Trump’s plan to give startups plutonium from Cold War nuclear weapons is risky, experts say

Weapons-grade plutonium can power nuclear reactors called mixed oxide reactors, but none of them exist in the United States.

By Adam Kovac edited by Claire Cameron

The Trump administration’s plan to offer plutonium from dismantled Cold War nuclear weapons to private energy companies is drawing criticism from experts who say it makes no economic sense and presents a threat to national security.

There are currently no operational nuclear reactors in the country built to use plutonium-derived fuel. Instead of nuclear power plants in the United States, they are powered by a mixture of two isotopes of uranium. A small portion, usually about 5%, of this fuel is uranium-235, which can also be used to make nuclear weapons. The majority is uranium-238, which cannot support a nuclear fission reaction on its own. Because of this balance, if some of this fuel were to fall into the wrong hands, it would be extremely difficult to weaponize it, says Scott Roecker, vice president for nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to preventing nuclear disasters.

“The most difficult step in obtaining a nuclear weapon is having enough of this material,” he explains. “The U.S. government has likely spent billions of dollars over the past several decades to remove highly enriched uranium and separate plutonium from countries that don’t need it.”

On supporting science journalism

If you enjoy this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Plutonium, on the other hand, is considered a man-made element and is a byproduct of reactions that take place inside nuclear reactors. When uranium-238 is bombarded with neutrons inside the reactor, the molecules absorb some of these particles and become the heavier uranium-239, which quickly decays and eventually becomes extremely dangerous. radioactive plutonium.

That plutonium can be mixed with uranium for use as fuel in specific nuclear reactors called mixed oxide reactors. The United States abandoned mixed oxide reactors in the 1970s because they were both difficult and expensive to operate. This type of reactor exists elsewhere, however – in Japan, Russia and France – but these countries have encountered their own problems with the reactors, Roecker explains.

“In France, the government subsidizes this process,” he says. “I only think 1 percent of the actually reprocessed uranium is reused. And in Japan, it’s cost the country billions of dollars and mining still hasn’t started, and who knows if it ever will.”

The U.S. Department of Energy has defended the plan, saying the private sector could play a critical role in developing America’s nuclear infrastructure. Ted Garrish, Deputy Secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy, said in April that decommissioned nuclear fuel “represents an immense untapped energy resource for the United States.”

“The Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program is expected to help companies unlock the next level of private financing to expand domestic nuclear fuel supplies, spur innovation in U.S. recycling technologies, and unlock private sector financing to fuel the nation’s nuclear renaissance,” a DOE spokesperson said in a statement, adding that five companies have been selected to participate in the program.

Besides concerns about cost and feasibility, other experts point out that ensuring the safety of plutonium is much more difficult than doing so with conventional uranium-based nuclear fuel. Daniel Speyer, a professor of nuclear power plant systems at New York University, says he’s not convinced energy startups can store plutonium properly. Even if the material is mixed with uranium, separating the two to isolate the highly fissile material is not so difficult that it would be impossible, which introduces an obvious security threat, he says.

“It’s probably not something a small organization could do, but if you give them plutonium in a purer form, I think making a bomb is almost a trivial act,” he says. “A simple atomic bomb isn’t difficult to make. I think I could make one, actually.”

The DOE says any company selected to receive the Cold War-era plutonium will need to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the technology involved, as well as strong security plans and regulatory compliance. However, the project also encountered some resistance on Capitol Hill. Last September, Democratic Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts and two Democratic representatives in Congress sent a letter letter to President Donald Trump, raising concerns about the risk to national security.

“The transfer of weapons-usable plutonium to private industry would increase the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons, including to the benefit of rogue states or terrorists,” they write.