Getting SMR siting right: why location will shape the success of small modular reactors

By: Matthew Houlsby

Small modular reactors (SMRs, and here I'm using the term to cover advanced modular reactors too, for brevity's sake) are moving quickly from concept to deployment. Governments see them as a way to deliver reliable, low-carbon power alongside renewables. Developers see an opportunity to build nuclear projects faster and at lower cost.

But the success of SMRs will depend on more than reactor design or financing. One question will shape how quickly projects move from plans to reality: where they are built.

Siting has always mattered in nuclear. With SMRs, it matters even more.

Why siting is different for SMRs

Traditional nuclear power stations were built as large, centralised assets. They required extensive land, cooling water, and long development timelines. As a result, they were typically located in remote coastal sites.

SMRs promise something different. Their smaller footprint and modular construction could allow them to be deployed in a wider range of locations, including:

• Former nuclear sites
• Retired coal plant sites
• Industrial clusters
• Remote or off-grid regions

This flexibility is one of the technology’s most compelling advantages. But it also introduces new questions about planning, regulation, infrastructure and public acceptance.

Put simply: SMRs expand the range of possible locations. But that doesn’t make siting simple.

Repurposing existing energy sites

One of the least complicated and thus most promising opportunities for SMR deployment lies in repurposing existing energy infrastructure.

Coal plants in particular present an attractive option. These sites already have grid connections, cooling systems and transport links. Many are also located close to communities that have long relied on energy infrastructure for jobs and economic activity.

Replacing retiring coal assets with SMRs could preserve local employment while supporting the transition to low-carbon power. Several studies suggest that coal-to-nuclear transitions could significantly reduce costs and development timelines by reusing existing infrastructure.

However, this approach still requires careful planning. Environmental assessments, workforce retraining and community engagement will all play an important role in making these projects viable.

Industrial demand and co-location

Another emerging model is the co-location of SMRs with energy-intensive industries.

Heavy industries such as chemicals, hydrogen production, steel and data centres require large volumes of reliable energy. Many are also under increasing pressure to decarbonise.

SMRs could provide consistent, low-carbon power and heat directly at industrial sites, effectively behind-the-meter. This would reduce the need for transmission infrastructure, the associated time and costs from them and the losses from transporting at high-voltage. This approach would also support new industrial clusters built around clean energy.

But co-location brings its own challenges. Other resource dependencies also emerge which siting strategies will need to consider, for example with SMRs and data centres both being high consumers of water. Safety considerations, land use planning and regulatory frameworks all need to evolve to accommodate nuclear facilities operating alongside industrial infrastructure.

Developers and policymakers will need to work together to ensure these models can be delivered safely and efficiently.

Community acceptance matters

No nuclear project succeeds without public trust. Siting decisions therefore have a direct impact on social acceptance.

Communities with a history of hosting nuclear facilities often have a greater level of familiarity with the technology and the regulatory environment that surrounds it. This can make development easier. But those areas may not otherwise be the most logical or economical to make best use of SMRs' potential, given their potential flexibility and range of deployment cases in industrial sites, for example.

In contrast, proposals for new sites may face greater scrutiny, particularly if nuclear infrastructure has not previously existed in the region.

This makes early and transparent engagement essential. Communities need clear information about safety, environmental impact and economic benefits. They also need confidence that their concerns will be heard and addressed.

For SMRs to scale successfully, developers must treat community engagement as a core part of the siting process, not an afterthought. These projects will succeed or fail in planning or in the longer term without trust.

Regulation and planning frameworks

Most nuclear regulatory systems were designed around large, conventional reactors located at a limited number of designated sites. SMRs challenge this model by introducing smaller reactors that may be deployed across a wider geographic footprint.

Regulators will need to balance two priorities: maintaining rigorous safety standards while enabling innovation and deployment at scale.

Some countries are already adapting their frameworks to accommodate SMRs, particularly in relation to site licensing, environmental assessments and grid integration. Others are still exploring how best to approach the issue. The current UK government, to its credit, is making good progress, and has made its ambition clear with the new Advanced Modular Reactor pipeline approach, for example.

But clearer and more predictable regulatory pathways will be essential if developers are to move forward with confidence.

Infrastructure and grid considerations

Grid capacity, transport access, cooling water and emergency planning arrangements all influence whether a site is viable. In some locations, upgrading grid infrastructure may be necessary before an SMR can operate effectively.

Energy systems are also changing rapidly. The increasing share of intermittent renewables means that firm, dispatchable power will play an important role in maintaining system stability. Therefore, SMRs are, as the government has made clear, an excellent and necessary partner to the renewables-reliant Clean Power 2030 mission and long-term low carbon energy security.

Strategic siting can help ensure SMRs support these evolving energy systems rather than simply adding generation capacity.

A strategic decision, not just a technical one

Ultimately, SMR siting is not just a technical exercise. It is a strategic decision that touches on energy policy, industrial strategy, regional development and public trust.

Industry and government must approach siting thoughtfully, aligning infrastructure, regulation and community engagement, to ensure the UK is well-placed to realise the potential of SMRs.

The technology behind SMRs is advancing rapidly. But where they are built will determine how quickly they can deliver on their promise. As our recent event with the Nuclear Institute on SMR siting heard, if the Final Investment Decision is what pushes the project from concept to reality, siting is the ‘Initial Investment Decision’ that gets it started.

Getting siting right is therefore not simply a planning decision. It is a cornerstone of the future nuclear, and this wider energy, landscape.

Madano has worked partners across the nuclear energy supply chain over many decades, securing a policy landscape and public dialogue that has supported its role in the UK’s energy system. Get in touch to discuss how we could help your investment opportunities, policy challenges and profile in the UK.