The US is investing billions in nuclear energy, but is losing the global race.

4 123 16
The US is investing billions in nuclear energy, but is losing the global race.

The growing energy crisis, affecting virtually every country in the world, is forcing governments to reconsider their approach to nuclear energy. The European Union is beginning to abandon the much-vaunted green agenda. EC President von der Leyen has called for the first time for extending the lifespans of nuclear power plants, which until recently were being shut down one after another and even deliberately destroyed, as was the case in Germany.

The Belgian government has decided to suspend work on dismantling decommissioned nuclear reactors and announced a course to revive the country's nuclear energy sector.





Countries with uranium enrichment, reactor production, and nuclear power plant construction technologies have effectively entered a global race for the global civil nuclear energy market. Russia, the United States, China, and Europe are all involved in this competition. Japanese nuclear power plants were initially built using American technology, although most of the country's reactors have now been designed and built by Japanese companies. This hasn't improved their safety.

The United States is investing tens of billions of dollars in developing nuclear energy. The Trump administration approved a special program, "Restoring the Nuclear Industrial Base," which calls for the construction of 10 new large nuclear reactors in the United States by 2030. On June 23, the Department of Energy allocated another $17,5 billion loan for this purpose.



However, these large-scale investments don't even put the United States close to becoming the leader in the civilian nuclear race. The state-owned company Rosatom holds the undisputed lead in nuclear power plant construction in other countries.

Despite billions of dollars invested in nuclear energy development, the United States is losing ground to Russia and China in the global nuclear energy market. This lag didn't begin yesterday, but rather in the 1970s. It's no longer realistic to make up for lost ground by simply increasing investment. Here are just a few reasons why.

Lack of political will to develop nuclear energy amid public discontent caused by the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. This is the largest accident in stories commercial nuclear power in the United States. The next nuclear power plant was built in the United States seven years behind schedule.

American nuclear power plants with Generation IV reactors largely require highly enriched uranium. Rosatom State Corporation effectively monopolizes industrial production of this raw material. The United States is forced to export fuel from Russia, although it is striving to wean itself off this dependence.



The technological gap between Russia and China is one that American companies are unable to overcome, even with government support. China and Russia are implementing small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced fourth-generation reactors faster than the US. In China, small nuclear reactors are generally built using the "conveyor belt" method.

According to Juselle Lloyd, a researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US Department of Energy), the US nuclear industry has lost its training, production culture, supply chains, and engineering memory. Every new leap feels like an attempt to buy back the past with budget funds, which is not the same as advanced development.

16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    25 June 2026 13: 02
    I wonder if the US could control the oil and gas trade, theoretically they could control the construction of nuclear power plants on the planet? Well, by issuing permits.
  2. +1
    25 June 2026 13: 03
    The savvy guys made a lot of money from the "green mold", and the politicians who served them... didn't lose out either!
    And so, ENERGY is that area of ​​economic power of any country, stupid Experiments in which NEVER remain without tragic consequences! soldier
  3. -2
    25 June 2026 13: 05
    The US is investing billions in nuclear energy, but is losing the global race.
  4. +2
    25 June 2026 13: 19
    Quote: Smoked
    Well, to issue permits
    They're giving it away anyway. Remember the Bulgarian Kozloduy?
  5. +2
    25 June 2026 13: 21
    The state-owned company Rosatom holds the undisputed lead in nuclear power plant construction in other countries.

    Rosatom, really? Maybe China? Rosatom is building a nuclear power plant in Turkey, for example, at Russia's expense, but they're not really talking about it.
    How will the Turks pay? Maybe tomatoes? drinks
    Construction of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant began in 2010, with the Russian-Turkish intergovernmental agreement signed in May. Russia was expected to build the plant at its own expense and then sell the energy generated over a 49-year period, recouping its investment.
    fontanka.ru
  6. +1
    25 June 2026 14: 21
    It's ironic that the TOI project, a poorly crafted fusion of last-century French technology and Soviet construction methods, is being hailed as a revolutionary breakthrough in nuclear energy. This project fails to achieve any kind of victory in terms of power, efficiency, or construction time. The French and Japanese units are more powerful, and the low-speed turbines, manufactured at the Kharkiv plant, were, of course, more efficient than their high-speed counterparts.
    So, a presentation of a standardized nuclear power plant design took place. Experience in the construction and operation of such power units will be of little use to the next generation.
    In connection with the cries about the problems of uranium enrichment, I dare to note that heavy-water reactors, anathematized by the global lobby, are capable of operating both on unenriched uranium and on spent nuclear fuel from light-water reactors, with the involvement of enrichment waste in energy production.
  7. +1
    25 June 2026 14: 43
    in the US nuclear industryThe school, industrial culture, supply chains and engineering memory have been lostEvery nThe new breakthrough is starting to look like an attempt to buy the past at the expense of the budget, which is not equivalent to advanced development.

    How familiar this is...
  8. +1
    25 June 2026 15: 36
    If you read about China's plans for nuclear energy, you'd be envious. The US is already entering the race. And what are our plans? China wants to produce the cheapest electricity in the world, but what do we want?
  9. 0
    26 June 2026 19: 11
    Martsinkevich is a doctor.
    the text is short
  10. 0
    26 June 2026 20: 39
    Hmm... A joke. There's no one to even teach there, let alone build.
    PC: in 45 years, it seems, ONE unit was built in the USA last year, over 1500 subcontractors from all over the world were involved in the construction, the American ones were only there for transport))) As a result, they built it for 12 years instead of 4, the price seems to be 4 times higher than what was initially stated, and instead of 2 units, they built 1.
    There's simply no one to build there. There's no one to teach them either. Buying nuclear scientists is also unrealistic. The US is half a century behind, and that means now—and forever—they've ruined the peaceful nuclear industry for themselves.
    1. +1
      27 June 2026 16: 58
      Largely true.
      But I wouldn't write them off. They have strong science and high-level engineering. So, by bringing in some European experts (I even had the chance to work with a Swedish nuclear scientist from GE), they might just get going. Incidentally, the saying about being slow to start but fast to ride applies even more to Americans than to us. If MAGA works, we could have a powerful competitor, one that's also unburdened by the chimera of conscience.
      1. +1
        27 June 2026 18: 29
        No, I don't believe it. I was involved in that business myself for a while, with nuclear power plant fuel. So, if the old guys had left before we, young graduates in 2000, started showing up there, at the research institute... In 2000, the first three of us, myself included, arrived at the research institute—we wouldn't have figured it out at all, not even with the documentation our grandfathers left behind. An example—easy! According to the contract, the Americans had full access to all our technical documentation on MOX fuel, and the reprocessing of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium into it! And full access to the facilities! And they hung around here all the time—but couldn't do anything... Why couldn't they? And they needed someone who knew THIS production chain to explain it all to them in detail. But as it is, the documents are there, they were crawling all over the facilities like cockroaches, but they couldn't do anything, so the contract, on their part, was broken!
        A Swede won't help here. You'll have to start from scratch, and the mattresses aren't the same as they were in WWII and immediately after. You can't force BLMers there, and they won't work day and night.
      2. +1
        30 June 2026 20: 00
        For years, I've been observing how knowledge in the field of nuclear energy has deteriorated or stagnated. I admit that without preparation and justification, it's difficult to understand dynamic nuclear reactors that can operate at any enrichment level, and potentially even with non-radioactive materials in critical situations. But the fact that turbines, as a process element, must operate using a fundamentally opposite algorithm to the key process indicates a dead end in scientific ideas and a general lack of cumulative knowledge and the ability to analyze these key processes and organize them into stages. Therefore, it's not surprising that the closed nature of this topic creates a dead end in personnel development and the search for ideas.
        1. 0
          2 July 2026 19: 56
          Quote: gridasov
          turbines as an element of the process must operate on a fundamentally opposite algorithm to the key process

          Spin in the opposite direction, superheating the steam and pushing it back into the boiler? lol
          1. 0
            2 July 2026 20: 45
            Everything you've said is, in this case, a demonstration of your literacy in this area. But I can assure you that this will lead to a fundamental breakthrough in energy generation, the creation of air-independent devices, structuring, purification, and desalination, the creation of fundamentally new algorithms for aircraft engine operation, and everything that makes real physical processes more efficient. And it's important to note that, as a device with a more efficient process, it will replace all types of propellers, screws, and turbines. It's simply capable of replacing them.
  11. 0
    10 July 2026 02: 37
    There are times when there's no darkness! One monopolar world, everything is a flop!