Small modular reactors (SMRs) promise factory-built nuclear units that are cheaper, faster, and safer than traditional gigawatt-scale plants. In 2026, dozens of designs are on slides, but only a handful have concrete poured. Governments are betting billions on advanced nuclear as a complement to renewables, yet questions remain: Can SMRs really compete on cost? What is a realistic deployment timeline? and Where do they actually fit in future grids? At Energy Solutions, we examine cost ranges, project pipelines, and policy frameworks to separate plausible pathways from pure hype.
SMRs are nuclear reactors with nameplate capacities typically between 50–300 MW(e), designed for modular manufacturing and simplified construction. Broad technology families include:
Common design goals are:
| Type | Typical Size (MW(e)) | Coolant / Moderator | Key Promise |
|---|---|---|---|
| PWR-based SMR | 50–300 | Light water / light water | Leverage existing experience and LWR supply chains. |
| HTGR | 50–200 | Helium / graphite | High outlet temps (≥700 °C) for hydrogen and industrial heat. |
| MSR | 50–300 | Fluoride or chloride salt | Low-pressure operation, flexible fuel cycles. |
| Microreactor | 1–50 | Various | Transportable units for remote grids and defence. |
Historically, large nuclear projects have suffered from cost overruns and schedule delays. SMRs aim to reverse this by delivering smaller, repeatable units with more off-site construction. Table 2 compares stylised benchmarks for FOAK SMRs and large reactors.
| Metric | SMR (FOAK) | Large Reactor (Recent Builds) |
|---|---|---|
| Unit size (MW(e)) | ≈ 75–300 | ≈ 1,000–1,600 |
| Overnight cost ($/kW) | $5,000–$10,000/kW | $6,000–$12,000/kW |
| Construction time (core build) | 4–7 years (after licensing) | 7–12 years |
| Typical FOAK LCOE | $90–$160/MWh | $80–$150/MWh |
While SMRs do not magically escape nuclear’s capital intensity, their smaller project size can lower absolute investment risk and allow modular build-out—useful for countries and utilities that cannot finance 1+ GW units in a single tranche.
The viability of SMRs depends not only on pure LCOE but also on revenue stacking. Potential value streams include:
| Technology | Typical LCOE Range | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Onshore wind | $25–$55/MWh | Good sites, excluding firming. |
| Utility solar PV | $20–$45/MWh | Best resource regions. |
| Gas CCGT (without CCS) | $50–$90/MWh | Fuel and carbon price sensitive. |
| SMR (NOAK, optimistic) | $50–$90/MWh | Requires serial production, low financing costs. |
In most scenarios, SMRs will not beat wind and solar on pure cost. Their business case lies in providing low-carbon, high-capacity-factor output that can anchor industrial clusters and balance variable renewables in systems where gas is constrained or carbon priced.
Canadian utilities are targeting a first SMR unit at an existing nuclear site, leveraging experienced regulators and skilled labour. The goal is to replace retiring baseload and provide clean power to industry and hydrogen projects. Key features include staged deployment (one unit then a second) and heavy public funding for FOAK risk.
The UK is exploring SMRs to diversify away from very large EPR units and to use former coal sites. Government programmes aim to select a small number of designs and move them through a standardised approval process, though timelines remain uncertain.
Several US projects focus on high-temperature reactors for industrial customers, especially hydrogen hubs and refineries. Developers see process heat and cogeneration as a more defensible niche than pure grid power in markets with cheap gas and strong renewables.
SMR deployment will be shaped by:
Our tracking suggests a large gap between announced SMR capacity and realistic 2035 commissioning. While gigawatts of projects are on paper, only a subset have credible sites, funding, and regulatory pathways. Investors should treat vendor roadmaps as scenarios, not commitments.
Advanced nuclear faces familiar and new challenges:
SMRs may mitigate some risks (e.g., smaller evacuation zones, passive safety), but they do not erase the need for robust governance and community engagement.
We model three broad trajectories for SMRs through 2035:
| Scenario | Installed SMR Capacity | Share of Global Generation |
|---|---|---|
| Demonstration-heavy | 5–10 GW | <1% |
| Clustered growth | 20–40 GW | 1–3% |
| Accelerated | 60–80 GW | 3–5% |
For policymakers and large energy users, SMRs are not a one-size-fits-all solution. They are most compelling when:
| Context | SMR Fit | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Industrial cluster with high heat demand | High | Cogeneration and hydrogen production improve economics. |
| Remote grid with high diesel dependence | Medium–High | Microreactors may compete with imported fuels. |
| Region with cheap gas & abundant renewables | Low–Medium | SMRs face stiff cost competition. |
Many SMR designs use passive safety features and smaller cores, which can reduce the risk of large releases. However, safety ultimately depends on design, regulation, and operations—not just size. Strong oversight remains essential.
No. SMRs still produce high-level waste that requires long-term management. Some designs may reduce waste per MWh or enable recycling, but they do not eliminate the need for repositories and robust waste policies.
SMRs can provide firm, low-carbon capacity and grid services, but they must be flexible enough to ramp with variable wind and solar. Designs that can cycle output without large economic penalties will fare better.
Investors should monitor first-of-a-kind project performance, supply chain build-out, and regulatory progress. Once a design demonstrates on-time, on-budget delivery and multi-year operation, it becomes a more credible addition to long-term portfolios.
Unlikely. Most 2030 decarbonisation will still be driven by efficiency, wind, solar, and storage. SMRs are a potential tool for the 2030s and 2040s, especially for hard-to-abate sectors and regions with specific constraints.