The last decade has laid the groundwork for a new era of nuclear energy expansion. Advanced reactors are moving from concept to construction, power demand is spurring restarts, utilities are planning license renewals and uprates for the existing fleet, and federal policy continues to call for rapid growth of this resilient, carbon-free power source. Recent U.S.-UK business agreements, highlighted by a state visit and the Atlantic Partnership for Advanced Nuclear Energy, underscore this momentum.
As a former assistant secretary for nuclear energy, I recently watched my successor, Ted Garrish, confirmed by the Senate. As he embarks on his duties, he will face demand for more than just reactors. Nuclear power expansion also requires a sustainable approach to nuclear fuel. That’s why a credible, durable, national nuclear fuel recycling strategy is needed.
Nuclear fuel is extremely compact. A uranium fuel pellet, no larger than a fingertip, contains the energy of a ton of coal or 120 gallons of oil. With that energy density, a person’s entire lifetime energy expenditure of nuclear fuel could fit in a soda can.
But even in the most efficient reactors, significant energy remains in that used fuel. Over 90,000 metric tons of commercial used nuclear fuel now sit at 73 sites, with roughly 2,000 metric tons added each year. This represents untapped capacity for clean power, enrichment savings, and uranium resource extension.
A recent executive order mandates an assessment of government-owned, private-sector operated recycling of government-managed spent fuel. The timeline for that report is short, but already industry is racing ahead with ambitious proposals focused on commercial spent fuel as well.
SHINE signed an agreement with Orano to develop pilot programs. Oklo announced a $1.68 billion facility in Tennessee, and Curio is collaborating with national laboratories on laboratory-scale demonstrations.
Other nations demonstrate what a deliberate, long-term commitment to recycling can deliver. France’s Orano has operated its La Hague recycling plant since the 1970s, processing about 1,700 tons annually and more than 36,000 tons in total.
Recovered plutonium and uranium resources fuel about 10 percent of the electricity from the French reactor fleet. There, recycling used nuclear fuel unlocks measurable gains, increasing the availability of fresh reactor fuel and reducing the volume and long-term radioactivity of spent fuel destined for the repository.
Removing plutonium and other troublesome radionuclides can cut decay heat and reduce high-level waste volume by a factor of five. Recycling additional long-lived nuclides can also help radioactivity to drop below the level of natural uranium ore in hundreds of years instead of thousands. Those improvements must be incorporated as requirements in a national strategy, since they could shrink repository costs and long-term stewardship demands.
The United States pioneered reprocessing during the Manhattan Project, but halted commercial efforts due to concerns about rising costs and global plutonium stockpiles. Those concerns remain and any national strategy must grapple with them.
A responsible recycling strategy must secure materials like separated plutonium, which could be used to construct a nuclear weapon. Modern recycling methods can keep plutonium mixed with other nuclides, rendering it unsuitable for weapons. Meanwhile, oversight, facility security, and robust material accountancy can secure even facilities containing separated plutonium.
The costs may not be the driving decision variable but will certainly be high. One South Carolina project in 2018 wasted billions, and economic models suggest recycling is competitive only at very high uranium prices, even when extended uranium use and repository savings are included.
Since many new reactor concepts will use fresh fuel with much higher uranium enrichment than standard plants, the return on investment of recycling has the potential to multiply as well. And past models failed to consider cost offsets from recovering valuable isotopes for medical, industrial, and space applications.
The executive order directs the Department of Energy to propose a national recycling policy by January 18, 2026.
To underpin a successful strategy for recycling nuclear fuel, that report must identify legislative and regulatory changes needed and update economic models to support the case for this investment.
It must also support the strong U.S. stance on nuclear security abroad. Energy Secretary Chris Wright included that long-held position in his remarks recently at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna, where he said, “America’s nuclear leadership requires the strongest possible safety and security foundation.” A durable recycling strategy must meet that standard.
Nuclear energy already delivers clean, reliable power at scale. Approached deliberatively, recycling could strengthen that ability by treating used fuel as a resource, shortening repository timelines, and ensuring future uranium availability. But haste makes waste, and overlooking the challenges that undermined past efforts would invite their return.
This strategy must rest on rigor and foresight, not speed. Energy security, sustainability, and intergenerational equity demand it.
Kathryn Huff is an associate professor of nuclear, plasma, and radiological engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and former U.S. assistant secretary for nuclear energy. Dr. Huff is a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of Illinois system.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
