Trump Administration Taps Nuclear Startups to Burn Cold War Plutonium

Key Takeaways

• Five startups including Oklo and Flibe Energy are negotiating to receive weapons-grade plutonium from the DOE
• The U.S. has 34 tons of surplus plutonium from dismantled Cold War weapons that requires disposal
• Critics warn that circulating weapons-grade material to private companies poses significant security risks

From Warheads to Watts

The United States has a plutonium problem. Around 100 tons of the radioactive material was produced during the Cold War for nuclear weapons. As stockpiles were dismantled, that plutonium sat in high-security storage, too dangerous to ignore but too costly to destroy. Now the Trump administration wants startups to burn it.

The Department of Energy announced Tuesday it has selected five nuclear startups to negotiate for a share of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The companies could use the material to fuel a new generation of advanced reactors. The DOE has identified 34 tons of plutonium for disposal, with 20 metric tons now in advanced negotiations.

The five selected startups are Oklo, Standard Nuclear, Shine Technologies, Flibe Energy, and Exodys Energy. Each is developing reactor technology that can run on plutonium-based fuel.

“We are transforming a Cold War liability into a 21st-century energy asset, securing American energy independence while safely reducing our nuclear stockpile.”

— Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy

Wright's involvement comes with a notable disclosure. He previously sat on Oklo's board but resigned when he joined the administration. He has divested his shares in the company. Sam Altman, the OpenAI CEO, was Oklo's board chair following its merger with his acquisition company AltC. Altman resigned that position last year.

Why Plutonium Won't Just Go Away

While plutonium exists in nature, most of the U.S. stockpile was created by bombarding non-fissile uranium with neutrons. The resulting isotope has a half-life of 24,000 years. The government cannot wait it out.

Previous disposal strategies focused on "dilute and dispose," mixing plutonium with other materials and burying it. The current administration is shifting that approach, betting that converting the material into commercial fuel is faster and more economically productive.

The administration has set an aggressive target: at least three demonstration reactors reaching criticality by July 4, 2026.

How the Startups Would Use It

Each company has a different technical approach to plutonium fuel.

Oklo is building a reactor designed to run on traditional uranium as well as plutonium. The weapons material would help the company fuel its first commercial units. The company has partnered with U.K.-based Newcleo, which plans to build a mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility nearby.

Exodys Energy is developing a reactor that operates on mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, which blends uranium with plutonium. France currently produces MOX commercially. The U.S. had planned to manufacture it in South Carolina, but the first Trump administration canceled that project after it exceeded budgets and timelines.

Flibe Energy is working on a reactor that would run on plutonium and other byproducts of fission reactors, potentially addressing multiple waste streams at once.

The Security Concerns

Not everyone is convinced this is a good idea. The plutonium came from nuclear weapons. Circulating it to private companies raises serious proliferation concerns.

"Countries have tried this before, and they concluded that, as nice as it would be to use that plutonium as fuel, it's really just a liability and we need to dispose of it permanently," Scott Roecker, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told the New York Times.

“Repurposing weapons-grade material for commercial reactors is technically complex, but it represents a necessary leap to bridge the gap in our advanced fuel supply chain.”

— Dr. Sarah Jenkins, Senior Nuclear Analyst

Online discussion has been polarized. Proponents on forums like r/nuclear view the move as necessary to establish a domestic fuel supply chain. Skeptics in nonproliferation circles are alarmed by the security implications and point to the extreme costs of previous failed MOX projects.

What Happens Next

The five startups will now enter advanced negotiations with the DOE. The talks will cover security protocols and transportation logistics for moving weapons-grade material to commercial facilities.

Transportation alone presents a challenge. Moving plutonium requires armed escorts, specialized containers, and coordination between federal agencies. The regulatory framework for private companies handling weapons-grade material remains underdeveloped.

If the negotiations succeed, the startups would gain access to fuel that does not exist elsewhere in the commercial market. For the government, success means reducing a stockpile that costs millions to secure each year.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does the U.S. have so much surplus plutonium?

Around 100 tons was produced during the Cold War for nuclear weapons. As stockpiles were dismantled through arms reduction treaties, the material required secure storage rather than destruction.

Can plutonium be used in commercial nuclear reactors?

Yes. Mixed oxide fuel (MOX) blends plutonium with uranium and is used commercially in France. Several U.S. startups are designing reactors specifically to run on plutonium-based fuels.

What are the security risks of this plan?

Critics argue that distributing weapons-grade plutonium to private companies increases proliferation risks. Transportation, handling, and facility security all require extensive protocols that are still being developed.

Which companies are involved in the DOE program?

The five selected startups are Oklo, Standard Nuclear, Shine Technologies, Flibe Energy, and Exodys Energy.

What happened to the U.S. MOX facility in South Carolina?

The project was canceled during the first Trump administration after it exceeded budgets and timelines. The current plan relies on private companies to develop fuel fabrication capabilities instead.

Source: TechCrunch / Tim De Chant