Trump’s "nuclear power dream" is not favored by many people.
```
The Trump administration is attempting to secure America's lead in the artificial intelligence (AI) race through a radical nuclear energy expansion plan. However, despite the White House's ambitious goal to quadruple U.S. nuclear power capacity by 2050, high construction costs, regulatory challenges, and private sector concerns about financial risks have led market experts and industry insiders to widely question the plan's feasibility.
Recent developments show the Trump administration has identified nuclear energy as key to resolving the electricity shortfall for AI data centers. In October 2024, the government signed an $80 billion partnership with private equity giant Brookfield and reactor designer Westinghouse, planning to build eight large nuclear power plants. At the same time, the government is pushing to restart retired nuclear plants such as Michigan's Palisades and Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island by providing tens of billions of dollars in loans.
This strategy has received an initial response from Silicon Valley tech giants. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have all signed long-term power purchase agreements or invested in small modular reactors (SMRs). In terms of market impact, however, investors remain cautious. Edwin Lyman, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, warns that the fundamental economic logic of nuclear power has not changed—its costs are still higher than other energy sources, and Trump’s “nuclear revival” looks more like a “house of cards.”
The current nuclear boom is largely being driven by power demand from data centers and the onshoring of manufacturing. X-energy CEO Clay Sell claims the U.S. cannot win the AI race against China without nuclear power as a support. However, while the restart of old plants is seen as a cheap way to increase grid capacity, only a small number of shuttered U.S. plants are suitable for restart.
Runaway Costs and the "Vogtle Legacy Issue"
The history of large-scale nuclear construction has deterred investors. According to a report by T. Rowe Price, for the U.S. to quadruple its capacity by 2050, an additional 15 GW of installed capacity would be needed per year starting in 2030—a pace surpassing the historic peak set in 1974. The report emphasizes that “cost and financibility” are the greatest threats to the expansion plan.
As a cautionary tale, Georgia's Vogtle Units 3 and 4 only went online in 2023 and 2024 after a seven-year delay and $18 billion budget overrun. Construction costs soared to $15,000 per kilowatt, about five times those of Korean nuclear projects and significantly higher than in India.
Massive losses previously forced Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy protection in 2017. Duke Energy CEO Harry Sideris has made it clear that without federal cost overrun guarantees or protection, utility companies would struggle to invest heavily again.
Brookfield Deal and National Intervention
To resolve financing issues, the Trump administration is exploring new partnership models. Commerce Secretary Rutnick facilitated an $8 billion deal with Brookfield, which includes a special provision: the Japanese government pledges up to $10 billion from its $55 billion investment fund to support reactor construction.
The plan also includes a profit-sharing mechanism and even allows the government to take a stake in Westinghouse. Department of Energy Chief of Staff Carl Coe previously suggested that during a “national emergency”, the government might directly purchase and operate nuclear power plants. Santee Cooper CEO Jimmy Staton notes that this new model shifts risk from utility companies to private equity and government.
But Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith questions whether, amid intense public scrutiny on electricity bill affordability, data center operators will be willing to underwrite such costly investments without a final government guarantee—a question that remains unresolved.
SMR Technology and Regulatory Chess
Beyond large-scale projects, the Trump administration is betting on small modular reactors (SMRs) to lower upfront capital thresholds. Startups like Oklo and NuScale have won huge venture capital investments and signed deals with AI companies. However, no SMR in the United States has yet received an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
To speed up progress, the Trump administration is pushing for regulatory easing. This has triggered sharp backlash within the regulatory ranks. Former NRC Chair Allison Macfarlane expressed concern about “political interference in independent regulation,” claiming that cutting regulatory spending or changing processes would significantly increase accident risk. She bluntly said that given the construction timeline and high costs, the goal of quadrupling nuclear power capacity by 2050 is “absolutely unachievable.”
Despite ongoing skepticism, Adam Stein, Director of Nuclear Innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, argues that current government subsidies, loan support, and surging energy demand have created a unique financing environment—quite different from the “nuclear revival” of the mid-2000s that was ended by the shale gas revolution.
Risk warning and disclaimerThe market involves risks; investment should be prudent. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into consideration individual users’ specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article fit their particular circumstances. Investing based on this article is at your own risk. ```