What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 1)

A permanent high-level nuclear waste repository opens and operates successfully in the US within 20 years

What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 2)

New nuclear construction projects consistently meet budget and timeline targets

What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 3)

SMRs achieve commercial deployment at costs competitive with renewables plus storage

When should you avoid nuclear power renaissance waste problem?

You're building new reactors without a funded plan for waste disposal. Your nuclear cost projections don't include decommissioning and waste management

What are alternatives?

Renewables + storage: Solar/wind with battery storage approaching nuclear reliability at lower cost. Geothermal: Reliable baseload power without waste or proliferation concerns. Existing reactor life extension: Extend current reactor lifespans rather than building new ones

Catalog

I008

Infrastructure

Nuclear Power Renaissance Waste Problem

HIGH(80%)

February 2026

4 sources

Context

Nuclear power is experiencing a renaissance driven by climate goals and AI data center energy demands. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are signing nuclear power agreements. Small modular reactors (SMRs) promise cheaper, faster deployment. The argument is compelling: nuclear provides reliable, carbon-free baseload power that renewables can't match. But the waste problem remains unsolved after 70 years. No country has a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste. The US spent $15B on Yucca Mountain before abandoning it. Spent fuel sits in temporary storage at reactor sites — some for decades. Each new reactor adds to the waste inventory with no disposal path. SMRs may actually produce more waste per unit of energy than conventional reactors. The renaissance is building new reactors on the assumption that future generations will solve the waste problem — the same assumption made in the 1950s.

Hypothesis

What people believe

“Nuclear is clean energy that can solve the climate crisis.”

Actual Chain

→

Waste inventory grows with no permanent disposal solution(90,000+ metric tons of spent fuel in US alone)

└

Spent fuel stored in temporary pools and dry casks at reactor sites

└

No country has opened a permanent high-level waste repository

└

Waste remains radioactive for 10,000-100,000 years

→

Construction costs and timelines consistently overrun(2-3x budget, 5-10 year delays typical)

└

Vogtle Units 3&4: $14B over budget, 7 years late

└

SMRs unproven at commercial scale — NuScale cancelled first project

└

Regulatory approval process adds years to timeline

→

Decommissioning costs deferred to future generations($500M-1B per reactor decommissioning)

└

Decommissioning funds often underfunded

└

Process takes 20-60 years per reactor

Impact

Metric	Before	After	Delta
Carbon emissions per kWh	Fossil fuel baseline	Near zero (operational)	-95%
Spent fuel inventory	Existing stockpile	Growing with no disposal path	Accumulating
Construction cost overrun	Budget	2-3x typical	+150%
Baseload reliability	Fossil fuel baseline	90%+ capacity factor	Excellent

Navigation

Don't If

•You're building new reactors without a funded plan for waste disposal
•Your nuclear cost projections don't include decommissioning and waste management

If You Must

1.Fund waste disposal research and repository development alongside new construction
2.Include full lifecycle costs (construction, operation, decommissioning, waste) in economic analysis
3.Invest in advanced reactor designs that reduce waste volume and radioactivity
4.Support international cooperation on waste disposal solutions

Alternatives

Renewables + storage — Solar/wind with battery storage approaching nuclear reliability at lower cost
Geothermal — Reliable baseload power without waste or proliferation concerns
Existing reactor life extension — Extend current reactor lifespans rather than building new ones

Falsifiability

This analysis is wrong if:

A permanent high-level nuclear waste repository opens and operates successfully in the US within 20 years
New nuclear construction projects consistently meet budget and timeline targets
SMRs achieve commercial deployment at costs competitive with renewables plus storage

Sources

1.
US Government Accountability Office: Nuclear Waste Management
Federal assessment of the unsolved nuclear waste disposal challenge after 70 years
2.
Vogtle Nuclear Plant Cost Overruns
Units 3&4 cost $35B vs $14B budget, delivered 7 years late
3.
Nature Energy: SMR Waste Analysis
Research showing small modular reactors may produce more waste per unit energy than conventional reactors
4.
Finland Onkalo Repository
The world's first permanent nuclear waste repository, expected to open 2025 — the only one globally

I013 I016 I003