By Pavel Polityuk and Tom Balmforth
KYIV (Reuters) – Donald Trump’s idea of U.S. interests taking control of Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power station has a catch for the man who coined the art of the deal: it would be years before there is even a hope of it making a return on investment.
The vast plant occupied by Russia since the early days of its 2022 invasion is beset with problems. Its six reactors are in cold shutdown, the facility has lost its main supply of cooling water and no one knows the state of its equipment.
When they spoke by phone on Wednesday, Trump suggested to Zelenskiy that the U.S. could help run, and possibly own, Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, according to a statement by the U.S. presidential administration.
Speaking later, Zelenskiy said they had only discussed the Zaporizhzhia plant during the call: “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.”
Two Ukrainian industry sources said the proposal could be an example of the U.S. testing out various ideas to see what works, as Trump seeks to hammer out a lasting peace deal that would rapidly end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
One of the sources said the idea also applied pressure on Russia by proposing an arrangement in which they would have to hand over the plant. The Americans were inflaming the situation by using the word “ownership”, the source said.
Zelenskiy has said it would take two-and-a-half years to restore the plant, the largest such facility in Europe.
A former senior Ukrainian official said “anything is possible with the Americans, but this is something quite unusual.”
“The Americans would own it – and on what grounds? It belongs to Ukraine. Okay, let’s hand it over to the USA – but on what basis? Will they buy it? Will they take it as a concession? Many questions.”
‘SUITCASE WITHOUT A HANDLE’
Oleksandr Kharchenko, a Kyiv-based energy analyst, said the return of the plant to the Ukrainian grid – as Kyiv demands – would be a “game changer” for energy generation not only for Ukraine but also for eastern and central Europe.
The station provided 20% of Ukraine’s power output before the war. Ukraine started large-scale electricity exports to the European Union just before the invasion, but stopped when Russia hammered its infrastructure with missiles and drones.
Despite making attempts, Moscow’s forces have not been able to connect the facility to the Russian grid and it produces no energy.
Kharchenko said it would take up to one year to restart just a single reactor, and up to four years to get the whole station running because of various problems.
For one, the plant lost access to water from the now-emptied Kakhovka reservoir after the hydroelectric station and dam were blown up in 2023 ahead of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
The nuclear facility has since been taking water from a cooler 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.
What’s more, they believe it would take at least a year to restart even those limited operations because the technical condition of the plant is not known.
A staff member at the plant who fled life under occupation and is now living in Kyiv told Reuters that Ukraine had drafted a detailed plan of action for the facility’s potential return.
The staff member, who asked not to be named because their relatives were still living under occupation, said it would not be enough for Russia to simply hand over the plant on its own.
The adjacent, Russian-held thermal power plant would also be needed, as would nearby settlements including the city of Enerhodar as well as a route by road to the Ukrainian-controlled city of Zaporizhzhia, the worker said.
Nonetheless, for some people like pensioner Olha Shyshkyna in the Ukrainian-held city of Zaporizhzhia not far away, the return of the plant one day looks likely as it has had no actual use for the Russian side so far.
“For Russia, our nuclear station is like a suitcase without a handle. After all, it is not operational, and now it’s just a plaything. To us, it’s critically important,” she said.
(Reporting by Pavel Polityuk and Tom Balmforth; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne)
Comments