US wants power plants to reuse plutonium from nukes. Is that safe?

The Trump administration plans to supply the nuclear power industry with plutonium from decommissioned warheads dating back to the Cold War. The plan could provide 20 metric tons of plutonium fuel to make nuclear power more viable, but it has raised concerns over safety and economic feasibility.

The Department of Energy is expected to release details on the plan in the coming days, Reuters reported, citing a source familiar with the matter and a draft memo. The idea of repurposing plutonium from warheads for the power sector was originally floated in an executive order that President Donald Trump signed in May. 

The initiative comes as the nuclear power industry looks to grow, and it has the backing of major tech companies that are looking for zero-emissions power for data centers. Trump has touted nuclear as a reliable power source, but access to fuel remains a key barrier that raises costs and slows the construction of new facilities.

Why does the US have extra plutonium? 

Uranium can be found in nature, deep under the Earth’s surface. Plutonium, on the other hand, is man-made. Nuclear power plants in the U.S. use uranium, but plutonium is produced as a byproduct of the chain reaction. Some nuclear power plants can use plutonium as fuel, but it has to be extracted and processed. 

Both elements are used to make nuclear weapons. Weapons-grade plutonium is derived from uranium to produce a more powerful explosion. Both elements are highly radioactive. 

As the Cold War ended, the U.S. and Russia began disassembling nuclear warheads. The U.S. government currently holds about 60 metric tons of excess plutonium from used reactor fuel, the “pits” that were used in nuclear weapons and other residue, according to a 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.  

What do we know about the DOE plan?

The 20 metric tons that will become available for the nuclear power industry would come from a 34-metric-ton stockpile the U.S. promised to dispose of in a 2000 nonproliferation agreement with Russia, according to Reuters.

A June memo published on the DOE website outlines takeaways from Trump’s  directions, stating, “the President ordered the creation of a program to dispose of surplus plutonium by processing and making it available for advanced reactor fuel.” 

A DOE spokesperson did not divulge any specific details on the plan. Reuters quoted the spokesperson as saying the department is “evaluating a variety of strategies to build and strengthen domestic supply chains for nuclear fuel, including plutonium.” 

What are the potential pros and cons of recycling plutonium?

Denia Djokić, an assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan specializing in radioactive waste management, told Straight Arrow News she is “hesitant” about the administration’s plan. 

On one hand, recycling plutonium has appeal because access to nuclear fuel is “one of the big bottlenecks” facing the nuclear power industry, which currently relies on mining uranium. The fuel would more likely be used to power conventional nuclear reactors, as the next-generation small modular reactors use a specific type of uranium fuel called HALEU. 

However, Djokić said the U.S. government had already attempted to recycle plutonium, starting 25 years ago, and found the costs to be prohibitive. 

“They wouldn’t be any different now,” Djokić said.

The government even funded a facility in South Carolina to convert leftover plutonium into fuel for nuclear reactors, but cost overruns led the first Trump administration to cancel the $50 billion contract before the facility was completed. 

Djokić said plutonium is “a notoriously finicky metal” that makes it difficult to handle. During any recycling process, she said, “you’re essentially increasing the risks of radioactive things being released,” so safety measures contribute to high costs. 

Edwin Lyman, a nuclear physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Reuters that the “DOE should stick to the safer, more secure and far cheaper plan to dilute [excess plutonium] and directly dispose of it.” 

Lyman pointed to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, an underground storage site in New Mexico designed to dispose of nuclear waste. 

However, some experts see potential in the DOE’s approach. 

Bradley Williams, an energy policy advisor at the Idaho National Laboratory, said using existing plutonium is “an initial step that makes sense,” Axios reported. “We might as well get useful electricity out of it,” Williams said at a recent National Press Club event.

What is the state of nuclear regulation?

The use of a different fuel type may also be subject to review by federal regulators.

However, nearly 200 employees have left the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since January amid budget cuts by the Trump administration, according to the Financial Times. 

Two of five commissioners’ seats are vacant, and half of the agency’s senior leaders are serving in an “acting” capacity. When Scott Morris left the NRC in May, he was the deputy executive director of operations. Now, Morris told the Financial Times, the agency is experiencing a “huge brain drain of talent.” 

Overhauling the commission was also among the goals outlined in Trump’s executive order. Concerns over the DOE plan, however, go beyond the commission’s ability to regulate nuclear power. 

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., cochair of the Congressional Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, spoke out against the plan, warning that it poses a security risk.

Giving away 20 metric tons of plutonium amounts to “trashing long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy and raising serious concerns about the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states or terrorist groups,” Markey said. Some scientists think that it’s possible to reverse-engineer aspects of nuclear warhead design by analyzing repurposed plutonium.

“We might as well just sell nuclear weapons at Costco,” Markey said.