Tim McLaughlin and Timothy Gardner
(Reuters) – A massive nuclear deal announced by the Trump administration earlier this week gives the U.S. government a multibillion-dollar incentive to issue permits and approvals for new Westinghouse reactors, an unprecedented structure that critics say poses environmental and safety risks.
Under the deal with Westinghouse Electric’s owners, Canada-based Cameco and Brookfield Asset Management, the U.S. government will provide financing and help obtain permits and approvals for the $80 billion project. for Westinghouse reactors worth USD.
In return, the plan offers the US government the opportunity to receive 20% of future profits and a possible 20% of the company’s stock if its value by 2029. will exceed 30 billion
The deal is one of the most ambitious plans for US nuclear power in decades, underscoring President Donald Trump’s agenda to maximize energy production to meet booming demand for artificial intelligence data centers.
But financial incentives can overshadow regulatory controls aimed at preventing nuclear accidents, according to safety advocates and regulatory experts.
“The things that can go wrong are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima,” said Greg Jaczko, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, referring to the three worst nuclear accidents on record.
“All the reasons are related to insufficient regulatory independence.”
The White House said the security concerns were unfounded.
“The regulatory regime remains the same and is not compromised. There is nothing in the agreement regarding regulatory changes,” the White House said in an emailed statement. by post
Westinghouse’s owner, Cameco, declined to comment. Brookfield and Westinghouse did not respond to messages seeking comment.
TD Cowen analysts told clients in a research note this week that they expect that by 2030 the deal will see Westinghouse build 10 new large-scale reactors, enough gigawatts to power several million homes.
It typically takes about a decade to build a new nuclear power plant, largely due to stringent permitting requirements and the enormous costs and complexity associated with construction.
Patrick White, a nuclear regulatory and technology expert with the Clean Air Task Force, said effective regulation doesn’t have to be a slow or lengthy process, and that moving more efficiently is beneficial.
“Ensuring that nuclear regulation is also timely and predictable is in the best interest of both businesses and society,” White said.
Todd Allen, a nuclear energy expert at the University of Michigan, said the Westinghouse reactor project is well known, but he questioned how quickly the projects could progress.
“With such an aggressive timeline and demand for reactors around the world, I wonder if there is enough manpower to do all these projects,” Allen said.
DELAY TO PREVIOUS US PROJECT
Westinghouse’s last U.S. nuclear project, the construction of two nuclear reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, forced the company into bankruptcy protection in 2017.
The two reactors were about seven years behind schedule and cost about $35 billion. USD, more than double the original $14 billion.
Patty Durand, director of the nonprofit Georgians for Affordable Energy, has analyzed the project for years and said she fears a quick release will ignore the risks associated with climate change.
Severe droughts have forced operators to curtail nuclear power in Europe and the United States to avoid overheating their reactors, she said.
Westinghouse also had many problems with the modular design of the AP1000 reactors, such as some parts having the wrong dimensions when they arrived at the site. AP1000 would also be used for new reactors built from prefabricated parts and assembled on site.
Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he fears the Trump administration will give too much power to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow new reactors to be built.
“If the White House takes over the NRC completely and it’s no longer completely independent, then it could be used as a tool for broad deals that allow the White House to fast-track licensing for projects it wants, regardless of their actual safety impact, and that’s a dangerous thing,” Lyman said.
(Reporting by Tim McLaughlin and Timothy Gardner; Editing by Nia Williams)