Key Takeaways

- Artificial intelligence’s massive energy demand is driving a global nuclear revival, creating a strategic opportunity for the ROK and the US to combine their complementary strengths—American technology and Korean construction capability—into a competitive global partnership.

- A “Team KORUS” framework could integrate US design and financing with ROK’s efficient EPC capacity, reducing costs, accelerating projects, and establishing both nations as leaders in next-generation nuclear development.

- To sustain this partnership, both sides must modernize the 2015 Cooperation Agreement to allow greater trust and flexibility in the nuclear fuel cycle, enabling a stable, alliance-based energy ecosystem for the AI era.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a decisive force shaping the future of nations—but it demands enormous amounts of electricity. The International Energy Agency projects that by 2030, global electricity demand from AI data centers will exceed Japan’s total consumption. While renewable energy might play an important role, the scale and reliability requirements of AI infrastructure have brought nuclear power back to the center of global energy strategy as the only large-scale, carbon-free baseload source capable of meeting this challenge around the clock.

This imperative has created a unique strategic opportunity for the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United States (US): the primary nuclear challenge facing each nation is the other’s greatest strength. Both allies urgently need to expand nuclear capacity, yet their capabilities differ sharply. By combining these complementary strengths, they can achieve unmatched synergy and establish a decisive advantage over state-backed competitors from China and Russia in the global market for new nuclear power plants (NPPs).

A Complementary Dilemma

The US possesses world-leading nuclear technology, top-tier R&D capacity, and strong bipartisan support for a nuclear revival. Both parties recognize nuclear energy as essential for maintaining competitiveness in the AI age—a view shared by tech giants like Microsoft and Amazon, which are now directly investing in nuclear solutions to power their data centers.

Yet America’s challenge lies in execution. Decades without new construction have eroded its domestic supply chain, driven up costs, and depleted the skilled labor force needed for complex projects. The Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia exemplify this challenge—completed seven years behind schedule and more than $20 billion over budget, with construction costs exceeding $10,000 per kilowatt. This represents a fundamental gap in construction capability that threatens America’s nuclear renaissance.

The ROK excels precisely where America struggles. Its construction cost per kilowatt is much lower, as demonstrated by the Barakah project in the UAE, completed on time and within budget at roughly $6,000 per kilowatt. This proven track record recently helped the ROK secure the Czech Republic's Dukovany project, outcompeting established Western competitors.

However, the ROK faces two major vulnerabilities. First, it lacks ownership of original reactor designs, a weakness repeatedly exposed by commercial and legal disputes between Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and Westinghouse. This technological dependence limits export autonomy and creates friction within the alliance. Second, its “incomplete fuel cycle” poses a growing challenge. Under the “2015 ROK-US Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Use of Atomic Energy (hereafter “2015 Cooperation Agreement”),” Seoul cannot enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel without Washington’s explicit consent. Meanwhile, on-site storage pools at major NPP sites are expected to reach capacity by the early 2030s, potentially forcing a de facto reactor phase-out without a viable spent fuel solution.

A Win-Win Strategy: Team KORUS

These mutual dependencies point to a clear solution—building a joint framework that unites complementary strengths into a powerful partnership capable of competing effectively against centralized state models.

The cornerstone is “Team KORUS (Korea + US),” envisioned as a strategic partnership or a balanced joint venture. The US would contribute its “soft power”: source technology, advanced design expertise, robust financing mechanisms, and diplomatic leverage. The ROK would provide its “hard power”: world-class EPC capability and a proven supply chain.

Together, Team KORUS could offer a comprehensive “Total Solution” covering construction, financing, fuel supply, operations and maintenance—creating a trusted, full-lifecycle partnership. This integrated approach would be particularly attractive to countries seeking alternatives to Russian and Chinese offers, which often come with geopolitical strings.

For new NPP construction within the US, ROK participation could close America’s capability gap. Based on cost and schedule differentials between Vogtle and Barakah, such collaboration could potentially reduce project costs by 30~40% and shorten construction timelines significantly. A structured framework—applying US nuclear safety standards while incorporating ROK construction management protocols and experienced workforce—could help America meet its AI-driven electricity demand while rebuilding its nuclear ecosystem.

This synergistic model applies especially well to small modular reactors. Combining innovative US designs with ROK’s efficient manufacturing and construction capabilities could establish both nations as first movers in next-generation nuclear deployment, moving from design to commercial operation years faster than competitors navigating developmental challenges alone.

Solving the Fuel Cycle Challenge

The second pillar involves resolving the fuel cycle issue through trust-based institutional cooperation. The US seeks to end dependence on Russian uranium and enrichment services but faces high investment barriers in rebuilding domestic infrastructure. The ROK needs reliable access to enriched uranium and a sustainable spent fuel solution. A phased approach could address both countries’ needs while strengthening non-proliferation norms.

l  Short term: ROK utilities could make equity investments in new US-based uranium enrichment facilities, providing capital for America’s enrichment revival while ensuring a secure, non-Russian fuel supply for the ROK. Such investments would deepen economic interdependence and align long-term strategic incentives.

l  Mid term: Third-country reprocessing—sending spent fuel to allied facilities in France or the UK—offers the fastest and most practical solution to the ROK’s looming crisis. Although the 2015 agreement technically allows this with case-by-case US consent, a revised framework should grant “programmatic prior consent” to eliminate uncertainty and enable long-term planning.

l  Long term: The ultimate goal should be a multilateral enrichment or pyroprocessing facility in the ROK, jointly operated by the US, the ROK, and potentially other allies under strict IAEA safeguards. Modeled after EURATOM’s trust-based framework, such a facility would enhance regional energy security and reinforce non-proliferation by establishing a secure, alliance-based fuel cycle hub in Northeast Asia.

Toward a New Framework of Institutional Trust

Realizing these reforms requires revising the “2015 Cooperation Agreement.” The existing High-Level Bilateral Commission was an important step, but it lacks binding authority and predictability. Every sensitive activity still requires discretionary US approval, discouraging the large-scale, long-term investments necessary for true partnership.

Both sides should shift from the current case-by-case system to a “programmatic advance consent” system—granting the ROK limited autonomy for pre-approved, safeguarded activities within defined parameters. This approach mirrors arrangements the US maintains with EURATOM and Japan.

However, institutional trust must be earned through concrete actions, not merely asserted through political rhetoric. The ROK should take proactive steps to reassure Washington. Seoul could enact a “Special Act on Non-Proliferation and Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy,” codifying its NPT commitments and IAEA safeguards into binding domestic law. Such legislation would provide a verifiable, legally enforceable foundation for expanded cooperation, giving the US the confidence to advocate for more flexible arrangements backed by legal guarantees rather than political assurances.

Conclusion

The ROK-US alliance stands at a pivotal moment. Energy security and technological competitiveness now define strategic power as much as traditional defense capabilities. By embracing an interdependent nuclear partnership, both nations can secure sustainable energy, rebuild industrial capacity, and reinforce democratic leadership in an increasingly competitive global landscape.

The AI age will belong to those who can power it reliably and affordably. Both nations possess every capability needed to lead this transformation. The complementary nature of their strengths makes partnership not just beneficial but essential. The time to build this framework is now, before competitors establish irreversible advantages in markets.