Ohio Republicans are leading a legislative push to support nuclear fuel recycling, framing it as a promising way to enhance energy security, stimulate economic growth, and reduce nuclear waste.
The initiative has sparked debate, with proponents applauding potential environmental and economic gains and opponents warning of cost, safety, and policy implications.
Republican members of Ohio’s congressional delegation, including Rep. Bob Latta and Sen. Jon Husted, were among the early backers of the federal Nuclear REFUEL Act, introduced in mid‑June. The bill aims to create a clear regulatory pathway—under NRC’s Part 70—to allow domestic recycling of spent nuclear fuel for use in advanced reactors.
“It’s important that we make it easier to produce more energy in this country , helping to unleash American energy,” said Latta. Similarly, Husted affirmed the move would bolster Ohio by adding “sustainable energy options” to the economy.
Supporters emphasize both environmental and national-security benefits. “We must find a way to recycle nuclear fuel to reduce nuclear waste and make nuclear power more economically viable,” said Rep. Scott Peters, a Democratic co-sponsor of Latta's bill, highlighting how spent fuel could be repurposed rather than stockpiled.
Supporters point to three significant advantages to this initiative. First, recycling makes better use of existing fuel, lessening the need to extract new uranium. Second, proponents highlight that “technology currently exists to recycle the roughly 95% of spent nuclear fuel’s remaining energy generation capability.” Third, clarifying licensing under Part 70 is seen as essential to attract investment in recycling infrastructure.
Jacob DeWitte, CEO of Oklo Inc., praised the Act: “This helps accelerate the deployment and adoption of clean energy powered by advanced fission technologies”.
Despite the enthusiasm, critics are raising flags. Environmental advocates warn that focusing on recycling could sideline investment in renewables and nuclear safety.
Megan Hunter of Earthjustice, speaking on a similar Ohio initiative to designate nuclear energy as “green,” cautioned: “Legislators don’t just put something into the code unless it has meaning and purpose and value. Why would you do this if it has no impact or meaning or effect?”.
Pat Marida, coordinator for Ohio Nuclear‑Free Network, testified, “HB 308 will enable the manipulation of public funds into private, corporate hands. There is nothing ‘green’ about nuclear power,” pointing to radioactive waste concerns.
Nathan Alley of the Sierra Club of Ohio warned that labeling nuclear power as green could misdirect companies from true green energy investments: “This might telegraph to them that they could invest in nuclear energy and achieve the same climate goals as if they invest in solar or wind”.
Further, opponents of recycling stress proliferation risks. Physics Today notes critics argue recycling could lead to increased nuclear materials proliferation, creating weapons-related risks.
Ohio’s GOP lawmakers are positioning the state as a leader in next-wave nuclear technologies, extending beyond the controversial HB 6 nuclear bailout and green-energy definition expansions.
Supporters say the Nuclear REFUEL Act would reduce waste, bolster domestic energy supplies, and pave the way for federal and private investment in advanced reactor infrastructure. “Ohioans need reliable and affordable energy sources,” Sen. Husted said.
Opponents counter that nuclear recycling remains unproven commercially, expensive, and potentially dangerous. Critics argue these efforts might diminish focus on solar, wind, and energy efficiency, while taxpayers could shoulder cleanup or security costs.
The Nuclear REFUEL Act is now advancing through congressional committees. In Columbus, the Ohio legislature appears aligned with federal momentum, evidenced by the creation of a state nuclear development authority and bills reclassifying nuclear power as “green.” Unless countered by Democratic leaders or environmental groups, Ohio could emerge as a national trailblazer in nuclear recycling.
Still, the debate isn’t solely technical; it touches on broader priorities: climate strategy, public spending, energy policy, and national security. As the legislative path unfolds, Ohioans will need clarity on who benefits, the timelines involved, and whether advanced nuclear fuel recycling can deliver on its promise, or become another policy detour delaying what some call “renewable energy progress”.
