\n<\/p>\n
During a call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine this week, President Trump floated a highly unusual idea: The United States could take control<\/a> of Ukrainian nuclear power plants.<\/p>\n \u201cThe United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise,\u201d the White House said in a statement after the call on Wednesday. \u201cAmerican ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure.\u201d<\/p>\n The idea surprised officials and energy experts in Kyiv, and it was not clear whether Mr. Zelensky would agree to such a plan. Ukraine owns four nuclear power plants, and it also appears that the two sides do not agree on how many facilities the idea concerns.<\/p>\n Mr. Zelensky suggested at a news conference<\/a> that the idea was limited to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe\u2019s largest, which is now under Russian control.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The Ukrainian leader described his discussions with Mr. Trump about the plant as \u201cpositive steps,\u201d but added, \u201cI\u2019m not sure we will get a result quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n The White House statement echoed a familiar argument from Mr. Trump: that U.S. economic involvement in Ukraine serves as its best security guarantee, because Russia would be less likely to target a country where America has economic interests. Mr. Trump has also applied such reasoning to a potential deal on access to Ukrainian critical minerals.<\/p>\n So what could the United States\u2019 interests be in Ukraine\u2019s nuclear sector, and what challenges might it face?<\/p>\n Ukraine\u2019s Soviet-era nuclear power plants have been the backbone of its energy network during the war, supplying up to two-thirds of the country\u2019s electricity. While Moscow has relentlessly attacked Ukraine\u2019s thermal and hydroelectric power plants in an effort to cripple its grid, it has avoided striking nuclear facilities, which could trigger a radiological disaster.<\/p>\n Against that background, the Ukrainian government has initiated plans to build more nuclear reactors<\/a>, arguing that it is the only viable solution to ensuring long-term energy security.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n This is where America\u2019s business interests could come into play.<\/p>\n Shortly before the war, Westinghouse, an American nuclear technology company, signed a deal with Energoatom, Ukraine\u2019s state-owned nuclear company, to build five reactors. After Russia attacked, the number was increased to nine<\/a> and the two companies agreed to further cooperate to deploy another four smaller plants in Ukraine<\/a>.<\/p>\n For Westinghouse, it was a breakthrough after years of struggling to enter a Ukrainian nuclear market long dominated by Rosatom, the Russian nuclear power giant.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Westinghouse has a special interest in the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Russia captured the plant in March 2022, and it no longer supplies electricity to the Ukrainian grid. But before the war, it used fuel and technology from Westinghouse.<\/p>\n Olga Kosharna, a Ukrainian nuclear safety expert, said that Russia\u2019s capture of the Zaporizhzhia plant had raised concerns at Westinghouse about the potential theft of its intellectual property. In 2023, the U.S. Energy Department warned<\/a> in a letter<\/a> to Rosatom that the company could face prosecution under U.S. law if it used Westinghouse technology at the plant.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Andrian Prokip, an energy expert with the Kennan Institute in Washington, said that Westinghouse would \u201cdefinitely benefit\u201d from a return of the plant to Ukrainian hands, as it would expand its market. <\/p>\n It is unclear whether Mr. Trump discussed the fate of the Zaporizhzhia plant with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in a call on Tuesday as he had vowed to<\/a>.<\/p>\n Westinghouse did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n A current Ukrainian official and a former one, both with knowledge of the talks between the United States and Ukraine, also said Kyiv had emphasized to Mr. Trump that if the United States wanted access to Ukrainian minerals<\/a>, it would require the Zaporizhzhia plant\u2019s power-generating capacity, because mineral extraction and processing is energy intensive.<\/p>\n For one thing, all of Ukraine\u2019s nuclear power plants are owned by Energoatom, and Ukrainian law<\/a> prohibits their privatization.<\/p>\n Amending Ukraine\u2019s laws to allow for U.S. ownership would be politically sensitive in a post-Soviet country where many key industries remain state-owned.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Ukraine has engaged in a wave of privatization<\/a> during the war. But privatizing Energoatom \u2014 the state-owned company that generates the most revenue<\/a> \u2014 would likely be a sticking point.<\/p>\n \u201cI expect there would be great resistance to this idea in Ukraine,\u201d said Victoria Voytsitska, a former Ukrainian lawmaker and senior member of Parliament\u2019s energy committee. \u201cFrom both sides of the political spectrum.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Mr. Zelensky alluded to the issue in his news conference after his call with Mr. Trump. If Russia returned the Zaporizhzhia plant to Ukraine \u2014 a prospect that many in Ukraine deem unlikely \u2014 \u201csimply handing over the plant\u201d to the United States would not be possible, Mr. Zelensky said, because \u201cit\u2019s ours and it\u2019s our land.\u201d<\/p>\n Making plants operational again after three years of war would also pose a considerable challenge. Mr. Zelensky cited a period of up to two and a half years to get the degraded Zaporizhzhia plant running again.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Further, although all six Zaporizhzhia reactors have been shut down, they still require energy to power critical safety systems and water to circulate in their cores to prevent a meltdown.<\/p>\n But the power lines providing power to the plant have been cut on several occasions<\/a> in the war, and the destruction of a nearby dam, possibly at Russia\u2019s direction<\/a>, has reduced access to cooling water, raising the risks of a nuclear accident.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nU.S. Economic Interests<\/h2>\n
Possible Challenges<\/h2>\n