data center market over the next five to 10 years? Is this one factory going to service at all? Is it more than that? And if so, how much more than that? And what's the plan for the second or the third factory?
Speaker 1Yeah, there's a lot of questions in that one question, Eric. Sorry. I'll try to peel this layer by layer, right? So first things first. In the near term, we're always going to be supply limited. So you're not wrong. Your arithmetic is actually on the spot here. The 100-reactor goal is not the end goal. It is the starting point in our journey for mass production, right? Our first factory, what we're saying is like, hey, I want to get from making 1Z, 2Z reactors to 100 reactors a year. And at that time, I can really start answering some of the questions. I can really start answering some of the key questions that matter, meaning like, is the factory truly scalable, right? Do I have infrastructure? Do I have the machines? Do I have the people? Do I have the process laid out that can be scalable from there? Can I build the supply chain that comes with us? Even though we tout as being a vertically integrated nuclear company, which we are, we don't make everything. We still rely on raw materials like steel, sensors, pumps. We still rely on raw materials like steel, pumps, electronic components. And then we make stuff out of those raw materials or commodity materials, right? Next thing you have to answer yourself is like, okay, if I go to 100 reactors a year, can I fuel these? Can I find the supply chain to make sure fuel is available? Not for their initial deployment, but every fuel cycle, I have to go replenish this fuel every three to four years. Once these are proven, then we can think about, okay, how do we now scale up from here? To meet the demand, to truly make a dent. This market is so massive. I mean, we were talking about data center. Why did we pick a data center market? First of all, in the last 70 years, we have not seen a market demand this big, wanting this much amount of power so quickly. I mean, just to give you an idea, every organization quotes different numbers. But Bank of America, for example, they said, hey, we need 125 gigawatts, 125 gigawatts each gigawatt. Right? Roughly power a million homes, just to give you an idea. So over from 2026, from this year to 2030, we need 125 gigawatts. And right now, I believe the grid and everybody else, they can pull together about 25 gigawatt or so. They've got a 100 gigawatt generation gap on what the demand is. So this market, just the data center alone, is massive. And the reason we want to solve the problem. The reason we want to solve the problem there is because we want them to not become a burden to the grid or the communities that rely on that grid. Right? We want to make sure that we provide that electricity, but also provide that reliability of like 99.9% availability or 5.9 reliabilities, that the only place they can get that reliability is the grid itself. So that's the whole reason why our product from a traditional nuclear space. So we want to make sure that we provide that reliability of like 99.9% availability or 5.9 reliabilities, that the only place they can get that reliability is the grid itself. So we want to make sure that we provide that reliability of like 99.9% reliability or 5.9 reliabilities, that the only place they can get that reliability is the grid itself. And so there is something called a product marketing. And again, I know I'm trying to answer all of your questions one by one. And the last one that I want to address is, okay, when we solve that first factory, where do we go? So you've got two paths to meet that demand. One path is pretty straightforward, is okay, I know a million square feet, I can make 100 reactors a year. Now let me go and copy paste to more factories. And I can scale up the demand. That way, obviously, there's going to be some process improvements, and you can make potentially larger capacity out of them. And so it's basically arithmetic, right? That's one approach. The other approach is trying to innovate and figure out how can we get more energy out of that same form factor. So the sodium cold reactor technology is one of those technologies that can really pave the pathway to, to a different kind of reactors called fast spectrum reactors that could potentially extract 60 to 100 times more energy than a once through cycle, if you couple that with refueling. So those are the kind of things that we're thinking about constantly, how to figure out how to meet this massive demand that we're seeing today.
Speaker 2We'll definitely come back to the fuel cycle and what it takes to get to fast spectrum and all of that later in this interview. But first, I just want to recap what you said. You're saying that the gap that's already been identified in the next five years is about 125 gigawatts, of which so far people have only stepped up to 25. That means there's 100 gigawatts missing. And the factory you're building is only going to supply one gigawatt per year worth of electric generation capacity. So you're only solving 1% of the problem that's already been established by other people objectively analyzing what the world needs. Now, as much as that's a compelling argument, I'm going to make a counter argument that that's just barely scratching the tip of the iceberg because I contend there's one very specific thing that this industry needs to accomplish to completely change the demand story. And that is that as soon as you figure out, don't care who does it or how it happens, but when somebody figures out to make safe, clean nuclear energy cost less than coal and gas, and be deployed just as quickly, I contend demand explodes overnight because look, the whole world wants to get off of fossil fuels, solve this whole problem. If you could solve it with nuclear, well, okay, it costs twice as much as coal and gas and it takes 10 years to build and it's next to impossible to bring the capital together. If you could change that by selling a modular power plant that comes off an assembly line in a factory that costs less than a coal plant and you can't do that. For the next few years, I realized, but if you can get to that, some point it becomes what I call the nuclear Henry Ford moment, the moment in history when it becomes possible to break humanity's addiction to fossil fuels and to restore the level of abundance and prosperity that I just barely remember from when I was growing up as a kid in the late 1960s and early 1970s, even after ingesting for inflation, crude oil costs more than double what it did back then. And at any price above $87, WTI. And right now I'm looking at $94 WTI on my life chart. It's more than triple what it cost when I was a kid, even after adjusting for inflation. And I think that's the reason we have people living in tents and sidewalks on the streets of our major cities. It's because of the unaffordable cost of energy. So if you could figure out how to make modular nuclear power plants that are cheaper than coal and gas, I say it changes everything. So I forgive me for my long windedness in this question. But when I put the numbers together and did my own arithmetic, I couldn't believe it. Yes, sir. You want to build one gigawatt per year in your first factory. If you wanted to replace the energy that we now depend on fossil fuels for, you'd have to run that factory for 9000 years to build enough reactors to replace what the world gets. And I'm not suggesting that one company is going to solve this whole problem. But imagine that you just wanted a 25 percent market share is you guys are leading. The way into this this charge. OK, that would mean you'd have to produce at least one hundred and twelve gigawatts electric per year. That's one hundred and twelve times what this factory that you're building in Texas is intending to produce. And that would only give you a 25% market share. But wait a minute, it's not that easy because Elon Musk has said that engineering the Tesla was the easy part. Mass production, really building something sophisticated, modern technology at the pace of automotive assembly was the hard part. So my question is, is it possible ever to make nuclear energy with the technologies that you're working with cost less than coal and gas and be deployed just as quickly as a new coal plant can be built? And if so, I think it changes the course of human history. But that's a really big, both engineering and capital formation challenge. So is it possible and what would it take?
Speaker 1So the simple answer is, yes, it is possible. And here's how we see the path to get into that point. Now, as I mentioned before, we're basically trying to tackle the 100 reactor goal for our first factory. Right. But in no way, shape or fashion, we want to stay there. We want to get to a point where we can get 10 gigawatts a year or 20 or 50 gigawatts a year and solve that. How do we truly scale up? But let's walk backwards. How do we get to a point where we can be economically competitive compared to coal or natural gas? And what would that really take? And I cannot speak for all of nuclear because everyone has slightly different ways of doing things. But for ALO, the way we see it, our first of a kind deployment, meaning the first reactor we're going to be deploying out there, is actually very cost compelling. Even today, before even I go into volume production, my first of a kind will land us in the mid-teens cents per kilowatt hour. And that is completely fine because I've got a lot of customers today whose willingness to pay is significantly above that. What customers are really hungry for today is not the lowest cost alternative. They're initially competing for speed to power. That's what a lot of these initial customers are looking for. Like, how quickly can I get power? That's number one. Number two, it has to be extremely reliable. You can't just build a power plant to go 99.9% available, but then it's only available 40% of the time. That's not going to work. So initially, they're willing to pay whatever to get to the speed of power. And our initial first of a kind does that. We think that by the time we build our 10th reactor, we can get under 10 cents a kilowatt hour. And when we get to the 50-ish per year capacity, then we would already be competitive with coal and natural gas. And that's not going to happen in just factory number three and four. That's happening within the first couple of years of production from this first factory. So we're not banking on achieving this very low cost of energy way out into the future. We're planning to get there in the next few years. So that is the one thing that is super, super compelling. And by the way, when we get there, that's not game over. That is the beginning of all the bigger challenges that we'll have to face from there on. Because Elon is kind of right, right? Is getting to a first of a kind complex machine is hard, but mass manufacturing is 10 times harder. And he may not be wrong about that. He may not be wrong about that. But he may not be wrong about that. Because I can build a one of a kind machine, no problem. And what we are seeing is I have supply chain and manufacturing capability today to build like 20 reactors a year. That's not an issue. But the moment you start scaling up to 50 to 100 or 200 or 300, what you're going to notice is that some things will start breaking in the supply chain, right? The challenge comes in when you're trying to build the same thing over and over again, it becomes, really hard. And as you scale, that problem becomes harder and harder. And until you go solve all of these changes, it's not going to be a scalable solution. So the one industry that we have seen has truly went through all of that jumps and hoops is really the EV industry, the automotive EV industry, which is why a lot of our team members, a lot of our manufacturing engineers come from background like Tesla, who have done volume production. Because manufacturing is really not the biggest problem here alone. The biggest problem here is supply chain. Like we have right now about 230 plus vendors that we rely on. And that number, by the way, is growing. And these are companies that I talked about earlier that provide steel, pipe sensors, raw materials. The question is like, yeah, we can go and scale up our facility, but how do we convince our vendors and suppliers to scale as we scale? How do they grow their business? How do we inspire them to grow their business? How do we inspire them to grow their to invest in their production capability so they can come along with us? That to me is the biggest challenge that we'll have to solve from here forward. But I think it is very possible. We're very confident what technology that we picked is going to get us to the point where, you know, when we unlock the volume production, costs will come down so low, then this technology become almost a no-brainer to go after. At that point, gas turbines will truly become obsolete when it becomes obsolete. And I think that's going to be a big challenge for us.
Speaker 2I say that changes the course of human history if you can scale it up. Here's the thing. As much as I love the vision, I'm going to hit you with a serious objection now because I've done a lot of analysis before I even met you guys about what it would take to really scale it up. And it's not about the reactor technology. It's not about sodium coolant. It's about the fuel cycle. And pretty fuel. Most of the advanced designs, not yours, but most of the other ones, require something called HALU, which is the high-test enriched uranium that's made from about four and a half times as much raw uranium and six times as much enrichment SWOOs, which is the amount of energy it takes to enrich it, as compared with that four and a half percent low-enriched uranium that fuels today's light-water reactor fleet. Yasser, I believe in you guys. I know you have a credible plan to mass-produce uranium. I know reactors at scale. But here's the thing. Nobody, including you, is ever going to be able to invent a technology to mass-produce uranium mines. And they usually take a full decade to go from discovery to production. Now, right now, we don't have a problem. We got plenty of uranium. As far as I'm concerned, dirt cheap, well under $100 a pound. I think that will change, though, over the next few years. And the thing is, centrifuge enrichment plants that are used, at least in laser enrichment. But these plants are almost as expensive to build as oil refineries. And they take almost as long to build and bring online as oil refineries. Every uranium expert that I've ever interviewed on this program seems to agree that there's a structural supply deficit coming in the 2030s. Not for a few years, but in the 2030s, just on the demand we have from today's reactors, before you go and start mass-producing them, we're going to have a uranium, or I should say, an enrichment plant that will be able to mass-produce uranium. And that's going to be really hard to solve, I think. So at one gigawatt per year, it's no issue at all. The factory that you're building, I don't think you have any fuel problem. But I think you need to get to north of 100 gigawatts per year, and probably a lot more than that, if you can really achieve what you said you can achieve in the next few years. And I don't see how you eventually get there. You did earlier. So I'm going to let you explain the tech. But how do we overcome this problem that if you're just running today's reactor technology, even your advanced reactor technology, I don't think it scales to building hundreds of gigawatts per year of new capacity, unless somebody gets fancy and does something smarter about the way we use enriched uranium. Can we overcome that problem?
Speaker 1Yes, Eric, let's unpack this slowly. You're right. No fuel, no reactors. As simple as that. And so where do we get this from? And so I'm going to break this question into two phases. One is what do we do today? And second is what has to be unlocked for the future, right? So today, you're absolutely correct. Most of our peers in the nuclear industry, especially the advanced reactor industry, are relying on high SA, low enriched uranium. So in numbers, that's basically like from 8% enrichment to 20% enrichment. Right? And what's commercially available today is really up to 5%. And then industry have been working really hard to get up to 8% lately. And there's a lot of investments going into production of HALU, but it will take a couple of years before this country builds enough capacity to run commercial reactors. Let's put it that way. So let's talk about today. Today, we have deliberately built an advanced reactor to run on LEU, low enriched uranium that does not require HALU. Okay. So we can run our reactors between 5% to 8%, and that was done on purpose. But by the way, we are one of the few advanced reactors that can actually do that. And that was on purpose because You know, when we run this material that we're talking about is commercially available uranium dioxide. And so our main thesis was, hey, in the near term, when I go scale up my factory and I build hundreds of reactors, we're not waiting on a fuel supply chain that does not exist. We already are growing the one that exists today. And there is a lot of headroom available in not just the mining, but there's four major basically plants that's needed to get to fuel that can put in the reactor. So those four areas are mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, and then fuel fabrication. Each of these are its own industries, essentially. But when we talk to a lot of these companies that does mining or conversion, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S., enrichment, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S., same with fuel fabrication. Turns out these companies are only making enough material to meet the current demand. They're not overproducing. They're not underproducing. Most of these, they want to build capability where they can maintain to market demand. And because we're not building any new plants, it's kind of very predictable how many you have to build and how many kilogram of uranium if you deliver at the end of the day. If you can share the projections of our growth over the next few years, you can inspire these companies to go and scale up, right? For example, you know, partners on the fuel fabrication side can scale up in their current facility like about two times more than what they make today. They're not maxed out yet. So we're going to be working with our partners to provide, to scale up and build more fuel supply chain beyond what they're providing for current reactors. So that's the initial kind of our plan. And by the way, that gives us a moat. This is one of their strongest differentiator is we can build a mass-produced small reactor that does not require HALU and we can get to a market and supply hundreds of reactors and be able to bring our cost out, right? Now, you're right that uranium is kind of limited. If you think about mining in itself. But it's not as limited as you might think, by the way. So there are whenever, and there's not a particular uranium mine. When you go dig up iron or copper or lithium, you always find uranium. Uranium is very abundant in the soil. But every single mine that we're identified right now that we can tap into for uranium, we've actually just tapped into 30% of that known reserves of uranium in the mines. There's still like two-thirds that can last us. There's still like 117 more years of running nuclear power plants. Now, that is if you just continue building power plants that are once through that we're operating right now. Okay? You know, the 5% enriched, you put into the plant. Once it's done, you take it out. You only burn 5% of the fuel. The rest, 95%, is actually not a waste. It's reusable. So that material can be recycled. Recycled and reused. And if we do that, that number from 117 years goes up to about 12,000 years just from the uranium that we have currently identified, not even the ones that we have not identified. So it's not a matter of whether or not we want to transition to nuclear. It's a matter of when. Because if you compare those same numbers with oil and gas, it will only last us 50 more years. Worldwide, to run civilization. If we actually rely on nuclear, that's close to 120 years. And there is a little bit of a hack. If you go from thermal spectrum reactors to fast spectrum reactors, these are basically kind of a nuclear term. But basically, it's the energy that each of these neutrons have. When you're in the thermal spectrum, you use less enriched fuel. But you have higher efficiency of fission. You don't need as much enrichment, but you don't burn the fuel enough. In a fast spectrum, you need to start with high enrichment, but then it can burn the fuel significantly more. So much so that I can get 60 to 100 times more energy from that same mined material. So that's what is the biggest unlock is recycling and going to a fast spectrum reactor is where you can extend it out to 12,000 years. Right. So that's the future product that we're going to be moving towards ultimately. That is not today. That is what we will do in the future. So the question is, why wait for the future? Why don't you do it right now? And the simple answer is, well, I need HALU to get unlocked first. When HALU gets unlocked, then we can easily switch to a fast spectrum reactor. Now, some of our peers are still working on fast spectrum reactors on day one, which I think is a mistake because we don't have the supplies and they have to wait many, many years before supply chain catches up and cost can come down. We don't have that challenge. We have a near term pathway to bring the cost down. And then when HALU becomes unlocked and provided in large enough quantities, we have a way to switch where we're actually mining less material and we're burning the waste or the used fuel significantly more and bring the waste volume down to very, very small amount where it's sustainable.
Speaker 2You made a really good point there that I want to go a little deeper on because I want to make sure everybody understands. Because I sure didn't in the beginning of my exploration of this stuff. My big objection in the beginning was, look, this all sounds great, but the problem we already have is the waste. There's 250,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in storage worldwide. You know, we're talking about adding to that, making even more of this horrible stuff that the public has been conditioned to believe is, you know, evil green slime that's going to seep into the water table and poison everybody. What I had no idea of is the crime here is wasting that perfectly good nuclear fuel. There have been reactors designed before I was born, and I'm in my early 60s, reactors designed before I was born that can burn all of that so-called nuclear waste and use it as fuel. So what do we do about the 250,000 metric tons of spent nuclear waste? Stop calling it waste. Burn it as fuel and get guys like you to build the reactors that can burn and use that fuel. And it happens after some recycling and reprocessing. But I just talk a little bit more about that because I want to make sure people don't come away from this thinking about, yeah, Yasser ducked the question of the waste. That's the big one.
Speaker 1Yeah, you're absolutely correct. Waste, nuclear waste is probably the biggest misconception that the general public have around nuclear. And I'll tell you. I'll tell you why this misconception arises. It's a very fun story that I always like to talk about. So people say like, oh, you're creating this dangerous material that's been sticking around. And it's just in people's mind is green goo thing because we've all watched, you know, we have all grown up watching Simpsons. OK, and Simpsons did more damage to the nuclear industry than any other anti-nuclear advocates, if you ask me. The truth is there is no green goo. OK, and nuclear waste is not a real waste. It's actually what we call a nuclear waste. We call in the industry used nuclear fuel or spent nuclear fuel. And the reason why we don't call it a waste is because the majority of this material is recoverable and reusable and put into reactors and you can extract way more energy. What unlocks that when you keep neutrons at very high energy levels where they can go at super high speed and bombard at this material, it can really break it down and release even more energy. And so. That's number one. What is the current solution? What do we do? Where do we keep all this waste currently today? If you think about first what's happening, the waste form are metallic rods that has a ceramic inside it. And we are, you know, we're keeping all of these bundles in engineered casks that are just sitting there. Not a single human or a plant was ever affected by this so-called nuclear waste ever. There's no from the commercial nuclear. And so it's basically a mess. Like, it's a problem. It's not really a problem. We're like, well, you're making so much waste nuclear fuel, no matter what term you use. Where are they right now? And they probably were like spewed all over the place. That's not true. If you take all of these solid ways and not liquid waste, take all of these solid used nuclear fuel, they will all fit within one football field. You know, one story tall. They're not very, very big. It's very, very compact. If you think about it in contrast, the oil and gas industry. Like, they're working towards, hey, I want to produce energy, but all this CO2 that I'm emitting into the air as an open dump, I want to be able to capture, carbon capture and sequester it so it stays in solid form. So it does not go all over the environment that we live in, that we breathe in, that we take water from. I want to be able to sequester this carbon and concentrate it in solid form so it doesn't go anywhere. Well, guess what? We do this already in nuclear. All of our waste. All of our waste form is in the solid form, very concentrated, where it does not affect any of our water streams or waste streams or plants or people. people. So which already is a great form factor to work with. And when we recycle this material, you can unlock even more bajillion amount of energy, if that's an engineering term, bajillion amount of energy for humanity going forward. So I think that's a huge potential that I think we have done. We as a nuclear industry have done a terrible job at explaining to the public what this is and what can be done with this material. And I think it's immense. And nuclear is this very like underdog technology that we have done a terrible job at explaining to the public its true potential. So I'm really excited about the future we're forging here and the future that we can prove out to the people that no longer do we have to rely on combustion as our main source of energy. Since the caveman era to now, we've been doing that. Now we found out a clever way how to split atoms and release even like bajillion more energy from one atom than a single molecule of methane. Which is really the exciting part about the future of energy here.
Speaker 2I think there's a really important public policy aspect of this, which is finally turning around in terms of sanity. But if a lot of people are skeptical listening to this, oh, come on, you can't really reprocess the nuclear waste. Look, the United States built a very elaborate nuclear waste reprocessing facility, spent I think a billion dollars in 1970s money, the early mid 1970s. They built the whole facility. Then President Carter, ordered that it be shut down and basically scrapped just as it was ready to be used. It completely went to waste because this whole issue became politicized. Now, if anybody's skeptical that you can really reprocess this stuff and get fuel that can go into a reactor to actually make more energy with, the story of the UK is absolutely staggering here. They did this. They reprocessed a whole bunch of their nuclear waste to the point of producing a hundred million tons of 141 tons of what's called RGPU, reactor grade plutonium, which is not weapons grade plutonium, something different, but it can be burned as nuclear fuel. It can be just as effective as that HALU stuff that we don't know where to get. Why don't we use that? Well, the answer is the UK government just decided to spend, I think it's 4 billion pounds to geologically dispose of this incredibly valuable nuclear fuel that they, they spent a fortune to reprocess out of spent fuel waste. So they proved that you can reprocess it and get it to something that can burn in a reactor. Then they had some politics flare up and now they want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to basically dump it at the bottom of the ocean. We've got to get past this somehow. And I think the emergence of Chris Wright on the regulatory front in terms of US policy, at least, has been a massive change. How are you seeing this? Because you're boots on the ground to actually dealing with regulators proposing to make eventually fast spectrum reactors where this stuff's all going to come into play. What's your sense of how the political winds have changed?
Speaker 1The political winds have changed quite a bit, I would say, but you're absolutely correct. A lot of people think like, how are you going to actually achieve this? We have the technological solution baked out and proven of how to recycle this used nuclear fuel and make fresh fuel for this fast spectrum reactor. The US have actually demonstrated this and other countries have learned this technology and are doing recycling of nuclear material. It's just a matter of a policy, right? The policy is what's in limbo right now. And I think the winds of politics have changed. Previous administration, even though nuclear is a bipartisan solution where both parties agree we need more nuclear for different reasons, of course, right? The left agrees that we need more nuclear, because it's a carbon-free solution. It's helped with our climate change. And the right likes nuclear because it's more energy security and it brings manufacturing and jobs and it creates allies. We can help our allied countries. So different parties rely, support nuclear for different reasons. But up until this point, whoever came in the office, in the presidential office, had never really spoken. We haven't spoken much about whether they're a strong proponent of nuclear or not. They're always shy away, especially in the recent times. However, all that, I think, has changed with this administration, who have been extremely vocal about their support in nuclear and really put amazing people at the top of the government, like Secretary Wright, who has been a very strong supporter of nuclear, and making sure that we as a country are not moving away from recycling used nuclear fuel. You know, he's trying to bring back the notion that we as a country need to recycle used fuel and allow and enable startups to innovate and find solutions and to build industries around used fuel recycling. And so you may have heard about the recent program, called NLIC, which stands for Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus. The idea about these campuses is that they would do from cradle to grave of nuclear, and it will be hosted by a state, or more than a state, like two states, who would be selected, down-selected. You know, there's about many different states applied for it. Five or six of these were down-selected. They will ultimately select two states. And the idea of NLIC is that from, from developing the front end of the fuel cycle, like mining, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, to building reactors, to taking the used fuel, recycle them, make new fast reactor fuel, and build other reactors to burn it, all of that infrastructure would be hosted in, within that community that can create that ecosystem that can pull, attract both public and private companies. And so, you know, NLIC is going to be a great, and private investments into these communities, create jobs, create innovation, ecosystem, and also at the same time, demonstrate that we actually have a national solution to this used nuclear fuel problem that we have. So I think that's very exciting. I'm very excited to see which two states will be down-selected, and we'll see a lot of jobs being created around these communities and nuclear. And if we pull this off, the way this, this administration is thinking about, I think the future for nuclear is going to be very bright.
Speaker 2Yes, sir. Some ALO investors that I've met are crediting you guys already with being the only player in advanced nuclear that really gets it and has this mass production thing figured out, and also has a strategy that eventually eliminates dependence on enriched uranium as the primary fuel. With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. I think you do have a much better capitalized competitor that already understands every single thing that we've discussed today, just as well as you do. And I'm certain that they've already assembled a much bigger engineering team than ALO can presently afford. And frankly, I think they've got enough money in the bank to outspend not just you, but probably your entire industry, despite the fact that your partner, Matt Lozak, has already raised nearly a billion dollars in order for you to build your first factory. And this competitor of which I speak has already publicly announced their plans to outspend you guys on this vision and dramatically scale up nuclear energy faster than you can. The competitor I speak of, obviously, is not another reactor company. It's the People's Republic of China. And I am deeply concerned. First of all, congratulations, Chinese listeners. You're doing a fantastic job. My hat's off to you for your progress. But look, I was born in the United States. I have a certain loyalty to my country. And I think that we have a gigantic competitive disadvantage problem forming here. This technology was invented in the United States. And if you look at what China is now doing, Yasser, on the conventional nuclear side, they've already got more light water reactors planned or under construction than the entire U.S. fleet on the large scale advanced nuclear front. They've already built and put into service what I think is the world's most advanced high temperature gas cooled reactor on the mass produced, what you're calling XMR front, the kind of reactors that that all I was building. They've already signaled their intention to build an entire fleet of container ships powered by thorium fueled molten salt reactors, another advanced technology similar to the sodium fast reactors that you're going to be developing. So to my knowledge, they haven't yet announced that those thorium molten salt reactors are going to be factory mass produced. But frankly, I don't need your nuclear Ph.D. in order to figure out that's the obvious path. So my contention is that for all and the entire U.S. nuclear industry to achieve the large scale production of advanced reactors that we need to produce in order to transition away from fossil fuels and deliver energy that is cheaper and more abundant and leads to the prosperity that existed in my early childhood. I see the path you're doing exactly. the right thing, but I'm afraid China already intends to outspread So, Yasser, I apologize for the extreme length of my question and diatribe here, but obviously this is something I feel really passionate about and I think we need to talk about. So am I wrong to think that China's commitment to state funding, everything that ALO intends to do and more, possesses a competitive threat, not just to your company, but to the entire industry and I think to the energy security of the United States of America? Am I wrong to think this? And your own partner, Matt Lozak, warned Congress, we can't let China dominate this industry. What do we do about this? And am I right to think it's as big of a problem as I think it is?
Speaker 1So, Eric, you're not wrong. And it's a very interesting question. So I wouldn't pretend here and say that is not a relevant question. It is a very relevant question. China is a formidable competitor and I won't pretend otherwise, right? They have grown their country and manufacturing capability and innovation in so many ways that they have, unfortunately, out-competed us in many different places, many different industries, whether we like it or not. That's the truth, okay? But let's take a look at what they're doing in nuclear, right? By the way, for the public that's listening right now, in the last 40 or so years, United States have not built. much new nuclear reactors where China has been building not only existing light-water reactors and have built many of these and are still building many of them right now and are getting really good at it. They're also investing in a lot of different kinds of nuclear technologies. But if you look closely, you'll notice that every advanced reactor that China has put up is a technology. that United States built first, mostly as prototypes at different national laboratories, right? We built, like, for example, Idaho National Laboratory. We built 52 reactors in that particular laboratory that ushered in the first atomic age. And then everybody, all the other countries kind of, like, took that technology and started growing their nuclear industry. But those were essentially, like, one-of-a-kind systems that were essentially, like, started the whole nuclear. submarine as well as the commercial nuclear sector. Now, China, fast-forward today, they are building a lot of different advanced reactor technologies, but all of these technologies is something we have built in the past. So, if you look at China as a whole, what they're doing both on the commercial industry as well as advanced reactors is they're copying off of what the United States have already done. And that's China's model, right? Is they're not very good at coming up with brand-new technology. They're good at copying other innovations in other countries and be able to do it better, right? So, if you think about, like, well, what if they've got a lot of smart people and a lot of money in it? They can really do and innovate, you know, similar to us. Well, probably. But if you look at, you know, let's say a particular technology in China right now is a pebble bed gas-cooled reactor. United States have been building. There's a company. That's commercially developing that. And China has been developing it. And they got to the finish line first and turned that plant on before the United States. It's a pebble bed gas-cooled trisophil reactor, right? But you don't hear much about it. And that's because they're not doing very well. You know, they're having a lot of issues in keeping that plant online, a lot of first-of-a-kind challenges. And they're obviously going through those challenges and solving them. But they're not. Well, my point is they're not very good at first-of-a-kind technology. They're not very good at first-of-a-kind technologies. So that is something that we have to keep in our mind. And that trend is everywhere. Just because China has a lot of money and a lot of people does not mean they can innovate faster than the United States. Think about other industries, right? We built the iPhone. Apple built the iPhone in the United States. And they manufacture currently in China. And the technology bled over to other parts of China. And they tried to copy smartphones, right? Right. Even today, Apple is still the largest market share in the entire world. Same thing in the automotive sector. Model Y is still the most sold vehicle in the world. If you think about jet engines or aeroplanes, the United States is still leading. Despite China having a lot more cash and a lot more people and manufacturing capability, they still are behind the United States. And you know what keeps that? Technological superiority alive in this country is the fact that we don't become complacent on innovation. We continue to invest in the next big thing, in the next improvement, the next big innovation, and be able to always stay ahead. So by the time somebody copies off of it, we're inventing the next best thing. And so that's something that we have to keep as a company in mind that we, as a company, we have to decide, we as a country, actually, have to decide right now that whether or not we should let China win because they have a lot of money and people, and that is a guaranteed loss today. Or we can actually clear some of the bottlenecks in policy and regulation out of the way, put real money behind American nuclear innovation, and give this country a fighting chance. And I think that's totally worth a shot. And we shouldn't rest on our laurels. It's kind of saying, hey, you know, China is a big superpower. They can surpass us. We need to continue and pumping that American innovation and make sure we're always retaining that nuclear leadership because nuclear was invented here. We are the ones who commercialized first. We are the ones who ushered the first atomic age. And we want to usher in the second atomic age as well.
Speaker 2Well, Yasser, I couldn't possibly agree more, especially the part about it's up to us. China is set to win if we don't take. We need to take policy action to put more priority on doing the things that Chris Wright has already set out and begun doing a terrific job of. And I think it's so important to the future of the energy security of the country. And I'm proud to be invested in a company like yours that's making a difference. So before we close, please tell our listeners how to find out more about your company, Allo Atomics. And again, listeners, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a private equity investor in this company. So I do have a vested interest in its future. Yasser, what's the website URL? And for our institutional and accredited audience who can invest in private equity, is the Series C offering still open? Do you have any capacity left?
Speaker 1There's a lot of exciting things going on. And we always make sure that whatever we're doing at Allo, we're transparent and we're good at sharing that to the world. So the first place, the best place to start with is actually our website, allo.com, A-A-L-O. We're also extremely very active. On social media, LinkedIn or X, connect with us, check out our post and message us. If you're thinking about joining our team, we're seeking a lot of amazing talent from around the country to make this very important mission come to life. So join our team. If you love problem solving and you want to solve the future of energy, this is the right place to join. And as far as fundraising, we are obviously always fundraising. We're about to close on our Series C. But if you're interested. I'm going to shamelessly plug this, you know, hit us up, send us a message and we'll be happy to talk to you.
Speaker 2Listeners, be sure to let us know what you think about this one. That's it for the interview. Time to shift to our Market Desk segment. Patrick, where's the trade?
Speaker 3Thanks, Eric. Now, Yasser highlighted a critical requirement for nuclear buildout. Reactor production can only scale if the fuel supply chain expands alongside it. This brings us to Centris Energy. Which is the symbol LEU. The company supplies enriched uranium and is expanding domestic enrichment capacity for both existing reactors and advanced designs. That creates a long-term investment thesis around nuclear growth and the strategic importance of secure fuel supply. But the sector is under substantial selling pressure and we don't know how deep or prolonged this correction will be. What interests me is the combination of lower share prices. and elevated implied volatility. That allows us to collect a meaningful premium for committing to own Centris substantially below today's prices. So here's the structure. With the stock around $122, I'm looking at selling the January 21st, 2028 $70 strike put. That's with 464 days remaining. So it's a leap option. The midpoint. And the option spread is $10.25 or $1025 in premium per standard contract. That strike is approximately 43% below the current share price. So if assigned, we would be obligated to buy 100 shares of the LEU at $70. But considering the $10 premium we just discussed, that would give you an adjusted cost base much closer to $60 a share or roughly 50% below today's reference price. But if the option expires unexercised, we retain that entire premium. That represents a 14.6% return on all shares. So if the option expires unexercised, we retain that entire premium. turn on the obligation of potentially owning the shares the trade-off is straightforward our maximum profit is the premium so a strong recovery would leave us without the shares now if the sell-off continues we may acquire the potential long-term holding at a substantially lower entry price but that lower price is not a guarantee of value losses remain possible the position can always move against us before assignment and margin requirements can increase so i would size this around your ability and willingness to fund the full share purchase so to sum this up we're putting on a long-term conviction a commitment to potentially own the central shares 50 cheaper than where it's currently trading today but if the put is unexercised we retain close to a 15 cash flow return for having sold that commitment that's a meaningful cash flow for accepting an entry price far below today's market price in a sector we believe in long term that's where's the trade
Speaker 4patrick analyzes and trades the markets every day over at big picture trading macro voices listeners can sign up for a free two-week trial at bigpicturetrading.com now back to patrick and massil all right
Speaker 5patrick we got to talk about what happened yesterday across markets as volatility came back in many assets but uh what's that to you the most well massil
Speaker 3what a day we had it started with the opening reaction on a hot cpi and everything looked like it was the right response which is yields higher the dollar higher pressure on equities but the tension shifted to ai credit very very quickly and the story turned to core weave where its shares were down close to 16 while the outstanding bond yields that they have were up to 15 essentially going to junk status now this is about a potential domino effect so many people are asking is core that important that they can actually actually turn the markets well this is really about the fact that ai has been sucking up so much credit in order to create growth and inevitably the growth will start to potentially stall when their access to credit also slows so the real question is is core weave that important well really the whole market is just trying to figure out when is the financing cycle going to get stressed when is the credit available to these ai stories going to start drying up and therefore slowing the growth story and what yesterday really was was potentially the first kind of sign that that situation is developing so what we really saw was a substantial decline in many of the nasdaq driven ai stories and that's where all the selling came and this was accompanied by very clear sector rotation which i want to talk about that's exactly
Speaker 5what i want to talk about past because for weeks we were pinned at the highs in markets but really like what are you expecting to see here over the next few weeks and
Speaker 3months well let's just start off by actually what potentially happened yesterday we had a scenario over the last few weeks where their money was literally flowing into the nasdaq and out of the rest of the market and this was most evident in the commitment of trader reports where we saw the positioning score on the nasdaq in the 100th percentile while the russell's small caps were pretty much pinned towards the zero percentile on the downside that money flow was incredibly evident everyone was still piling in to this nasdaq trade but we clearly saw yesterday the start of some sort of sector rotation yesterday all the defensives were ripping higher including bonds we had basically utilities the consumer staples health care all advancing while we basically saw very strong pullbacks in almost all of the ai driven names and so the now one day doesn't make a new trend but we can't ignore when something big like this starts to happen because we have to determine whether or not this is the beginning of a new trend and a bigger sector rotation and that is definitely going to be the story in equities are we going to see those beaten up sectors that were you know pulling the breadth of the market down over the last few weeks suddenly have meaningful rebounds and are we going to see some of the tripwires hit on some of the cell triggers on the nasdaq and potentially the s p 500 where some of these ctas and systematic selling strategies are going to be forced to deleverage their long positioning it's going to be certainly a very interesting next few weeks well
Speaker 5let's turn to treasuries because we've seen volatility coming in here too but do you believe investors could be buying back in as they seek protection now especially with what we're seeing in equities and if that's the case do you think that's even sustainable
Speaker 3it's a great question masil but the one thing that i would want to actually focus on is actually the way the bond market behaved yesterday because to me that's the part that can't be ignored what we saw was a hot cpi number bond yield started to rise and by the end of the day from peak to trough we saw close to a 25 basis point move in both the 10-year and the 30-year yields so did core work with the cpi numbers or did the cpi numbers work with the s p 500 or did the cpi numbers work with the s p 500 or did the cpi numbers work with the s p 500 are we moving away from expanding growth and expanding inflation to that of potentially some slowness coming in as everyone has to curtail their expectations if that's the story then the question becomes are we seeing a rebound in treasury bonds based upon that thesis now look one day doesn't make a new trend but the fact that this reversal happened at this inflection point is only stacking intermarket evidence that something meaningful started yesterday and i'm going to be watching whether or not many of these things follow through the other important things to highlight is that the december 2027 sofa contract potentially doubled bottom and started to reverse as the market suddenly started to pull rate hikes off the table in the next year and so this stacked with the fact that we continue to see junk bond credit spreads widening there's further evidence that there's some sort of a risk-off scare occurring and potentially treasury bonds may be a defensive asset in this
Speaker 5period while all of that has had an effect on the dollar too i mean we've seen pretty much similar moves but does that change the outlook on anything in terms of the
Speaker 3dollar well listen on that cpi number the u.s dollar ripped to a higher high it printed almost 103 on the upside but this morning we find ourselves with the dollar pulling back it is still a primary bull trend but we are going to be looking at this from an intermarket perspective and we're going to be looking at this from an intermarket perspective if all the other intermarket signals that we're looking at that we just discussed earlier start to come to fruition the question is will it start to pressure u.s dollar flows at this moment is very premature to jump to any conclusions the dollar index could easily absorb a pullback down towards 101 uh but so long as dips are being bought i would still consider technically in a clean bull trend all right so
Speaker 5to crude oil because it's been consolidating in a key zone and it seems to be breaking out again but what are you seeing beneath the headline price
Speaker 3well i'm actually fascinated by what's happening in crude oil right now because we see structurally strong crude oil markets in brent and in so many other parts of the oil markets but the wti contract remains somewhat in consolidation so to better understand what is actually happening you have to actually look at the full term structure on the oil curve and so what we're seeing is backwardation flattening and so what's happening here is that the front month oil contract is let's say six percent off of its september 15th highs but yet if you go let's say out to april of next year's oil contract over the same day since september 15th it's up ten percent or ten dollars per barrel what we continue to see is that oil's under a lot of pressure and that front month contract is not reflecting that and the interesting part is that when you go to the commitment of trader reports you continue to see that we're at multi-year extremes in terms of gross short positioning in crude oil futures and that may be playing an influence on the price on that front month contract now clearly on a geopolitical front military operations continue to look like they're escalating not de-escalating the situation in the strata hormuz looks as spicy as it's been in a long time and really at this moment the question is with such depleted inventories how long can the front month of the wti contract stay contained the way that it has been over the last three weeks
Speaker 5all right let's talk about the safe haven asset now gold still hasn't found its footing and it's trading near a key psychological level of four thousand dollars now where do we go next from here
Speaker 3well gold has consolidated back down to its previous lows but what is going to be interesting to me is that will we start to see gold respond bullishly to what we just witnessed in the last twenty four hours because when we have bond yields start to come off as bonds start to rally and if we have growth expectations starting to curtail inevitably the market is going to start to price in a fed that's going to have to be much easier in two thousand and twenty seven now if this starts to materialize the conditions may actually become bullish for gold now we have not seen that reflected in the price yet while we do have in the pre-market year gold price that is currently rising but we haven't yet seen any uh trend line breaks anything thing closing above key moving averages. So while there is a case to be made that gold could potentially establish a bottom here, we haven't yet seen the price starting to show any signs of reflecting that. And so we're going to continue to watch closely whether the support line holds here. All right.
Speaker 5For this week's positioning, Paul Spatrick, we need to talk treasuries. Now, what has caught your attention in terms of positioning here?
Speaker 3Well, there's a lot that stood out for me in this week's cot report, but I wanted to really hone in on these treasury bonds because what we possibly saw was a curve repositioning by traders that were positioned in the steepener. What we saw was substantial selling in the five-year treasury futures and substantial buying in the long bond. So let's break it down first. So the five-year treasury flows saw close to one hundred and sixty eight thousand contracts swing in a week toward the short side. And at the same time on that long bond, we saw close to net buying of sixty seven thousand contracts. So clearly there was some selling in the shorter duration and buying in the longer term. Now, is this an unwind of an existing steepener or is this potentially a new flattening exposure? Now, I want to just make sure it's clear that there is no easy way to determine whether or not this was an unwind of a steepener because this is aggregate positioning and there is no identifiable pairs trades to be able to match to. It's simply in an interesting situation where we're seeing bonds moving in opposite directions in the positioning scores. And so it'll be interesting to see whether this trend continues in the weeks to come, especially in light of what we just saw start yesterday. Now, listeners, if any of you want to actually check these charts out for yourself, make sure you visit caught signal dot com and actually see how this positioning has shifted. And that's it for this week's trading desk. I'm Asil Bignan. We'll see you all next week.
Speaker 4And a reminder, as a Macro Voices listener, you're entitled to a two week free trial of big picture trading where you can watch Patrick analyze and trade the markets live every single day at big picture trading dot com. No credit card is required to sign up and there's nothing to cancel. I'm Eric Townsend and this is Macro Voices. We'll see you next week.
Speaker 6Macro Voices is presented for informational and entertainment purposes only. The information presented on Macro Voices should not be construed as investment advice. Always consult a licensed investment professional before making investment decisions. The views and opinions expressed on Macro Voices are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect those of the show's hosts or sponsors. Macro Voices, its producers, sponsors, and hosts shall not be liable for losses resulting from investment decisions based on information or viewpoints presented on Macro Voices. If you have any questions or other problems, please post them in the comments section of this video.
PodcastTranscript AI