A handful of private companies are now, along with the US federal government, into a plan to turn fissile materials from nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear reactors.

The Department of Energy Cold War era weapons containing plutonium could be reprocessed as viable nuclear fuel, with companies Exodys Energy, SHINE Technologies, Standard Nuclear, Flibe Energy and Oklo, Inc. working on the processes involved.

Oklo, a California-based startup that current Energy Secretary Chris Wright formerly served on the board of, announced it would work with newcleo, a European nuclear reactor firm, to convert fuel.

All this is part of the larger story of nuclear power being granted a second life in the US as a way to help meet the anticipated needs for new power generation required by a forecast build-out of data centers, some of which will power artificial intelligence.

I spoke with James Walker, CEO of NANO Nuclear Energy, a commercial nuclear energy company involved in reactor design as well as nuclear fuel fabrication, about this plan and what it could mean.

Jeff Postelwait, Managing Editor, T&D World: How realistic is this plan to use military plutonium for reactors? Is the science there? Has this been done before, and where?

James Walker, CEO of NANO Nuclear Energy: The science is not the issue. We know plutonium can be used as reactor fuel. Other countries have done it and it's been studied for decades. The real question is whether it makes sense as a long-term fuel strategy. 

When the practicalities are considered for plutonium handling, reprocessing, and fabrication, several immediate questions arise: will a CAT I site be required, will proliferation rules needs to be changed to allow more flexibility for commercial companies, and what happens to all the fission products, actinides, and other dangerous products which are currently bound up in plutonium stockpiles?

We still believe uranium is going to be the backbone of nuclear energy growth because it's a much more established fuel cycle. Plutonium can potentially help in certain situations, especially if there's material already sitting in storage, but I don't see it replacing the need to build a strong domestic uranium enrichment industry. What this does show is how serious the fuel supply challenge has become. People are looking everywhere for fuel.

JP: What do you think this idea says about the state of the nuclear industry today?

JW: To me it says one thing more than anything else: fuel matters. For years people focused on reactor designs, but a reactor without fuel is just a nice engineering drawing. The industry is finally confronting the reality that fuel supply chains are strategic assets. The fact that policymakers are looking at every available source of nuclear material tells you there is a genuine urgency to build a domestic fuel infrastructure. That's long overdue in my view.

It also shows how serious the expected demand growth is. Between data centers, AI, manufacturing and electrification, people understand we're going to need a lot more power than we have today.

JP: Does this idea boost new traditional reactors, or perhaps small modular? Or both?

JW: I think it's mostly aimed at the advanced reactor and SMR developers. A lot of these companies are trying to get projects moving and fuel availability is one of the biggest challenges they face today. So naturally they're looking at alternatives. For the existing reactor fleet, the conversation is a little different because they're already operating on established fuel cycles.

But overall, anything that strengthens America's nuclear fuel position is positive for the industry. Whether you're talking about large reactors, SMRs, microreactors or future designs, fuel availability is a common denominator.

JP: What are the economics at work here? What's the advantage of using old warhead materials?

JW: The attraction is pretty obvious. The material already exists. If you're the government, you've got stockpiles that require security, oversight and long-term management. If some of that material can be converted into useful energy, people are going to look at that opportunity. That said, there's a tendency to assume this is somehow cheap fuel. It's not that simple. There are processing costs, regulatory requirements, security requirements and technical challenges.

From where I sit, the bigger economic story is still domestic fuel production. The United States needs more enrichment capacity.