Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Power Government

US Aims to Give Cold War Plutonium to Startups For Nuclear Fuel (nytimes.com) 100

Posted by BeauHD from the supply-and-demand dept.
The Trump administration is planning to provide Cold War-era plutonium from dismantled nuclear warheads to nuclear startups that want to convert it into reactor fuel, arguing it could help address a looming fuel shortage for advanced reactors. Critics warn the idea raises serious nonproliferation, security, cost, and technical concerns. The New York Times reports: The plan has generated debate and some unease among nonproliferation experts. If finalized, it would mark the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies. The Energy Department has more than 50 tons of surplus plutonium left over from nuclear weapons programs, and the agency had previously been planning to dilute much of that material and bury it. Some of the nuclear start-ups trying to obtain that plutonium say that transforming the waste into fuel is a better way to dispose of it.

On Tuesday, the Energy Department said that it had selected five companies to enter into "advanced negotiations" to potentially receive some surplus plutonium. That includes Oklo, a California-based nuclear power company, which plans to partner with Newcleo, a European developer of advanced nuclear reactors. Using plutonium for fuel, Oklo and Newcleo said, could solve a looming problem: Energy firms want to build a new wave of nuclear reactors, but the United States can't yet make enough conventional fuel from uranium to supply the plants. Harvesting old plutonium stockpiles could provide a short-term fix. "A lack of fuel is one of the biggest choke points in expanding nuclear power right now," said Jacob DeWitte, the chief executive of Oklo, which is developing a novel type of small reactor intended to run on plutonium. "This will help us get more nuclear power online faster."

[...] The plan is not yet final, and companies will still have to negotiate with the federal government over how to secure and transfer the plutonium. In addition to Oklo, the Energy Department said it had also selected four other companies -- Standard Nuclear, Exodys Energy, SHINE Technologies and Flibe Energy -- to enter into advanced negotiations to receive the material under its Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program, which was established last year. The program "is anticipated to help companies unlock the next level of private funding to broaden domestic nuclear fuel supplies, spur innovation on American recycling technologies, and unlock private sector funding to fuel the nation's nuclear renaissance," said Michael Goff, the principal deputy assistant secretary of nuclear energy, in a statement.

US Aims to Give Cold War Plutonium to Startups For Nuclear Fuel More | Reply

US Aims to Give Cold War Plutonium to Startups For Nuclear Fuel

Comments Filter:

  • I'll get the popcorn... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by korgitser ( 1809018 ) on Saturday May 30, 2026 @07:47AM (#66166670)
    What could possibly go wrong?

    • Not much - everything that could've gone wrong allready has!

      • Not much - everything that could've gone wrong allready has!

        Oh summer child,, if you think this is peak wrong, you are not going to like the effects of selling weapons grade plutonium to random countries.

        • Oh summer child,, if you think this is peak wrong, you are not going to like the effects of selling weapons grade plutonium to random countries.

          Sudden peace might descend, as various countries would become able to defend themselves against U.S. invasions?

          • Oh summer child,, if you think this is peak wrong, you are not going to like the effects of selling weapons grade plutonium to random countries.

            Sudden peace might descend, as various countries would become able to defend themselves against U.S. invasions?

            What color is the sky in you imaginary world?

          • Oh summer child,, if you think this is peak wrong, you are not going to like the effects of selling weapons grade plutonium to random countries.

            Sudden peace might descend, as various countries would become able to defend themselves against U.S. invasions?

            Cool - The entire world is peaceful other than the USA. Really really good to know!

            God you USA haters are pretty naive. Who do you want taking over when you get your wish?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tchdab1 ( 164848 )

          Countries? I read this as giving Pu to startups, for-profit entities. By USA standards (!), the risks are unbounded: countries, people, individual bad-actors would sell/steal/abandon it eventually. What a total mess.

          • Countries? I read this as giving Pu to startups, for-profit entities. By USA standards (!), the risks are unbounded: countries, people, individual bad-actors would sell/steal/abandon it eventually. What a total mess.

            Yup, it won't stay confined to US borders for long.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          Without doubt, some Trump flunky will sell a hundred kilos to IBM.

          Only to find out it's not the business machine people, it's Iranian Boom Makers.

          • Without doubt, some Trump flunky will sell a hundred kilos to IBM.

            Only to find out it's not the business machine people, it's Iranian Boom Makers.

            And the Trump administration will blame it on O'Blama.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Phact ( 4649149 )

        I'm sorry but that's just simply a failure of imagination.

    • We'll all pretend that nuclear-tipped VCs will remain cool-headed and cooperative when the AI debts start to go sour.

    • Do not worry. I promise to save an extra rod for the flux capacitor I built in my SUV, just in case some crazy person misuses theirs.

    • The new owners might have a warm future :D

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Just get corn-on-the-cob, it will self-pop after this mess.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Mod parent funny. Too obvious and low-hanging for insight, if'n I ever had a mod point to give.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      Not much. Plutonium isn't like uranium, it's effectively safe for human contact outside its fissioned form. This has been pretty well documented.

      This is a step forward which is a long time overdue. It should've happened 30 years ago, and we'd have averted having to depend on China for our electricity production (wind + solar) without the net-zero production problems those two 'sources' introduce.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        No, it definitely isn't. Between the radiation, tendency to accumulate in bone, and shedding pyrophoric flakes, it's really not safe to handle.

  • The US aims to have some cold war era plutonium go missing due to accounting errors....

  • Just how insane he is.

    • Re:Now we know (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Saturday May 30, 2026 @11:03AM (#66166870) Journal

      It makes sense. These companies could really use a shiny nugget of plutonium to parade around to investors. Not just to show they're making progress, but the bauble also shows they have obtained the king's blessing. In this world where the government picks winners and losers, His blessing is a license to print money. At least until the scam collapses.

      • Might be an interesting idea. Plutonium is quite toxic. Maybe the billionaire investors could al handle a sample, pretty. The US even did some experiments on people that were terminal & poor in the mid-40's. micro grams were enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Like I said, stuff is quite toxic in addition to be radioactive. Worse than radium.

    • Just how insane he is.

      Not insane at all, just uninterested in the well-being of anyone other than himself.

      If this happens, Trump will end up being in charge of deciding which companies get the plutonium, and those that do the best job of making Trump feel, er, appreciated, will get the nod. Also, I expect Trump to address safety concerns by setting up a multi-billion dollar fund of taxpayer money to address any necessary cleanups or other issues, a fund that is under his sole ultimate control, without congressional or any oth

  • I use to steal it from Libyan terrorists, but they are fresh out.

  • This is not a new idea (Score:4, Informative)

    by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Saturday May 30, 2026 @09:01AM (#66166716)
    It's not just "take the plutonium and put it in fuel rods and your reactor will run fine..." Beyond the proliferation issues, US reactors are not designed to run on MOX fuel and using it has causes operational issues; although they could use it with certain restrictions such as the % of Pu fuel must be limited. In addition, plutonium's neutron absorption profile means rods are less effective for shutdowns: physics is undefeated out of conference. Also, it's expensive to turn it Ito fuel, which was why the US stopped trying a while back. It's not juste "we don't have regular gas so try this higher octane blend..."

    • Yes it's an old idea and they should have done it years ago. If you don't trust the civilians then let the Navy have it. They can tweak the reactor design to use it safely.

      Dilute and bury it is the dumbest idea yet. We can't decide where to bury ordinary spent reactor fuel,

      • Yes it's an old idea and they should have done it years ago. If you don't trust the civilians then let the Navy have it. They can tweak the reactor design to use it safely.

        I doubt that is viable, given Navy reactors used highly enriched fuel and core design to get the needed power density; MOX fuel would not meet those requirements.

      • Use it to power your MOON BASE!

        Space 1999 happening in 3...2...

    • You do realize this is for NEW reactors right?

      • You do realize this is for NEW reactors right?

        I do, but I seriously doubt they have the money and capability to refine it for fuel, even if they have the plants are likely a long way off. Given the current administration desire to bring large nukes online quickly, the Pu plan is not a solution for that goal. If the Pu plan is a stopgap to get rid of the excess Pu in US stockpiles, then designing a plant to use it as a fuel component makes little long term sense. The key driver seems to be a desire to lessen the US dependence on imported uranium to f

        • then designing a plant to use it as a fuel component makes little long term sense.
          It makes sense.
          As it is the only way to "destroy" the plutonium, or in other words: get rid of it.

          • then designing a plant to use it as a fuel component makes little long term sense. It makes sense. As it is the only way to "destroy" the plutonium, or in other words: get rid of it.

            However, the question is not is it a good way to dispose of it, but is it a commercially viable way. Building the plant to reprocess it into fuel. will no doubt be capital intensive and expensive to run, so unless there is enough demand to make it profitable or at least break even it makes no sense to go down that road. The other question is, if there is enough demand for it, what is the projections for how long existing supplies will last. It's strictly a simple cost/benefit/ROI question for commercial c

            • You do not need to "re"-process it into fuel. It is already weapon grade plutonium, what would there to reprocess? It is basically as clean and pure as semiconductor silicon.

              You just make fuel from it. Which in best case means: you do nothing.

      • Re:This is not a new idea (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday May 30, 2026 @10:42AM (#66166856)

        You can't build a new reactor in under a decade and under 150% of budget.

        • You can't build a new reactor in under a decade and under 150% of budget, no matter how high you put your initial budget.

          Fixed that for you.

          PS I'm technically totally in favour of nuclear energy, but there are some realities around it that we have to face...

    • US reactors are not designed

      They aren't proposing to run this in existing reactors. They are proposing a new type of reactor design - you know - the usual grift. You missing this point doesn't make the rest of your point wrong though, this is stupid for so many reasons.

  • The stable genius often produces unconventional ideas others would have been scolded for. An amount of risk is the special ingredient that spices it up.
  • I can imagine what's going to happen. A startup does not have enough history to be properly vetted. I can imagine the startup turns a profit by selling some Plutonium to the highest bidder. The highest bidder goes ahead and builds a sphere out of explosive tiles made of C4 around the Plutonium and designs a detonator based on a simple micro controller that will implode the sphere creating a massive explosion. Refining Plutonium is the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon and the fuel should

    • A molten salt nuclear reactor runs at atmospheric pressure and is much safer.

      Molten Salt has it's own issues, from corrosion challenges since it is highly corrosive as well as proliferation issues since the radiological signature is different from uranium fuels; which will require a new set of tools to track the radioactive materials through its life cycle. They were tried and abandoned, it will be interesting to see if a new generation can be made a viable option.

      • The alloys to contain molten salts, of what ever composition, got developed in the 1950s.

        As we have right now 2026, I consider that a solved problem.

        The umbrella term is CRA ... google it.

        • The alloys to contain molten salts, of what ever composition, got developed in the 1950s.

          As we have right now 2026, I consider that a solved problem.

          The umbrella term is CRA ... google it.

          From what I know, they have certainly made progress but there is a lot of things needed to be verified to ensure metals can withstand thorium salts and the radiation associated with it in a reactor environment. I would not consider it a solved problem, although it may be solvable.

          • As I said: google it.

            And it is not "Thorium Salts".

            It is natrium salt with Thorium as a fission material. At least in general it is natrium, but lets google that :D

            Oh, they are actually mixtures of sodium and flurite salts .... why do you call Natrium Sodium, makes no sense ...

            Sorry, you have to google it your self "what salt is used in molten salt fission reactors".

            The answer is not easy to copy/paste here.

  • How does it make sense to invest in that tech?

    • There is no infrastructure to produce it at scale. There are tons of reactors that use uranium dioxide, so there is a pretty robust supply chain for it.

  • They want to give it to private industry, yet NASA has issues getting enough for its missions [spacenews.com], and somehow the war hawks also want to make more nuclear weapons [ucs.org]. These do not seem to be mutually coherent goals... (subsidizing the power industry, providing NASA with adequate resources, and potentially restarting the nuclear arms race)

    • These do not seem to be mutually coherent goals... (subsidizing the power industry, providing NASA with adequate resources, and potentially restarting the nuclear arms race)

      Of course it makes sense. Giving it to the power industry means we need to make more, and he can award the contract on a bribery basis.

    • NASA needs Pu-238. Nuclear warheads use Pu-239.

      • True, but their production is linked. Maybe, as drinkypoo suggests, that's the idea: artificial "demand"/synergies.

        OTOH, wikipedia suggests that warhead plutonium pits are far richer than is typically used for power generation, making it a rather wasteful end use. Seems like it would be best to repurify the existing high-purity material to create replacement pits.

  • by stealing err borrowing Irans. Just like Europes gold reserves.
  • Dear US government,

    We from pest control want to test new ways to do pest control. Because you listen! Good pest control would make America glorious nation!
    We need plutonium to build the ultimate pest destruction weap... product. We noticed that democrats keep flourishin in great country that is US. With pest control, this will be fixed and nothing will stop us from becoming rich!

    Your's faithfully,

    Pest control Large Embassy lane 5 Washington DC
  • There was a company in Tennessee that had the contract for turning enriched weapons grade uranium into fuel, but it was flooded out during Hurricane Helene. There was also a company run by an Israeli decades ago with a contract which stole insane amounts and is the reason Israel has a weapons program (unofficially). All of Israel's nuclear tech was stolen from the US and Russia.

    It would be great if we could use weapons grade fuel in reactors. It was such a waste to turn so much of it into warheads. But n

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      It would be great if we could use weapons grade fuel in reactors. It was such a waste to turn so much of it into warheads. But no one has been able to do it yet.

      That really doesn't make sense. All one would have to do with HEU is to dilute it with depleted uranium. A relatively simple process compared to enrichment. Plutonium is a somewhat different issue. But the concept wold be similar. Mix it to below weapons grade concentrations before releasing it for commercial/utility use. Nobody is suggesting selling a bunch of surplus demon cores as-is to utilities.

  • As soon as the rich wanted more power for AI (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday May 30, 2026 @10:14AM (#66166842)
    Any of the risks of using enriched uranium for power production went right out the window it seems.

    Nuclear power done cheaply with limited oversight is incredibly dangerous. Yes nuclear power plants can be done very safely and very great expense. So much so that you would never build a nuclear power plant in 2026 unless you had major space constraints and couldn't build a wind or solar farm for some reason. That's basically Japan and nobody else. Maybe a few places in France. But even then that's highly debatable.

    This means that if you're firing up a new nuclear power plant in 2026 and you're not doing it for research or military purposes that you are probably looking to do it with the lowest bidder and the least maintenance. You better hope you're not living next to that.

    • Maybe a few places in France.

      All current proposed reactors in France are EPR2. Despite being called GenIII+ share more in common with GenII and GenIII designs for safety than any of the other modern GenIII+ or GenIV designs. It seems even France can't justify building safe reactors.

      • There is no such thing as a safe nuclear reactor. Only reactors that are less dangerous.

        If you walk away from a solar farm because the money is not there anymore no harm no foul. There are some ecological impacts for building them out but that's it and honestly the land will reclaim given time.

        That is not the case for nuclear power. There's a bunch of stuff you can do to make it so that it's basically impossible to have Fukushima happen but if we could guarantee those things got done Fukushima would

    • The idea behind SMR. Mass production comes to nuclear plants.

    • Japan easily could build wind plants.
      It is probably one of the wind richest places n the planet.

      And solar plants on all roofs, parking lots and so on ... no problem either.

  • or does this administration seem to treat the periodic table like the first monolith in 2001?

    • or does this administration seem to treat the periodic table like the first monolith in 2001?

      As if anyone in this Administration even knows what the Periodic Table is, much less what's on it.

  • Oh look at that... a new company has been registered. The "Bin Laden Totally Peaceful Nuclear Energy Company". They just need to pay off Trump and then they can participate in the Totally Peaceful Nuclear Energy program.

  • What in the Fallout??

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by larwe ( 858929 )
      Vault-Tec is a corporate angel compared to some of the real corporate entities in today's world...

  • US Aims to Give Cold War Plutonium to Startups For Nuclear Fuel

    How about us? We're going to restarting a bunch of things pretty soon.
    Ship it over and we'll even waive the Strait of Hormuz shipping fee.

Slashdot Top Deals

Optimization hinders evolution.

Close