By Kennedy Maize
During President Trump’s so-far feckless attempt to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia (he’s really not very good at making deals and he didn’t write the book), Trump suggested that the U.S. could take over, maybe even own, the contested and seriously damaged Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station.
In a White House statement attributed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security advisor Michael Waltz, Trump “said that the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise. American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure.”
It sounds like something Trump tossed off on a spur of the moment, not a sound or staffed U.S. position. It is nonsense that appeals to neither Ukraine nor Russia. It is also entirely impractical.
Zaporizhzhia (“Below the Rapids’), a six-unit, 5,700-MW nuclear power station named for the nearby Russian-speaking city of some 760,000, is on the Dnieper River in southern Ukraine. A six-unit, 1,425-MW coal-fired plant is located nearby, is connected to the grid and to the nuclear plant by a 750-kV powerline. The plants and the city are located on the current wartime border between occupied Russian territory and official Ukrainian land. The Russians occupy the plants, but not the city.
Russia captured the power plants on March 4, 2022, shortly after Russia’s February invasion. The nuclear and fossil units are shut and have what International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have concluded are serious damages because of the occupation. The plants remain connected to the Ukrainian grid.
Ukraine President Zelensky has said it would take two-and-a-half years to restore the plant. Other analysts have said it would take a year to get one of the reactors back into service and at least four years to get the complete plant running.
Reuters reported that the plant “lost access to water from the now-emptied Kakhovka reservoir after the hydroelectric station and dam in 2023 ahead of the Ukrainian counter offensive.
“The nuclear facility has since been taking water from a coolant pond, but the water level has been decreasing. Engineers at Ukraine’s energy ministry believe the water shortage would mean that only a maximum of two of the plant’s six reactors could be turned back on to generate electricity.”
On February 24, Ukraine disconnected from the Russian electrical grid. On March 16, Ukraine and neighboring Moldova connected to the European 220-volt, 50-Herz AC grid. The move was an emergency response to the Russian invasion. The synchronization originally was scheduled to take place in 2023 or later.
The former Soviet Union built the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plants during the 1980s using the Russian’s 1,000-MW VVER-1000 pressurized water reactors fueled with 5.0% enriched uranium. The VVERs are a variant of the classic Westinghouse PWR (pre-AP1000) designs. The Soviets stole much of the Westinghouse designs and Western nuclear observers have often referred to them as “Eastinghouse reactors.”
The four-coolant loop VVER-1000 is the only Russian PWR design that features of a robust concrete and steel containment structure.
While quite similar to U.S. and European reactors, there are some differences. According to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory analysis – made nearly 20 years ago and perhaps out-of-date – principal deficiencies of the VVER reactors are that the wiring of “emergency electrical system and reactor-protection system does not meet Western standards for separation–control and safety functions are inter connected in ways that may allow failure of a control system to prevent operation of a safety system. Fire-protection systems that do not appear to differ substantially from earlier VVER models, which do not meet Western standards. Quality-control, design and construction significantly deficient by U.S. standards.”
What are the problems beyond restoring the plant to service with what appears to have been a Trump off-the-cuff operate or own the reactor proposal?
Simply, neither Russia nor Ukraine would accept U.S. ownership or operation of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. The gnarly details of who would regulate the plant, where would the costs and revenues flow, and what U.S. private or public ownership and legal systems would apply are largely irrelevant.
The plant provides 20% of Ukraine’s electricity system, Russia has been attacking the grid as a primary target. The grid is mostly supplied by coal and nuclear. Letting the U.S. control the plant would erode the country’s sovereignty and energy decision-making.
Ukraine’s Zelensky has said he’s open to U.S. help in rebuilding the nuclear station, particularly financial support. He said, “The president asked me if there was an understanding that America could restore it, and I told him yes, if we could modernize it, invest money.”
But operating and/or owning the plant? Zelensky said, “I told him that if it is not Ukrainian, it will not operate. It is illegal.” Ukraine law forbids privatization.
Later, Zelensky said, “Simply handing over the plant while everything within a meter of it remains occupied or armed by Russia — no one will work under such conditions, It’s impossible.”
He added, “That would mean that the plant could start operating tomorrow, only to be blown up by the Russians the following day.”
As for Russia agreeing to U.S. operating or owning the plant, that’s simply preposterous. Why would Russia give up on what it already controls, simply to end a war that Vladimir Putin does not seem to be interested in ending?
What’s worse? Giving control of the plant to a NATO nation, Russia’s only significant adversary.
The Quad Report: to subscribe, for back issues, and a searchable archive