Nuclear power plants, for decades, have been the silent workhorses of national grids, providing consistent, emission-free electricity. However, many of these reactors, predominantly built between the 1960s and 1980s, are approaching or have already surpassed their originally envisioned operating nuclear plant lifespans of 40 years. Faced with the immediate need for reliable, carbon-free power and the immense costs associated with decommissioning, extending these lifespans has become an increasingly attractive proposition. This decision isn’t merely a technical one it’s a strategic calculation involving long-term energy security, economic viability, environmental commitments, and the political will to support an essential segment of our low-carbon electricity infrastructure.

The Imperative of Extending Existing Nuclear Plant Lifespans

The rationale for extending the nuclear plant lifespans of operational reactors is multifaceted and compelling. Firstly, from an environmental perspective, these plants are already producing vast quantities of low-carbon electricity, contributing significantly to climate change mitigation efforts. Shutting them down prematurely would necessitate their replacement, often by fossil fuel-fired alternatives in the short term, thereby increasing carbon emissions, or by renewable sources that, while vital, still require significant grid modernization and storage solutions for consistent baseload delivery. Extending their operation preserves a significant portion of a nation’s carbon-free generating capacity without incurring the immediate emissions associated with new construction.

Secondly, economic considerations play a crucial role. Existing nuclear plants represent massive sunk investments, with much of their initial capital costs already amortized. The marginal cost of electricity production from an operating nuclear plant is often highly competitive, especially when compared to the escalating costs of fossil fuels or the enormous upfront capital required for new nuclear builds. Prolonging their operation ensures continued returns on these initial investments, delaying the need for costly decommissioning, and maintaining a stable employment base of highly skilled workers. This also contributes to overall power market reliability, offering consistent generation that is not subject to the intermittency of many renewable sources.

Finally, extending nuclear plant lifespans supports national energy security. By maintaining a diverse energy mix, countries reduce their reliance on volatile global energy markets and enhance the resilience of their grids against external shocks. Nuclear power’s ability to operate independently of weather patterns and fuel supply fluctuations (once fuel is onsite) makes it an invaluable asset in ensuring continuous power availability. This strategy is an integral part of a comprehensive clean energy strategy, bridging the gap while new technologies and renewable infrastructure mature.

The Strategy of Nuclear Plant Retrofit: Modernizing for Longevity

When one speaks of extending nuclear plant lifespans, they are largely referring to a nuclear plant retrofit program. This is not simply a matter of continuing to run the same machinery it involves comprehensive upgrades, component replacements, and rigorous safety reviews designed to ensure the plant can operate safely and efficiently for an additional 20 or even 40 years beyond its original design life.

The scope of a nuclear plant retrofit can be extensive. It typically includes replacing major components like steam generators, turbines, or even reactor vessel heads. Instrumentation and control systems are often upgraded from analog to digital, improving reliability, diagnostics, and operational efficiency. Furthermore, extensive materials analysis and aging management programs are put in place to monitor and mitigate the effects of radiation, temperature, and pressure on crucial components. Seismic upgrades, fire protection enhancements, and improved security measures are also common elements of these life extension projects.

Advantages of Retrofitting

The primary allure of a nuclear plant retrofit lies in its comparatively lower capital expenditure and faster deployment time relative to building a new plant from scratch. By leveraging existing infrastructure the physical plant, transmission lines, cooling systems, and highly specialized workforce the financial and logistical hurdles are significantly reduced. This approach can bring a plant back to full operational capacity, or even enhance it, within a few years of project initiation, as opposed to the decade-plus construction timelines often associated with new nuclear builds. Moreover, extending the reactor life extension of an existing facility allows for the retention of invaluable institutional knowledge and a skilled workforce, preventing a brain drain in the nuclear sector. This helps maintain crucial expertise for future endeavors within the broader energy transition.

Challenges of Retrofitting

Despite the clear advantages, nuclear plant retrofit is not without its complexities. Regulatory scrutiny is intense, requiring detailed safety analyses and demonstrations that the plant can continue to meet or exceed modern nuclear safety upgrades standards. These reviews can be protracted and expensive. Unexpected findings during component inspection or replacement can lead to cost overruns and project delays. Furthermore, while the overall capital costs are lower than new builds, individual component replacements can still be substantial, and the plant must be taken offline for extended periods, impacting revenue generation and requiring careful planning for alternative power sources. The cumulative effect of numerous small-scale upgrades over several decades can also introduce operational complexities, necessitating highly skilled personnel to manage diverse systems.

The Ambition of New Nuclear Builds: A Clean Slate

In stark contrast to retrofitting, the development of new nuclear builds represents a profound commitment to the future of nuclear power, offering the opportunity to incorporate the latest advancements in reactor design, safety, and efficiency. This path is often chosen when a nation aims to significantly expand its nuclear capacity, replace an entire aging fleet, or integrate new technologies into its energy mix.

Modern new nuclear builds span a spectrum of designs, from large, gigawatt-scale Generation III+ reactors like the EPR or AP1000, to the highly anticipated Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and even Generation IV designs. These newer designs feature enhanced passive safety systems, which rely on natural forces like gravity and convection rather than active pumps or human intervention to cool the reactor in an emergency. They also often boast higher fuel efficiency, longer operational lifespans (typically 60-80 years from the outset), and simplified construction methodologies designed to reduce costs and timelines.

Advantages of New Builds

The primary benefit of new nuclear builds is the opportunity for a “clean slate.” Designers can incorporate decades of operational experience and advanced scientific understanding into the reactor’s blueprint, resulting in inherently safer, more robust, and more efficient plants. SMRs, in particular, hold the promise of factory fabrication, standardization, and modular construction, which could drastically reduce construction risks, costs, and schedules, making nuclear power accessible to a broader range of markets and applications. These new plants are designed with modern nuclear safety upgrades integrated from the ground up, providing the highest levels of protection. Moreover, new builds can revitalize supply chains, create long-term jobs, and establish a new generation of expertise in nuclear technology, supporting a nation’s overarching clean energy strategy.

Challenges of New Builds

Despite the visionary appeal, the challenges associated with new nuclear builds are formidable. The most significant hurdle is undoubtedly the nuclear energy costs. Large-scale projects require billions of dollars in upfront capital, often taking a decade or more from conception to commissioning. These projects are highly susceptible to cost overruns and construction delays, making them financially risky propositions without strong government backing or innovative financing models. Public perception, particularly in the wake of past accidents, remains a significant barrier, leading to prolonged regulatory processes and potential public opposition. Furthermore, the question of long-term radioactive waste management continues to be a contentious issue that new builds must address, even with advancements in fuel cycles. These factors collectively impact the financial viability and overall power market reliability of new nuclear ventures.

A Comparative Analysis: Retrofit vs. New Build Costs and Considerations

The decision between a nuclear plant retrofit and new nuclear builds is rarely straightforward. It involves a complex weighting of various factors, with nuclear energy costs often being the decisive element.

From a purely financial perspective, reactor life extension typically presents a more attractive immediate option. The cost per installed kilowatt for a retrofit project is generally significantly lower than for a new build. For instance, extending the life of an existing plant might cost hundreds of millions to a few billion dollars, whereas a single large new nuclear build can easily exceed $10 billion, sometimes reaching upwards of $20-30 billion. The payback period for retrofits is also shorter, as the plant is already generating revenue and can resume operations relatively quickly after the upgrade.

However, this perspective simplifies the long-term view. While new builds have higher upfront nuclear energy costs, their extended design lifespans (60-80 years vs. 20-40 years for an extended existing plant) and potentially lower operational and maintenance costs (due to modern design and fewer legacy issues) might offer better long-term value. New builds also come with the promise of enhanced safety features and potentially higher efficiency, which translate into more robust power market reliability.

The timeframe is another crucial differentiator. Retrofits, while requiring outages, are generally completed within a few years. New nuclear builds, conversely, can take a decade or more, meaning their contribution to low-carbon electricity generation is deferred significantly. This timeline disparity is critical for nations with urgent decarbonization targets or immediate power supply shortfalls. The environmental footprint of construction also needs to be considered while both result in low-carbon electricity, the initial construction phase of a new build is more resource-intensive. The continuous integration of nuclear safety upgrades is paramount in both scenarios, ensuring public trust and regulatory compliance regardless of the age or origin of the plant.

Policy, Safety, and the Future of Nuclear Energy

The trajectory of nuclear plant lifespans, whether through retrofits or new builds, is inextricably linked to national energy policy and a steadfast commitment to nuclear safety upgrades. Governments play a crucial role in providing the regulatory certainty, financial incentives, and public education necessary to support nuclear energy. Policies that streamline licensing processes, offer loan guarantees, or implement carbon pricing mechanisms can significantly de-risk nuclear investments, making both retrofits and new builds more palatable.

Public perception, too, is a powerful determinant. Fostering trust through transparent communication about safety protocols, waste management, and the overall benefits of nuclear power is vital. Continuous investment in nuclear safety upgrades is not just a regulatory requirement but a moral imperative, rebuilding and maintaining public confidence in the technology. Accidents, even minor ones, can have disproportionately negative impacts on public support and hence, the future of nuclear plant lifespans and new projects.

Looking ahead, PowerGen Advancement notes that the technological advancements, particularly in SMRs and advanced reactor designs, could reshape the dynamics of this debate. SMRs, with their potential for smaller footprints, reduced capital costs, and suitability for diverse applications (including industrial heat and hydrogen production), might offer a compelling “middle ground,” blending some of the advantages of both retrofit (relatively faster deployment compared to large-scale builds) and new builds (modern safety and design). These innovations are crucial for strengthening nuclear’s role in the broader energy transition and ensuring its continued contribution to a resilient clean energy strategy.

In conclusion, the question of extending nuclear plant lifespans through retrofits versus investing in new nuclear builds is not a simplistic either/or proposition. It is a nuanced strategic decision influenced by a nation’s specific energy needs, economic realities, regulatory environment, and long-term vision for a sustainable future. Retrofitting offers a pragmatic, cost-effective, and quicker path to maintaining existing low-carbon electricity generation, leveraging established infrastructure and expertise while undergoing continuous nuclear safety upgrades. Conversely, new nuclear builds represent an ambitious leap forward, embracing advanced technologies for enhanced safety and efficiency, albeit with significantly higher nuclear energy costs and longer lead times. PowerGen Advancement believes both strategies are vital components of a comprehensive clean energy strategy aimed at achieving decarbonization goals and bolstering power market reliability. As the world continues its urgent pivot away from fossil fuels, nuclear energy, in its various forms, will undoubtedly remain a cornerstone of the global energy transition, with careful, informed decisions about its lifespan and expansion shaping our collective future.

The ministry presented these figures at a panel meeting, emphasizing the strategic importance of the nuclear reactor replacement plan in maintaining investor confidence and attracting skilled professionals to the nuclear industry. The announcement reflects Japan’s evolving approach to energy security, particularly as the nation faces anticipated growth in electricity consumption driven by technological advancement and industrial expansion.

Japan’s energy landscape has undergone considerable transformation since the catastrophic tsunami-induced Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of March 2011. Rather than continuing to reduce reliance on nuclear power, the government has progressively shifted its strategy toward maximizing utilization of this energy source. The revised basic energy plan, finalized in 2025, establishes an ambitious objective of sourcing 20 percent of the nation’s electricity from nuclear power by 2040.

Achieving this target of replacing 14 nuclear reactors requires more than simply restarting existing reactors that have been temporarily offline. The nuclear reactor replacement plan represents a critical component of this broader energy strategy, particularly as Japan anticipates increased electricity demand driven by the proliferation of artificial intelligence applications and other advanced technologies throughout the economy.

The replacement proposal for 14 nuclear reactors likely derive from industry estimates projecting a significant power generation shortfall by the 2040s. Electric power companies forecast that Japan will face a deficit of approximately 5.5 million kilowatts of capacity, roughly equivalent to the output of five nuclear reactors. This projection underscores the urgency of implementing the nuclear reactor replacement plan to prevent potential energy security challenges.

Currently, Japan operates under regulatory frameworks that cap reactor operating lifespans at 60 years. Several facilities across the country have already been opearting for 50 years, making decommissioning and replacement essential considerations. At present, 24 reactors are undergoing decommissioning work at 11 nuclear power stations nationwide.

The government has identified specific potential locations for nuclear reactor construction. The Mihama power station in Fukui Prefecture and the Sendai complex in Kagoshima Prefecture have been mentioned as possible sites for deploying new nuclear reactor facilities as part of the comprehensive nuclear reactor replacement program.

The Central Asian nation, which is the world’s largest producer of uranium, has been exploring the prospect of atomic energy for over two decades. A nationwide referendum conducted in 2024 overwhelmingly supported the construction of a nuclear power plant, with the village of Ulken on the shores of Lake Balkhash designated as the chosen site for this ambitious project.

“The agreement signed today on the construction of the Balkhash NPP has an important role,” Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Kazakhstan’s president, said before thanking Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was in Astana for talks, for his support.

“Putting the ⁠plant ⁠into operation will make a significant contribution to the energy supply of the Kazakh economy,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

An accompanying agreement was also executed to secure Russian export credit, which will finance the construction of the USD 16.5B nuclear power plant. Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, has been awarded the lead role in building the plant, having successfully outbid competitors including China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), French utility EDF, and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power.

Almasadam Satkaliyev, head of Kazakhstan’s atomic energy agency, informed reporters that the total cost of the nuclear power plant, which will be equipped with two VVER-1200 III+ reactors, is estimated at approximately $16.5 billion. This figure includes an allocation of around $2 billion dedicated to security and necessary infrastructure development.

Construction of the USD 16.5B nuclear power plant is scheduled to commence in 2027, with the initial reactor expected to be commissioned by early 2034. The undertaking of the Kazakhstan nuclear power plant deal comes after decades of grappling with the legacy of Soviet nuclear weapons testing, which rendered substantial areas of land uninhabitable and led to various health issues in nearby populations, fostering a degree of public apprehension towards nuclear technology.

Despite possessing significant natural gas reserves, Kazakhstan, a nation of 20 million, currently relies heavily on coal-fired power plants for the majority of its electricity needs. While supplemented by hydroelectric power and a growing renewable energy sector, the country faces challenges in meeting its escalating energy demands. Kazakhstan imports electricity, primarily from Russia, as its aging power generation facilities struggle to keep pace with domestic consumption. In a separate development, Kazakhstan has also approved the construction of a second nuclear plant, with CNNC designated as the primary constructor for that facility.

Under the terms of the agreement, Doosan Enerbility will undertake comprehensive manufacturability reviews for major reactor components, a crucial step in ensuring the efficient and reliable production of these advanced systems. The centerpiece of this partnership involves the manufacturing of reactor vessels, a critical element for the planned Rolls-Royce SMR developments. These projects, specifically the Wylfa site in Britain and the Temelín site in the Czech Republic, are considered pivotal initiatives for the widespread adoption of SMR technology in Europe.

Rolls-Royce SMR, established in 2021, is developing a 470-megawatt small modular reactor designed to deliver stable baseload electricity for a operational lifespan of at least 60 years. The company has been making substantial progress in advancing its projects. In April, a contract was signed with Great British Energy-Nuclear, the UK’s state-backed nuclear entity, initiating site-specific design work for three reactors planned at Wylfa. Furthermore, Rolls-Royce SMR has entered into a construction preparation agreement with the Czech energy company ČEZ, advancing licensing procedures and preliminary design work for the Temelín project.

Kim Jong-doo, head of Doosan Enerbility’s Nuclear Business Group, emphasized the significance of this partnership, viewing it as a crucial milestone in broadening the company’s role within the global SMR supply chain. Doosan Enerbility plans to leverage its extensive expertise in manufacturing nuclear power plant equipment to support the successful realization of Rolls-Royce SMR projects.

To strengthen its competitive edge in the SMR sector, Doosan Enerbility has been actively enhancing its production capabilities. The company is proceeding with plans to establish a dedicated SMR factory at its Changwon headquarters. This facility will incorporate advanced manufacturing technologies, including powder metallurgy hot isostatic pressing, aimed at improving the efficiency of producing critical reactor components.

The pivotal agreement was inked by Belgium’s Federal Minister of Energy, Mathieu Bihet, and Dutch State Secretary for Climate and Green Growth, Jo-Annes de Bat, during the BeNeNuc Summit. The MoU outlines a framework for deepening the Belgium-Netherlands nuclear energy cooperation, emphasizing a shared objective to expand the research and development base and intensify the sharing of expertise. Regular consultations are planned to facilitate this exchange.

Belgium’s established industrial expertise in nuclear power, derived from its larger fleet of operational nuclear power plants, offers a valuable resource for the Netherlands. Conversely, the Netherlands is poised to contribute insights gained from its experience in constructing new nuclear power plants and its advancements in small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology. This includes expertise in critical areas such as site research, permitting processes, and the procurement of components for nuclear facilities. The Belgium-Netherlands nuclear energy cooperation seeks to leverage these complementary strengths.

A significant aspect of this partnership involves strengthening the broader nuclear energy supply chain. Both countries intend to facilitate connections between companies and knowledge organizations involved in the nuclear energy sector, encouraging them to collaborate and reinforce mutual capabilities. Governments will actively promote business partnerships within this domain.

Furthermore, a joint commitment has been made to cultivate the knowledge and skills required for the nuclear sector workforce. This initiative addresses the substantial employment needs during the construction phases of new nuclear power plants, which can involve thousands of employees. Joint training programs are envisioned as a key mechanism to achieve this objective. The Belgium-Netherlands nuclear energy cooperation also extends to addressing the complexities of radioactive waste management, storage, and disposal.

Bihet underscored the importance of collaboration for future European nuclear endeavors, stating, “Belgium and the Netherlands possess recognised expertise and wish to join forces today to contribute to the development of a more robust, innovative, and independent European nuclear ecosystem.”

Jo-Annes de Bat highlighted the Netherlands’ current strategic juncture, noting, “In a sector currently brimming with developments and benefitting from a high density of knowledge, cooperation with neighbouring countries is essential. With Belgium, we can give our mutual ambitions the necessary boost. In doing so, we strengthen the sector and also contribute to broader European development.”

Speaking during the meeting, Gordon emphasized the growing importance of energy supply for emerging technologies. “We can see that we can provide tremendous energy that will help power artificial intelligence, the AI revolution, which we know is very important to meet [demand],” Gordon said. He further stated that cooperation between Taiwan and Wyoming creates an opportunity to “lead the world” in carbon capture, utilization and sequestration while proving the feasibility of reaching net-zero emissions goals. Gordon also said his administration hopes to deepen economic cooperation that could support future infrastructure construction projects in Wyoming. The latest agreements further expand engagement in CCU and SMR technology, an area both parties view as strategically significant.

In remarks delivered during the same occasion, Lai said the MOUs were signed between the University of Wyoming, Taiwan’s National Central University and the National Atomic Research Institute. Lai added that a separate letter of intent covering cooperation on carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technologies had also been concluded between the university and the Industrial Technology Research Institute. The agreements reinforce expanding work surrounding CCU and SMR technology as Taiwan continues evaluating long-term energy security strategies amid increasing industrial electricity demand.

Lai also referred to comments he made in March, when he said the decommissioned Kuosheng Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei and Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County “meet the conditions for reactivation.” According to Lai, restarting the facilities would help address electricity requirements driven by the AI era and broader international energy challenges. The proposal prompted criticism from anti-nuclear activists and renewed scrutiny over the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s nuclear-free homeland policy. Shortly afterward, the Executive Yuan said safety assessments for restarting the plants would be submitted to the Nuclear Safety Commission by the end of 2027, while reiterating that nuclear energy would only be readopted if safety standards are met, nuclear waste storage issues are resolved and sufficient public backing exists. During Tuesday’s meeting, Lai also highlighted an MOU signed last year between the Wyoming Energy Authority and Taiwan Association of Quantum Computing and Information Technology to jointly advance quantum technologies. He described Gordon’s second visit to Taiwan since April last year as evidence of strengthening relations, noting that cooperation has expanded from agriculture and education into trade, energy and technology, including growing collaboration in CCU and SMR technology.

Officials, diplomats, and industry leaders at the event highlighted the potential role of small modular reactors in assisting Vietnam to diversify its energy sources. This focus aligns with the country’s ambitious target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Đào Quang Bính, General Director of VnEconomy, a co-organizer of the conference, noted in his opening remarks that the global energy sector is at a critical juncture. He emphasized that in the face of climate change and supply chain vulnerabilities, the commitment to net-zero is now a driving force behind investment trends.

Within Vietnam, energy security is identified as a paramount concern, fueling the demand for clean, reliable, and self-sufficient power generation. The exploration of SMR models is intrinsically linked to the development of new energy strategies under the revised Power Development Plan VIII, providing a foundational basis for a sustainable national energy strategy.

Dmitry Aleksandrovich Raspopin, a representative from Rosatom in Vietnam, elaborated on the advantages offered by SMRs in meeting contemporary energy demands. He described the technology as adaptable, with applications extending beyond electricity generation to include district heating and cooling, powering data centers, and replacing conventional power plants. The compact nature of SMRs and their reduced emergency planning zones are seen as facilitators for integration into existing urban environments. Furthermore, these reactors are considered well-suited for smaller power grids and remote locations that present logistical challenges. SMRs provide efficient land utilization and near-zero emissions, while ensuring a stable and continuous power supply irrespective of weather patterns. Rosatom is currently involved in a substantial number of global nuclear power plant projects.

Susie Ho, Director of New Nuclear at Laurentis Energy Partners, observed that the international nuclear sector has entered a new phase of deployment, with countries transitioning from making pledges to actively commencing construction. She identified 2024 as a pivotal year for the industry, citing commitments made at COP28 by over 20 nations to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. The key question, she stated, is the practical realization of these ambitious targets.

Ho further indicated that progress in nuclear development hinges on expedited licensing processes, robust supply chains, and dedicated workforce development. She anticipates the next five years will be crucial for shifting focus from planning to implementation, driven by decarbonization imperatives, energy security concerns, and the escalating power demands of artificial intelligence. Laurentis Energy Partners projects that by 2030, between 20 and 30 SMR projects could be in construction or advanced licensing stages globally, representing a market value of $100-150 billion.

However, she also cautioned about significant structural challenges facing the industry. These include a shortage of skilled labor, diminished deployment capacity following years of project stagnation, and an underdeveloped supply chain for nuclear-grade components. Many suppliers are unable to meet stringent nuclear quality standards, and certification processes, such as ISO 9001, entail considerable upfront investment. A primary obstacle lies in the reluctance of suppliers to invest without secured contracts, while projects remain stalled without certified suppliers. The nuclear sector also competes with the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence industry for critical materials like copper and high-voltage electrical equipment, as AI-driven data center expansion drives prices to multi-decade highs.

Beyond technical hurdles and workforce deficits, financing remains a principal challenge for nuclear power, given the substantial initial capital investment required and extended payback periods. To address this, several countries have implemented innovative financing mechanisms designed to mitigate investor risk and enhance the bankability of nuclear projects.

Ho suggested that Vietnam need not bear the entire financial burden of nuclear power development independently. Appropriately structured financing could effectively align the interests of the state, electricity consumers, and international investors. She affirmed Vietnam’s capacity and ambition to participate, emphasizing a shift in focus from feasibility studies to the construction of the necessary infrastructure to support long-term nuclear advancement and solidify the nation’s position as a clean energy industrial hub. The era of nuclear power deployment, she concluded, presents a significant opportunity for Vietnam to embrace.

Previously, the Ministry of Industry and Trade put forward a proposal to permit private enterprises to engage in the research and development of small modular reactors. This proposal is part of a draft resolution aimed at dismantling barriers to national energy development between 2026 and 2030. Article 10, Chapter III of the draft, would allow private companies to conduct research and invest in SMR projects. The draft resolution encourages private sector participation in SMR development to provide electricity for industrial ventures, including steel plants, petrochemical complexes, and data centers. Private entities may also partake in joint research, technology development, and technology transfer initiatives. For the public sector, state-owned corporations and research institutes will be authorized to collaborate with private investors throughout the entire process, from initial research and technological development to construction and operation.

At the same time, ČEZ established a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Industry and Trade to evaluate potential investment models. This secondary agreement creates a specific working group designed to figure out funding mechanisms, foster cooperation between the governments of the UK and the Czech Republic, and ensure the project aligns with current legislative and regulatory standards.

Daniel Beneš, Chairman of the Board and CEO of ČEZ, which holds a 20% stake in Rolls-Royce SMR, said: “ČEZ’s cooperation with Rolls-Royce SMR offers a unique opportunity for growth and prosperity in the field of nuclear energy, also thanks to our participation in the development of the technology. Thanks to the small modular reactor project, the Czech Republic and Czech industry can use and further deepen their traditional nuclear know-how. We are counting on small modular reactors alongside large nuclear power plants and renewable sources … equally important is the memorandum concluded with the state. State support is essential for such a large project, similar to the construction of new nuclear sources in Dukovany.”

Government representatives have also emphasized the broader strategic significance of the early works contract signing.

Karel Havlíček, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Trade of Czech Republic, said: “The Czech Republic must build its energy future on stable, safe and emission-free sources that will ensure affordable energy prices and the long-term competitiveness of the industry. Small modular reactors represent a technological opportunity with a European impact and at the same time a chance for Czech companies and research to join the top of the global nuclear industry.”

Chris Cholerton, Rolls-Royce SMR CEO, added: “This important contract unlocks a significant programme of work at the Temelín site, which will be delivered alongside our strategic partner and shareholder, ČEZ … with contractual commitments now in place in both the UK and Czechia, Rolls-Royce SMR becomes the only company with multiple contractual commitments to deliver SMR units in Europe.”

Recently Rolls Royce-SMR formalised a contract with Great British Energy-Nuclear for the deployment of UK’s first SMR technology.

The origins of the project trace back to January 2014, when the government approved the construction of two APR1400 units designated as Saeul units 3 and 4, previously referred to as Shin Kori 5 and 6. Although construction was initially expected to begin in September 2014, the timeline shifted, with the regulator ultimately granting a construction licence in June 2016. Site activities commenced immediately thereafter, and construction of unit 3 officially began in April 2017. However, a change in government in June 2017 prompted Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) to halt work for three months. Progress resumed in October 2017 following a government-organised committee vote, where 59.5% supported continuing the project, citing power supply stability as a key factor. Construction of unit 4 later began in September 2018.

Before these delays, the two units were slated for commercial operation in March 2021 and March 2022. However, the timeline has since shifted significantly. In late December 2025, the NSSC granted an operating licence for the Saeul unit 3 reactor, clearing the way for fuel loading and an estimated eight months of testing. Commercial operation is now anticipated around August 2026, while Saeul 4 is expected to come online in late 2026. The NSSC has stated it will carry out additional follow-up inspections, including power increase tests, from the point at which the Saeul unit 3 reactor achieves first criticality, defined as a sustained chain reaction, through to full commercial operation.

Once operational, the Saeul unit 3 reactor is projected to contribute approximately 1.7% of South Korea’s total power generation and meet around 37% of Ulsan’s electricity demand. South Korea currently operates four APR1400 units, including Saeul units 1 and 2 and Shin Hanul units 1 and 2, while Saeul units 3 and 4 remain under construction. Beyond domestic deployment, four APR1400 reactors have also been completed at the Barakah nuclear power plant in the UAE, where they are now fully operational.

By combining AFRY’s technical capabilities with GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s  BWRX-300 technology and worldwide project experience, the partnership creates a framework designed to facilitate effective, repeatable, and scalable project execution of SMR deployment across numerous European initiatives. AFRY will provide core engineering services and assist in preparing a licensing application for the BWRX-300 to be submitted to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM). This phase of the regulations pertaining to the use of SMRs in Sweden is crucial. “This agreement reflects our commitment to building a strong Swedish and European industrial ecosystem around the BWRX-300, going beyond reactor technology to enable long-term collaboration, local capability development and regional value creation,” said GVH CEO Jason Cooper.

“Through the collaboration with GE Vernova Hitachi, we aim to help position Sweden as a key hub in the future SMR value chain as well as advancing Sweden’s nuclear power programme,” said Elon Hägg, EVP and Head of Global Division Energy at AFRY. The partnership builds on earlier developments, including a March 2022 memorandum of understanding between Swedish SMR project developer Kärnfull Next and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy regarding the deployment of the BWRX-300 in Sweden. At the policy level, the Swedish government received an application for state aid in December 2025 supporting proposals for either five GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 reactors or three Rolls-Royce SMRs, aimed at delivering approximately 1,500 MW capacity at Ringhals on the Värö Peninsula. The application was submitted by Videberg Kraft AB, a project entity owned by Vattenfall AB and supported by multiple industrial stakeholders through the Industrikraft i Sverige AB consortium.

The BWRX-300 itself is a 300 MWe water-cooled, natural circulation SMR equipped with passive safety systems. It builds on the design and licensing foundation of GVH’s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-certified ESBWR boiling water reactor and incorporates the existing, licensed GNF2 fuel design. Construction of the first BWRX-300 is currently underway at Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington site in Canada, with completion targeted by the end of the decade. These developments collectively reinforce momentum around SMR deployment, highlighting continued progress in technology, regulation, and industrial collaboration across key markets.