BUILDING ON WHAT WORKS | COMMENTARY
collaboration with manufacturers that have existing knowledge of nuclear engineering and critical service in general. This is especially true given that delivery times, timely qualification and public safety remain important issues on the way to full-scale deployment.
Nascent signs of success One of the most pressing challenges in the current SMR market is its lack of maturity. With around 100 SMR designs currently in development – each employing different reactor types and cooling methods – the sector is marked out by innovation but also fragmentation. While this level of activity is encouraging, it also highlights a critical absence of standardisation that will be vital to making SMRs economically viable. Standardisation isn’t just a financial concern. It’s
central to the original appeal of SMRs: flexibility and accessibility. Modular designs are ‘pilotable’ and therefore have the potential to bring nuclear energy to locations where traditional, large-scale plants would be too expensive or impractical. Some even envision SMRs being deployed as temporary or emergency power sources, supporting regional growth or serving crisis response efforts. But without a dependable, scalable design, many of these use cases remain out of reach. Despite the lack of a unified standard, there are
encouraging developments. GE Vernova Hitachi’s BWRX- 300, for instance, is a promising 300 MW water-cooled reactor based on the company’s previously licensed Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR). Built on existing technology and infrastructure, the BWRX-300 includes design optimisations, such as fewer safety relief valves and increased design pressure. The first prototype for this design will be built in Canada and could be operational before 2030, well ahead of the mid-2030s timelines projected for many competing designs. Rolls-Royce SMR is another design based on existing
reactor technology which shows how crucial commercial awareness is key to SMR success. As the company’s chief executive Tufan Erginbilgiç points out, however, standardisation will only be possible with the right suppliers in place, in part because of the time it typically takes for projects of this type to get up and running successfully. Established suppliers with a history in the industry will be essential in this respect – not only to eliminate manufacturing bottlenecks but also to comply with the qualification and nuclear quality control of the products, as well as to ensure economies of scale, repeatability and a quick time to market. Even with these concerns, Rolls Royce’s SMR is
projected to cost roughly £1.8bn (US$2.4bn) per unit – a significant reduction compared to the estimated £9bn (US$12bn) price tag for a single PWR unit such as the one planned at Sizewell C in the UK. Whether that projection can be met won’t be known until the design completes a Generic Design Assessment process and is constructed. The design is currently in Step 3 of the UK GDA and the first unit is planned for the Wylfa site on Anglesey in Wales with this first unit expected to become operational in the early 2030s.
Appeasing all parties The complex regulatory landscape around SMRs is difficult to ignore. Licenses are required for both design and
operation – affecting both vendors and end users, often based in different countries with varying requirements. With many SMR designs in development, licensing has
become a slow and daunting process – in part because regulators are unfamiliar with new reactor types and manufacturing methods. While some of the more mature SMR designs use established coolants like pressurised water, others rely on less conventional options like liquid metal, helium, or molten salts. Any deviation from approved technologies – that is, those known to regulatory agencies – will require rigorous safety and validation ahead of use. This caution is entirely justified. Public confidence
is essential to the industry’s lasting success, especially as SMRs are expected to bring nuclear power closer to where people live and work. Here the success of small reactors on nuclear-powered submarines provides some useful context. The reactors that sit aboard these vessels are situated close to crews and have arguably been the most prominent example of the industry’s success since the fission was first discovered. If the timeline for SMR deployment is to appease investors, regulatory agencies and the general public, it makes sense to choose suppliers that have demonstrable success in this area. It will accelerate delivery but also signal that relevant expertise is being exploited at every level. Still, cross-border regulation remains a major
hurdle. To address this, the IAEA launched the Nuclear Harmonisation and Standardisation Initiative in 2022. Its goal is to streamline international deployment by aligning regulatory standards and construction codes, including acceptance of factory-built components – a move akin to practices seen in aviation and shipping. Harmonisation in nuclear could significantly reduce
costs by enabling parts to be licensed and produced globally. However, it raises new legal and logistical challenges. Modular builds and shared standards will require scrutiny – especially regarding liability for transportable plants and the application of environmental and public participation laws.
Taking what’s known to work Given the lengthy regulatory process – even for advanced projects – it makes sense to choose proven solutions. This not only helps validate the SMR concept but also offers a reliable way to power new industries, like AI, without risking a shortfall. Valves and flow control elements are a case in point. Though a small element within an overall build, they’re essential for keeping SMRs within safe operating limits and are critical safety components. Many of these products have already been approved for large-scale reactors and while not directly transferable to SMRs, they bring thousands of hours of proven performance in critical service. This eases the regulatory concerns around bespoke parts. This is especially relevant to SMRs’ passive safety systems, which lower the operational threshold for newer players. That said, no part can bypass the rigorous testing that defines nuclear safety. Every component must meet the same high standards. Still, if speed and simplicity are key to SMR adoption, it makes sense to work with companies with significant experience in existing nuclear plants. It’s one piece of a complex puzzle – but vital for making ambitious SMR plans become a reality. ■
www.neimagazine.com | April 2026 | 103
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 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
