A EUROPEAN ROADMAP | SMRS & ADVANCED REACTORS Similarly, while certain SMR developers are making
progress in building supply chains for their specific reactor designs, Borovas contends that a continent-wide, design-agnostic supply network is essential for cost-effective roll-out of SMRs. Supply chain investment is also key for Virginia Crosbie, founder and partner at UK-based investment fund Nuclear Capital and a former UK politician. She expects the US-UK transatlantic collaboration will lead to “a wave of factory investment and capacity building in both the UK and US”, but cautions that European companies not integrated into those supply chains or collaborations may lose out, unless they win subcontracts or form partnerships. However, Crosbie believes the single most critical barrier to SMRs in Europe is regulatory harmonisation and licensing. Unlike large-scale nuclear projects, SMRs rely heavily on modular, repeatable designs and supply chains. But the fragmented nature of regulation in Europe means that currently a design approved in one state may need to undergo lengthy, duplicative reviews elsewhere, which Crosbie says, “delays deployment and undermines economies of scale”. “We do need to have a much more coordinated and
streamlined licensing framework, or at least mutual recognition of approvals. Until we get this, investors and developers face significant uncertainty about timelines and cost,” she adds. Additional barriers to SMRs cited include high development
costs and the long payback horizons for investors, political and public acceptance issues, nuclear waste and proliferation concerns, and skills/workforce constraints. Additionally, the fledgeling advanced reactor sector must compete with alternative low-carbon sources. “The falling costs of renewables, energy storage and hydrogen, might erode the case for SMRs if deployment lags,” Crosbie notes. When it comes to manpower, Borovas points out that
workforce development is “a long-lead item and requires a concerted, deliberate effort by the governments, academic institutions and industry”.
European action to pave the way for SMRs The European SMR Alliance’s strategic action plan lists 10 target actions (see Table, right) to be addressed by eight different technical working groups.
Finance While SMRs promise quicker investment returns than gigawatt- scale nuclear plants, they still face significant financing hurdles. For institutional investors, SMRs are a high-variance way to get exposure to low-carbon investments, Crosbie says, noting that first-of-a-kind (FOAK) builds are particularly expensive. Additionally, Borovas points out that while financial institutions are now ready to fund nuclear, projects like SMRs are “unable to show demonstrable experience in deployment (including supply chains, on time/on budget construction and operations) necessary to alleviate the return on investment concerns”. Meanwhile, Crosbie says “utility partnerships and having the backing of government [is key] in terms of derisking these [SMR] projects”. A UK-style Contract for Difference (CfD) – already used
for wind and solar – could lock in revenue streams for SMR or microreactor operators by guaranteeing a fixed power price. Other approaches could be agreeing power purchases agreements (PPAs) with industrial customers — something that has already been demonstrated in the US.
SMR policies in European countries
Left: Many countries in Europe are considering SMR deployment, with projects in active development in a handful of nations Source: Various including WNA and NEA.
Regulatory work As part of its efforts the European SMR Alliance is working to facilitate common safety assessments by EU regulators by creating industry position papers on safety topics in close collaboration with project working groups (PWGs). Nine projects have been selected to form the PWGs, including two lead-cooled fast reactors (LFRs), five PWRs, one BWR and one molten salt reactor. Applications span power generation, district heating and industrial uses. Recently a pre-licensing assessment of the EAGLES-300 – one of the LFRs selected by the European Alliance – was launched by the Belgian, Italian and Romanian nuclear regulators. The effort will be supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a pilot within its Nuclear Harmonisation and Standardisation Initiative.
Below The European SMR Alliance action plan Source: Adapted from European Industrial Alliance on Small Modular Reactors, Strategic Action Plan 2025-2029, published September 2025.
Top 10 actions in the European SMR Alliance Action Plan in chronological order Action
Date
Facilitate common safety assessments by EU regulators by providing 'industry position papers' on safety topics as input to early regulatory assessment.
Propose tailor-made instruments and de-risking schemes for SMRs that address investment barriers, risks of FOAK projects and financial uncertainties related to operation.
Propose how NZIA provisions and future IPCEI can contribute to strengthening the EU supply chain.
Identify, evaluate, and elaborate a framework for SMR demonstration projects for potential end-users (such as data centres, energy-intensive industry, urban district heating).
Develop a comprehensive public and stakeholder engagement toolkit.
Develop a platform for identifying and facilitating partnerships of SMR projects with suppliers and other partners across EU countries.
December 2025 March 2026 June 2026 June 2026 December 2026 December 2026 Identify, assess and prioritise experimentation and testing facilities for R&D needs for SMRs. December 2026
Establish the concept of a European Net Zero Academy on SMRs/AMRs based on the identification of specific skills need and timeline.
Provide input to the development of standardised fuel design for light-water SMRs and AMRs.
Prepare technical proposals for the adoption of widely recognised codes and standards for SMRs as well as for the exchange of technology and data.
January 2027 October 2027 June 2028
www.neimagazine.com | WNE Special Edition | 9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
