Key facts
- The Trump administration is in advanced talks with five companies to convert 19.7 metric tons of plutonium into nuclear reactor fuel.
- Plutonium is described as weapons-usable, posing significant security and health risks due to its radioactive nature.
- Companies involved, such as Oklo, believe the material can be used as fuel, potentially reducing the need for disposal efforts.
- The U.S. Department of Energy expects companies to bear the costs for specialized security and health protections.
- A prior U.S. program to convert plutonium into mixed oxide fuel was canceled due to massive cost overruns.
The Trump administration is advancing discussions with five companies to transform Cold War-era plutonium into fuel for new nuclear reactors, a strategy aimed at increasing U.S. nuclear power capacity to meet rising demand from data centers. However, the initiative faces significant obstacles due to the highly dangerous nature of plutonium, which requires extensive security measures and could incur exorbitant costs.
Plutonium, described as weapons-usable, poses severe risks. A small amount could be used to create an atomic weapon, and its dust is deadly if inhaled, with a half-life of 24,000 years. Former Department of Energy official Ross Matzkin-Bridger expressed concern that taxpayers might bear substantial risks. U.S. Representative Bill Foster, a physicist, highlighted the potential for sky-high security costs to protect against terrorism and urged close examination of the economic viability of such plants.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has indicated that the majority of the workforce at a plutonium-handling facility would need top-level security clearances. A DOE spokesperson stated that the department does not anticipate paying for the specialized proliferation, security, and health protections necessary for processing surplus plutonium.
Oklo, one of the selected companies, believes plutonium can serve as a fuel source until the U.S. can expand its domestic uranium supplies, particularly HALEU. Oklo spokesperson Bonita Chester suggested that using plutonium for fuel would negate the need for another costly government plan to dilute and dispose of the material. She added that Oklo would invest in transport, fuel fabrication infrastructure, and licensing, though specific cost estimates were not detailed. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who previously sat on Oklo's board, forfeited unvested shares and recused himself from matters involving the company.
Carl Perez, CEO of Exodys Energy, stated that any facility processing plutonium must meet stringent worker protection, safety, and material safeguards standards. Greg Piefer, CEO of SHINE Technologies, emphasized that once plutonium fissions in a reactor, it can no longer be used for bombs, suggesting that burning it is a responsible use.
The U.S. has a challenging history with converting plutonium to fuel. A previous mixed oxide (MOX) fuel program, initiated in 2000, was canceled by the Trump administration in 2018 due to projected cost overruns of approximately $48 billion beyond the $7.6 billion already spent. Oklo plans to use plutonium in fast reactors, which it claims are more efficient than those envisioned for the MOX program. Ernest Moniz, a former U.S. energy secretary, argued that diluting and disposing of plutonium is simpler and less costly, predicting that the government would likely fund much of the security associated with weapons-grade plutonium.