South Korea Weighs Eight-Reactor US Plan as Costs and Labor Risks Mount

South Korea and the United States are reviewing a plan to build eight large nuclear reactors in the United States, opening a potentially significant market for Korean energy companies while exposing them to substantial cost, licensing and labor risks.

The proposal comprises six Westinghouse AP1000 reactors and two APR1400 units designed by South Korea. It forms part of a broader bilateral nuclear framework that South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy briefed to the National Assembly on Tuesday, according to political and government sources. The projects would be pursued through a Korea-US investment fund, and additional reactors could be considered beyond the initial eight.

For South Korean companies, the plan could create a route into the US nuclear market and expand their role in a sector benefiting from renewed demand for reliable, low-carbon electricity. The framework also includes discussion of a possible collective investment by Korean private-sector companies in Westinghouse. A stake of 5 to 10 percent has been considered, with about 7 percent described as a possible compromise, although resistance from Westinghouse leaves the outcome uncertain.

The commercial terms remain a central obstacle. Building the two Korean-designed APR1400 units in the United States would require separate payments to Westinghouse for technology licensing, services and nuclear fuel. Those costs could reach roughly $2 billion per reactor, or as much as $4 billion for the two units. The obligations stem from an agreement reached last year between Westinghouse and the state-run Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and Korea Electric Power Corporation, which restricts the Korean firms’ pursuit of new US nuclear contracts.

Long construction schedules add another layer of uncertainty. A large nuclear project typically takes about 13 years from licensing to completion, leaving developers vulnerable to permitting delays, rising material costs and financing pressure. The ability to secure enough experienced workers for a multi-project program is also under scrutiny. South Korea already faces competing labor demands from its nuclear project in the Czech Republic and plans to build two additional large reactors at home.

The proposed framework therefore presents both an industrial opportunity and a test of risk allocation. Progress will depend not only on diplomatic support, but also on whether Korean participants can obtain commercially workable terms, control construction costs and build a workforce capable of delivering projects in multiple markets over many years.