Here's some grounding in reality:

- Russia mines 5% of the world's Uranium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining

- The reason we only use less than 5% of the Uranium fuel, so throwing away 95%, is that the fuel is so cheap (= abundant) that it is cheaper to just throw it away

- Fuel costs are basically a negligible component of the lifecycle costs of a nuclear reactor

The hard facts are that Russia processes half of the world's uranium and no country, not even the US, could sanction their nuclear energy sector. This is the reality, not your fuel efficiency and breeder reactor hopium.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/01/21/uranium-i...

The article you cite clearly states that even the worst-case impact of Russian supplies would be minimal:

"at worst, some long-term Russian supply contracts could not be executed, and that would perhaps raise the price of electricity 1 or 2 percent."

World-ending.

He leaves completely open how the US electricity market would replace the missing nuclear energy. For all we know, he might expect the US to crank up their gas power plants. I fail to see how this is a win for nuclear energy.

Also, it's an US-centric article and as it's states, the US only has a 15% dependency on Russia. So you are already looking at a very favorable outlier that makes the situation look better than it actually is. Most other countries have a much greater dependency.

Well yes, the source you cited to support your claims only explicitly rebuts your claims somewhat incompletely.

But it certainly in no way supports your claims.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To be fair, the amount of money in uranium and refining is orders of magnitude less than the amount of money in natural gas (which is one of the arguments pro nuclear), so your counter argument isn’t so strong either