Myth-busting Advanced nuclear (SMRs & Gen IV): 10 misconceptions holding teams back
Myths vs. realities, backed by recent evidence and practitioner experience. Focus on licensing, FOAK-to-NOAK cost curves, and supply chain readiness.
With over 80 SMR designs under development globally and more than $4.7 billion in private investment flowing into advanced nuclear between 2020 and 2025, small modular reactors and Generation IV technologies represent one of the most significant pivots in clean energy infrastructure since the commercialization of utility-scale solar. Yet persistent misconceptions continue to stall procurement decisions, delay supply chain partnerships, and create unnecessary friction in licensing pathways. This analysis separates evidence-based realities from entrenched myths, drawing on the latest NRC certification milestones, IAEA deployment projections, and first-of-a-kind (FOAK) project data to provide procurement and sustainability teams with the clarity needed to make informed decisions.
Why It Matters
The global energy transition requires firm, dispatchable clean power to complement variable renewables. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nuclear capacity must double by 2050 to meet net-zero targets, yet legacy gigawatt-scale plants face decade-long construction timelines and capital costs exceeding $10 billion. SMRs—defined as reactors generating 300 MWe or less—promise modular construction, standardized licensing, and deployment flexibility that could fundamentally reshape nuclear economics.
By late 2025, the NRC had certified NuScale's 50 MWe VOYGR design and was reviewing applications from X-energy, Kairos Power, and TerraPower. Canada's CNSC approved the BWRX-300 site license for Ontario Power Generation's Darlington project, marking the first grid-scale SMR under construction in North America. Meanwhile, China's HTR-PM high-temperature gas reactor achieved full commercial operation in 2024, and Russia's floating RITM-200 units continue serving Arctic communities.
These milestones matter for European procurement teams because the EU Taxonomy's inclusion of nuclear as a sustainable activity (under specific conditions) opens pathways for green bond financing, corporate power purchase agreements (PPAs), and Scope 2 emissions reductions that were previously contested. Understanding what SMRs and Gen IV reactors can realistically deliver—and where genuine constraints remain—is essential for capital allocation, grid planning, and decarbonization roadmaps through 2035.
Key Concepts
SMR Design Categories
SMR designs fall into three primary categories: light-water SMRs (LW-SMRs), which leverage existing pressurized and boiling water reactor technology at smaller scales; high-temperature gas reactors (HTGRs), which use graphite moderators and helium coolant to achieve outlet temperatures exceeding 750°C for industrial heat applications; and molten salt reactors (MSRs), which dissolve fuel in liquid fluoride or chloride salts, enabling online refueling and passive safety mechanisms. Each category presents distinct procurement considerations around fuel supply, operational flexibility, and waste characteristics.
Generation IV Reactor Systems
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) defines six advanced reactor concepts: sodium-fast reactors, lead-cooled fast reactors, gas-cooled fast reactors, molten salt reactors, supercritical water-cooled reactors, and very-high-temperature reactors. These systems aim for enhanced safety, improved fuel efficiency (including the ability to consume existing spent fuel stockpiles), reduced waste volumes, and proliferation resistance. While most remain in demonstration phases, sodium-fast reactors (like TerraPower's Natrium) and MSRs (like Kairos Power's KP-FHR) have attracted significant venture backing and regulatory engagement.
Passive Safety Systems
Unlike legacy reactors requiring active cooling pumps and operator intervention, advanced designs incorporate passive safety features that rely on natural physical phenomena—gravity, convection, and thermal expansion—to shut down reactors and remove decay heat without external power or human action. This fundamental architectural shift reduces accident probability and simplifies emergency planning zones.
Factory Fabrication and Modular Construction
The economic thesis for SMRs centers on factory fabrication of reactor modules, which can then be transported and assembled on-site. This approach shifts construction risk from bespoke field work to controlled manufacturing environments, enabling learning-curve cost reductions as production scales from FOAK to Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) units.
SMR and Gen IV Performance Metrics
| Metric | Current Range | NOAK Target | Industry Benchmark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overnight Capital Cost ($/kW) | 6,000–9,500 | 3,000–4,500 | Gas CCGT: 1,000–1,400 |
| Construction Duration (months) | 48–72 | 24–36 | Offshore Wind: 24–30 |
| Capacity Factor (%) | 85–92 | 93–95 | Nuclear Fleet Avg: 93 |
| Licensing Timeline (months) | 36–60 | 18–24 | Design Certification: 42 |
| LCOE ($/MWh) | 70–120 | 45–65 | Utility Solar: 25–40 |
| Load-Following Ramp Rate (%/min) | 3–5 | 5–10 | Gas Peaker: 8–12 |
What's Working and What Isn't
What's Working
NuScale's Standard Design Approval marked a watershed moment when the NRC issued the first-ever SMR design certification in January 2023, validating the 12-module VOYGR architecture. This regulatory precedent reduces licensing risk for subsequent applicants and establishes a reference framework for European and Asian regulators pursuing mutual recognition agreements.
BWRX-300 Progress demonstrates that simplified boiling water reactor designs can compress construction schedules. GE-Hitachi's design eliminates large-bore piping and recirculation pumps, reducing the number of safety-related components by 60% compared to legacy BWRs. Ontario Power Generation's Darlington project is targeting first power by 2028, with potential for fleet deployment across Canadian provinces.
Microreactor Demonstrations are advancing faster than grid-scale SMRs. The U.S. Department of Defense's Project Pele selected BWXT's transportable microreactor for prototype construction, with operational testing scheduled for 2027. These 1–10 MWe units could serve remote industrial sites, military installations, and mining operations where diesel generation currently dominates.
HALEU Fuel Supply Development has accelerated following DOE investments exceeding $700 million to establish domestic high-assay low-enriched uranium production. Centrus Energy's Piketon facility began HALEU production in late 2023, reducing dependence on Russian enrichment services for advanced reactor fuel.
What Isn't Working
FOAK Cost Escalation remains a persistent challenge. NuScale's Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) in Idaho was cancelled in November 2023 after cost estimates rose from $58/MWh to $89/MWh, reflecting the gap between design projections and actual construction bids. This outcome underscores the importance of realistic contingency planning and the recognition that FOAK projects carry inherent cost uncertainty.
Licensing Timeline Compression has proven slower than anticipated. Despite pre-application engagement, Kairos Power and X-energy still face multi-year review schedules, with full design certifications not expected until 2027–2028. The NRC's risk-informed framework is evolving but resource constraints limit parallel reviews.
Supply Chain Qualification gaps persist in specialized components like reactor pressure vessels, HALEU fuel assemblies, and advanced instrumentation. Limited manufacturing capacity and quality assurance bottlenecks create schedule risks that procurement teams must factor into deployment timelines.
Grid Interconnection Complexity challenges SMR projects in regions with congested transmission networks. Securing interconnection agreements, negotiating capacity payments, and navigating wholesale market rules designed for large baseload plants require substantial regulatory engagement beyond the reactor licensing process itself.
Key Players
Established Leaders
NuScale Power (Portland, Oregon) holds the only NRC-certified SMR design and is pursuing international deployments in Poland, Romania, and the Philippines despite the CFPP cancellation.
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy offers the BWRX-300, a 300 MWe simplified BWR with active projects in Canada and advanced discussions in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Westinghouse Electric Company is developing the AP300 SMR, leveraging its AP1000 operational experience in China and the United States to accelerate licensing.
Emerging Innovators
TerraPower (Bellevue, Washington), backed by Bill Gates, is constructing the Natrium sodium-fast reactor demonstration in Kemmerer, Wyoming, with commercial operation targeted for 2030.
Kairos Power (Alameda, California) is building the Hermes low-power demonstration reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, using its molten fluoride salt coolant technology.
X-energy (Rockville, Maryland) is developing the Xe-100 high-temperature gas reactor with DOE Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program funding, targeting industrial heat and hydrogen production markets.
Key Investors and Funders
U.S. Department of Energy has committed over $3.2 billion to advanced reactor demonstrations through ARDP and related programs. Breakthrough Energy Ventures has invested in TerraPower and other advanced nuclear startups. SK Inc. (South Korea) and Constellation Energy have announced strategic partnerships to support SMR deployment and fleet procurement.
10 Myths vs. Realities
Myth 1: SMRs Are Too Expensive to Compete with Renewables
Reality: Direct LCOE comparisons obscure the dispatchability premium. SMRs provide firm capacity with 90%+ availability, eliminating the need for battery storage or gas backup that renewables require for grid reliability. When system costs are included—transmission buildout, storage integration, and capacity payments—SMRs become competitive in many scenarios, particularly for industrial facilities requiring 24/7 power.
Myth 2: Nuclear Licensing Takes a Decade
Reality: NuScale achieved design certification in approximately six years from application submission. The NRC's Part 53 rulemaking, finalized in 2024, establishes a technology-inclusive framework that could reduce licensing timelines to three to four years for well-prepared applicants. Canadian and UK regulatory pathways are demonstrating similar efficiencies.
Myth 3: There's No Market for SMRs Below 300 MW
Reality: Data centers, mining operations, desalination plants, and hydrogen production facilities represent substantial demand for 50–300 MWe clean power sources. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have all announced nuclear power procurement initiatives, signaling that hyperscaler demand alone could absorb initial SMR production capacity.
Myth 4: SMRs Create More Waste Per kWh Than Large Reactors
Reality: This claim stems from a contested 2022 Stanford study that has been criticized for modeling assumptions. Actual waste volumes depend on burnup rates and fuel cycles. Advanced reactors using HALEU can achieve higher burnup, reducing spent fuel volumes per unit energy. Gen IV fast reactors can potentially consume existing spent fuel stockpiles, transforming waste into fuel.
Myth 5: Passive Safety Is Unproven Technology
Reality: Passive safety principles have operated successfully for decades. The AP1000's passive containment cooling system has functioned as designed at Vogtle and Sanmen. Experimental validation at national laboratories—including Argonne, Idaho, and Oak Ridge—has demonstrated passive shutdown and decay heat removal across multiple reactor concepts.
Myth 6: SMR Factory Fabrication Won't Achieve Cost Reductions
Reality: Manufacturing learning curves are well-established in aerospace, shipbuilding, and offshore energy. The challenge is achieving sufficient order volumes to justify factory investment. Consortium procurement models, where multiple utilities commit to fleet purchases, can bridge the FOAK-to-NOAK transition. South Korea's nuclear supply chain demonstrates that standardized production dramatically reduces unit costs.
Myth 7: HALEU Fuel Supply Is a Showstopper
Reality: While HALEU supply constraints are real, they are being addressed through DOE investments, Centrus production, and international partnerships. Urenco has announced HALEU enrichment capabilities, and the EU is exploring domestic production. By 2030, multiple suppliers are projected to offer commercial HALEU volumes sufficient for initial SMR deployments.
Myth 8: SMRs Can't Load-Follow to Complement Renewables
Reality: Several SMR designs explicitly incorporate load-following capability with ramp rates of 3–5% per minute, comparable to combined-cycle gas turbines. Cogeneration configurations—producing hydrogen, district heat, or desalinated water during low-demand periods—provide additional flexibility for grid integration without curtailing nuclear output.
Myth 9: Nuclear Proliferation Risks Make SMRs Unsuitable for Export
Reality: SMR designs incorporate enhanced proliferation resistance through sealed reactor modules, extended refueling cycles (10–20 years for some concepts), and low-enriched fuel that remains below weapons-grade thresholds. IAEA safeguards protocols apply equally to SMRs and large reactors, with additional protections for factory-sealed units.
Myth 10: Community Opposition Will Block Every Project
Reality: Polling consistently shows that communities hosting existing nuclear facilities support continued and expanded nuclear operations. Successful engagement strategies emphasize local economic benefits, transparent safety communication, and workforce development partnerships. The Kemmerer, Wyoming community actively welcomed TerraPower's Natrium project following coal plant closure announcements.
Action Checklist
- Conduct dispatchability-adjusted LCOE analysis comparing SMRs to renewables-plus-storage configurations for your specific load profile
- Identify internal champions and establish cross-functional working groups spanning procurement, sustainability, legal, and operations
- Engage with NRC, CNSC, or relevant national regulator on pre-application consultations to understand licensing timeline expectations
- Map supply chain readiness for critical components including HALEU fuel, reactor vessels, and instrumentation systems
- Evaluate consortium procurement opportunities with peer organizations to aggregate demand and accelerate NOAK economics
- Develop community engagement frameworks incorporating lessons from successful nuclear project siting experiences
- Assess grid interconnection requirements and begin early discussions with transmission operators
FAQ
Q: What is the realistic timeline for procuring SMR power for corporate PPAs? A: For projects currently in licensing, corporate PPAs could begin delivering power between 2030 and 2033. Earlier access may be available through existing nuclear fleet PPAs or virtual power purchase agreements (VPPAs) that support new nuclear development while providing immediate clean energy attributes.
Q: How do SMRs compare to large nuclear plants for Scope 2 emissions accounting? A: Both receive identical treatment under GHG Protocol guidance. Nuclear power carries a lifecycle carbon intensity of 5–15 gCO₂e/kWh, comparable to wind and lower than solar when manufacturing emissions are included. Market-based accounting requires energy attribute certificates or direct PPAs.
Q: Can SMRs qualify for EU Taxonomy-aligned green financing? A: Yes, provided projects meet the taxonomy's technical screening criteria, including adherence to best-available technology standards, comprehensive waste management plans, and compliance with Euratom nuclear safety requirements. Independent verification is required for taxonomy alignment claims.
Q: What insurance and liability frameworks apply to SMR projects? A: In the United States, the Price-Anderson Act provides liability coverage up to $13 billion through industry mutual insurance. European frameworks vary by country, with conventions like the Paris Convention and Brussels Supplementary Convention establishing liability limits and compensation mechanisms.
Q: How should procurement teams evaluate FOAK vs. NOAK project risk? A: FOAK projects carry higher schedule and cost uncertainty but may offer preferential pricing, influence over design specifications, and strategic positioning for future fleet procurement. Risk mitigation strategies include fixed-price EPC contracts with experienced nuclear constructors, milestone-based payments, and performance guarantees linked to operational targets.
Sources
- International Atomic Energy Agency. (2024). Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments. IAEA-TECDOC-2027.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2023). NuScale Standard Design Approval Final Safety Evaluation Report. NUREG-2246.
- International Energy Agency. (2024). Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions. IEA Publications.
- Generation IV International Forum. (2024). Annual Report: Progress on Generation IV Reactor Systems.
- U.S. Department of Energy. (2025). Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program: Status and Milestones. DOE/NE Report.
- World Nuclear Association. (2025). Small Modular Reactors: Global Status and Deployment Outlook.
- Nuclear Energy Institute. (2024). SMR Economic Competitiveness Study: System Cost Analysis.
Related Articles
Interview: the builder's playbook for Advanced nuclear (SMRs & Gen IV) — hard-earned lessons
A practitioner conversation: what surprised them, what failed, and what they'd do differently. Focus on licensing, FOAK-to-NOAK cost curves, and supply chain readiness.
Data story: key signals in Advanced nuclear (SMRs & Gen IV)
The 5–8 KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what the data suggests next. Focus on licensing, FOAK-to-NOAK cost curves, and supply chain readiness.
Deep dive: Advanced nuclear (SMRs & Gen IV) — the fastest-moving subsegments to watch
What's working, what isn't, and what's next — with the trade-offs made explicit. Focus on licensing, FOAK-to-NOAK cost curves, and supply chain readiness.