In Kazakhstan, China and Russia are Competing to Build a Nuclear Power Plant — But U.S. Technologies Could Outshine Both
06.01.2025
By Valikhan Tuleshov
Currently, Russia and China are the main contenders to build Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power plant. However, if the United States were part of this competition, its nuclear technologies could arguably surpass those of both China and Russia.
From a purely technical perspective, American nuclear technology is considered more advanced, reliable, and safer—particularly in the field of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and beyond, which could be highly relevant for Kazakhstan’s future energy needs.
But as we all know, in the realm of geopolitics, the most advanced technology does not always win. The deciding factors are often:
* Short construction timelines,
* Attractive financial terms,
* Political alignment,
* Long-term strategic partnerships.
If the United States were truly committed to competing in this space and offered Kazakhstan a well-structured, flexible, and reliable proposal, it could very well emerge as a frontrunner. However, Washington currently plays only a limited role in the region.
That said, U.S. companies like Westinghouse and GE Hitachi are known for producing some of the most innovative and safest nuclear technologies in the world, such as the AP1000 and the BWRX-300. Their standards for safety, transparency, and environmental responsibility are among the highest globally. Moreover, the U.S. nuclear industry benefits from strong international cooperation and support from key allies like Japan, Canada, and South Korea.
So why has the U.S. played such a minor role in international nuclear construction projects in recent decades? The reasons are complex and lie at the intersection of economics, politics, geopolitics, and industrial strategy. Here are the key factors:
1. Decline in U.S. Nuclear Export Strategy Since the 1990s
After the Cold War, the U.S. gradually lost its leadership in global nuclear energy exports. In the 1970s and 1980s, companies like Westinghouse and GE were actively building reactors abroad. However, following the Three Mile Island accident (1979) and the Chernobyl disaster (1986), global interest in nuclear energy declined. The U.S. shifted focus to natural gas, renewables, and oil, while nuclear energy took a back seat. In the meantime, Russia and France (and later China) captured the market by heavily subsidizing nuclear projects overseas.
2. Lack of Government Coordination and Financial Support
Unlike Russia’s Rosatom or China’s CNNC and CGN, which operate as state-backed enterprises, American companies like Westinghouse and GE Hitachi are private and lack comprehensive government support. Russian and Chinese nuclear deals often come with full-package offers that include:
* Turnkey construction,
* Long-term (20–30 year) financing,
* Workforce training,
* Fuel supply and maintenance.
In contrast, U.S. export financing has been limited. Even the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) was politically constrained for years, hindering major international deals.
3. Reputation and Implementation Challenges
The AP1000, once considered the flagship of American nuclear innovation, also became a symbol of implementation failure. Construction of AP1000 reactors in Georgia, USA, was delayed by more than a decade and doubled in cost. Similar issues occurred in China, where projects also faced setbacks. These experiences have undermined confidence in the ability of U.S. firms to deliver on time and within budget.
4. Strict Export Controls and Licensing
U.S. nuclear exports are subject to some of the world's strictest regulations, including safety protocols, export controls, and non-proliferation requirements. While important from a security standpoint, these conditions can deter countries that seek greater autonomy or quicker implementation.
5. Lack of Political Will and Strategic Focus
For many years, nuclear energy was not a priority in U.S. energy policy. The focus shifted to shale gas, oil, and renewables. Only recently—spurred by climate concerns and growing competition with China—has Washington renewed its interest in nuclear power. Programs like the *Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment* (PGII) reflect a desire to re-enter the global infrastructure arena, but these efforts are still in their early stages.
---
Conclusion
The United States has the potential to be a global leader in nuclear energy technology. However, its limited geopolitical engagement, privatized industry structure, and regulatory constraints have hindered its ability to compete in overseas tenders—especially in countries like Kazakhstan, which prioritize speed, state-backed financing, and turnkey solutions.
Today, the U.S. is trying to catch up—particularly through advanced SMR technology like GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, which could become a new strategic export tool. Whether these efforts will succeed remains to be seen, but there is clearly room for a greater American role in shaping the future of global nuclear energy.
