- U.S. policy is pushing a nuclear revival that includes recycling spent fuel and ramping reactor builds, with startups like Oklo and Curio central to the plan.
- Core recycling approaches (pyroprocessing, molten-salt separations, MOX) face major questions on cost, safety, regulatory readiness, and scalability.
- Nonproliferation and security risks rise as recycling can increase access to plutonium, forcing trade-offs between energy goals and global norms.
- Execution risk is high: financing, timelines, and potential regulatory shortcuts could derail projects despite strong political tailwinds and data-center power demand.
Read More
Over the last year, U.S. nuclear policy has shifted aggressively toward closing the nuclear fuel cycle, reopening previously abandoned reprocessing pathways, and accelerating construction of new reactors. The Trump administration’s 2025 executive order directed federal agencies to explore commercial recycling of spent fuel and to reconsider the previous waste disposition strategy—which had emphasized dilution and storage.
Meanwhile, startups like Oklo and Curio are leading development of pyroprocessing technology intended to convert spent fuel rods (or materials recovered thereof) into usable reactor fuel; Oklo is also pursuing plans to build a large-scale Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee, costs around $1.7 billion, with operations in view for the early 2030s.
However, several major challenges and risks emerge. First, the technologies on which recyclers rely—pyroprocessing, molten salt separations, MOX—have a mixed legacy of cost overruns, safety concerns, and nonproliferation risks. Many of these ideas were rejected or scaled back in prior U.S., U.K., French, Japanese efforts due to their prohibitive cost and complexity.
Regulatory uncertainty compounds the risk. Many advanced reactor designs and recycling schemes still lack NRC design certification; Oklo’s first reactor license was denied in 2022 for insufficient safety evidence. Attempts to streamline or weaken regulatory oversight—including changes to radiation exposure thresholds and reducing NRC’s independence—are controversial, and may undermine public trust and safety.
Commercial readiness is spotty. While Oklo is valued in the tens of billions despite having no revenue, its reactor designs and recycling centers are not yet operational. Competitors with more mature licensing or stronger contracts—like NuScale or X-Energy—may pull ahead if Oklo’s assumptions about demand (especially from AI-hungry data centers) or timelines prove overly optimistic.
Strategically, this work is bound up in more than clean energy. Recycling plutonium from dismantled warheads touches on defense policy and nonproliferation regime credibility. Making weapons‐grade material available (even in theory) to private or commercial actors invites scrutiny at home and abroad. Also, nuclear energy is being positioned as a keystone for AI infrastructure, demanding reliable, high-capacity power. This overlaps industrial policy, energy independence, and competition with China.
Open questions include: Can regulatory shortcuts be implemented without breaching safety norms? Who will finance cost overruns inherent in first-of-a-kind facilities? How will the U.S. ensure secure handling and safeguarding of plutonium? Will nuclear revival displace investment from renewables, or complement them? What geopolitical ripple effects will results have on global norms of plutonium re-use and waste disposal?
In sum, the plan is bold and deemed necessary by its backers—but it is risky. Its success depends on technology performance, regulatory reform, finance stability, and careful handling of proliferation risks. For investors and policymakers alike, the gains may be large if it works—but the downside is nontrivial.
Supporting Notes
- The U.S. holds ~90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in mostly casks at plant sites; recycling proponents argue much of that could become reactor fuel.
- The Trump administration’s May 2025 executive order aims to quadruple U.S. nuclear power by 2050, promote spent fuel recycling, bolster domestic uranium conversion/enrichment, and register waste management solutions.
- Startups like Oklo will spend about $1.7 billion on an “Advanced Fuel Center” in Tennessee, to recycle reactor waste using nascent processes. The first phase is expected within 5-7 years.
- Oklo’s designs rely on pyroprocessing and molten salt separation methods; critics note these were developed decades ago and were rejected partly due to cost, safety, and proliferation concerns.
- Lawmakers have urged cancellation of a plan to provide industry access to ~20 metric tons of Cold War-surplus weapons-grade plutonium—enough for ≈2,000 atomic bombs—due to proliferation risks.
- Only a very small fraction of modern U.S. reactors—or any commercial generation IV reactors—exist; many projects remain at the demonstration or licensing stage. Oklo hopes for a fast reactor in Idaho by late 2027.
- Regulatory overhaul plans include shortening NRC reactor approval cycles (18 months target), relaxing radiation exposure limits, and centralizing decision-making authority in the executive branch.