The path has been cleared for the construction of the Korean APR1400 nuclear reactor in the United States, the birthplace of nuclear power. However, simply opening the door does not guarantee success. The key is to translate this opportunity into actual contracts and enhanced industrial competitiveness.
South Korea and the United States have agreed on a 'Korea-U.S. Nuclear Power Framework' that will utilize up to $120 billion from a $200 billion investment fund to build eight large nuclear reactors in the U.S. This includes two Korean APR1400 reactors and six Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. A crucial aspect of this agreement is the revision of the settlement agreement (SA) between Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP), and Westinghouse, which now allows for the construction of the APR1400 in the U.S. Changes have also been made regarding technology licensing fees and intellectual property rights that previously hindered the entry of Korean reactors into the U.S. market.
The symbolic significance is substantial. Nearly 50 years after the construction of the Kori Unit 1 reactor using Westinghouse technology in 1978, a Korean company will now participate as a partner in U.S. nuclear power construction. Korean construction firms and equipment manufacturers are also expected to be involved in the six AP1000 reactors. The construction of the APR1400 in the U.S. presents an opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities of Korea's nuclear ecosystem, including its supply chain and construction expertise, in the U.S. market. Securing references in the U.S. could enhance competitiveness in future third-country nuclear markets.
Another noteworthy aspect is the shift from competition to cooperation with Westinghouse. The government is pursuing a plan for KEPCO, KHNP, and domestic private companies to acquire a 5-10% stake in Westinghouse. More important than the stake itself is the strategy to connect technology, supply chains, and overseas business networks through this investment. Considering Westinghouse's influence in the U.S. and Western European markets, this move is not just a financial investment but a strategic decision to secure a long-term export base.
This collaboration could also present new opportunities for the domestic nuclear industry. The nuclear sector is not limited to design and construction; it encompasses a wide range of participants, including reactor and turbine manufacturers, instrumentation and control, materials, components, equipment, and maintenance. Increased participation of Korean companies in the U.S. nuclear market could broaden the export base for small and medium-sized nuclear firms in Korea, boosting employment and technological competitiveness.
However, challenges remain. The U.S. nuclear projects involve massive investments, lengthy construction periods, and risks of cost overruns. The allocation of $20 billion as a contingency fund from the total project cost of $120 billion reflects these risks. The economic viability of individual projects can vary significantly based on factors such as ground conditions, cooling water availability, power grid connections, and demand sources. Therefore, it is essential to approach the framework agreement and individual project investments separately.
The government and companies must now carefully assess the business viability. They cannot take on low-profit projects merely for political symbolism. Conversely, they should not hesitate to enter new markets due to perceived risks. As the U.S. accelerates its nuclear expansion, it is crucial for Korea to leverage its design, construction, and supply chain capabilities as negotiating power.
The challenges facing the Korean nuclear industry are clear. In the context of the U.S. nuclear expansion, the question is whether Korea will remain a simple supplier of construction and equipment or establish itself as a global nuclear partner involved in design, construction, operation, and supply chains. It is essential to demonstrate the capabilities of the Korean nuclear power system through thorough business viability assessments, cost competitiveness, adherence to schedules, and financial procurement capabilities.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.