Companies argue that it is a better way to dispose of Cold War-era material and to address the nuclear fuel shortage. However, the plan has also drawn criticism from non-proliferation experts, writes the NYT.
The Trump administration is advancing a plan to provide plutonium dating back to the Cold War, from dismantled nuclear warheads, to companies wishing to convert this hazardous material into fuel for nuclear power plants.
The plan has sparked debate and some concern among non-proliferation experts. If approved, it would mark the first time the U.S. government makes weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies. The Department of Energy owns over 50 tons of excess plutonium, leftover from nuclear weapons programs, and had previously planned to dilute much of this material and bury it.
Some nuclear startups seeking to obtain that plutonium claim that turning waste into fuel is a better way to dispose of it. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy announced it had selected five companies to begin “advanced negotiations” to potentially receive part of the excess plutonium. Among them is Oklo, a California-based nuclear energy company, which plans to collaborate with Newcleo, a European company developing next-generation nuclear reactors.
THE PROBLEM WITH URANIUM
According to Oklo and Newcleo, using plutonium as fuel could solve an impending problem: energy companies want to build a new generation of nuclear reactors, but the United States is not yet able to produce enough conventional uranium fuel to power the plants. Recovering old plutonium stocks could be a short-term solution. “The lack of fuel is one of the biggest obstacles to expanding nuclear energy right now,” said Jacob DeWitte, CEO of Oklo, which is developing a new type of small reactor designed to run on plutonium. “This will help us get more nuclear plants up and running faster.”
CRITICISMS OF THE PLAN
The plan has been criticized by some Democrats and nuclear non-proliferation experts, who emphasize that plutonium can be used to create nuclear weapons and argue that it requires extremely stringent safeguards. Critics also say that previous attempts by the U.S. and other governments to convert plutonium into reactor fuel have faced technical difficulties and skyrocketing costs. “Other countries have already tried, concluding that, as tempting as it would be to use plutonium as fuel, it actually represents just a problem and needs to be disposed of permanently,” said Scott Roecker, vice president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing nuclear weapons proliferation.
The plan is not yet final, and companies will still have to negotiate with the federal government on the terms of acquisition and transfer of the plutonium. In addition to Oklo, the Department of Energy said it had selected four other companies – Standard Nuclear, Exodys Energy, SHINE Technologies, and Flibe Energy – to begin advanced talks to receive the material under the Excess Plutonium Utilization Program, established last year.
“The program is expected to help companies unlock an additional level of private funding to expand domestic nuclear fuel supplies, stimulate innovation in American recycling technologies, and unlock private sector financing to power the country’s nuclear renaissance,” said Michael Goff, principal deputy assistant secretary for nuclear energy, in a statement.
On Tuesday, Oklo’s stock price rose more than 4% after the company announced its participation in the program.
PRECEDENTS WITH PLUTONIUM
The Department of Energy has been debating for years what to do with the large quantities of plutonium it possesses. Plutonium is not normally found in nature: it is a byproduct of nuclear fission, the process that powers nuclear reactors.
In the 20th century, the United States produced and accumulated about 100 tons of this material as a key component for nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the U.S. military has dismantled thousands of nuclear warheads, leaving behind a stockpile of excess plutonium in heavily guarded federal facilities across the country. Plutonium-239, the isotope used for weapons, is highly toxic if inhaled and has a half-life of 24,000 years.
In the 2000s, the U.S. government sought to build a facility at Savannah River, South Carolina, that would use excess plutonium by mixing it with uranium to create mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, to be used in nuclear power plants, which typically run exclusively on uranium. However, the project was plagued by delays and budget overruns, and in 2018, the first Trump administration canceled the program, whose projected cost had risen to over $50 billion.
That same year, the Department of Energy announced a plan to take 34 tons of excess plutonium, dilute it so it could no longer be used for weapons, and bury it in New Mexico. The operation was estimated to cost $20 billion. But those plans changed again last May, when President Trump issued executive orders aimed at accelerating the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States. In one of these orders, Trump tasked the Department of Energy with identifying any federally owned plutonium deposits and re-evaluating the possibility of converting it into fuel.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PLUTONIUM AND URANIUM
Working with plutonium can be more complex than working with uranium, the most common element used to produce nuclear fuel, and generally requires specialized handling and ventilation systems. Because plutonium can be used to make bombs, it also requires high levels of security. Some government plutonium may also still be present in weapons not yet dismantled, in which case it must be processed and downgraded before delivery. Some Democrats have opposed the plan to transfer plutonium to the private sector, initially announced by the Department of Energy last year.
“It raises serious concerns about weapons proliferation, makes little economic sense, and could negatively impact the nation’s defense posture,” wrote Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Representatives Don Beyer of Virginia and John Garamendi of California in a letter sent to the agency in September.
Companies say they are ready to tackle the logistical challenges. In an interview, Stefano Buono, CEO of Newcleo, said his company plans to build a fuel fabrication plant at Savannah River, South Carolina, near the site of the canceled MOX project. He said Newcleo might succeed where previous attempts failed.
“The last time something like this was attempted, the plant was not run by a private company and there were virtually no customers for the fuel,” Buono said. “We believe we can do it at a very competitive cost.” The plant, he added, could produce a wide range of nuclear fuels, from MOX fuels to metallic plutonium fuels.
“If we can do it economically sustainably, we can also help reduce nuclear waste,” he added. “This is the most sustainable option.” The Trump administration has set a goal to quadruple the size of the U.S. nuclear fleet by 2050, and many companies are developing a new generation of advanced reactors designed to be smaller and easier to finance than older reactors.
However, many of these advanced reactors will require a special type of enriched uranium as fuel, known as HALEU, and the United States has lost much of its enrichment capacity in recent decades. A large amount of enriched uranium for nuclear power plants still comes from Russia. While the Department of Energy is spending billions of dollars to develop domestic fuel supply chains, it will take years, and Oklo and Newcleo are betting they can produce fuel from plutonium more quickly as a temporary solution.
“The plutonium is ready,” said Caroline Dewitte, COO of Oklo. “We just have to fabricate it.” Oklo is developing a so-called fast reactor capable of running on uranium-based fuel, recycled nuclear waste, or plutonium. The company has conducted experiments at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico on using plutonium as fuel. Mr. Markey expressed concern that Energy Secretary Chris Wright had previously served on Oklo’s board before joining the government. Since then, Mr. Wright has divested his shares and publicly committed to “not personally and substantially participate” in decisions regarding Oklo.
RECYCLING AND REPROCESSING NUCLEAR WASTE
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is advancing initiatives to expand recycling and reprocessing of nuclear waste, which could include recovering plutonium from nuclear power plant residues and producing new fuel, an activity France already carries out on a small scale. According to some experts, it is worthwhile. The world has a limited amount of uranium. If nuclear energy were to expand significantly worldwide, countries might eventually need some form of reprocessing to fuel those reactors. “If we really want to expand humanity’s use of nuclear energy, then using plutonium makes a lot of sense,” said Nick Touran, a nuclear engineer and head of the consulting firm What Is Nuclear.
Yet, recycling nuclear waste worries some nuclear non-proliferation experts. Since the 1970s, the United States has tried to discourage other countries from reprocessing nuclear waste, fearing it would generate significant amounts of plutonium that could be used in weapons programs. New efforts to turn plutonium into fuel could break this long-standing taboo, critics say.
“Plutonium-based fuels and reprocessing have a poor track record when introduced into civilian nuclear energy programs,” wrote Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist and former energy secretary during the Obama administration, last year. Attempting to revive these efforts, he added, “would introduce long-known security risks and have the unintended consequence of hindering the expansion of nuclear energy just as the momentum needed to achieve that goal is building.”
(Excerpt from the eprcomunicazione press review)
