Greg Piefer is founder and CEO of SHINE Technologies, commercializing nuclear fusion technology for a clean energy future.
The U.S. had debated its growing 90,000 metric ton stockpile of spent nuclear fuel for decades. This radioactive “waste” in temporary storage contains untapped energy, enough to power the nation for years if reused. Instead, it accumulates, relying on costly, unsustainable solutions.
There’s a better path that reuses valuable material, reduces risk and creates economic value.
A Cleaner, Safer Nuclear Future
Nuclear recycling reduces spent fuel volume and half-life and creates a vital new energy resource. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 90% of potential energy remains in spent nuclear fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.
Recycling enables us to capture that value while reducing waste and eliminating plutonium from stockpiles. It also supports clean power, medical isotopes and advanced manufacturing. Modern recycling methods recover uranium and plutonium efficiently (without isolating plutonium), cutting costs, simplifying handling and enabling a compact, cost-effective system
In addition to improved recovery methods, new approaches, such as transmutation via fusion, target the long-lived radioactive elements that remain. Transmutation uses streams of high-energy neutrons to convert these elements into materials that decay more rapidly or pose a lower risk. Recent breakthroughs in nuclear fusion have made large‑scale transmutation realistic, reducing the need for long-term storage.
This isn’t theoretical. Orano has safely recycled over 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel at its La Hague facility in France, using a process that recovers a vast energy resource and permanently entombs the remaining material in a matrix far more stable than the original fuel. At SHINE, we expect to demonstrate transmutation in partnership with DOE through our Newton project in 2026.
Recycling spent nuclear fuel is proven; the challenge is execution.
Lessons Learned
Poor business models, not technology, have limited most efforts to recycle nuclear fuel to date. Japan’s Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant illustrates how cost and complexity escalate with misaligned management and incentives. Construction costs reached $25 billion, with lifetime costs projected to be over $100 billion. Repeated design changes to meet evolving regulations, delays in the completion date and added compliance measures have pushed full operations into at least 2027.
Without disciplined execution, clear regulatory frameworks and outcome‑focused incentives, even proven science can fail to deliver practical results. Failures have shaped public perception and discouraged investment, but they don’t mean recycling can’t work. Instead, they show that execution matters as much as science. A better approach starts with first principles: question assumptions, simplify design and focus relentlessly on safety where it matters most.
Building our nuclear infrastructure project, we suffered early setbacks with traditional nuclear companies due to misaligned incentives and complexity. By embracing simpler, outcome-focused principles, our construction costs will be under $1 billion. That’s an affordable benchmark by industry standards, proving that complex nuclear projects are economically viable and that recycling is achievable at a reasonable cost.
The Path Forward: Pilot, Prove, Scale
Solving the nuclear waste problem doesn’t require a moonshot. It requires discipline.
The most effective approach is to start small. A pilot facility can process meaningful amounts of fuel, prove technologies and validate costs under real regulatory oversight. Once proven, scale the model regionally to reduce the stockpile and recover high-value materials. This roadmap avoids past megaproject pitfalls, builds public and investor confidence through measurable progress and adapts/optimizes over time, critical for complex infrastructure.
But good execution needs the right environment to succeed. Outdated incentives and policy uncertainty are stalling efforts to recycle nuclear fuel despite its proven technical and economic viability.
From Policy To Investment: Unlocking A Better Future
While nuclear recycling doesn’t require reinventing the wheel, it does require enabling infrastructure and updated regulation. Technology leaders must bring the same urgency to working with policymakers that they apply to innovation in their fields. By writing letters, making calls and mobilizing their government affairs teams, tech leaders can help create frameworks that adapt to innovation while maintaining rigorous safety standards.
That includes pushing for a regulatory approach built on current science, economic realities and maximization of net benefit rather than outdated assumptions. They should make it clear that cost-effective, renewable nuclear energy can carry more social benefit than any potential benefit from the current linear no-threshold model. Many experts argue that this model inflates costs and risk perception, eliminating nuclear energy as a tool to solve much bigger social problems.
Additionally, many point to the need to reverse the decades-old prohibition on nuclear fuel recycling, which dates back to the Carter administration’s 1977 decision to halt commercial-scale reprocessing. The goal was to limit nuclear weapons proliferation during the height of the Cold War, but today, we’ve realized that it has left the U.S. with an outdated classification system that uniformly (and incorrectly) treats usable material as waste.
The technology sector should be proactive in applying its expertise to advancing a modern nuclear strategy. For instance, AI developers could build solutions that help regulators test safety scenarios with greater precision while cloud providers help regulators build secure, scalable systems that simplify the oversight of nuclear waste recycling infrastructure.
For their part, policymakers should prioritize establishing outcome-based payment structures as a priority. Implement a per-volume processing rate for government-owned spent fuel to encourage private sector investment.
To leverage private innovation and investment, business models require certainty to deliver services successfully. Mechanisms like a voluntary 1-cent per kWh surcharge (roughly half of typical renewable premiums) could fund innovation and align key stakeholders without federal mandates. Investors would see those as clear signals that the door is opening to scale nuclear in more innovative, more sustainable ways.
Conclusion
Nuclear fuel recycling can turn a problem into an asset. As nuclear generation scales to meet climate goals, recycling will be essential to managing its impact and cost. The science is sound and the economics are promising. What we need is the will to lead and the discipline to do things differently.
Rethinking nuclear recycling can enable a cleaner, more resilient energy system from the ground up while enhancing energy.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
