How America Can Compete with China on Nuclear Energy

National Interest | Randall Schmollinger

The United States is falling behind China in the strategic competition for global nuclear energy dominance due to high private-sector investment risks and prolonged project timelines. While Beijing leverages centralized state planning to standardize reactor designs and rapidly build supporting industrial ecosystems, American developers face a complex web of regulatory, supply-chain, and financial uncertainties.

Risk remains the primary obstacle. To counter this disparity, federal and state authorities can shift development activities upstream by preparing prospective sites, conducting environmental reviews, and establishing regional nuclear development partnerships. Federal balance sheets can further mitigate private capital exposure through loan guarantees, tax incentives, and milestone-based grants. Standardizing procurement pipelines will incentivize long-term supply-chain investments, allowing robust domestic capital markets to match Beijing’s pace or scale.

Comment

The enactment of the ADVANCE Act of 2024 represents a legislative effort to streamline the licensing of next-generation nuclear technologies in the United States. However, regulatory acceleration does not automatically resolve the underlying industrial capacity deficits that constrain American reactor deployment. The domestic supply chain lacks the specialised heavy forging capabilities and fuel fabrication facilities required to support rapid commercial scaling. Consequently, the United States remains dependent on foreign suppliers for critical components, limiting the immediate strategic impact of regulatory reforms.

This bottleneck is particularly acute in the fuel cycle, where the domestic production of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium remains highly constrained. Without a reliable domestic enrichment pipeline, such as the Centrus Energy facility in Piketon, Ohio, advanced reactor designs cannot transition from prototype to commercial operation. This material dependency directly undermines the strategic autonomy envisaged by the ADVANCE Act.

Strategic Question for Discussion

What happens to the commercial viability of advanced reactors licensed under the ADVANCE Act if the domestic enrichment pipeline fails to scale in tandem with regulatory approvals?

The available evidence suggests that a mismatch between regulatory speed and fuel availability will lead to a bottleneck of approved designs unable to secure financing. Investors are unlikely to commit capital to projects licensed under the ADVANCE Act without guaranteed access to fuel from facilities like Piketon. Consequently, the trajectory indicates that regulatory reform will yield minimal operational capacity until the domestic fuel supply chain is fully established.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here