Trump Admin Announces $17.5 Billion In Loans For 10 New Large Nuclear Reactors
5 242An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: The Trump administration is providing $17.5 billion to speed the development of 10 new large nuclear reactors to meet the skyrocketing power demand from massive data centers. Energy Secretary Chris Wright cited "tremendous interest" among developers of data centers that would buy the power, as well as utilities and energy companies. The nuclear plants could begin construction by 2030 and become operational in the mid-2030s, Wright and other officials said Tuesday. "This is the start," Wright said on a call with reporters. "We're going to move with the players that are ready to stand up and move quickly. Once that supply chain is up and running, do we think there will be dozens of these built going forward? I'd be very surprised if there were not."
Most U.S. nuclear power plants were built between 1970 and 1990. Only two new large reactors have been built from scratch in the United States in recent decades. Those two reactors, at Georgia Power Co.'s Plant Vogtle, were completed years late and billions of dollars over budget. The 10 new reactors will use the same design, Westinghouse's AP1000. Wright said the Plant Vogtle project struggled because of bad planning, supply chain problems and the COVID-19 pandemic. But, he said, the reactor design is "robust and sound."
5 comments
Re:We need them, but (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Tim the Gecko ( 745081 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2026 @01:22PM (#66208074)
if we stop using coal for power, what're we gonna do with (bing) "1.1 trillion tons of proven coal reserves, enough to last around 133 years at current consumption levels" worldwide?
If you had a 133 year supply of cigarettes, would you feel you needed to smoke them?
Re:We need them, but (Score: 5, Interesting)
by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2026 @05:23PM (#66208618)
When you have multiple problems you start with the ones that give the best results first and work your way down the list. Long haul transport has no quick fixed, but has nothing to do with idea "we must use all the coal and oil because it exists" argument.
There are valid uses for oil, such as plastics, that don't involve burning it and creating air pollution. Lets try and limit it's use to those cases.
Just because we can't magically address all causes of CO2 and pollution in general doesn't we should blindly ignore the issue. I see no valid use cases for burning coal. For burning oil we should move as quickly as possible to clean alternative, where they exist.
Somewhere in this thread there was mention of sailing ship. There has be some recent experimentation with using metal sails that can be deployed when the wind is right to reduce the fossil fuel consumption significantly.
Long haul flights will likely never be viable by battery powered aircraft, but limited short haul flights are already possible and it does look like at least some of the aviation industry should be able to go green. Every bit helps, and when done at scale can be significant.
Re:We need them, but (Score: 5, Informative)
by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2026 @12:49PM (#66207960)
We need more power, but nuclear isn't the way anymore. I was a supporter of nuclear until around 2020, when I saw how fast solar and wind were gaining. Both have consistently shown enormous growth because they are not as specific in their land requirements, can be installed in small numbers, and the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for them has plummeted to become profitable even without subsidies. Storage is still a challenge, but we're seeing rapid improvements in that, too, with sodium batteries rapidly catching up in capacity.
TFA says that construction on these won't start until at least 2030, and if they make that, it would be amazingly fast for how reactors are built these days. In that time, wind is expected to expand by almost 50 GW and solar by 40 GW. Battery storage is expected to almost quadruple in that time. By the time the reactors are built, they will be a tiny fraction of the new power generation installed and they will probably be the most expensive part of it.
Absurdly small sum of money (Score: 5, Informative)
by shilly ( 142940 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2026 @03:01PM (#66208308)
17.5bn for 10 large reactors? Construction for a large US reactor is of the order of $10 to $20bn. Operation is gonna be 100 to 300m a year. Decomissioning is another $2bn.
So this loan will cover the build costs for one or maybe two of these. And will the cost of capital be materially lower than what’s on the markets? If not, why bother? And if so, let’s all bear in mind that’s a straightforward taxpayer subsidy for the industry.
lol (Score: 5, Informative)
by sinkskinkshrieks ( 6952954 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2026 @03:06PM (#66208320)
$17.5 billion might build one nuclear plant. The thing is, getting insurance, investment, and waiting 15 years to construct it make it not so easy to open a plant. Better off deploying solar and BESS/PES that's cheaper, cleaner, and less perilous.