As the world races to reduce carbon emissions and secure energy independence, small modular reactors (SMRs) are being hailed as a potential game-changer. These compact nuclear power plants promise a cleaner, safer, and more flexible source of electricity—but their path to widespread use is far from clear. With enormous costs, complex regulations, and deep-rooted public skepticism, the question remains: can SMRs truly deliver on their promise, or will they be another stalled solution in the long search for clean energy?
What Is a Small Modular Reactor?
A small modular reactor is a type of nuclear power plant designed to be much smaller than traditional facilities. While a conventional reactor can produce over 1,000 megawatts of electricity, SMRs typically generate between 50 and 300 megawatts—enough to power tens of thousands of homes. Their reduced size allows key components to be built in factories, shipped by truck or rail, and assembled on-site. This could cut down on both construction time and cost.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, these new-generation reactors use low-enriched uranium as fuel, which contains less than 5 percent of the isotope U-235. Most designs use light water—ordinary H2O—as a coolant, the same as in larger reactors. Because many SMRs rely on passive safety systems, they can shut down and cool themselves without operator intervention or electricity. In the event of an emergency, this could make them significantly safer than older designs.
Why Nuclear—and Why Now?
Nuclear energy is drawing renewed interest around the world because of two key concerns: climate change and energy security. William Magwood, Director-General of the Nuclear Energy Agency, told panelists at a recent nuclear energy event, “This shift has been long overdue. The numbers have been telling us for years that nuclear was going to play a substantial role if we were going to meet the objective many countries have set for themselves, to reduce CO2 emissions.”
Many nations that signed the Paris Agreement have fallen behind on their climate goals. At the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, 31 countries—including the United States—committed to tripling their nuclear energy capacity by 2050. This pledge, totaling $300 billion in new investments, was driven by the realization that renewables alone may not be able to meet the rising demand for electricity.
Magwood also highlighted another driving factor: global conflict. “The war in Ukraine was a game-changer,” he said. “Energy security had kind of disappeared from the international discussion, but it’s back, and it’s back with a vengeance.”
Jane Nakano, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, added that beyond decarbonization, countries are interested in “stabilizing power costs to spur economic development.”
Who’s Building These Reactors?
Several companies in the United States and abroad are racing to bring the first SMRs online. Oregon-based NuScale Power is the only U.S. company to have received design approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Its NuScale Power Module can generate 77 megawatts per unit and can be scaled up to 924 megawatts in a multi-unit installation. Although its U.S. flagship project in Utah was canceled due to rising costs and inflation, the company is now working on a project in Romania with a planned launch in 2029.
GE Hitachi is developing the BWRX-300, a boiling water reactor based on proven technology. Construction of the first unit is expected to begin in Canada this year, with commercial operation targeted for 2029. The company is also working with the Tennessee Valley Authority to potentially build a BWRX-300 in Tennessee.
Holtec International, based in Florida, plans to build two 300-megawatt SMRs at the Palisades nuclear site in Michigan. The company says its reactors will be built underground and rely on gravity for cooling, reducing the risk of failure. “We believe we have about 75 percent of the supply chain in place,” said Patrick O’Brien, Holtec’s director of government affairs. Holtec also plans to build reactors in New Jersey and is exploring projects in the United Kingdom and Canada.
The Government Steps In
The U.S. Department of Energy has committed $900 million to support the development and deployment of SMRs. Up to $800 million will be divided between one or two “first mover” projects that are considered reliable and commercially viable. Another $100 million will go to early-stage projects to help them complete permitting and feasibility studies.
Although this funding is seen as a step in the right direction, some experts believe it is not enough. MIT professor Jacopo Buongiorno warned, “The investment required to deploy even just one SMR unit is more than that. There’s a lot of talking, but nobody is writing the checks.”
Buongiorno stressed the need for SMRs to meet three key goals: they must be delivered on time, stay on budget, and meet performance and safety standards. “If the first-of-a-kind project takes three times as long and costs three times as much,” he said, “it will look like the same old story and leave a pretty sour taste in everyone’s mouth.”
Still Fighting Public Resistance
Even with their advanced safety features, SMRs face strong resistance from the public. Nuclear power still carries a stigma, largely due to past disasters like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. Communities often oppose new reactors near their homes or workplaces. Note that the ONLY fatalities from nuclear reactors has been from the poorly designed Chernobyl reactors, the other major incidents had not fatalities from radiation or explosions of any kind.
This is known as the “not in my backyard” syndrome. People may support nuclear energy in theory, but they don’t want it close to where they live. In Covert Township, Michigan, where Holtec plans to deploy the first U.S. SMRs, residents are divided. “I’m very much opposed,” said Michael Keegan, co-chair of Don’t Waste Michigan. “It’s a very risky proposition and the risk is incurred by the public, be it financial, health or environmental.”
Some local leaders remain hopeful. “If all goes well, this is a really great opportunity for energy solutions globally,” said Daywi Cook, Covert Township board supervisor. “But it is uncharted territory. So we are cautiously optimistic.”
The Regulatory Roadblocks
Perhaps the biggest challenge for SMRs is not technical but bureaucratic. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval process is slow and expensive. It can take several years just to complete environmental studies and obtain a construction permit.
To speed things up, states like Louisiana are working on legislation that would allow for faster environmental permitting at the state level. Senate Bill 127 would allow the state to prepare for SMR deployment as soon as the federal government gives the green light. “You have companies in states like Texas that are starting that process,” said Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Aurelia Skipwith Giacometto.
Even so, nuclear waste remains a concern. SMRs still produce radioactive fuel that must be stored safely for thousands of years. Holtec says its spent fuel will be stored underground for the reactor’s lifetime, around 80 to 100 years, but what happens after that remains uncertain.
Can SMRs Live Up to the Hype?
There are only two SMRs operating in the world today—one in Russia and one in China. In the United States, no commercial SMR has yet been built. Most projects remain in planning or licensing stages.
But the potential is significant. Supporters argue that SMRs can be deployed in remote regions, support industrial operations, and provide clean energy to growing populations. Some of the world’s largest tech companies—including Amazon, Microsoft, and Google—are now exploring SMRs to power data centers.
Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency said in 2024, “The shift in acceptance of nuclear reflects the realization that rapid, deep decarbonization, especially in hard-to-abate areas such as industry, will not be possible without a significant increase in nuclear capacity.”
Still, others remain cautious. “My position on SMRs is one of skepticism,” said Matthew McKinzie of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The future of this technology still remains unclear.”
Small modular reactors have the potential to transform the global energy landscape. Their smaller size, safety improvements, and flexibility could solve many of the problems that have plagued nuclear energy for decades. But they are still expensive, still untested at scale, and still deeply unpopular in many communities.
The next few years will be critical. If early projects succeed—on time, on budget, and with public support—they could open the door to a new era of nuclear power. But if they stumble, the promise of SMRs may be remembered as just another missed opportunity.
