Aligning Stakeholder Perspectives is Key to SMR Deployment, Argues Nick Curum

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum delves into the complexities of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) deployment, arguing that the primary obstacle is not technical or economic, but rather the alignment of diverse stakeholder perspectives. Curum highlights how different parties involved in SMR projects often prioritize fundamentally different outcomes, leading to stalled debates and delayed progress.

Curum begins by illustrating this divergence through three key perspectives: the operator, the policymaker, and the investor. Each group, he explains, faces a distinct set of challenges and defines success differently.

“The operator sees reliability. Can this keep the lights on when demand spikes and renewables dip? The policymaker sees security. Can this reduce import dependence and stabilise the system? The investor sees risk. Can this deliver returns without surprises on cost and schedule?”

This fundamental difference in viewpoint, Curum suggests, is where many discussions about SMRs falter. He criticizes the common practice of focusing solely on cost per kilowatt (kW) as an insufficient metric that fails to address the multifaceted concerns of all parties.

The Crucial Role of Volume and Institutional Learning

Nick Curum points to the learning curve inherent in new technological deployments, particularly for SMRs. He emphasizes that early projects are expected to be more expensive and take longer, but this initial phase is critical for establishing a foundation for future efficiency. As he notes:

“Early projects look expensive and slow. Later ones look cheaper and faster. But the shift is not just technical. It is institutional.”

Curum elaborates that the gap between a first-of-a-kind (FOAK) build and a subsequent “nth-of-a-kind” (NOAK) unit can be substantial, with his analysis suggesting a cost per kWe difference of over four times. This significant reduction in cost and improvement in speed is contingent upon achieving volume in deployment. According to Curum, this volume is essential for:

• Operators: To achieve predictable performance and reliable energy supply.
• Policymakers: To enable scalable energy security and reduce import dependencies.
• Investors: To mitigate risk and price projects with greater confidence.

Without this scaling, Curum argues, each stakeholder group continues to operate under their own distinct problem definition, hindering collective progress.

Reframing the Central Question

The core of Curum’s argument is a reframing of the central debate surrounding SMRs. He posits that the pertinent question is not simply whether SMRs are competitive on a per-kilowatt basis, but rather:

“Can these three perspectives align at the same time?”

He acknowledges that this challenge of aligning stakeholder interests is not unique to nuclear energy. However, Curum stresses the heightened importance and stakes involved with SMRs, given their potential to provide firm power, enhance system stability, and contribute to long-term energy resilience.

In Curum’s view, while the underlying economics of SMRs may be credible and a viable path to deployment exists, the primary impediment remains the difficulty in getting these three critical stakeholder groups—operators, policymakers, and investors—to commit simultaneously, each with their own definition of success. He concludes that many are currently unable to bridge this gap, suggesting that widespread SMR adoption will require a significant shift in how these diverse interests are reconciled.