Key facts
- The Trump administration is pursuing a plan to convert surplus plutonium into fuel for new nuclear reactors.
- The initiative aims to address rising power demand from U.S. data centers and expand nuclear capacity.
- Plutonium is a highly dangerous material, posing risks of nuclear weapon proliferation and severe health hazards.
- Five companies have been selected for advanced talks to process approximately 19.7 metric tons of plutonium.
- Experts and lawmakers have raised concerns about the extensive security costs and feasibility of the plutonium fuel plan.
- The Department of Energy expects a majority of workers at any handling facility to require the highest security clearances.
The Trump administration is advancing discussions with several companies to transform Cold War-era plutonium into fuel for new nuclear reactors, a strategy intended to bolster U.S. nuclear power capacity and meet escalating energy demands from data centers.
However, the initiative faces significant hurdles due to the inherent dangers of plutonium. Experts highlight the material's potential for weaponization and its long-lasting radioactive properties, raising concerns about extensive delays and exorbitant security costs that could render the plan unfeasible. Ross Matzkin-Bridger, who previously worked on securing plutonium materials, expressed strong concern about taxpayer liability for these risks.
Last month, the administration announced it had selected five companies to enter advanced negotiations for processing 19.7 metric tons of various plutonium forms, including those from dismantled nuclear warheads. Storing plutonium has long been a challenge for the U.S. government, and this push to utilize it reflects an effort to achieve President Donald Trump's objective of quadrupling U.S. nuclear power capacity by 2050.
U.S. Representative Bill Foster, an Illinois Democrat and physicist, voiced caution, anticipating sky-high security costs to protect against terrorism and urging close examination of the economic viability of such plants. A spokesperson for the Office of Nuclear Energy confirmed that the majority of the workforce at a facility handling plutonium would require the highest-level security clearances, and companies must submit comprehensive safety and security plans.
Oklo, one of the selected companies, believes plutonium can serve as a fuel source until domestic uranium supplies, including HALEU, are expanded. A spokesperson for Oklo, Bonita Chester, suggested that using plutonium for fuel would negate the need for a costly government disposal program. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who previously sat on Oklo's board, has recused himself from matters involving the company.
CEOs from other involved companies, Carl Perez of Exodys Energy and Greg Piefer of SHINE Technologies, expressed confidence in their ability to safely process plutonium and address regulatory requirements. Piefer noted that once plutonium generates power in a reactor, it is no longer dangerous, and that burning weapons-grade plutonium is a responsible use of the material.
The U.S. has a troubled history with converting plutonium to fuel; a previous mixed oxide (MOX) fuel program was canceled in 2018 due to massive cost overruns. Oklo plans to use plutonium in fast reactors, which they claim are more efficient than those envisioned for the MOX program. However, Ernest Moniz, a former U.S. energy secretary, argued that diluting and disposing of plutonium is a more straightforward and less costly approach, predicting significant government expenditure on security for any plutonium fuel initiative.