By Avi Salzman

President Donald Trump has signed a half-dozen executive orders that aim to boost nuclear energy in the United States. They're largely focused on cutting regulations, and speeding nuclear approvals. But there's still one big thing getting in the way of a nuclear renaissance in America: cold, hard cash.

There's no sign yet that the federal government is willing to put up the kind of money or guarantees that experts say is needed. Without serious financial support, utilities may well balk at building large-scale nuclear reactors, which are famous for cost overruns.

This week, three Columbia University researchers called on the Trump administration to undertake an "Operation Warp Speed" for nuclear energy -- a nod to the public-private partnership started in 202o to speed the development of Covid-19 vaccinations. A massive government commitment to nuclear power could get 20 gigawatts worth of big reactors built by 2035, the researchers said.

"Both parties should set aside partisan differences and back a Nuclear Operation Warp Speed with a target of building 20 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity by 2035," wrote lead author Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia and a former advisor to President Barack Obama. Twenty gigawatts is enough to power at least 15 million homes.

Today, there are no large nuclear reactors under construction in the U.S, , despite bipartisan support for the technology and growing demand for carbon-free electricity for AI data centers and other sources. America's 94 operating nuclear reactors account for about 18% of U.S. electricity. The Trump administration wants nuclear capacity to roughly quadruple by 2050.

Bordoff praised some of Trump's efforts to jumpstart nuclear development, like his executive orders looking to reduce regulatory delays. But more is needed. A key part of the Columbia proposal, which was presented in a Foreign Policy article, is putting much more federal money behind the project in a similar way to how NASA funded companies like SpaceX. That could involve giving money to nuclear developers once they hit certain milestones.

For now, it doesn't look like a Nuclear Operation Warp Speed is coming. Asked for comment on the idea and the need for funding, the White House responded that "the president's recent executive orders expedite the production of nuclear energy industry which produces a safe and reliable energy source."

In fact, the funding streams for nuclear energy are at risk of getting cut, not boosted. The Republican tax and spending bill that passed the House of Representatives could gut the government's main existing funding mechanism for nuclear reactors, the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office, or LPO.

On Monday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said that he's trying to get Congress to put money back for nuclear. "I'm in a little bit of a negotiation trying to keep it around," he said at an energy summit put on by think tanks in Washington, D.C. The LPO guarantees portions of loans in order to help borrowers secure lower interest rates. The loan guarantees are more efficient than other sources of funding like grants, Wright said.

"Everything we do will be underwritten carefully," he said. "It needs to be used responsibly."

But judicious loan guarantees may not be enough for an industry that has a history of severe cost overruns. Two nuclear reactors that recently opened at a plant owned by Southern Company in Georgia -- the only reactors built in the past decade -- came in about $20 billion over budget, despite loan guarantees, leading to billions of dollars worth of rate-hikes for electricity customers. The government may need to take a much more direct approach to financing, because private lenders don't have a history of doing it.

"The private sector has not financed nuclear historically," said Fuat Savas, the co-head of infrastructure finance and advisory at J.P. Morgan, at the energy summit.

"Reactors have been financed by governments," he said. China and Russia, for instance, have spent heavily to build new reactors and are now leading the industry. In England, the Labour Party announced a new 14.2 billion pound investment on Tuesday in a nuclear plant called Sizewell C, bringing total government investment in the plant to 17.8 billion pounds.

Despite recent excitement about a possible nuclear renaissance, today is "absolutely not" the time for private lenders to take the risk of financing them, "given the history of cost overruns and timing delays," Savas said.

"I don't think streamlining regulation is likely to solve this problem," he added.

Without more explicit financial support from the government, utility executives are being placed in an uncomfortable position. They're the ones who will have to approve new nuclear reactors, and most don't want to take that risk, said Chris Gadomski, the lead nuclear analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

"Every time a publicly traded utility's executive says 'I'm going to build a nuclear power plant,' guess what happens? The stock gets shorted." Gadomski said. "It's a very tough situation."

--Laura Sanicola contributed to this article.

Write to Avi Salzman at avi.salzman@barrons.com

This content was created by Barron's, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. Barron's is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

June 11, 2025 01:30 ET (05:30 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.