WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is throwing $10 million at the nuclear industry's long-touted but deeply problematic dream of recycling used nuclear fuel. The funding will support research and development of technologies that proponents claim could improve resource utilization and reduce waste. However, critics warn this endeavor is fraught with environmental and security risks.
The United States has long steered clear of commercial nuclear fuel recycling due to the inherent dangers, including the potential for nuclear proliferation and radioactive contamination. Despite this, the DOE remains committed to exploring recycling technologies as part of its nuclear energy agenda.
“Recycling the nation’s used nuclear fuel offers untapped potential,” said Dr. Michael Goff, the DOE's Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. Goff’s optimism ignores the glaring safety and economic challenges, as well as the risks posed by transporting and handling highly radioactive materials. Critics argue that any potential benefits are dwarfed by the high costs and unresolved hazards of nuclear recycling.
The Dangerous Promises of Recycling
The DOE touts ambitious claims: that recycling could increase uranium efficiency by 95% and slash nuclear waste by 90%. These figures, however, rely on idealized scenarios that fail to account for the complexity and risks involved. Recycling used nuclear fuel involves reprocessing radioactive materials, which produces hazardous byproducts that require long-term storage and pose a perpetual threat to public safety.
Additionally, critics warn that reprocessed fuel, such as Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel, introduces new challenges. MOX fuel blends plutonium with uranium, creating a material that is not only more expensive to produce but also complicates reactor safety. Plutonium is a key ingredient in nuclear weapons, raising the specter of proliferation risks if recycling efforts expand.
Oklo's Risky Bet on Radioactive Recycling
While the DOE pursues funding for fuel recycling research, private companies like nuclear startup Oklo Inc. are charging ahead with controversial plans to commercialize the process. Backed by OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman, Oklo aims to build two experimental reactors in Piketon, Ohio, using recycled radioactive materials to produce MOX fuel. The reactors, called "Aurora" powerhouses, would power a proposed data center operated by CloudLand.
Critics have slammed Oklo’s plans as reckless. The company is betting on unproven technology and has yet to secure approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Oklo's first application for an experimental reactor was denied in 2022 due to significant safety concerns, and while the company plans to resubmit in 2025, the NRC process is notoriously slow and stringent for good reason. The risks of failure or catastrophe loom large.
A Questionable Future for Data Centers
Oklo's ambitions extend far beyond Ohio. In a questionable deal with data center operator Switch, the company plans to deploy up to 12 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2044 to meet the growing energy demands of facilities that support tech giants like Google, Nvidia, and Tesla. Critics argue this agreement, which is non-binding, is a speculative gamble that glosses over the inherent risks of relying on unproven small modular reactor (SMR) technology.
Public Risks, Private Profits
The rush to embrace nuclear recycling and SMRs, driven by private interests like Oklo, raises urgent questions about who bears the burden of risk. If these projects fail or result in disasters, taxpayers and local communities will likely foot the bill. Meanwhile, private companies stand to profit from government subsidies and potential contracts with major corporations.
Environmental groups and energy policy experts argue that the DOE’s $10 million investment is a misguided use of public funds. They contend that cleaner, safer, and more cost-effective alternatives—such as renewable energy—should be prioritized over a dangerous and expensive nuclear experiment.
As the DOE pushes forward with its plans, skeptics warn that the potential for environmental harm, nuclear proliferation, and economic fallout makes this gamble a risk the nation cannot afford to take.
Add comment
Comments