U.S. nuclear energy faces fuel supply chain vulnerabilities, with tight uranium supplies, geopolitical risks, and rising costs threatening both existing reactors costs and advanced reactor development.
The uranium conversion stage represents a major bottleneck, with only five large-scale facilities worldwide, shrinking stockpiles, and companies hesitant to expand capacity without long-term contracts that buyers are reluctant to sign at current high prices.
Next-generation reactors will require significantly more mined uranium per ton of fuel, potentially tightening supplies for the existing nuclear fleet, which is already facing high fuel costs.
Four countries dominate mining: Kazakhstan, Namibia, Australia, and Canada. [Trump’s quarrel with Canada hurts US]
Only five facilities worldwide convert mined uranium on a large scale into the gas needed for enrichment. This step may pose one of the most critical pinch-points in the supply chain.
Enrichment, the third stage of the nuclear fuel supply chain, remains heavily concentrated: Nearly half of global capacity is in Russia, with only two major commercial enrichers operating in the United States and western Europe. This poses a strategic challenge for the United States, which relies on Russia for nearly 30% of its enriched uranium supply. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Congress passed legislation in 2024 to ban enriched uranium imports from Russia. Several European countries are also working to reduce their dependence on Russian fuel.
Read the article to find out about the problems next-generation reactors are going to have in this area.
This sounds like a classical chicken and egg situation. Shortage drives high prices. So users are reluctant to contract at high prices so domestic producers can expand.
So shortage gets worse until some plants must shut down. And expansion at both uranium hexafluoride and enrichment plant will likely require several years to complete. Long shutdown implied. How will deficiency be replaced? Wind/solar? Gas fired? Extend life of coal fired plants?
How can financing be guaranteed to get expansion underway?
The cheapest and fastest is solar and wind. Second best is natural gas, but gas turbines are already a production problem with orders taking two or more years to complete. Third is coal which is dirty and old with many plants falling apart. Fourth is nuclear but that is always expensive, long delays and uranium shortage.
The DOE is asking states to express interest in hosting “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses,” which would support activities across the nuclear fuel lifecycle – including recycling used fuel.
Only about 5% of the value of the energy is used by a reactor, meaning the used fuel has the potential to be recycled. At present there is no commercial-scale uranium recycling in the U.S. The DOE said this would also redirect spent uranium from ultimately being sent to Yucca Mountain.
Ultimately, one of the proposed campuses could house the entire fuel cycle from enrichment all the way to recycling. The sites could also potentially have advanced reactors, power generation and co-located data centers, since it’s easier to do everything under one roof rather than having to transport fuel.
This a dubious idea. Having all nuclear fuel cycle facilities on one campus is dangerous and having data centers co-located is a further economic disaster in the making. If one of these nuclear facilities has an significant radiation accident it could contaminate other facilities, require emergency evacuation for thousand of people, and shutdown the campus for years. Why does the government want to push this poor thought out concept on the states?
The CNBC article states: “Nuclear accounts for about 21% of U.S. power, but the country is dependent on imports for much of its uranium.”
The DOE does not even provide correct information to CBNC. Fact is that in 2023 nuclear provided 19% of US power, and in 2024 nuclear provided 18% of US power. Where did the DOE grab the 21% number?
If one of these nuclear facilities has an significant radiation accident it could contaminate other facilities, require emergency evacuation for thousand of people, and shutdown the campus for years.
The campus would need to be quite large. Data centers employee a very small number of on site workers.
Aren’t Hanford and Savannah River examples of nuclear processing facilities. “Nuclear incident” implies runaway nuclear event. I think we know from experience the main risk is groundwater contamination.
As I recall Allied Chemical built a nuclear fuel rod recycling plant but govt decided not to issue operating permits. Yes, fuel can be recovered and life extended but concern is what to do with waste nuclear materials. Can you prevent misuse.
I wonder what happened to the Allied plant. Does it still exist.
Related in St Louis Mallinckrodt processed uranium ore to uranium hexafluoride for enrichment at Oakridge. We are still dealing with the waste materials that were buried in a landfill. Downstream there are cancer clusters. Govt has just authorized compensation for those victims. Some think clean up is not as complete as it should be.
West of St Louis, Weldon Springs had the largest US TNT plant. It was converted to nuclear processing. It has museum and landfill mountain of nuclear waste. It is now a wildlife refuge. The TNT magazines are still there.
How large? 400 square miles? Who is going to be ALLOWED into a contaminated data center?
How big is the TMI site? The unafffected plant was restarted ~ 6 years after the incident IIRC. It was shut down as a precaution not due to radiation. Yes a more serious accident could happen than TMI
Hanford is closed, and I believe a superfund site now with active clean-up continuing. It used to be a processing facility, making weapons-grade material. As a side note, Hanford was the only graphite-moderated reactor in the US at the time of the Chernobyl incident (which was also a graphite-moderated reactor). People were freaking out about nuclear reactors after that, but except for Hanford, all our were water-moderated and could not catch fire like the Chernobyl reactor.
Yes they used both to be bomb making facilities with reactors and many other types of facilities. Hanford site still has an operating commercial nuclear power plant onsite.
I was associated with the radioactive waste cleanup at both of these facilities in the 1990 - 2005. Both of the sites are HUGE.
The Hanford Site in Washington covers approximately 580 square miles. The Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina covers 310 square miles.
All DOE reactors were shutdown a long time ago. I am referring to the commercial reactor not owned by DOE. The Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is the only active commercial nuclear power plant located on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Site, situated 10 miles north of Richland, Washington. Operated by Energy Northwest, this 1,207-megawatt boiling water reactor has operated since 1984, providing power to the Northwest grid.
See the links below for the Columbia Generating Station:
Cool. Thanks. Reviewing the materials I could find, it is a water-moderated reactor. So, can’t catch fire.
Yes, when I was looking up Hanford I saw that they were all shut down many years ago. I suspect that Chernobyl had something to do with that, since Hanford had the only graphite reactor in the country at that point. That’s why I was curious about the info you had.
Hanford also did extensive processing to isolate and purify plutonium. That is the part being considered when you reprocess used fuel rods. No reactor involved in reprocessing fuel rods.