In a November column, I wrote about the huge power demand from artificial intelligence, making fun of Doc Brown’s “Great Scott” line in Back to the Future when he found out the DeLorean time machine needed 1.21 jigawatts to take Marty McFly back home.

But we continue to see massive data center projects around the world that are needed to power AI, and the need for incredible amounts of power.

The search for all this power is being met by a range of sources, including electricity, natural gas, coal and, yes, nuclear.

U.S. nuclear power plants are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and I recently heard its chairman, Ho Nieh speak on CNBC.

He noted that nuclear power is playing a big role in meeting global power needs, and that the NRC has streamlined regulatory processes from almost a decade to about 18 months.

It all sounds like a good way to help meet our incredible power needs, right?

But I may be just old enough to remember big concerns about what to do with nuclear waste.

For instance, I remember a presentation to the 800-member Rotary Club of Seattle about nuclear waste problems from Washington’s Hanford Site that was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world.

Over more than 40 years, the site generated massive amounts of radioactive and chemical waste that was stored in 177 underground tanks. Some of the tanks began leaking into the soil and groundwater, heading downhill to the mighty Columbia River.

The program speaker noted that radioactive waste hitting the river would be “very bad.” 

The Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Washington Department of Ecology have been working to deal with this with more than 37 billion gallons of water treated, 27 underground tanks emptied/closed, 19.1 million tons of contaminated soil/debris excavated, and 832,000 gallons of tank waste prepared for “vitrification.”

The total cost estimates for cleanup may hit almost $600 billion, and the project may extend to 2100.

With all of this in mind, I wondered if problems of dealing with nuclear waste — which can last thousands of years depending on the type of material — have been solved with all the renewed interest in nuclear power and 18-month regulatory approvals.

But it turns out that the same problems still exist. Here’s a look at current NRC requirements:

• Spent fuel must initially be stored in water-filled spent fuel pools that provide both cooling and radiation shielding.

• After sufficient cooling (typically several years), fuel may be transferred to dry cask storage systems licensed and certified by the NRC.

• Storage systems must meet requirements for radiation protection, security, environmental protection and accident resistance.

• Plants must maintain the fuel safely on-site until a permanent repository or licensed interim storage facility becomes available.

Now, because the United States does not yet have an operating permanent repository for commercial spent nuclear fuel, virtually all spent fuel remains at reactor sites in pools or dry casks under NRC oversight.

There is no permanent solution for waste that remains radioactive for centuries!

Peanuts cartoonist Charles Schulz may have been right, but does anyone else worry about this stuff?