America’s nuclear comeback is finally here

Guest essay by Jason Issac from the American Energy Institute

For decades, Washington treated nuclear energy like a relic of the past, something to manage, store, and apologize for rather than deploy and expand. That era is ending.

As electricity demand surges due to artificial intelligence, data centers, reshoring, manufacturing and population growth, the U.S. is rediscovering a basic truth: You cannot power a modern economy on hope, weather forecasts, and subsidies. You need dense, reliable, round-the-clock energy, and nuclear delivers exactly that.

What makes this moment different from illusory nuclear renaissances of the past is not lofty promises from politicians but innovation from the private sector. American companies are advancing technologies that do what federal programs never could, turning long-ignored liabilities into strategic assets.

Used nuclear fuel, treated for decades as untouchable waste, still contains more than 90 percent of its original energy. Yet the U.S. has stored more than 90,000 tons of it across dozens of sites, costing taxpayers close to $1 billion annually just to guard material that could be powering the country for generations.

Advanced fuel recycling changes that equation entirely. Instead of burying or warehousing used fuel, new processes can safely convert it into usable material for modern reactors. This is not speculative science or climate-era wishcasting. Countries like France have been recycling nuclear fuel for decades, delivering dependable electricity with strong safety records. The difference today is that American firms are developing approaches that are more efficient, more economical, and tailored to next-generation reactors, reclaiming U.S. leadership in a field we once defined.

The same logic applies to surplus Cold War plutonium. For years, Washington argued endlessly over how to dispose of it while spending billions to secure it. The smarter solution is to put it back to work. Repurposing surplus plutonium into advanced reactor fuel reduces a national security liability while producing domestic energy, skilled jobs and fuel made in America. The only way to truly eliminate unused plutonium is to consume it, not to entomb it.

This renewed seriousness around nuclear mirrors a broader shift underway at the Department of Energy. Under Energy Secretary Chris Wright, federal energy policy is moving back toward engineering reality and away from political fantasy. When the administration reinstated the National Coal Council, reversing its elimination under the Biden administration, Wright was blunt about the consequences of ignoring proven energy sources, calling the prior decision a product of “ignorance and arrogance.

That critique extends beyond domestic policy. It applies directly to how the U.S. competes with China. While Washington spent years constraining its own power generation in the name of climate leadership, Beijing was building hundreds of gigawatts of new coal-fired generation, often commissioning plants over months rather than decades. Coal remains the backbone of China’s grid, supplying the dependable electricity that powers steel, cement, manufacturing, and the data centers behind its AI ambitions.

China understands something many Western policymakers ignored: Industrial dominance requires energy abundance. You cannot run an advanced economy, let alone a military or manufacturing base, on intermittent power and political agendas. Beijing’s aggressive coal buildout is not a contradiction of its climate rhetoric — it is an admission of reality.

Nuclear is America’s strategic answer. Advanced reactors, fueled by recycled material and surplus plutonium, can operate continuously, independent of weather and without reliance on foreign enrichment services. Some estimates suggest that reprocessing nuclear material could unlock energy equivalent to several times the reserves of major oil-producing nations. It is a competitive advantage hiding in plain sight.

This is about recognizing what actually keeps hospitals operating, factories producing, and data centers online. Nuclear, natural gas, and coal are indispensable tools for a country that intends to lead technologically and economically rather than outsource its energy security to adversaries and fragile supply chains.

The contrast with weather-dependent power could not be clearer. Wind and solar require vast land use, massive transmission buildout, and constant backup, yet still fail when demand is highest. Batteries offer minutes or hours at best, not days or weeks. Nuclear delivers power when it is needed most — during heat waves, cold snaps, and grid emergencies, without apology or excuse.

America’s nuclear comeback is not being driven by mandates, subsidies, or elitist rhetoric. It is being driven by reality. If the U.S. wants to out-innovate China, reshore industry, and maintain economic and geopolitical leadership, it must build energy systems grounded in physics, not politics. By unleashing private-sector nuclear development, expanding coal and natural gas generation, and rejecting the illusion that weather can replace reliable power, America has the opportunity to turn decades of energy mismanagement into a multi-generational advantage.

Originally Published in The Hill

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 13 votes
Article Rating
45 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
heme212
April 15, 2026 2:06 pm

show me

1966goathead
April 15, 2026 2:13 pm

However, there will still be politicians who will resist, unfortunately.

Sweet Old Bob
April 15, 2026 2:13 pm

Well spoken common sense .

Bob
April 15, 2026 2:17 pm

Let’s get going we know how to do this.

April 15, 2026 2:47 pm

Sounds great. If these processes actually reduced, and ultimately, functionally, eliminated the mass now “temporarily” parked in nearly every current and former nuc facility back 40, then the cost of that temp storage would both be bearable and worth it.

Now to the specifics. How? How soon? How much? How safely? As to the last, IMO it CAN be done safely, but plans and projects should be replete with safety contingencies. Also with specific commitments, and with real calamity insurance backed up with lock boxed, cubic bux.

I’m guessing not too cheap to meter…

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 15, 2026 7:27 pm

Apparently the commentariat here prefers vaguity. Soporific affirmations of prejudgments. Read my comment for comprehension. I’m all for side by side cradle to grave, B-A, incremental ROR competition between all forms of electricity generation/distribution. My problem is with posts such as these, which are all too often stalking horses for communizing some preselected costs, but not others, including environmental, safety, health Ben Dovers. These are just as much “subsidies” as the relatively tiny, temporary, green source start up helps.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2026 11:20 am

“These are just as much “subsidies” as the relatively tiny, temporary, green source start up helps.”

Relatively tiny? On what scale?

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2026 6:59 am

Indeed, but stating the obvious vaguely is hardly superior to the hopeful vagueness of the article.

I, too, would like to see specifics, but it seems to me that the removal of governmental roadblocks and a careful partnership between private and public interests is the only way forward. The article offers a goal and recent proposals regarding the DoE may be the beginning.
Somehow, I suspect that this path is more well-considered than the fantasy-riddled adventures of the Big Green Machine to promote sunbeams and breezes, and is more likely to be productive.

Reply to  Mark Whitney
April 16, 2026 8:04 am

Agree on the removal of poorly thought out gub’mint restrictions. My understanding is that Carter’s objection to recycling was emotional, and not backed up by his considerable acumen. Jet it.

I disagree with your last sentence, but – again – I’m happy to toss all of the green subsidies if the relatively Trumpian YUGE fossil fuel Ben Dovers go as well. And those that the nuc projectors will undoubtedly try and sneak in.

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2026 8:32 am

I am not suggesting subsidies. I am suggesting streamlining the process, perhaps with tax incentives of some enhanced sort.
One can hardly disagree that a proven energy source is more well-considered than one largely proven to be inadequate. Nothing regarding energy is entirely safe, but I think a high return with acceptable risk is possible.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2026 11:25 am

My recollection is that J. Carter did not have a clue what to do with the plutonium created in breeder reactors and given nuclear weapons are built with plutonium was concerned about it getting into the wrong hands. Not having the means to use the plutonium for anything other than weapons, and no valid secure storage, it was deemed best to not produce it in the first place. Hence the banning of breeder reactors and the need to store huge amounts of uranium.

Perhaps my remembrances are erroneous, but there it is.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 16, 2026 7:52 pm

It is my recollection that despite France having demonstrated safe cradle-to-grave recycling with their U235-enriched reactors, Carter didn’t want to weigh in on the politics of safe handling of US fission-byproducts, and rationalized that if the US buried its ‘hot pockets,’ terrorists wouldn’t have access to the un-burned U235 or the newly-created Pu239, thus protecting the world from nuclear proliferation. At best, all he did was make it more difficult for terrorists to get access to US fissile material. Yet, in almost 50-years, there has been no instance of spent nuclear fuel from any nation being stolen to use for obtaining plutonium. There hasn’t even been an instance of spent material being stolen to make a so-called ‘dirty bomb.’ Rogue nations like Iran have found it more straight forward to start with commercial ‘Yellow Cake’ to enrich the isotopic ratio of fissionable to non-fissionable uranium. Because the USA has not found a politically acceptable burial site for the un-recyclable spent fuel mixed with fission-byproducts, we have essentially filled up all the temporary storage pools, and contributed to the public perception that there is no safe way to dispose of spent fuel. The Carter administration is a good example of the old saying that “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2026 11:19 am

“I’m guessing not too cheap to meter…”

Comment quoted lacks specificity. Please post what you mean.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 16, 2026 11:39 am

I’m dating myself. It’s an old fashioned brag about the future of nuclear energy. It was going to be so ubiquitous and easy to access that it would be “Too cheap to meter”. I think that an Atomic Energy Council chairman made the claim in a meeting over 70 years ago.

enginer01
April 15, 2026 2:47 pm

The Chinese version of the Oak Ridge molten salt reactor has been running since 2023, and, I understand, running well. A full-sized version is in the works, but the developmental unit has already used Thorium as make-up fuel. By the way, India has more Thorium than Uranium, and the US screwed up Rare Earth production when Thorium-rich deposits here were essentially banned from production. So China took that Great Leap also. Using OUR ore!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  enginer01
April 15, 2026 3:40 pm

I researched this extensively for essay ‘Going Nuclear’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.
Yes, the Chinese are ahead of the US having built and now operating utility grade pilot scale MSR.
But the better US MSR plan is to use up abundant spend existing uranium/plutonium fuel before converting to the thorium/uranium cycle. Is just more cost effective. Plus solves most of the spent nuclear fuel waste problem Ford created by banning MOX recycling.

Robert A. Taylor
Reply to  enginer01
April 15, 2026 3:51 pm

The actual fissile material in thorium reactors is 233U, chemically extractable, and automatically bomb grade, although with a short half-life. The U.S. detonated a 233U bomb in 1955. what was high-tech then, is certainly not today.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
April 15, 2026 2:54 pm

It’s about time. We’ve known the reuse of ‘spent’ nuclear fuels for decades and allowed the activists to get their way.

Curious George
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
April 15, 2026 5:21 pm

I like “new processes” – used in France for 60 years.

Allen Pettee
April 15, 2026 3:04 pm

Nuclear power is the ultimate renewable energy source.

cgh
Reply to  Allen Pettee
April 15, 2026 3:20 pm

Absolutely true. Even if another kilogram of uranium was never mined, sitting in spent fuel storage right now is sufficient uranium fuel, if reprocessed and bred in FBRs, to fuel the world’s existing reactor fleet for about 15,000 years.Simple reprocessing and removing fission fragments alone would add thousands of years to nuclear fuel availability.

Should it ever happen that uranium becomes too expensive, the world can turn to using thorium fuel instead.

It’s impossible to understate the vicious stupidity of Jimmy Carter’s decree against fuel reprocessing. This idiot created huge problems for the nuclear fuel cycle and solved nothing whatsoever.

Reply to  cgh
April 16, 2026 7:59 pm

… sitting in spent fuel storage right now is sufficient uranium fuel, if reprocessed and bred in FBRs, to fuel the world’s existing reactor fleet for about 15,000 years.

Do you have a citation for that claim? While doing some background reading to refresh my memory on the details of this topic, I saw an estimate of 100-years.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Allen Pettee
April 16, 2026 11:33 am

The definition of renewable in the context of energy generation is: does not deplete fuel.

I dislike the definition, but it is defined that way in Oxford.

Rud Istvan
April 15, 2026 3:33 pm

Even the Japanese have been for decades recycling spent nuclear fuel into MOX at Rokksho. Their version of the French recycled MOX process. Ford’s ‘nonproliferation’ burial decision was stupid from the beginning, as India, Pakistan, and North Korea have since proven. Plus, thanks to NIMBY, the Nevada Yucca Mountain burial site NEVER became operational—leaving proliferation concerns worse, not better,
Secondary recycling advantage is that the much volume reduced residual dangerous radionucleotides can be glassified, then safely buried ‘forever’ (forever meaning more than 10k years).

KevinM
April 15, 2026 4:47 pm

Headline is way too early.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  KevinM
April 16, 2026 11:37 am

Every journey starts with the first step.
Every comeback starts with the first play/action.

Maybe we can blend it with Coach Mark Dantonio’s quote (Michigan State):

America’s nuclear comeback is just starting!

Denis
April 15, 2026 4:50 pm

The French have been recycling used fuel since they started with nuclear energy many decades ago. The US was to do the same until Carter shut down the work. Perhaps our least capable president ever A truly stupid man.

cgh
Reply to  Denis
April 15, 2026 5:19 pm

Agreed. You have to be a very bad president to be worse than Woody Wilson, JFK or Lyndon (Note these are all Democrats.) But, like them, Jimmy failed at every file or issue that crossed his desk. His handling of the 1979 second oil crisis was spectacularly bad. And who can forget the antics of his brother Billy Carter?

enginer01
Reply to  cgh
April 15, 2026 6:58 pm

Carter graduated from the Naval Academy in Annapolis in 1946, and served aboard a nuclear submarine (??). I heard he studied Nuclear Energy at the Academy. He didn’t learn much from these tasks except to be extra safe and cautious.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  enginer01
April 15, 2026 11:11 pm

He had two months training to serve on a nuclear sub, but he never actually served on one. That two months of training earned him the moniker of a “nucular scientist” in the press of that day. He believed that he was an expert in “nucular physics” and military tactics and strategy – which helps explain his disastrous results in rescuing the embassy hostages in Iran. He was just a politician – no good at anything except getting votes.

Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
April 16, 2026 4:30 am

And growing peanuts.

Reply to  pflashgordon
April 16, 2026 10:14 am

Reminds me of a joke from those days.

In Plains Georgia they’re having peanuts for Thanksgiving this year.
They sent their turkey to Washington.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
April 16, 2026 11:45 am

Quite an informed decision to take the sand filters off helicopter motors to extend the range. How did that work out?

2hotel9
Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
April 17, 2026 4:08 am

Here is a bit of background on Mr Carter. https://atomicinsights.com/picking-on-the-jimmy-carter-myth/

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  enginer01
April 16, 2026 11:44 am

He took graduate-level non-credit courses in reactor technology and nuclear physics at Union College in Schenectady, New York, while working with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

So a bit more than just the Academy.

2hotel9
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 17, 2026 4:11 am

Was this after resigning his commission to return to the family business? He was never a Nuclear Engineer, position did not even exist when he was in Naval Academy.

2hotel9
Reply to  enginer01
April 17, 2026 3:53 am

He was an Electric Power Systems Officer, not nuclear.

Tom Halla
April 15, 2026 5:25 pm

As an approximation, undoing everything
Jimmy Carter did with nukes will solve most of the problems. Carter is responsible for the approval process that takes decades, as well
as demanding a “once through” fuel cycle.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 16, 2026 11:45 am

Ford had a small piece of the pie.

April 16, 2026 1:22 am

Britain has been reprocessing nuclear fuel for 50 years

April 16, 2026 4:39 am

Along with the fuel question discussed here, the bigger change is the move from massive over engineered and extremely high cost gigawatt nuclear power plants to safe, small modular reactors that can be licensed, sited, built and started up quickly, close to where the power is needed.

SMRs can be sized to match the need by simply installing multiple small units. This has already been the practice in the electric power industry for several decades with the advent of combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT). CCGT facilities can go from proposal to start up 18 months and can be upsized simply through the addition of more turbine units.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  pflashgordon
April 16, 2026 11:47 am

While SMRs have their advantages, the rhetoric you use shows bias.

AWG
April 16, 2026 5:30 am

China understands something many Western policymakers ignored: Industrial dominance requires energy abundance. You cannot run an advanced economy, let alone a military or manufacturing base, on intermittent power and political agendas.”

Its also far cheaper to launder money through NGOs that are directed to color revolutions and seditious politicians and judges than it is to build and operate an aircraft carrier unit.

So much of why the West does all of the Wrong Things and few if any of the Right Things is because its personally profitable to accept Chinese money than it is to show proper stewardship to your own country and culture.

Richard Rude
April 16, 2026 9:20 am

Here in Wyoming a small nuclear plant is being built in Kemmerer. Apparently Bill Gates is involved in its creation.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Rude
April 16, 2026 11:51 am

345 MW, operational in or around 2030, sodium cooled.

Cool.