Hello, I’m Yves. In Friday’s Links, our reader Michaelmas highlighted critical insights regarding the U.S. nuclear fuel model, which primarily operates in a single cycle, generating far more waste than necessary. Instead of this being a flaw, it has become an established norm. Furthermore, he argues that with technologies such as reprocessing and laser isotope separation, we could effectively eliminate nuclear waste.
While the issue of nuclear waste is significant, it is not the sole reason that environmentalists oppose nuclear energy. They also cite the risks of catastrophic incidents and threats to wildlife from the water cooling processes used, which are more pronounced in nuclear facilities compared to other water-cooled power plants.
As many are aware, tech giants have been promoting nuclear power as a low-emission solution amidst escalating power demands from AI and data centers. However, a report from Goldman Sachs published in January suggests that nuclear’s role may be restricted, primarily due to staffing challenges:
While renewable energy can meet most increased power needs from data centers during certain times of the day, it lacks the consistency to serve as the sole energy source for these facilities….
Nuclear energy generates almost no carbon dioxide emissions; however, it produces nuclear waste that requires careful management. Challenges such as a shortage of specialized labor, the complexity of obtaining permits, and difficulties in securing enough uranium all hinder the development of new nuclear plants…
How much of a rise can we expect in nuclear power?
Recent contracts for nuclear facilities and an increasing global interest in nuclear energy suggest a significant uptick in investment over the next five years, with a corresponding boost in power supply expected during the 2030s.
The expansion of AI data centers has sparked greater investor confidence regarding future electricity demand, coinciding with major tech companies’ pursuit of reliable, low-carbon energy sources. This trend is leading to the reactivation of previously retired nuclear generators and discussions about building new, larger reactors.
In the U.S. alone, major tech players have inked contracts for over 10 GW of new nuclear capacity within the past year, and Goldman Sachs Research anticipates that three plants could become operational by 2030.
A robust nuclear power industry that emphasizes recycling nuclear fuel could help the U.S. reduce its dependence on Russia for enrichment, thus moving toward a more sustainable nuclear fuel cycle.
I’ve long advocated for radical conservation—an urgent need to drastically cut resource consumption before climate change necessitates it. Unfortunately, this perspective seems to resonate with even fewer people now than before the rise of AI.
One reason to bring attention to the fact that nuclear waste is a choice rather than a requirement is to encourage activists to push for waste-free new nuclear projects. If halting them proves impossible—with current political trends seeming to favor continuation—the next best option is advocating for a safer implementation.
Now, turning to Michaelmas’s observations in Links from 9/12/2025. I’ve consolidated two of his comments:
Nuclear waste is a myth propagated by the U.S. to justify its ineffective once-through fuel cycle model, which was established purely for political and economic reasons. When critics claim they oppose nuclear power because ‘we don’t know how to dispose of the waste,’ they repeat propaganda originating from entities like the CIA.
We actually possess the knowledge to manage this so-called ‘waste.’ Many in the nuclear industry will acknowledge that the lack of a solution for storing it safely underground for centuries results from the expectation that this ‘waste’ may eventually be repurposed as fuel within the next century or two.
This is because the current fuel is underutilized. In the U.S. once-through nuclear fuel cycle, only about 3% to 5% of the total energy content from the original uranium fuel is harvested and utilized in reactors before disposal. Uranium-235, the fissile isotope, accounts for merely 0.7% of natural uranium, and after enrichment, it rises to 3–5% for reactor usage. After the fission process, a considerable amount of U-238 remains.
This isotope can be transformed into plutonium-239 for reuse within breeder or reprocessing cycles, yet in the U.S. model, it is discarded—along with other actinides generated during operation that harbor substantial energy potential but go untapped without reprocessing.
Through closed or advanced fuel cycles (like MOX fuel and fast reactors), reprocessing can boost total energy extraction to 60%-90%, subject to the technology and number of recycles. Moreover, using 21st-century techniques like laser isotope separation (LIS) —
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/laser-isotope-separation
the remaining materials not suitable for reprocessing can be transmuted. Hence, the existence of any ‘nuclear waste’ could be avoided.Why does the U.S. nuclear sector adhere to this subpar model? Reasons include:
- [1.] The mid-20th century historical accident in which Admiral Rickover’s nuclear submarine program pioneered the boiling water reactor model, which was then adapted for civilian use, leaving the U.S. stuck with this outdated technology for over 75 years;
- [2.] As always, the U.S. government prioritized corporate profits, often sacrificing the recycling of barely-used fuel for the sake of immediate financial gain for U.S. energy companies;
- [3.] The U.S. aimed to maintain its nuclear dominance and intimidate states without nuclear capabilities, recognizing that reprocessing technologies also serve dual purposes in nuclear enrichment.
If you recall, during the 1970s and 80s, the U.S. conflict with the French nuclear sector stemmed largely from their reprocessing practices, while today’s disputes regarding Iran focus on its potential for enrichment.
Setting aside nationalistic fervor, the crux of the argument is that had nuclear power been managed more intelligently, particularly had the U.S. adopted different nuclear policies domestically and internationally, we could have significantly mitigated global climate change caused by CO₂ emissions.
Let’s imagine a scenario where the global community embraced nuclear energy following the model that France employed in the 1970s. France currently generates approximately 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, ranking it among the lowest per-capita CO₂ emitters in the industrialized world. A recent analysis suggests that France’s nuclear program has prevented emissions equivalent to 28 times its total CO₂ output in 2023 over the past 47 years.
If projected globally, beginning in the 1970s or 1980s with France’s model could have led to:
- A dramatic reduction in global electricity-related CO₂ emissions, with electricity production being responsible for nearly 40% of total global emissions. Nuclear energy emits around 4 grams of CO₂ per kWh, whereas fossil fuels like coal generate 400–1000 grams, and gas produces 200–500 grams—yielding reductions of up to 99% in many scenarios.
Since 1850, the world has emitted over 1,700 gigatonnes of CO₂, with about 1,000 gigatonnes released since 1970. A world powered by nuclear energy could potentially have avoided 300–500 gigatonnes of that output.
Consequently, given that models indicate each 1,000 gigatonnes of CO₂ contributes approximately 0.45 degrees Celsius of warming, we may have successfully prevented 0.13 to 0.23°C of warming—significantly impacting the current 1.2-degree rise.
(This rise is particularly notable as there remains an anticipated warming effect of an additional 3 to 8 degrees concealed by aerosol particulates.)
Again, short-sighted policies and poor incentives are so deeply ingrained that most individuals discussing nuclear power are largely unaware of the inefficiencies within the U.S. approach. Raising awareness about these issues is an essential first step towards meaningful change.
