Utilize Bomb-Grade Plutonium For Energy? Really?

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

I am one of those people who hates the word “utilize.” The logic of the English language would seem to be that to utilize something is to alter it to give it utility that it didn’t originally have. One example is to punch holes in the bottom of a bucket so you can use it to shower while you’re camping.

This may be, under my own rules, the first time I have ever made a valid use of “utilize.” It is the story about Trump’s Executive Order 14302, titled “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Base.” That order directs the US Department of Energy to give weapons-grade plutonium to private industries to use in nuclear reactors. Never mind that no reactor of that type has ever been built. The administration wants to utilize bomb-grade plutonium to be fuel for nuclear power plants.

The amount of plutonium under discussion is to be twenty metric tons, or 44,000 pounds. The Fat Man bomb used on Nagasaki contained about 13.66 pounds of plutonium. It leveled about two square miles of the city. So 44,000 pounds is enough to make thousands of such bombs, each capable of leveling about two square miles of a city.

The plutonium would go to five nuclear energy startups so they can use it in plants that make electricity. U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) commented on this on his official web site. It is worth reprinting the comment in full.

# # #

Washington (June 2, 2026) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-Chair of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, today wrote to President Trump urging him to cancel the Department of Energy’s (DOE) plans to give 20 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium—enough for approximately 2,000 nuclear bombs—to private industry for commercial energy use. If implemented, this would be the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies. These plans go against long-standing bipartisan U.S. nuclear security policy, raise serious weapons proliferation concerns, make little economic sense, and raise conflict of interest issues. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently served on the Board of Directors of Oklo, one of the companies that may receive plutonium.

In the letter, Senator Markey wrote, “For five decades, the United States has avoided the commercial use of plutonium and opposed the spread of technology to separate (“reprocess”) plutonium from used reactor fuel. We did so to prevent nations with nuclear power plants (such as Iran) from being able to extract plutonium from that fuel, which they—or terrorists into whose hands it could fall—could use to make nuclear weapons.”

Senator Markey continued, “I am concerned that your Administration is moving forward with plans to transfer plutonium to Oklo not because these proposals make sense for the United States, but because Oklo stands to benefit financially and Secretary Wright is acting in his former company’s interest. Secretary Wright’s close ties to the company present an appearance of impropriety.”

In the letter, Senator Markey requested answers by June 15, 2026, to questions that include:

• Why should the U.S. government facilitate the transfer of plutonium to private industry and the development and export of proliferation prone reprocessing technologies?

• What safety and security measures are planned for the transport of weapons-grade plutonium to private actors?

• What role did Secretary Wright play in the selection of Oklo for the Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program?

• Does Secretary Wright currently have a financial stake in Oklo, and does he stand to benefit in any way from Oklo’s role in this program?

On September 23, 2025, Senator Markey wrote to Trump raising concerns about Secretary of Energy Chris Wright’s close relationship with Oklo Inc., a nuclear technology company that suggests a conflict of interest within the Administration that could compromise U.S. national security by providing weapons-usable plutonium to private industry. On September 10, 2025, Senator Markey and Representatives John Garamendi (CA-08) and Don Beyer (VA-08) wrote to President Trump expressing concern over DOE’s plan to transfer at least 20 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium to private industry for commercial energy use.

# # #

The plutonium would be used to generate electricity. I have seen the idea that it would be used in remote places, where many communities are off-grid and dependent on diesel power. I think the issue is more complicated than those backing it might realize.

No commercial nuclear reactor has ever been run entirely on plutonium. Reactors using what is called MOX (mixed oxide) are used in France, but they only contain about 11% plutonium, at most. A nuclear reactor that uses weapons-grade plutonium would have to be developed from scratch, a process that should take years. Maybe the Trump administration could treat the laws of physics the same way it treats other laws, but I don’t think that would turn out well.

There are lots of problems with the idea of using weapons-grade plutonium for generating electricity. One is the tiny size of a critical mass. The one used to wipe out two square miles of Nagasaki was only about the size of a softball. Someone would have to maintain the inventory of plutonium securely enough that no one could make a softball-sized hunk of metal disappear. I suspect that wealthy terrorists would pay a lot for it.

Another issue is how the plutonium would be transported. This would have to be secret, which also means in a manner that is entirely opaque. Do we really want shipments of plutonium to pass by our hometowns in the middle of the night? Another issue is high probable cost, but the transportation security and cost are just the beginning of the long list of problems the idea faces.

We have solar, wind, and batteries already. They are low-cost. They might be installed faster than the climate will change, as opposed to plutonium-based reactors that might give us power but possibly not in any large amount until after the climate has made the Earth into a bakery.

A thought: I have given some thought to why the White House (or the portion of it that has not been wrecked yet) and the US DOE would want to built new nuclear power plants when we already have demonstrably cheaper and arguably better power sources available. I finally concluded that it might be because nuclear power is so expensive and needs so much financial support. Big companies can use nuclear power to move huge quantities of cash around. In that one respect, nuclear power really is superior to solar, wind, and batteries.

Featured photo by Diana Polekhina, Unsplash, cropped.