Nuclear energy is on the rise again worldwide. The reason for this is not just the climate crisis. Electricity demand is growing, industry is shifting toward electrification, and data centers and artificial intelligence infrastructures require uninterrupted power 24 hours a day. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that nuclear electricity production will reach a new record in 2026 and continue to grow in 2027. During the same period, the majority of the global increase in electricity production will come from renewables and nuclear energy.
This picture has once again positioned nuclear energy as the energy of the future. The World Bank and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s decision to deepen cooperation in nuclear energy, safety, and waste management in 2025 was a clear institutional signal of this shift. The message was particularly clear for developing countries. Nuclear energy is no longer merely an option for a few major economies; it has returned to the center of discussions on energy security, industrialization and decarbonization.
But behind this transformation’s glittering illusion lies a more challenging issue that politicians often brush aside with brief remarks: nuclear waste. Today, the true test of seriousness, whether in defending or criticizing nuclear energy, begins here. Because building a reactor is an engineering matter, while managing its waste over a timescale of thousands of years is a matter of civilization.
Threat of nuclear waste
The global inventory of accumulated spent fuel and high-level waste exceeds 370,000 metric tons, with approximately 10,000 tons added each year. While scientific data indicates that the bulk of the waste by volume is low-level waste, the overwhelming majority of radioactivity is concentrated in high-level waste. This fact alone clarifies the debate. The issue is not merely how much waste there is, but how long and how reliably the most hazardous portion must be isolated.
Nuclear advocates tend to present the waste problem as a technical footnote. A common mistake made by anti-nuclear activists, however, is to portray the waste as absolute proof of an unsolvable problem. The truth lies somewhere between these two simplistic statements. Nuclear waste is not unsolvable, but it is neither cheap, simple, nor politically comfortable. Waste management is possible, but only if there are strong institutions, long-term financing, transparent regulation, and an honest relationship with the public.
That is why the real question we should be asking today is: The world may be returning to nuclear power, but is it returning to waste management with the same level of seriousness?
Consistency is essential
The clearest answer to this question comes from Finland. Posiva’s Onkalo facility is one of the world’s most advanced examples of permanent deep geological disposal. Built approximately 455 meters underground, Onkalo is no longer just a research site but is becoming a full-scale final disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel. The message it sends to the world is simple yet compelling: The nuclear waste problem does not have to be postponed indefinitely.
However, Onkalo’s true significance is not merely technical. It also holds political and institutional importance. Finland did not rush to this point. It proceeded step by step through decades-long processes of site selection, safety studies, public communication and collaboration with local communities. Trust in nuclear waste management is not built solely through engineering schematics. It is built through transparency, consistency, and promises kept over time. This is the true lesson Onkalo offers the world.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, the United States, offers a different lesson. A functional deep underground facility is possible, but the system becomes vulnerable when operational discipline and regulatory oversight are relaxed. WIPP has been disposing of defense-related transuranic waste since 1999. However, following a radiation leak and fire in 2014, it experienced a loss of capacity. In 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the use of new panels to compensate for the lost capacity. This example reminds us that even a final solution in waste management, in reality, brings a responsibility that requires constant attention.
What are options?
Technically, geological disposal remains the most realistic and scientifically sound solution today. The vast majority of the scientific literature converges on this point. Deep geological disposal remains the fundamental approach for high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel. Finland’s Onkalo facility and the WIPP project in the U.S. are concrete examples of this strategy; they are not merely theoretical concepts but built and operational realities.
However, methods such as deep boreholes, vitrification, advanced ceramic matrices, and separation and transformation can furt…
Read the full article at Daily Sabah →