What it would take for small modular reactors to work in the EU
The EU’s ambition to expand clean, home-grown sources of energy is clear. Turning that ambition into reality will depend on whether the bloc can cut emissions from its energy system while guaranteeing an uninterrupted energy supply at competitive prices.
Small modular reactors, or SMRs, are increasingly part of this discussion for a simple reason. They combine two features that matter for the EU’s energy transition. They provide firm, low-carbon energy, and they are designed to be modular and repeatable. Together, those features set them apart from traditional large nuclear power plants and explain why they are attracting policy attention.
The crucial task for the EU is to establish the right policy and regulatory environment to enable SMRs to thrive and be deployed at scale, should Member States choose to pursue them. The bloc’s Strategy for SMRs that the European Commission is currently crafting is a pivotal opportunity to outline conducive measures for a rapid, harmonised, and cost-effective deployment of SMRs in the Union.
Why SMRs matter in a decarbonising system
At their core, SMRs offer continuous, low-carbon electricity. They operate regardless of weather conditions or time of day, which makes them different from variable renewable generation, like solar or wind, and valuable from a system perspective as renewables expand.
What also matters is how they are built. Unlike conventional nuclear plants, SMRs are designed as smaller units, with more of the construction process taking place in factories rather than entirely on site. That modular approach is intended to support serial production, more predictable and shortened build schedules, and cost learning over time. Some features may address problems of gigawatt-scale plants, like recurring First-Of-A-Kind cycles and lengthy builds that increase costs, however, all these claims are yet to be proven.
SMRs can also do more than generate electricity. They can supply industrial heat and provide electricity and heat that can support low-carbon hydrogen production. That matters for parts of the economy where direct electrification is difficult and clean energy demand is expected to grow.
Momentum exists, but coordination remains weak
Across the EU, SMR activity is visible in a number of Member States, with projects identified in current pipelines and several designs under consideration. This reflects growing interest in the potential role SMRs could play in a clean energy system.
At the same time, there is a clear risk. If this technology develops in a fragmented way, the EU could end up with a series of isolated projects, each following different nationally prescribed licensing processes, financing models, and technical approaches. That would limit the benefits of modularity and standardisation, keeping costs high and timelines uncertain.
The issue is not whether SMR projects exist. It is whether the EU can move beyond one-off projects and enable repeatable deployment by systematically removing barriers to standardisation and serial production.
Table 1: European SMR Deployment Overview (Based on official sources; not exhaustive)
| Country | Project / Company | Status (per official source) | Expected Deployment (per official source) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Project / Company | Status (per official source) | Expected Deployment (per official source) |
| France | NUWARD (EDF) | In design phase and programme development. 2nd phase of joint early review process | in 2030s |
| Romania | NuScale Voygr (Nuclearelectrica / RoPower) | FEED Phase 2 contract signed (July 2024); Doicești site confirmed; IAEA SEED follow-up found site selection process compliant | 2029 |
| Czechia | Rolls-Royce SMR + ČEZ | Early Works Agreement signed (July 2025) covering preparatory work (licensing, environmental assessments) for Temelín | No official deployment date announced |
| Sweden | Vattenfall + GE Hitachi or RollsRoyce | Feasibility studies launched – Vattenfall assessing SMR deployment options at Ringhals | 3-5 reactors. First in operation by mid 2030s at the earliest |
| Estonia | Fermi Energia (BWRX-300) | BWRX-300 technology selected; pre-licensing work ongoing | the early 2030s |
| Poland | OSGE (Orlen Synthos Green Energy – BWRX-300) | Advanced planning phase: 1st site selected – Włocławek | two SMR units totalling 0.6 GW by 2035 |
| Italy | newcleo + ENEA (R&D collaboration) | Ongoing cooperation in R&D and design – advanced reactor development projects in progress | No official deployment date announced |
| Finland | Steady Energy (LDR-50 – district heating SMR) | Pre-commercial stage; positive preliminary regulator (STUK) assessment; preparations for pilot plant underway | Steady Energy: pilot plant targeted for early 2030s |
Structural barriers are slowing progress
The main obstacles are not technical. They sit in policy design and institutional processes.
State aid approval timelines are one example. While it is encouraging to see faster progress, such as the European Commission’s approval of Poland’s state aid package for its first nuclear power plant in December 2025, which was completed in roughly a year, long and uncertain processes continue to delay investment decisions and are poorly suited to infrastructure that may be deployed in multiple units across different Member States. Greater clarity and predictability are needed for priority low-carbon projects especially where injection of private of capital is needed as in the case of SMRs.
Financing is another challenge. Many existing support mechanisms focus on electricity price risk, while SMRs face significant construction risk and may produce energy across several vectors, not just electricity. A broader set of financing and ownership models is needed, giving Member States flexibility to choose approaches that fit their national context and encourage private investment.
Access to EU-level funding also remains uneven. Although nuclear was included in the EU taxonomy, eligibility for EU and European Investment Bank support is not always clear in practice. Greater consistency and clarity would help reduce uncertainty and support investment.
Licensing remains largely national, fragmented, and overly rigid. While responsibility over nuclear safety should and must stay under national authority, repeat assessments of the same designs increase costs and slow deployment. Stronger cooperation and knowledge sharing between regulators (such as joint reviews), streamlined approvals for non-nuclear structures, and greater alignment on safety methodologies could reduce duplication without lowering safety standards.
From first projects to repeatable deployment
If SMRs are to deliver on their potential, early deployment needs focus.
The EU currently has many SMR concepts at different stages of development – the European Industrial Alliance for SMRs currently supports eight different technologies, too many for the first wave of deployment. Concentrating early efforts on a limited number of sufficiently mature designs would allow regulatory experience, supply chain investment, and workforce development to build over time while efficiently deploying scarce development resources. Transparent criteria for identifying these early designs can support convergence while leaving room for future innovation.
Replication matters. Building the same design multiple times is what enables learning, cost reductions, and more reliable delivery schedules. That does not happen if every project is treated as a one-off leading to significant design variation to adjust for divergent national regulatory frameworks.
Planning for scale
Workforce availability and nuclear-grade manufacturing capacity will shape how quickly SMRs can be rolled out. Long-term waste management also requires early planning, particularly if SMRs are deployed across more Member States. Addressing these issues alongside deployment pathways is essential for credibility and public confidenc
Deployment strategies need to go hand in hand with preparation.
The role of EU-level coordination
EU institutions can help reduce risk and improve consistency across Member States.
The European Investment Bank, with its experience financing large infrastructure projects, is well placed to support SMR deployment through dedicated financing platforms. These can help standardise project assessment, share early-stage risk, and crowd in private capital, all of which would help provide Member States with crucial guidance for nuclear energy deployment. Coordination with international initiatives involving organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Bank can further strengthen confidence and align best practices.
Why timing matters
Early SMR projects will be more expensive and take longer to deliver. That is normal for first deployments of complex infrastructure. What matters is whether Europe creates the conditions for costs and timelines to improve through standardisation, learning, and stable project pipelines.
Putting the right frameworks in place now preserves optionality for Member States and sectors of the economy. It ensures that SMRs can be properly assessed and, if chosen, deployed at a scale and pace that aligns with the EU’s climate and energy objectives.
A pragmatic role for SMRs
Clean Air Task Force approaches SMRs as one part of a broader clean energy portfolio. The aim is not to elevate one technology over others, but to make sure the EU has access to all viable low-carbon options needed to deliver a reliable and cost-competitive energy system.
Getting the policy, regulatory, and financing frameworks right is the practical task ahead of the European Commission as it drafts the EU SMR Strategy.
View CATF’s recommendations for the EU SMR Strategy here.
