"We're Sitting on $100 Trillion and Want to Pay $400 Billion to Throw It Away": Steven Curtis on America's Nuclear Waste Oversight, Why the NRC Should Be Shut Down, and How Texas Could Lead the Free Enterprise Nuclear Revolution

Every month, your electricity bill has a hidden line item you've never noticed. A few dollars here, a few dollars there. For 27 years, it's been quietly siphoned from every nuclear-powered kilowatt-hour in America. The total? Fifty billion dollars—collected from ratepayers, including interest. That's $50,000,000,000 your government promised would solve the "nuclear waste problem." Want to know what they did with your money? They dug a hole in a mountain that will never open. They spent $15 billion on Yucca Mountain—a tomb for "deadly nuclear waste" that was supposed to protect your children's children's children for a million years. It's a beautiful story. A noble story. A necessary story. It's also a complete oversight—or perhaps a deception in the rush to move on with nuclear power to please the lobbyists.

Because that "deadly waste"? It's not waste at all. Steven Curtis knows this because he's spent 30 years in the nuclear industry—from the weapons search teams in Nevada to studying Yucca Mountain for 30 years as a civilian advocate and expert. Working with colleagues who've built privately-funded businesses around these calculations and committed their professional lives to this solution, Curtis stands on the shoulders of giants who've proven what politicians refuse to see. That "waste" sitting in concrete casks across America contains $100 trillion worth of electricity. Not million. Not billion. Trillion. With a T.

"This material that you want to pay $400 billion to throw away is worth $100 trillion in electricity," Curtis tells me, his voice carrying the exhaustion of someone who's been screaming truth into a void for decades. "Where's the downside in pulling it out?"

Think about that number for a second. $100 trillion. That's more than the entire U.S. national debt. It's enough money to give every American $300,000. It's 270 years of electricity for the entire country, just sitting in parking lots behind chain-link fences. And we want to spend $400 billion—your money, by the way—to bury it forever. Why? Because somebody is getting very, very rich keeping you scared. And somebody else is getting very, very powerful keeping you dependent.

Curtis isn't some conspiracy theorist in a basement. He's a nuclear science professional who's worked with the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Search Team, a man who's devoted his life to understanding the most powerful force humanity has ever harnessed. And what he's discovered should make you angry. Really angry. "Nothing beats free enterprise for innovation, efficiency, and customer satisfaction," Curtis says. "If we allowed complete free enterprise to prevail, nuclear power would be by far the cheapest and absolutely the safest way to do it."

But here's where the story gets really interesting—and really infuriating. In Idaho, from 1964 to 1994, we ran a reactor called the EBR-II. For 30 years, this sodium-cooled fast reactor with pyroprocessing proved that nuclear "waste" could be turned into power. Over and over again. The scientists even tried to make it melt down—twice—just to prove it couldn't. The reactor shut itself down safely both times, demonstrating the intrinsic safety of fast reactor designs. This proved the concept that would eventually lead to liquid-fuel molten salt reactor designs—the technology Curtis believes could revolutionize energy. We had the solution. We proved it worked. We could have ended energy scarcity forever. So what did we do? We shut it down. For "political reasons."

Meanwhile, your electricity bill keeps climbing. California is hitting 62 cents per kilowatt-hour at peak times. Data centers are willing to pay $3 per kilowatt-hour—and they'll get it, because they can afford it. Can you? Curtis has a solution. It involves Texas, a rebel governor, and the biggest middle finger to the energy establishment since Rockefeller broke up Standard Oil. He only needs two minutes with any governor brave enough to listen. Two minutes to explain how one state could claim $100 trillion in energy wealth, create American energy independence forever, and make electricity too cheap to meter.

But those two minutes keep getting blocked. By donors. By advisors. By an entire system designed to keep you paying, keep you scared, and keep that $100 trillion buried in the ground. The question is: How much longer are you going to let them?

You've stated that 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel represents 270 years of current U.S. electricity demand and is worth $100 trillion. Can you break down this staggering claim for readers who've been told this is dangerous "waste" that needs to be buried?

"Let me be absolutely clear about what we're talking about," Curtis begins, his frustration with decades of misinformation barely contained. "When fuel comes out of a light water reactor after three years, we've only used about 3% of its energy. The other 97% is still there, waiting to be used."

To understand this, it helps to know what's actually in a nuclear fuel rod. When fresh uranium fuel enters a reactor, it's about 96% uranium-238 (which can't fission in regular reactors) and 4% uranium-235 (which can). After three years of producing power, the fuel is removed—not because it's "spent," but because fission products build up and interfere with the chain reaction in conventional reactors. At that point, Curtis explains, the fuel contains approximately:

• 95% uranium-238 (fertile material that can be made fissile by breeding)
• 3% fission products (the dangerously radioactive components)
• 1% uranium-235 (still fissile, hasn't fissioned yet)
• 1% minor actinides, mostly plutonium-239 (created when uranium-238 absorbs a neutron)

"That 90,000 metric tons contains about 30 times the potential energy from when it first went through the reactor. We're looking at 270 years of the current U.S. demand for electricity—4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year—just sitting there in dry casks."

Curtis emphasizes a critical distinction that the nuclear industry deliberately obscures: the difference between reprocessing and true recycling. "In many publications, reprocessing spent fuel by any other name still counts as reprocessing, even if called recycling. But recycling a material implies that nearly all of it can be reused. In the case of true recycling in fast reactors, it reaches 99%, whereas reprocessing only reuses about 4% of the material."

The economics are even more staggering. "At 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is below what most Americans pay now, that's $100 trillion worth of electricity. And we're about to spend $400 billion to bury it? This is the definition of insanity."

But here's where Curtis's explanation gets truly revolutionary. Unlike the complex PUREX reprocessing that France uses—which involves dissolving fuel in nitric acid and chemically separating plutonium—fast reactors can use this material much more simply. "In a fast reactor, you can breed and burn. You turn the 95% that's uranium-238—which can't fission in regular reactors—into plutonium-239, which can. The physics completely changes."

Fast neutrons, unlike the slow neutrons in conventional reactors, can effectively fission all transuranics (elements heavier than uranium) and convert non-fissile uranium-238 into fissile material. This isn't theoretical—it's proven technology. The physics are elegantly simple: both uranium-238 and thorium-232 (another proposed nuclear fuel) are "fertile" materials that require two neutrons to create a fission event, unlike uranium-235 which needs only one. But here's the key advantage Curtis and his colleague Oliver Hemmers have calculated: "The loss of neutrons to neptunium-239 in a fast reactor is at least ten times less than to protactinium-233 in a thorium reactor." In plain English: fast reactors recycling spent fuel are far more efficient than even the much-hyped thorium reactors.

"The EBR-II reactor in Idaho ran for 30 years doing exactly this. They used pyroprocessing to continuously produce solid fuel pellets to recycle the used nuclear fuel in their sodium-cooled fast reactor. Once you get it started with some fissile material, you can just keep adding spent fuel. The more you add, the more power you get out."

The safety advantage is counterintuitive but compelling. "Liquid fuel molten salt reactors operate at atmospheric pressure, not the 2000 PSI of light water reactors. The fuel is already liquid—it can't melt down because it's already melted. If anything goes wrong, it drains into a tank and freezes solid. No Fukushima-style hydrogen explosions, no Chernobyl-style graphite fires."

The Fukushima disaster in 2011, caused by a tsunami that knocked out cooling systems, led to hydrogen explosions when water reacted with overheated fuel cladding. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 involved a graphite-moderated reactor that caught fire during a poorly planned test. Molten salt reactors eliminate both failure modes entirely.

What about the truly radioactive components—the 3% that are fission products? Curtis has an answer that would make environmentalists' heads spin: "Those fission products that everyone's so afraid of? They're mostly rare earths and platinum group metals—rhodium, ruthenium. Let them cool for 50-60 years and you can mine them out. They're valuable materials." In fact, Curtis and Hemmers have calculated that the fission products from recycling all current U.S. spent fuel would be worth approximately one trillion dollars—these include elements ranging from germanium to terbium, many of which are critical for modern electronics and renewable energy technologies.

You're advocating for shutting down the NRC entirely in favor of standards-based regulation. That sounds radical—even reckless—to many. Can you explain why the "gold standard" of nuclear regulation is actually killing the industry it's supposed to protect?

Curtis's response is immediate and forceful: "Can you imagine if automobiles went through NRC-style regulation? Every single car would need individual approval. They'd weigh 10 times as much from mandated safety features, cost 10 times more, and we'd have no automotive industry. Yet cars kill 40,000 Americans every year while commercial nuclear power has killed zero."

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 mandated a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel. Forty-three years and $15 billion later, there's still no solution. Meanwhile, utilities have paid into a Congressional fund that, with money collected from ratepayers, including interest, has grown to over $50 billion through a fee on every kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity.

"The NRC charges the industry $300 an hour to say no. It's the best racket around. They've created a system where it takes a decade and billions of dollars to approve a reactor design that's often safer than what's already running."

He points to the selective approval process as evidence of corruption: "Why did Bill Gates's reactor get fast-tracked? He's building it without even having the fuel he needs—this high-assay low-enriched uranium that doesn't exist in the U.S. yet. Meanwhile, there are 60 to 70 other companies with proven designs waiting in line. Tell me that's not favoritism."

Gates's TerraPower is building its Natrium reactor in Wyoming, designed to use HALEU (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium) enriched to 20%—fuel that currently isn't produced commercially in the United States. Russia was the primary supplier before the Ukraine war.

"We have seven decades of safe operation. Twenty percent of U.S. electricity has come from nuclear for three decades. We have the best industrial safety record of any energy industry—ever. So why do we need individual approval for every valve, every pipe, every installation?"

His proposed alternative is elegantly simple: "Publish standards like we do for cars, aircraft, and every other industry. You must meet these safety requirements, these operational parameters, these waste handling protocols. Meet the standards, you can build and operate. The government provides oversight and enforcement, not pre-approval. Get the government out of the way and let free enterprise work."

The Federal Aviation Administration certifies aircraft designs, not individual planes. Once Boeing certifies a 737 design, they can build thousands without individual approval. The FDA approves drug formulas, not every pill. Only nuclear requires individual licensing for each installation.

"In the 1970s, we were building nuclear plants for $1,000 to $2,000 per kilowatt capacity. The two Vogtle reactors that just came online? Try $30 billion for 2,200 megawatts. That's not inflation—that's regulatory strangulation."

The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 in Georgia are the only new nuclear reactors completed in the U.S. since the 1990s. Originally budgeted at $14 billion, they ended up costing over $30 billion and took more than a decade to build.

Curtis reveals a particularly damning statistic: "Since the NRC was created in 1977, they've only approved two large light-water commercial reactor construction permits—both at Vogtle, both wildly over budget. Before the NRC? We built over 100 reactors. The evidence is clear: the NRC hasn't made nuclear power safer—it's made it extinct."

Data centers are about to drive electricity demand through the roof, with companies willing to pay up to $3 per kilowatt-hour. You claim nuclear could deliver power for pennies. Walk us through how fast reactor recycling could prevent an energy price catastrophe.

"Let me paint you the picture no one wants to see," Curtis begins ominously. "Data centers are saying they can remain profitable at $3 per kilowatt-hour. Right now, average Americans pay 12 to 13 cents. Californians are already hitting 62 cents during peak hours. What happens when Microsoft, Amazon, and Google start bidding against residential customers?"

The explosion in artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency mining has created unprecedented electricity demand. A single ChatGPT query uses 10 times the energy of a Google search. Bitcoin mining alone consumes more electricity than entire countries like Argentina.

"We've had flat electricity demand—4 trillion kilowatt-hours annually, the entire US consumption—for two decades. That's a $500 billion retail market. Now data centers want to double or triple that, fast. With renewable subsidies distorting the market and no new baseload capacity, we're looking at a bidding war that residential customers will lose."

But Curtis sees fast reactor recycling as more than a solution—it's an opportunity to flip the entire energy paradigm: "With 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel, we have 270 years of current demand already mined, refined, and sitting in casks. In a fast reactor with liquid fuel designs, adding more fuel is literally just grinding it up, chlorinating it, and dumping it in. The more you add, the more power you get."

The process Curtis describes for liquid fuel reactors involves chlorination, while the proven pyroprocessing technology from EBR-II uses electricity to separate fuel components in molten salt for solid fuel production. Argonne National Laboratory developed and demonstrated the pyroprocessing technology over decades at the EBR-II facility. The contrast with French reprocessing is stark: France's La Hague facility can reprocess 1,700 metric tons annually using a 50-year-old chemical separation process that dissolves fuel rods in acid, separates the components, and reconstitutes them into MOX (mixed oxide) fuel. But here's the catch Curtis emphasizes: "France can only reprocess spent fuel once cost-effectively, extracting just 2% additional energy. That's not recycling—that's barely scratching the surface."

"Once you get past the first-of-a-kind costs, these reactors could produce electricity so cheaply we'd return to 'too cheap to meter'—not free, but sold like a Verizon phone subscription. Remember when long distance was expensive? Now it's included with your phone plan. That's what happens with massive supply and real competition."

The contrast with current renewable economics is stark: "Wind and solar are getting hundreds of billions in subsidies and still only provide 2% of our power despite what they claim. They max out at 25-30% capacity factor. Nuclear runs at 92%. And with recycling, the fuel cost becomes negligible—maybe 5% of the total cost versus 80% for natural gas."

Capacity factor measures how much electricity a power plant actually produces versus its maximum potential. Wind turbines only generate power when the wind blows; solar panels only when the sun shines. Nuclear reactors run continuously except for refueling every 18-24 months.

"Here's the beautiful irony," Curtis notes with satisfaction. "The more electricity we use, the faster we burn through the spent fuel 'problem.' We could actually encourage consumption instead of conservation. Every kilowatt-hour consumed is literally cleaning up yesterday's 'waste' while producing wealth."

Your proposal for Texas to become America's nuclear recycling hub by leveraging the $50 billion Nuclear Waste Fund is remarkably specific. What would it actually take for a governor to pull this trigger, and why haven't they?

"I only need two minutes with a governor to change everything," Curtis states with absolute conviction. "Two minutes to explain that they could solve a problem the federal government hasn't fixed in 45 years, create a $10 billion annual economic benefit for the state, and secure $100 trillion worth of energy. What governor wouldn't want that legacy?"

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 mandated a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel. Forty-three years and $15 billion later, there's still no solution. Meanwhile, utilities have paid into a Congressional fund that, with money collected from ratepayers plus interest, has grown to over $50 billion through a fee on every kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity.

"Texas is already slated for the interim storage facility. The design is approved. Holtec is ready to build. But Texas is fighting it because they see it as accepting waste. I'm saying rebrand it—you're accepting $100 trillion in strategic energy reserves."

Holtec International has NRC approval for a consolidated interim storage facility in New Mexico, with Texas also under consideration. The facilities would temporarily store spent fuel in dry casks until a permanent solution is found—or until recycling begins.

The proximity to existing assets makes Texas ideal: "Rick Perry's developing a clean energy park next to Pantex in Amarillo. Pantex dismantles nuclear weapons and stages weapons-grade plutonium—perfect starter material for fast reactors. You'd have the spent fuel, the starter material, and the processing facility all in one location."

The Pantex Plant is America's primary nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility. It currently stages thousands of plutonium pits from dismantled warheads—exactly the fissile material needed to start fast reactors.

Curtis outlines the negotiation: "Texas tells the feds: 'We'll consent to accept spent fuel if you fund two first-of-a-kind recycling reactors from that $50 billion fund. Give us a tech transfer national lab, a military reactor development center, and a micro-grid research facility. Solve your problem for less than what's in the fund instead of the $400 billion to bury it. Jump-start private industry in the fast reactor recycling business.' The key is partnering with a capitalized private company to run the business while the state handles the politics—government shouldn't try to run businesses, they're not good at it."

So why hasn't it happened? Curtis is measured but direct: "The fossil fuel industry thinks nuclear power would be very competitive with their business model over time. They've spent money influencing anti-nuclear efforts, while taking billions in subsidies themselves. But they're important allies who've kept America in electricity and industrial dominance for a century. They should be praised for that, then encouraged to transition over two generations to nuclear power for electricity. Education is the remedy, along with political support starting with governors."

According to the International Monetary Fund, global fossil fuel subsidies reached $7 trillion in 2022, with the U.S. providing tens of billions annually through tax breaks, below-market leases, and liability limits.

"I've tried reaching governors, legislators, anyone who'll listen. The message never gets through. Their staff, their advisors, their donors—someone always blocks it. The fossil fuel industry has spent 40 years building these walls."

But Curtis sees cracks forming: "The data center crisis is changing everything. Tech companies have more political influence than oil companies now. When Google, Microsoft, and Amazon want nuclear power, politicians listen. They're already funding reactors, but they're doing it wrong—through the NRC, through traditional channels."

Microsoft recently signed a deal to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1 for data center power. Amazon is investing in small modular reactors. Google has partnered with Kairos Power for advanced reactor development.

"The first state to do this wins everything," Curtis emphasizes. "Twenty-five other states would immediately join a coalition. The utilities would support it because it solves their spent fuel liability. The tech companies would fund it for the power. Even environmental groups should love it—it's the ultimate recycling program."

You've worked in nuclear science for 30 years, from weapons to waste to emergency response. What's the one thing about nuclear power that even educated people get completely wrong, and why does that misconception persist?

Curtis's answer is immediate and emphatic: "People think nuclear waste is some unprecedented problem that we don't know how to handle. That's completely backwards. Nuclear is the only energy industry that contains and accounts for every atom of its waste. Coal plants dump millions of tons of toxic ash and pollution into the atmosphere. Natural gas pumps pollution directly into the air we breathe. Solar panels leach heavy metals. But nuclear? Every fuel pellet is tracked from cradle to grave."

"Coal plants in the U.S. produce about 130 million tons of coal ash annually, containing arsenic, lead, mercury, and radioactive elements. The Kingston Fossil Plant spill in 2008 released 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash slurry, destroying homes and poisoning rivers. Natural gas pumps millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. Solar panels leach heavy metals. But nuclear? Every fuel pellet is tracked from cradle to grave."

"All the spent fuel from 60 years of US nuclear power could fit in a Walmart. The waste from one coal plant in one year could bury that Walmart. Yet we're told nuclear has a 'waste problem' while coal ash ponds poison groundwater across America."

The persistence of this misconception reveals something deeper: "The nuclear industry did this to itself. Instead of marketing abundance and safety, they apologize for existing. They lead with 'we're not that dangerous' instead of 'we're powering civilization.' They've let opponents define the narrative for 40 years."

Curtis points to a more insidious factor: "The fossil fuel industry has influenced funding for anti-nuclear groups. They understand that wind and solar can't replace them—they're intermittent, they need backup. But nuclear? Nuclear could be very competitive. So they fund messaging that creates fear, knowing that scared people don't think rationally. But fossil fuels have been a very fine fuel that's powered America for a century. They deserve praise for that. Now we need to help them transition to an even better fuel over two generations."

Documents have revealed fossil fuel funding for anti-nuclear environmental groups dating back to the 1970s. The Atlantic Richfield oil company, for instance, funded early anti-nuclear campaigns.

"I was at an energy conference in North Dakota. Asked a wind guy if his business was viable without subsidies. He said absolutely, very profitable. So I asked why take subsidies? He said 'Wouldn't you?' That's the problem—everyone seems to think it's OK to take free money from the government. Wind and solar are particularly egregious, taking hundreds of billions while producing minimal reliable power."

The safety record should end all debate: "Seven decades, zero deaths from commercial nuclear power in America. Chernobyl was a weapons reactor with no containment running an insane experiment. Fukushima killed no one from radiation—the tsunami killed 19,000. Three Mile Island proved our safety systems work. Yet people fear nuclear more than driving, which kills 40,000 Americans annually."

The Three Mile Island accident in 1979, despite being America's worst commercial nuclear incident, released radiation equivalent to a chest X-ray for people living within 10 miles. No deaths or injuries were ever attributed to it.

"At Connecticut Yankee, the spent fuel has been sitting behind a chain-link fence for 20 years. No guards, minimal monitoring. Nobody's died, nobody's sick, the property values haven't crashed. It's just sitting there, boring as a parking lot. But if you proposed putting it somewhere new, people would panic."

Connecticut Yankee, decommissioned in 1996, stores its spent fuel in dry casks on a small concrete pad. The site has become a case study in the safety and simplicity of dry cask storage.

"We have military reactors that have operated flawlessly since 1955. Every nuclear submarine, every aircraft carrier—perfect safety record. The Navy trains 18-year-olds to operate these reactors. But somehow, we can't trust commercial operators with 40 years of experience?"

The U.S. Navy has operated over 500 naval reactors, logging over 6,200 reactor-years of operation and traveling over 150 million miles without a single reactor accident.

"The biggest misconception is that nuclear is dying," Curtis concludes. "Nuclear is inevitable. The physics are too good, the energy density too high, the economics too compelling. The only question is whether America leads or follows. And right now, we're choosing to follow, because we're afraid of our own shadow."

If you could implement your vision tomorrow—fast reactors recycling spent fuel, free enterprise instead of monopolies, standards instead of NRC approval—what would American energy look like in 20 years?

"In 20 years? Electricity would cost less than your Verizon phone subscription—maybe $100 per month or less for all you can use. That's about a penny per kilowatt-hour. Not metered by usage—one monthly fee, use all you want. Like going from metered long-distance calling to unlimited plans."

The transformation would follow predictable stages: "Within five years, the first fast reactor complexes would be operational. Data centers would be building their own reactors on-site. The power purchase agreements would prove the economics, and traditional utilities would have to compete in a free market instead of maintaining monopolies."

Power purchase agreements (PPAs) are long-term contracts where buyers guarantee to purchase electricity at fixed prices. Tech companies are already signing 20-year PPAs at premium rates to secure clean, reliable power for data centers.

"By year 10, over two generations, the market would drive electricity production to nuclear power as fossil fuel plants transition and individual companies begin to compete in the production and marketing of electricity. Why operate at 80% fuel cost when nuclear runs at 5%? Fossil fuel plants would transition to nuclear systematically. Oil would remain for transportation, though synthetic fuels could become competitive with cheap enough electricity."

The U.S. Navy has demonstrated the ability to make breathable air and drinking water while submerged for the entire 30-year life of a nuclear submarine—technology that shows what's possible with abundant nuclear power.

"With electricity at a penny per kilowatt-hour, everything changes. Vertical farms in cities. Desalination plants ending water scarcity. Energy-intensive recycling of everything—plastics, metals, rare earths. We'd mine our landfills before mining new ore."

Curtis and Hemmers have done the calculations: fast reactor recycling could reduce electricity costs by a factor of ten compared to current prices. The economic transformation would be unprecedented. Industrial processes that require high heat—currently achieved by burning coal—could use the 500-800°C heat from molten salt reactors directly. The steel industry, chemical manufacturing, even synthetic fuel production would become economically viable with electricity this cheap.

Current desalination costs about $2,000 per acre-foot of water, with energy representing 50% of the cost. At one cent per kWh, desalination becomes cheaper than most municipal water supplies.

Curtis envisions a complete restructuring: "No more energy poverty. No more choosing between heating and eating. Industry returns from China because energy is the largest cost for manufacturing. Every small town could have its own micro-reactor, its own micro-grid. Energy independence wouldn't just be national—it would be local."

The geopolitical implications are staggering: "OPEC becomes irrelevant. Russia's gas leverage disappears. China's coal addiction becomes a liability. America would export reactors, not oil. We'd sell the technology to recycle the world's spent fuel—five times what we have. That's not just energy dominance—it's energy diplomacy."

Currently, about 400,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel exist globally, with 10,000 tons added annually. At $100 trillion per 90,000 tons, the global market represents $500 trillion in energy value.

"When energy is abundant, cooperation beats competition. Why fight over resources that are essentially infinite? We could focus on exploration, creation, advancement instead of scarcity management. It's the difference between dividing a shrinking pie and baking new ones."

"This isn't fantasy," Curtis insists. "France gets 75% of their electricity from nuclear. Ontario is 60% nuclear. The Navy has run hundreds of reactors perfectly for 70 years. We know how to do this. The only barrier is the political will to destroy the regulatory-monopoly complex that keeps energy scarce and expensive."

France's nuclear program, launched in response to the 1973 oil crisis, built 56 reactors in 15 years. They now export electricity to neighboring countries and have among the lowest emissions in Europe.

"My grandchildren would grow up in a world where energy poverty is like smallpox—a historical curiosity. Where choosing to use less energy would be weird, like choosing to use less internet. Where the biggest environmental debate would be whether to keep some fossil fuel plants as museums."

"Every day we delay, China builds more reactors, patents more technology, trains more engineers," Curtis warns. "The future I'm describing will happen. The only question is whether it happens in America or we become a customer for someone else's innovation. And that decision could be made in the next five years. After that, it may be too late to lead. But the USA will eventually come to its senses—we invented the transistor, Japan made money with commercial electronics, but we took charge again with integrated circuits and have led in IT and AI. We can do the same with nuclear."

Author's Analysis

Here's what keeps me up at night after talking to Steven Curtis: somewhere in America, probably in a conference room with leather chairs and bottled water that costs more than your lunch, a group of very smart people are meeting right now. They know everything Curtis knows. They've seen the same numbers—$100 trillion in parking lots, $400 billion to bury it. They understand the physics, the economics, the technology. And they're actively working to make sure you never find out. Because the moment you understand that we've been sitting on 270 years of nearly free energy while they've been charging you more every year for electricity, while they've been telling you to turn down your thermostat to save the planet, while they've been collecting billions in subsidies for windmills that work 25% of the time—that's the moment their entire empire collapses.

The NRC isn't incompetent. That's what's terrifying. Incompetence would mean they're trying and failing. But when an agency manages to approve only two large light-water commercial reactor construction permits in 47 years while charging $300 an hour to say no, when they fast-track Bill Gates's reactor that doesn't even have fuel while 60 other companies wait in line—that's not incompetence. That's precision. It's a protection racket that would make the mob blush. Curtis comparing it to requiring individual approval for every car isn't just a clever analogy—it's him showing you exactly how they've weaponized bureaucracy to kill an entire industry. And they did it so well that most Americans think nuclear power is dangerous, when it's literally the only form of energy that's never killed a single American in commercial operation. Your drive to work this morning was statistically 10,000 times more dangerous than living next to a nuclear plant.

What really got to me was when Curtis described trying to reach governors. This 71-year-old man, who's spent three decades becoming one of the world's foremost experts on nuclear fuel recycling, can't get two minutes with a single governor. Not because his idea is bad—it would save taxpayers hundreds of billions while creating $100 trillion in wealth. Not because it's dangerous—we proved it safe for 30 years at EBR-II. But because between Curtis and every governor stands a wall of advisors, donors, and lobbyists whose wealth depends on keeping things exactly as they are. When Curtis says the fossil fuel industry "thinks nuclear would be very competitive," he's being diplomatic. He's explaining why the state that brags about energy independence won't take a meeting about infinite energy independence. It's like watching someone dying of thirst refuse to drink water because the bottle company convinced them they need to keep buying bottles.

The reality check? It may be too late to lead. While Curtis has been trying to get his two minutes, China has been building fast reactors. Russia is selling them globally. Yes, China often steals technology rather than innovating, but that won't matter if they corner the market first. The future Curtis describes—electricity too cheap to meter, desalination ending water scarcity, America energy-independent forever—that future is going to happen. It's just not certain it will happen here. In 20 years, we might be buying reactors from China the same way we buy everything else from them now. Our children could learn Mandarin to get jobs at Chinese nuclear companies. And somewhere in a nursing home, Steven Curtis will still be holding his folder, still ready to explain how we could have owned the future for the price of two minutes of courage. But hey, at least we protected quarterly earnings. At least we kept the NRC's budget intact. At least we spent $400 billion to bury $100 trillion. That's the American way now—taking the wealth of generations and literally burying it in the ground, all while telling you it's for your own good.

About Steven Curtis

Steven Curtis has been a nuclear science professional for more than 30 years. He spent 15 years as a member of the Nuclear Emergency Search Team for DOE in Nevada as a technical team leader for nuclear material deployments. He was also involved in business development at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for about 10 years. He was materially involved in the spent nuclear material issue in Nevada's Yucca Mountain Project for 30 years as a civilian advocate. He has a total of 11 years as an Active Duty and Nevada National Guard Army officer. Steve has spent the last 10 years focusing on the issue of clean nuclear energy and fast reactor recycling as a grass-roots advocate, writing and speaking in support of nuclear power's implementation in the US.

Further Reading

Steven Curtis's Papers and Resources:

• "A Short Case for Recycling Used Nuclear Fuel" - Available at wastetoenergynow.org
• Contact: curtis@readinessresource.net

Key Technical References:

• Till, Charles E., Chang, Yoon, "Plentiful Energy" - The definitive work on the Integral Fast Reactor
• "Experimental Breeder Reactor-II: An Integrated Experimental Fast Reactor Nuclear Power Station" - Argonne National Laboratory
• EBR-II passive safety test footage: https://youtu.be/Sp1Xja6HlIU

Important Context:

• Nuclear Waste Policy Act - Understanding the legislative framework
• Yucca Mountain Repository - The $15 billion failure
• Generation IV Reactors - Next-generation nuclear technology
• Pyroprocessing - The recycling technology Curtis advocates