By Brian Gitt
I work at an advanced nuclear tech company. I spend my days talking to developers of data centers, AI factories, and industrial sites—companies that hope advanced nuclear plants can meet their enormous and ever-increasing energy needs. Nearly every conversation comes down to two questions: How much will it cost? When can we get it?
Nuclear fuel has an outsized impact on both answers. To scale nuclear power, you need abundant fuel with a per-kWh cost that can compete with other energy sources like natural gas, and that’s available in a time frame that meets customer needs. You could have the best-designed plant in the world, but if its fuel costs too much or arrives too late, its power will be too expensive for customers or unavailable when they need it.
The challenge is that no fuel source checks every box: what’s available now may be expensive, what costs less may take longer, and what supports growth may require infrastructure that hasn’t been built at scale. The best approach isn’t to go all-in on one source. It’s to build a diversified fuel portfolio. Most people don’t put all their retirement savings into a single stock. That way, a bad outcome in one sector doesn’t threaten the entire plan. A similar logic applies to advanced nuclear fuel.
Advanced nuclear fuel differs from traditional fuel, which is typically enriched less than 5% and shaped into small oxide pellets. Advanced fuel has a higher enrichment level or a different form factor. It is more energy dense and efficient, but its supply chain is just beginning to grow.
There are three sources of advanced fuel: fresh fuel made from newly mined uranium, government-sourced material, and fuel recycled from nuclear waste. Using them together can reduce supply risk, control costs, and help scale advanced nuclear power faster than any single source.
The biggest advantage of fresh fuel is certainty: the industry knows how to make and transport it, companies know how to buy it, and regulators know how to review the plants that use it. But certainty comes at a cost. Fresh fuel is two to three times more expensive than government-sourced material or recycled fuel.
The supply chain is still small, and each link requires plants, permits, workers, equipment, and transportation. If one link is behind schedule, the fuel arrives late, and if the fuel is late, the power is late. Suppliers lack the firm orders needed to build capacity, while developers hesitate to commit before projects are licensed and financed. Each side is waiting for the other to move first. Relying on fresh fuel alone would leave the industry exposed to high prices, market swings, trade restrictions, geopolitical disruptions, and delays.
Governments have nuclear material left over from defense, research, and energy programs. Some can be processed into advanced-reactor fuel without all the steps required to make fresh fuel. Governments spend billions to store, guard, or get rid of this material. Turning it into fuel converts a costly burden into affordable clean power.
The downside is that we lack facilities to downblend the material and fabricate it into the form reactors need. Agencies must decide who can use and transport it and under what terms, so the delivery date remains uncertain. Stockpiles are also finite. They can support early growth, but they can’t fuel a reactor fleet forever.
Recycled fuel is the strongest long-term option. When most people hear the term “nuclear waste,” they assume it has no value. But waste is used nuclear fuel, and most of today’s reactors use only about 5% of their fuel’s energy before it’s removed and placed in storage. That means 95% of the fuel’s original energy is left behind. Leaving it untapped is like taking one bite out of an apple and throwing away the rest.
The right processes can convert used fuel into new fuel. Nuclear recycling could cut fuel costs by as much as 80%—a development that would change the economics of nuclear power. It would reduce the need for new uranium mining and enrichment, shield power producers from swings in fuel prices, and decrease dependence on foreign suppliers. Nuclear recycling would transform a long-term burden into a vast source of domestic energy.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of recycled fuel is its path to scale. The more reactors that operate, the more recyclable fuel they create, and the more recycling becomes self-sustaining. But that system can’t be built overnight. Not all advanced reactors can run on recycled fuel, and most countries lack commercial-scale recycling facilities. Those facilities must operate safely, reliably, and at a steady cost.
Fresh fuel offers the most certain near-term path. It’s more costly than the alternatives, but those alternatives need time to develop. Over the middle term, government material can provide a lower-cost alternative while the market grows. Recycled fuel provides the best scale and economics for the long run, but it will take the longest to develop.
Why not just stick with traditional light-water reactors? Their fuel is cheaper and their supply chains are already in place. Traditional nuclear should remain part of the mix, but it shouldn’t be the only thing. Advanced reactors can get more energy from less fuel, offer stronger safety features, and convert used fuel into a resource instead of a burden—addressing communities’ biggest concerns about new nuclear projects.
A well-established supply chain is one advantage of traditional nuclear, but much of it begins overseas. In 2025, about 93% of the uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear plant operators came from foreign sources. That dependence creates geopolitical risk while the United States already has a vast store of energy sitting in used nuclear fuel. We shouldn’t let that resource go to waste.
Diversifying nuclear fuel sources provides customers timely and cost-effective options. It enables us to unlock an abundant fuel solution for the next century, transforms two liabilities—waste and government material—into assets, and minimizes price and geopolitical risk. It is the surest way to secure energy independence and abundant, affordable clean energy for our future.
Brian Gitt is Senior Vice President and Head of Business Development for Oklo, Inc.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.