Small Modular Reactors in Canada: Current Status and Prospects

By Denis Koshelev

Small Modular Reactors (SMR) have been a big story for years, looking like one of the best ways to achieve safer and — theoretically — economically viable nuclear power. Most countries are still exploring the technology, with Canada set out to become a global leader in SMR technology, launching an ambitious national strategy and courting billions in investment. Three years later, the country’s flagship demonstration project sits indefinitely paused, while the world’s only operational grid-scale SMRs run in Russia and China. The gap between Canada’s nuclear ambitions and deployment reality reveals the challenges facing this next-generation technology.

Understanding Small Modular Reactors

Small Modular Reactors represent a significant departure from traditional nuclear power plant design, offering unique advantages in terms of scalability, safety, and deployment flexibility.

SMRs are advanced nuclear reactors with a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit, approximately one-third of the generating capacity of conventional nuclear power reactors. [1] The technology derives its name from three key characteristics: it is physically a fraction of the size of conventional nuclear reactors, it is modular in design, allowing for factory assembly and transportation as complete units, and it harnesses nuclear fission to generate heat for energy production.

The modular design philosophy represents a fundamental shift in nuclear construction methodology, potentially addressing many of the cost and schedule overruns that have plagued large-scale nuclear projects. Factory fabrication of major components can improve quality control, reduce construction timelines, and enable economies of scale through standardized production. This approach contrasts sharply with traditional nuclear plants, which are typically built on-site with extensive custom engineering and construction phases that can span decades.

These theoretical advantages have attracted significant attention from Canadian policymakers, who see SMRs as key to the country’s clean energy transition.

What Makes Them Safer?

The fundamental design philosophy of SMRs is built around enhancing safety compared to conventional nuclear reactors, though comprehensive operational validation remains limited. The smaller reactor size and lower power density can reduce the consequences of potential accidents, while modular designs may enable more standardized safety systems and improved quality control through factory manufacturing. Advanced reactor designs like USNC’s MMR utilize passive safety systems that rely on natural physical principles like gravity and natural convection. This eliminates the need for external power or human intervention to cool the reactor in an emergency, a key vulnerability in some older reactor designs. [1]

The MMR Energy System’s safety is attributed to its use of fully ceramic micro-encapsulated (FCM) fuel, which provides inherent reactor safety with its ultimate fuel design. Additionally, the MMR has a strong negative temperature feedback and a reactivity margin that can withstand various hazards. [3]

Understanding this technical foundation is crucial to evaluating Canada’s ambitious SMR deployment strategy.

SMRs in Canada

Canada has developed a comprehensive national strategy for SMR development through its SMR Action Plan, which represents a coordinated effort bringing together federal and provincial governments, Indigenous communities, utilities, industry, and academic institutions. This collaborative approach, dubbed “Team Canada,” reflects the recognition that successful SMR deployment requires alignment across multiple jurisdictions. The Action Plan builds upon Canada’s earlier SMR Roadmap, which established the country’s vision to lead globally in this emerging nuclear technology sector. [2]

Possibly the most well-known and ambitious such attempt is The Global First Power (GFP) Micro Modular Reactor (MMR) project to build a nuclear facility at the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) site in Ontario. The proposed plant features a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor capable of supplying up to 45 megawatts (thermal) of process heat to an adjacent facility, generating both electrical power and heat over a 40-year operating lifespan. However, as of the most recent official update from January 29, 2025, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) confirms that all environmental assessment (EA) and licensing activities for the MMR project remain on hold. [12]

The project utilizes technology developed by Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC), an American company specializing in high-temperature gas-cooled reactor designs. The MMR technology represents a fourth-generation nuclear energy system designed to deliver safe, clean, and cost-effective electricity with enhanced safety features compared to conventional reactors. [3]

The regulatory pause affecting the Chalk River project highlights the complex approval processes required for innovative nuclear technologies, even when building upon established safety principles. Environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act require a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts, consultation with Indigenous communities, and demonstration of safety systems that may differ significantly from conventional nuclear plant designs. The indefinite nature of the pause suggests that fundamental issues may need resolution before the project can proceed.

The reliance on American SMR technology raises important questions about the commercial maturity and operational track record of these systems. Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, the developer of the MMR technology proposed for Chalk River, has yet to achieve commercial operation of any SMR units despite years of development and substantial investment. The company’s website indicates demonstration units are scheduled for “first nuclear power in 2026,” but this timeline appears optimistic given the regulatory delays affecting the Chalk River project. [3]

While the Chalk River project remains stalled, another site in Ontario has emerged as the likely location for Canada’s first operational SMR through a separate initiative at the Darlington nuclear site. In May 2025, Ontario Power Generation received approval to begin construction of a 300-MW(e) SMR adjacent to the existing Darlington nuclear generating station. This project represents a significantly larger scale than the Chalk River proposal, with sufficient capacity to supply electricity to approximately 300,000 homes. [4]

The Darlington Small Modular Reactor project entails the construction of four reactor units at an estimated total cost of $20.9 billion. The first reactor alone represents a substantial investment of $7.7 billion. This considerable expenditure reflects both the cutting-edge nature of the SMR technology and the intricate engineering challenges inherent in deploying novel reactor designs on a commercial scale. Using a blend of modular and open-top construction, the BWRX-300 can be built in 24 to 36 months, drastically shrinking the plant’s physical footprint by about 90 percent. This innovative approach also slashes the building volume by roughly half per megawatt, translating directly into a 50 percent reduction in concrete usage per megawatt. Such efficiencies represent a major leap forward in both economic viability and compact design. [5]

Among other notable projects, New Brunswick Power (NB Power), collaborating with ARC Clean Technology Canada, plans to install an ARC-100 small modular reactor (SMR) at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in New Brunswick. In June 2023, an application for a license to prepare the site for the SMR was submitted to CNSC staff and is currently under regulatory review under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, which includes an environmental protection review. Additionally, the project is subject to a thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA) by the Government of New Brunswick. [6]

SaskPower and GE Hitachi have also agreed to accelerate the development of nuclear power in Saskatchewan. This agreement is part of a larger plan to establish an SMR within the province. SaskPower will collaborate with GE Hitachi on the design, fuel sourcing, and fabrication of a BWRX-300 reactor, which was selected in 2022. [7] The project is in a multi-year planning phase, with a final investment decision expected in 2029. Two potential sites near Estevan are under consideration. SaskPower has signed agreements with GE Hitachi for design, fuel sourcing, and fabrication and is collaborating with Ontario Power Generation for expertise. [8] [9]

And in Alberta, Nucleon Energy and ARC Clean Technology have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to explore the deployment of the ARC-100 SMR, marking a significant step toward commercial rollout of this technology. The project is in the early stages, focusing on feasibility and partnership development. [10]

Canada’s claim to SMR leadership rests on comprehensive planning rather than operational success. While the country has developed extensive strategic frameworks and attracted substantial investment commitments, no Canadian SMR has yet generated power. This places Canada in the position of leading a race that no Western nation has yet finished, while established nuclear powers like Russia and China have already deployed operational units.

Economic and Strategic Implications

Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Alberta are collaborating to develop and deploy Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in Canada. While their motivations vary, a common goal is achieving a carbon-neutral electricity grid, a shift they see as economically viable.

A 2021 study by the Conference Board of Canada projects that for Ontario, the SMR could generate $2.6 billion in GDP, $1.7 billion in wages, and $873 million in taxes. The operation phase accounts for 49% of this GDP, with manufacturing and construction contributing 45%. Every dollar of direct SMR GDP in Ontario yields an additional $1.04 in indirect and induced impacts for the province and $1.99 for Canada. SMR project expenditure translates to $0.68 of GDP for Ontario and $0.81 for Canada. Annually, SMR manufacturing and construction are expected to add 1,604 Ontario jobs and 1,939 for Canada. Operations will add 210 jobs per year in Ontario and 296 in Canada.

For Saskatchewan, the SMR fleet is projected to generate $8.8 billion in GDP, $5.6 billion in wages, and $2.9 billion in taxes. The operation phase accounts for 54% of the GDP contribution, while manufacturing and construction account for 36%. Each dollar of direct SMR GDP in Saskatchewan generates $0.93 in indirect and induced impacts for the province and $1.83 for Canada. SMR project expenditure yields $0.64 of GDP for Saskatchewan and $1.02 for Canada. Annually, SMR manufacturing and construction are estimated to create 7,042 jobs in Saskatchewan and 10,516 for Canada. Operations will add 728 jobs per year in Saskatchewan and 1,173 for Canada.

A critical challenge lies in the SMR deployment strategy. Introducing multiple SMR technologies in Canada, each with distinct supply chains, regulatory frameworks, and operational requirements, could create significant problems. Such an approach might hinder economies of scale and the specialization vital for driving down costs. Cost uncertainty also looms large. As a nascent technology, SMR costs remain undefined. It will be imperative to reduce these costs as deployment progresses rapidly. Effective radioactive waste management is another paramount concern. SMRs generate radioactive waste, and long-term industry viability hinges on stakeholders fully comprehending and endorsing a sustainable, enduring plan for its disposal.

Finally, international competition presents a formidable hurdle. The global export market for SMRs is ten times larger than Canada’s domestic demand, and it is currently dominated by state-owned enterprises in Russia and China. Given Canada’s private-sector-led SMR industry, strategic international partnerships will likely be crucial for achieving success in this fiercely competitive landscape. [11]

Conclusion

Canada’s SMR development efforts present a complex picture of ambitious goals tempered by significant implementation challenges. While the country has established comprehensive strategic frameworks and attracted substantial investment commitments, the reality of SMR deployment has proven more difficult than initial projections suggested. The indefinite pause of the Chalk River project, which was expected to be among Canada’s first operational SMRs, highlights the regulatory and technical hurdles facing innovative nuclear technologies.

The shift in focus to the Darlington project reflects a more pragmatic approach emphasizing larger-scale deployment and integration with existing nuclear infrastructure. However, the substantial costs and reliance on unproven technology raise legitimate questions about risk management and economic viability. The absence of any western-designed, grid-scale commercial SMRs yet operational creates inherent uncertainties about performance, safety, and cost projections that can only be resolved through actual deployment experience.