Here’s a bold statement: the U.S. is on the brink of a nuclear power renaissance, but there’s a ticking time bomb no one’s talking enough about—radioactive waste. And this is the part most people miss: while the demand for electricity soars, thanks to AI data centers and reshoring of manufacturing, the age-old question of what to do with nuclear waste remains unsolved. But here’s where it gets controversial: is this waste problem a deal-breaker, or just a hurdle we can leap over with innovation? Let’s dive in.
Nuclear power is making a comeback, fueled by President Trump’s executive orders aiming to quadruple nuclear output by 2050. Big deals, like the $80 billion partnership between Westinghouse, Cameco, and Brookfield Asset Management, are setting the stage for a nuclear boom. But here’s the catch: the last time we tried this, only two plants were built since 1990, both over budget and years late. And this is the part most people miss: the 94 reactors currently operating were mostly built between 1967 and 1990, leaving us with a legacy of aging infrastructure and a growing waste problem.
The waste issue isn’t new. Since the 1960s, we’ve been grappling with how to store, manage, and dispose of radioactive waste—some of which remains hazardous for thousands of years. The National Academy of Sciences proposed deep underground repositories in 1957, but it wasn’t until 1982 that Congress acted. Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was designated as the nation’s sole repository in 1987, but the project was mothballed in 2010 after years of controversy. Meanwhile, countries like Finland, Sweden, and France are moving forward with their own underground disposal sites. But here’s where it gets controversial: is the U.S. falling behind, or are we just taking a more cautious approach?
Enter innovative solutions like Deep Isolation Nuclear, which combines underground burial with oil-and-gas fracking techniques. Their deep borehole disposal method involves drilling vertical tunnels thousands of feet below ground, then turning horizontal to store waste canisters. CEO Rod Baltzer claims 80% of nuclear plants have suitable nearby formations, eliminating the need for risky waste transportation. But skeptics ask: is this method foolproof? What if canisters get stuck or leak?
Then there’s the recycling angle. Companies like Oklo are reprocessing spent fuel to create new fuel for small modular reactors (SMRs). France has been doing this since the 1970s, but it’s still a novel idea in the U.S. Oklo’s $1.68 billion facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, aims to convert used fuel into new fuel, but the company is pre-revenue and awaiting NRC approval. And this is the part most people miss: while Oklo’s stock has soared 429% this year, its success hinges on overcoming regulatory and operational hurdles.
The waste problem is massive—over 95,000 metric tons of spent fuel are stockpiled aboveground, with 2,000 tons added annually. Taxpayers are on the hook for up to $800 million a year in damages because the DOE hasn’t found a permanent disposal site. Since 1998, the federal government has paid out $11.1 billion, with projections reaching $44.5 billion. But here’s where it gets controversial: is nuclear waste a solvable problem, or an insurmountable risk?
Opponents point to disasters like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima as reasons to halt new reactors. But proponents argue nuclear energy is emissions-free, reliable, and produces manageable waste compared to fossil fuels. Allison Macfarlane, former NRC chair, calls nuclear waste ‘solvable’ but dismisses reprocessing and deep borehole disposal as too costly or impractical. She advocates for deep underground storage, echoing the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendation.
The rush to build new reactors continues, with tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Meta investing in nuclear power for their data centers. But Tim Judson of the Nuclear Information Resource Service warns that nuclear plants take too long to build to meet today’s energy demands. And this is the part most people miss: does the tech industry fully grasp the responsibility of managing nuclear waste at their sites?
Bill Gates, a long-time nuclear advocate, dismisses waste as a minor issue, claiming it’s ‘a few rooms worth of total waste.’ But is he right? Or are we underestimating the risks? The debate rages on, with no clear consensus in sight.
Thought-provoking question for you: Is nuclear power’s waste problem a reason to abandon it, or can innovation and regulation make it a viable solution for our energy future? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a discussion!