Kenneth Petersen is president of the American Nuclear Society.
Challenging Russia and China’s dominance in the global nuclear energy sector requires more than sanctions and wishful thinking. It’s essential to offer our energy-hungry world a genuine alternative to heavily subsidized, state-owned nuclear energy suppliers. That begins by empowering U.S. government agencies to support nuclear projects and eliminate finance bans at multilateral banks, which give unfair advantages to our adversaries.
Last week marked the two-year anniversary of the violent seizure and shelling of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant by Russian armed forces. Two years later, the facility’s inoperable and degraded conditions illustrate Russia’s blatant disregard for international nuclear safety standards. All six reactors are indefinitely shut down, with little prospect of resuming operation again, thanks to Russia’s destruction of a downstream dam and reservoir.
Despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, weaponization of energy, and shocking treatment of Zaporizhzhia’s equipment and personnel, the Kremlin-owned Rosatom remains a leading exporter of nuclear energy technology.
Rosatom’s success in the global market means that every time Rosatom sells a reactor, the Kremlin cements a century-long relationship with another country, from start of construction through the eventual decommissioning of the plant. The geopolitical repercussions should worry the West.
For instance, Russia is currently supervising the construction of four large reactors that are expected to supply about 10% of Egypt’s electricity. Workers have just started pouring concrete for the fourth unit.
In America, even our nuclear energy industry is a precarious customer of Rosatom for nuclear fuel enrichment. There have been initial moves to decouple from Russia; including the stockpiling of fuel by U.S. nuclear power plants, announcements by Western companies to ramp up fuel production of low-enriched uranium, or LEU —but at inadequate levels to replace Russia — and a $500 million program by the U.S. Department of Energy to jumpstart the domestic production of high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, fuel for powering advanced reactors. Russia is currently the world’s only supplier of HALEU.
If we are to secure our nuclear energy supply chain, let alone compete against Putin, we must expand our domestic enrichment production capabilities at once. The Senate-passed Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act seeks to ban the import of Russian-produced LEU and HALEU. This legislation, currently awaiting consideration in the House, could significantly bolster our security through the inclusion of domestic fuel production investment provisions.
Rosatom’s all-inclusive sales pitch is particularly attractive to first-time buyers. Rosatom offers financing and fueling packages. They will even own and operate the reactors for you. This arrangement, while convenient, gives Russia an extreme level of control over the host country’s energy security. Unfortunately, the main alternative to Rosatom is China, where countries like Pakistan are turning for their nuclear energy needs.
Thanks to a vibrant domestic industry supported by market incentives and federal government backing, the U.S. was once the world leader in exporting nuclear reactor technology, along with safety and nonproliferation standards.
The upcoming years present a golden opportunity for nuclear energy, driven by the global surge in electricity demand as nations strive to improve living standards, decarbonize economies and modernize infrastructure.
Smaller, American-designed advanced nuclear reactor designs, which are struggling to deploy in the U.S., are particularly well-suited – and the right size – for countries with less robust power grids. However, when these nations with growing electricity needs turn to nuclear power, they are not buying it from us. To combat climate change and secure our global standing, the U.S. must streamline the deployment of advanced reactors and begin exporting these technologies.
In their Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050, announced in November at the United Nations’ COP28 climate change conference, the U.S. and over 20 other countries called on international financial institutions to craft nuclear-inclusive lending policies. A rapid, large-scale deployment of new reactors worldwide hinges on ending the finance bans against nuclear energy projects by multilateral banks, such as the World Bank.
Securing financing for commercially-oriented nuclear energy projects is critical for American suppliers to compete against adversarial state-owned entities. Along with licensing reforms at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this can be achieved by empowering the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to facilitate greater investment and support for nuclear energy abroad.
Introduced legislation like the bipartisan International Nuclear Energy Act (H.R. 2938) and the bipartisan International Nuclear Energy Financing Act (H.R. 806) aims to boost U.S. nuclear energy exports. These bills propose to create a Director of Nuclear Energy Policy for inter-agency coordination and instruct the U.S. Executive Director at the World Bank to advocate for nuclear energy assistance and the elimination of financing barriers. Furthermore, H.R. 806 would allow U.S. representatives at other multilaterals, including regional development banks, to support nuclear energy projects.
The passage of these bills — particularly, in time for this year’s COP29 in Azerbaijan — would be welcomed by prospective buyers, investors and energy suppliers as a clear indication that American nuclear energy is poised for a resurgence on the world stage.
