Unlocking America’s nuclear gold mine: The promise of spent fuel

The recent shift in the national conversation around nuclear generated electricity is encouraging. After decades of political hesitation, federal and state leaders are once again speaking positively about the role of nuclear power in delivering reliable, abundant electricity. That change in tone matters. However, favorable rhetoric alone will not solve one of the industry's most persistent challenges, which is what to do with America's growing inventory of spent nuclear fuel. That "spent" is also referred to as "slightly used nuclear fuel" (SUNF) which still contains about 95% of its unused potential energy after years inside a reactor

The Department of Energy's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campusinitiative is a case in point. The program has generated headlines by identifying five states as potential partners in exploring integrated nuclear fuel cycle facilities. Yet the reality is more modest than many observers assume. Although the states have signed non-binding memorandums of understandingto continue discussions, they have not committed to accepting spent nuclear fuel, nor have final host agreements been executed.

That distinction is important because public discussion sometimes creates the impression that a solution to the nation's nuclear waste dilemma is just around the corner. In reality, the United States remains a long way from establishing a permanent or consolidated system for managing spent fuel.

Decades after Congress assigned the federal government responsibility for disposing of commercial spent nuclear fuel, most of that material remains stored at reactor sites around the country. The Government Accountability Officehas repeatedly described the nation's waste management program as being at an impasse and has called for congressional action to move the process forward.

The limits of a government-only strategy: Federal efforts in recent years have focused heavily on "consent-based siting," a process intended to identify willing host communitiesfor spent fuel storage facilities. DOE describes this approach as a collaborative, community-centered process that may ultimately lead to negotiated agreements for interim storage facilities.

Consent-based siting is an improvement over past approaches that attempted to impose solutions from Washington. Communities deserve a meaningful voice in decisions that affect their future.

But the challenge is that process alone is not a solution, as evidenced by the fact that no state has "consented to accept" spent nuclear fuel, either as a permanent solution or an interim solution.

Too often, public policy substitutes studies, committees, consultations, and funding announcements for measurable progress. Government can facilitate discussions and establish regulatory frameworks, but it cannot create effective economic incentives necessary to transform spent nuclear fuel from a liability into a valuable resource.

As long as success is measured by meetings held, grants distributed, and reports published, there is little incentive to deliver a commercially sustainable outcome.

Turning a liability into an asset: A different approach begins with a simple question: What if spent nuclear fuel were viewed not primarily as waste, but as a valuable energy resource?

Many advanced nuclear technologies, particularly fast reactors, are designed to utilize materials that remain in used nuclear fuel. Supporters of fuel recycling argue that a significant portion of the energy potential contained in spent fuel remains available for future use. In that view, the challenge is not merely disposal but resource recovery.

This is where private enterprise can make the difference because there is huge commercial opportunity in turning spent nuclear fuel into electricity.