Fueling the Coming Nuclear Renaissance

By Duggan Flanakin

Saskatoon-based Cameco is a 21st-century global nuclear energy leader as North America’s largest supplier of nuclear fuel for fission reactors. In its latest supply-and-demand market update, Cameco’s president Grant Isaac said that uranium markets remain structurally undersupplied and that major utilities negotiating long-term contracts are modeling uranium oxide prices near $120 per pound.  

Traditionally, centrifuges have been used to separate the heavier uranium-238 from fissile uranium-235 atoms for low-enriched uranium (LEU) reactor fuel. As recently as 2018, LEU fuels were selling as low as $40 per separative work unit (SWU), the standard measure of effort required to separate uranium isotopes during enrichment. Today, that price is skyrocketing toward $200 per SWU.

The massive price jumps are due to a confluence of a ban on future purchases of Russian uranium enacted by Congress after Russia invaded Ukraine, the explosion of artificial intelligence, robotics, data centers, and other technologies that require massive amounts of electricity (along with the switch to electric vehicles), and the Trump administration’s commitment to quadrupling U.S. electricity production.

One potential hedge against higher prices for both uranium and uranium fuels is the evolution of an alternate method of enrichment – one that was fully developed decades ago but abandoned once cheap Russian uranium flooded the market. LIS Technologies relies on a laser process, developed by physicist Jeff Eerkens, that can provide LEU fuel at just $30 per SWU.

Just not yet.

Dr. Eerkens, now 93 years young, was rescued from a Japanese internment camp in the south Pacific after the U.S. ended World War II with nuclear bombs. Inspired by the technology that saved his life, Eerkens became a nuclear engineer and invented (and patented) the Condensation Repression Isotope Selective Laser Activation (CRISLA) and the Chemically Harvested and Extracted Molecular Laser Isotope Separation (CHEMLIS) isotope-harvesting techniques that he has now brought to LIS.

Liebenberg early on took his knowledge of MLIS to Australia and then to Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) and ASML, where he helped develop advanced laser systems to produce EUV, the light source used to produce the world’s most advanced semiconductor chips. He and Eerkens shared a view that the U.S. would soon need to shift to nuclear power and that CRISLA was the pathway for providing the nuclear fuel for America’s nuclear renaissance.

The two men convinced NANO Nuclear founding CEO Jay Wu to come on board as a financial partner, forming CRISLA Inc. in 2020 and LIS Technologies in 2023. In January LIS announced it had the K-25 site at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the headquarters for World War II’s Manhattan Project and the birthplace of American nuclear innovation (that led to saving Eerkens’ life).

Liebenberg plans to take the company public this summer as it also works to complete the licensing process (while obtaining necessary security clearances) and build out a facility with a capacity of 5 million SWU per year – larger than the 4.3 million SWU/year Orenco facility in New Mexico. The hope is to begin selling LEU and LEU+ fuels in the early 2030s and to build additional facilities as U.S. demand soars to 12 times the uranium fuel America now produces.

Eerkens, whose rescue from a Japanese internment camp at the age of 12 as a byproduct of the U.S. bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima spurred him toward a career in nuclear engineering, is known as the father of laser enrichment. He had already demonstrated the effectiveness of laser enrichment while working for the Canadian firm Cameco – but the availability of cheap Russian LEU ended Cameco’s interest in laser enrichment for decades.

Eerkens had to store his equipment, papers, and materials, but a visit from Liebenberg in 2013 planted the seeds of what is fast becoming a major hope for affordable, ample domestic uranium fuel for the future. As Liebenberg tells it, in 2019 the pair began looking for a financial partner to revive the CRISLA process. And they found Jay Wu, who had already begun building NANO Nuclear as a future provider of microreactors that would also need affordable fuel.

How did the U.S. go from the world’s leading producer of uranium – from the 1940s through the 1980s – to a beggar on the uranium fuel market? U.S. production – mainly from deposits in New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Texas – peaked in 1980 at 43.7 million pounds of uranium oxide, but in 2024 production was only 677,000 pounds.

A major reason was the 1993 Megatons to Megawatts agreement between the U.S. and the Russian Federation under which Russia agreed to convert 500 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium into 15,000 metric tons of LEU fuel for use in American reactors – at a discounted price. Though that agreement expired in 2013, the U.S. continued to rely heavily on Russia (along with Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan) for its nuclear fuel.  

The Biden administration’s wakeup call came in early 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine – a move that eventually led to the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act of 2024. Waivers under that act expire at the end of 2027, but even earlier Congress allocated $2.72 billion to the Department of Energy to foster domestic enrichment of uranium.

Even earlier, the DOE announced a $700 million program to expedite HALEU (high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel for advanced reactors) production. Some of that money went to the American Centrifuge Project’s Piketon, Ohio, plant operated by Centrus Energy Corp. – which just this spring delivered its first 900 kilograms of HALEU to the DOE.

Liebenberg says that LIS will be able to create LEU in a single step, LEU+ in two steps, and HALEU in multiple steps – and that the company should be ready to demonstrate the technology to SMR and microreactor companies, data centers, and other interested parties by this summer. Then it is systems engineering integration and testing of the lasers, the geometry, and the gases, using mass spectrometers that provide near-instant results.

If all goes well, LIS will have fuel ready by the time new reactors are cleared to operate.

Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

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 11 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
June 16, 2026 11:38 pm

I created this visualisation to try to estimate the volume that would be occupied by all the hard drives from all the data centres if they were placed together in one space. It’s certainly a good estimate, but if you project this forward to 2050 and calculate the energy required to power all these data centres, it’s clear that it will require far more power than we are generating today. 

Data-Centers
Phillip Chalmers
June 16, 2026 11:55 pm

This is the first I have ever heard of alternate methods of isotope extraction or enrichment or purification. My first guess is that almost all first world nuclear armed nations have suppressed the knowledge and organised the financial barriers to any enterprise even thinking about using it.
Psst, do not tell the Iranians! They probably did not already know because the genius of Israel defence forces not long ago crashed their centrifuges remotely with a software virus.
All the Australians on here, get onto your local State and Federal Member and petition them to make plans for its application in Australia. We have more than half the uranium deposits, let us do the mining and purification and enriching ourselves, for far too long the globalisation confidence trick has managed to strip us of almost all of our manufacturing industries.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 17, 2026 12:54 am

I am not sure why anyone would petition the Australian government to use this particular method. After all the Australian company SILEX Systems has démonstrated its own method for laser isotope séparation that it has licenced to various companies and the US government. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation

June 17, 2026 5:00 am

24×7/365 Solar power in Space powers and cools data centers
apnews.com/article/elon-musk-orbital-ai-data-centers-xai-spacex-92bc8ad95593bf3b5b801ddf36427194

rationaloptimistsociety.substack.com/p/data-centers-in-space-are-going-to

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dan Davis
June 17, 2026 8:55 am

Who’s going to replace bad board and drives?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 18, 2026 4:23 pm

How do you think GPS satellites have achieved continuous service since May of 1995 – they are updated with a new one. Have you heard the term “redundancy” That would be a factor as well.
Get real, this is the 21st Century…..

Richard Mott
June 17, 2026 5:43 am

To Mr. Walton below – the SILEX and LIS processes were both invented by the same person, according to the article, and CAMECO is a 49% owner of the joint venture that markets SILEX.
A standard green argument against nuclear is the energy required for enrichment of reactor fuel, but they cheat by using the energy cost of the original gas diffusion method from the 1940s. The centrifuges brought that cost down by a factor of about 40, and the laser techniques get another factor of 3 or so. So the true modern enrichment cost will be less that 1% of the cost claimed by Greenpeace and its friends and relations.
The reality is the fuel cost for nuclear power is effectively nothing compared to the capital cost of construction. Since this is also true of wind, if we take into account the relative capacity factor (roughly 3.5 to 4x the nominal wind capacity is required for the same amount of power generated) and the cost of the land used, wind is actually more expensive than nuclear.

Denis
Reply to  Richard Mott
June 17, 2026 9:36 am

One must also consider the added costs to accommodate wind’s unpredictable intermittency. Total power generated is not really important nor meaningful comparison. It’s the intermittency which leads, some of the time, to too much power and the problem of what to do with it (storage cost $$$ or feather the machines and pay the owner anyways) and at other times too little and how to make up for it (backup cost $$$) and accommodation of inertia issues. After all, the supply and demand of the grid must be identical to each other every second and at the right voltage and right frequency.

As to the “wind is free” arguments, so are coal, oil, gas and uranium. So far as I know, nature or God if you wish, charges nothing for any of these sources of energy. Different equipment and management systems are required to utilize any one of them.

June 17, 2026 8:16 am

Hmmm . . . had to get to the very last sentence of the above article to find this gem:

“If all goes well, LIS will have fuel ready by the time new reactors are cleared to operate.”

Let’s see . . . yeah, that might be anywhere from five to, oh, fifty years from now.

John Hultquist
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 17, 2026 12:33 pm

If the comment had not been written so dismissively, I’d give it an up-thumb. The phrase “cleared to operate” implies a completed construction and an operational readiness assessment.

enginer01
June 17, 2026 9:09 am

Ignoring the fact that Russia has 30 nuclear reactors (fortunately not Chernobyl designs) under construction, and we have basically none, our HALEU fuel needed for the dozens of mini and micro-reactors “planned” here is essentially non-existent. Even OKLO and CENTRUS (LEU) with bushels of gov’t money will not come close to meeting the 2028 – 2032 “proposed” startups. Then we have this issue of Russian fuel. Costs 1/3 our projected costs. If we relent and allow Russian imports to meet Data Center needs, “poof” goes billions of dollars for the expensive US HALEU startups. But there are two solutions:
One, let the Government buy Russian Uranium and process fuel and add it to a US stock pile, rationing it out at prices that allow our nascent fuel providers to make a ROI.
Two, recall that many needed Rare Earth ores are rich in Thorium. The US-invented Molten Salt Reactor, now running only in China, has proven Thorium can be the make-up fuel. The Gov’t should immediately solve the rare earth-Thorium conundrum by establishing a US Strategic Thorium stockpile and buy it from MP and USAR instead of bleeding tax payer dollars to let them show a profit.
It is interesting that early in my career I worked in the Monazite (building) at W R Grace/Davison Chemical Curtis Bay plant…..earlier shut down because Thorium nitrate was no longer profitable in silk lantern mantles or Thorium needed in Oak Ridge.

Beta Blocker
June 17, 2026 10:20 am

If Nuclear Renaissance 2.0 moves forward in the US, it will happen only because the federal and state governments decide to fund new-build nuclear power with federal and state taxpayer money.

NucRen 2.0 will go forward as a public policy decision to pay a premium over what gas-fired generation costs in order to gain nuclear’s energy security and reliability benefits.

As such, the federal and state governments will be choosing the winners in the competition to see who can build a power reactor on schedule for the originally estimated capital cost.

This means that here in the US, the AP1000 design and possibly the Canadian CANDU designs will be favored when big reactors are under consideration, while the BWRX-300 design will be favored when SMRs are under consideration.

These are all Gen III Plus designs and use conventional nuclear fuel, not HALEU. The conventional fuel cycle is well established, is very efficiently managed, and therefore carries very little technical and programmatic risk in comparison with HALEU fuel.

June 17, 2026 4:47 pm

I’d be quite interested to know what the bottom line fuel costs per , say , GWh is for nuclear vs gas or coal .