Nuclear energy is becoming a focal point, with a surge of interest from various quarters. Recently, President Trump set an ambitious goal to quadruple the nation’s nuclear capacity by 2050. Similarly, 33 nations have come together to commit to tripling their own nuclear capabilities by that same year.
It’s not just the government pushing for this expansion. Private sector players, notably tech companies, are eager to breathe new life into shut-down power plants and boost the output of those still operational. The largest and most established firm in the U.S. is now looking to pivot towards new nuclear technologies.
However, this growth brings with it an unresolved issue: 90,000 tons of nuclear waste. This isn’t just a minor detail; it complicates the massive expansion of nuclear energy. Initially, the federal government imposed fees for waste disposal, but those efforts fell flat. Companies didn’t feel the need to develop solutions since the responsibility had been shifted to the government.
The focus isn’t primarily on safety. In reality, spent nuclear fuel is tucked away in secure pools and dry casks at the plants themselves, taking up minimal space. To put it in perspective, the total spent fuel from the U.S. could fit on a single football field stacked 10 yards high. Adding a few more reactors wouldn’t make that pile significantly larger.
Nonetheless, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act placed the onus of waste disposal on the federal government, which was expected to start the process by 1998. To fund this, the Department of Energy gathered over $65 billion in fees—much of it from utility customers—yet has only spent about $11.5 billion of it. Currently, more than $50 billion remains in the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Yet, the services that should have been funded by these fees haven’t materialized. Very little spent fuel has been processed, and over $10 billion has been funneled into the Yucca Mountain project, which still isn’t operational. In fact, a nuclear firm won a lawsuit against the government due to its failure to fulfill contractual obligations to manage waste. A recent audit indicated that taxpayers might be on the hook for about $44.5 billion due to these shortcomings.
Interestingly, this debt won’t come from the Department of Energy’s budget but rather from the government’s Judgment Fund, which is designed for settling court rulings against the federal government. The current situation leads to a cycle where waste continues to accumulate, nothing effective is done, and taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. This scenario negates any motivation to pursue practical solutions.
One could argue that Washington really shouldn’t be the entity managing this waste anyway. Even if all had gone according to plan, relying on government bureaucrats for waste solutions could have hampered private sector efforts to innovate and create more cost-effective waste management options. Today’s firms are developing technologies that could make reactors produce less problematic waste or find value in spent fuel, but without a demand for waste services, these innovations struggle to gain traction.
President Trump’s executive order aims to reinvigorate the nuclear sector, stating that the Department of Energy should seek out countries willing to host innovative nuclear energy campuses. These hubs will encompass the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including managing spent fuel.
There are grounds for optimism. First, the order encourages countries to step forward as potential hosts instead of relying on a flawed political process. Second, it emphasizes leadership from the private sector, which is crucial for any success. Lastly, the request outlines desired commercial activities but is flexible enough to welcome other innovative ideas.
Moreover, influential voices like former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Alison McFarlane and Lake Barrett, who once led the Civil Radioactive Waste Management Agency, recently shared strategies for advancing U.S. nuclear waste policy in a bipartisan report titled “A Pathway Forward on Nuclear Waste in the United States.” It’s worth mentioning I was part of this effort.
This report proposes reorganizing responsibilities around nuclear waste management and ensuring that funds collected for waste disposal are actually utilized for that purpose. It aims to hold the federal government accountable for its obligations while advocating for new systems that can adapt to growing disposal requirements. It acknowledges the necessity of permanent geological storage but is open to exploring other options as well.
For the first time in many years, it seems the government is ready to address the longstanding policy failures that have hindered nuclear waste management. While the strategies laid out in the report are practical, real progress will depend on states and private companies stepping up to fill the gaps left by federal inaction.
If we’re serious about achieving a robust nuclear industry and abundant clean energy, we need to shift away from bureaucratic stagnation towards a culture of competition, innovation, and genuine accountability.
