Co-authored by Ronald Stein, from the USA, and from South Africa, Dr Robert Jeffrey and Olivia Vaughan
Published December 8, 2025 at America Out Loud NEWS
https://www.americaoutloud.news/why-are-developing-economies-pursuing-small-modular-reactors
The global electricity debate has reached a critical impasse. While developed nations debate the finer points of renewable electricity portfolios, like how much profit is being made, billions of people in the world remain trapped in electricity poverty. For half of the world’s people living on less than $10 per day—and particularly the 565 million Sub-Saharan Africans without electricity—the conversation about electricity must be grounded in pragmatism, not ideology.
The US has recently signed an economic and Defense Partnership with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that includes civilian nuclear energy.
South Africa expects to lift the care and maintenance status of its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) by the first quarter of next year or even earlier. Alternative sources of stable, continuous electricity, in this instance provided by SMR units, will benefit as environmental trends increasingly move towards green technologies. These technologies, because of cost and price trends, will become increasingly economic and cost-effective in the future.
A comprehensive economic impact study of South Africa’s small modular reactor (SMR) deployment strategy, undertaken by one of the authors of this report, reveals what is at stake when developing nations pursue practical electricity solutions that can generate continuous, uninterruptable and emission free electricity. The findings offer a compelling blueprint for how SMR technology could transform not just electricity access, but entire economies.
Nations need dispatchable electricity. What is often forgotten is that all developed and developing nations require dispatchable electricity to maximise economic growth and efficiency. The purpose is to maximise benefits for their citizens by raising their standard of living, reducing unemployment and poverty. Dispatchable electricity means that sufficient electricity is available immediately on demand by businesses and the public, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Energy sources must first be examined on their ability to meet this criterion. Using South Africa as the example, the primary alternative electricity sources that need to be examined are:
- Firstly, renewable energy sources in the form of wind and solar that are renowned for their unreliability and unpredictable intermittency, and,
- Secondly, fossil fuels in the form of coal and gas, and
- Thirdly, nuclear power.
The Reality Check Beyond Wind and Solar
When visiting a modern hospital or airport, consider everything you see that didn’t exist 200 years ago: the plastic chairs, synthetic fabrics, medical devices, computer components, pharmaceuticals, and countless other products. Many of which are essential for maintaining one’s own family and home. Now ask yourself: can any of these items be manufactured by a wind turbine or solar array?
The answer exposes a fundamental flaw in current electricity discourse. Oil, gas, and coal aren’t just fuel sources—they’re raw materials for petrochemicals, plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, construction, infrastructure and thousands of essential products. The modern world’s material foundation depends on hydrocarbons as manufacturing feedstock to support the supply chain for those essential products.
This distinction matters enormously for developing economies. While wealthy nations can afford to experiment with intermittent renewable sources, backed by existing infrastructure and capital reserves built as a result of the use of fossil fuels now being shunned, developing countries need reliable, continuous power to build industries, create jobs, and lift people from poverty. These policies being set have all the requirements to set a global economic reality of keeping the rich developed world rich and the poor developing world poor. In practice, the “green” policies in the richer countries will negatively affect the economic growth of both the developed world and the developing world.
The resurgence of nuclear-generated electricity is occurring in many countries. The reasons are not difficult to find. The benefits of nuclear power have shown themselves in many ways. Nuclear has proven itself to be: Safe, there have been very few injuries. It is environmentally benign, has very small land use, discharges no pollutants and produces little waste. It is reliable and has a capacity factor of over 90%. It is energy-dense and scalable. It is economical with a long life and low running costs. South Africa’s Koeberg Power Station has had a long life and is one of the most economical power stations in the country. It is a foundation for other applications, and its Safari reactor is a world’s major commercial producers of medical and industrial radioisotopes.
Numbers That Transform Nations
The economic analysis of SMR deployment, yet to be formally released, demonstrates transformative potential:
- GDP Impact: Within two decades of operation, an SMR program would contribute approximately R74 billion (roughly $4.3billion USD) annually to GDP, representing 1.1% of South Africa’s baseline GDP. This is significant growth for the economy. It is an economy-altering development.
- Employment Creation: The program would generate, within ten years of becoming operational, over 33,000 direct jobs and over 154,000 indirect jobs. The following decade, it will have created almost 350,000 jobs within two decades, supporting over 1.4 million people. These aren’t temporary construction positions, but sustained employment in high-skill manufacturing, engineering, and operations.
- Skills Development: Unlike fossil fuel extraction or installations of wind turbines or solar panels, nuclear technology demands—and develops—a highly skilled workforce. An SMR program would create a permanent increase in technical capabilities, helping retain talent while attracting international expertise.
- Trade Balance: Long-term projections show an ongoing current account surplus of approximately R8 billion ($9.4 billion USD) annually, as exported SMR units and associated services generate hard currency for the developing economy.
- Tax Revenue: Annual tax generation would exceed R19 billion ($1.1 billion USD), with annual remuneration associated with these jobs approaching R33 billion ($1.9 billion USD)—funds that fuel further development, education, and healthcare improvements.
Why Small Modular Reactors?
Traditional large-scale nuclear plants require massive upfront capital, decade-long construction periods, and proximity to major grid infrastructure. For developing economies like South Africa, these barriers are often insurmountable. Countries in Africa are exceptionally large, a fact that is little known and often overlooked by so-called overseas experts.
SMRs offer a different pathway to electricity. Modern designs—such as helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors using advanced fuel configurations—exemplify the advantages:
- Scalability: Units can be deployed incrementally, matching investment capacity and demand growth. A typical rollout could envision four domestic units annually within years of initial deployment, rising to eight exported units within two decades.
- Flexibility: Smaller SMR units can be located closer to demand centers, reducing transmission losses and infrastructure costs. They’re ideal for industrial process heat applications, such as powering chemical facilities or electricity generation in regions far from existing power stations.
- Safety: Passive safety features and simpler designs reduce operational risks. Modern SMR designs incorporate inherent safety characteristics that make them particularly suitable for nations building nuclear expertise.
- Industrial Development: Unlike imported renewable components, SMR programs build domestic manufacturing capacity. A comprehensive SMR initiative creates an entire nuclear industry value chain: development, engineering, design, and manufacturing.
The Megaproject Precedent
History validates this approach. South Africa’s Richards Bay development, Sasol’s coal-to-liquids technology, Petro SA’s gas-to-liquids technology, and automotive industry growth each transformed regional economies. SMR deployment compares favorably with projected employment to be 340,000 jobs and dependent population supporting 1.4 million people, while offering superior balance of payments outcomes.
These megaprojects succeeded because they addressed real needs with practical technology, creating sustainable industries rather than dependency on imported solutions.
Building a Nuclear Industry
SMRs represent more than power generation, they’re platforms for industrial development. A national SMR program involves the construction and operation of units for domestic markets and export, alongside the development of a local nuclear industry with significant local content.
The construction phase includes substantial localization to ensure regular long-term supply by original equipment manufacturers. This creates an entire value chain encompassing development, engineering, design, and manufacturing, significantly enlarging the manufacturing base of the economy.
The operational phase generates ongoing expenditures in wages, fuel acquisition (including nuclear fuel production), maintenance, and subcontracted services—creating permanent economic activity rather than boom-and-bust cycles associated with construction-only projects.
For countries with uranium reserves, SMRs offer additional opportunities. The technology and skills developed can extend to uranium enrichment industries, producing nuclear fuel domestically and for export, adding considerable value to natural resources.
The Path Forward
For the 565 million Sub-Saharan Africans without electricity, and billions more worldwide trapped in electricity poverty, the choice is clear. They cannot afford to gamble for their future on renewable infrastructure of wind turbines and solar panels, which are intermittent and undermine industrial development. The full lifecycle economic cost of renewable electricity projects does not support the needs of growing economies and keeps these countries trapped as consumer nations in perpetual debt cycles.
SMRs offer developing economies what they need most: reliable baseload power that builds domestic capability, creates quality employment, and establishes technology platforms for future growth. The alternative—continued electricity poverty or dependency on imported sources of energy for transportation and electrification—condemns billions to economic stagnation.
The question isn’t whether developing nations should pursue nuclear technology. It’s whether wealthier developed nations will support or obstruct that pragmatic choice. Electricity policy must serve people, not ideology. For the billions of people living on less than $10 daily, that’s not just good policy, it’s a moral imperative. The path to prosperity runs through reliable electricity. Small modular reactors can light that way.
Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.
Ronald Stein, P.E., is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.” He is also the recipient of an unsolicited Tribute to Ronald Stein from Stephen Hines.
Dr Robert Jeffrey is an economist, business manager and energy expert. He has a Master’s degree in economics from Cambridge, a Master’s degree in business management and holds a PhD in Engineering Management. He was on the economic round table advising the South African Reserve Bank
Olivia Vaughan is a business strategist. She has a Bachelor of Commerce Cum Laude and an MBA and operates across key sectors in the circular economy, sustainable systems and the built environment. She is co-founder of a Nuclear innovation company in South Africa, Stratek Global.
Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein
“Why are developing economies pursuing small modular reactors?”
and why does it seem like an endless pursuit?
Just have to keep the ANC’s sticky fingers out of the radioactive soup.
I can’t see anything in the post that suggests “economies” are pursuing anything. I assume that if people are prepared to pay for services, someone will provide them – if it’s profitable to do so.
Maybe “developing economies” is Newspeak for “Governments”, and the post is a PR piece for SMRs.
Good luck.
For the same reason people buy small cars.They need to be cheap and robust.
When you can not afford big reactors It’s the best option building one by one.
It may also been beneficial in terms of operating and crisis .
The necessary overhead during peaks or when an unexpected energy demand occurs
could be more efficiently handled with many moduls ( one modul can be used as permanent backup )
and a single failure doesn’t mean that the country loses a huge chunck of energy production.
It was nearly a half-century ago that Al Gore conspired to turn off the air-conditioning in a Senate meeting room in order to promote the false dystopia of catastrophic global warming. Instead, what would earth be like now, had a more rational scientific agenda promoted the truth about nuclear electricity and educated the political elites to focus on safe and reliable nuclear power.
There would be no eagle killing wind turbine blight across the land, no rusty, hail damaged solar fields blocking productive farmlands, no burning battery power walls, and no $trillions of lost research and production failures of “non-dispatchable” electrical power.
Instead, there could have been the quiet hum of safe and reliable modular nuclear power sources across the eagerly developing what are now “Third World” regions of Mother Earth.
Gore is clearly not the only one to blame. The self-righteous false “scientists” of the Climate Cult surely play a major role but just think of “what it might have been.
Why? Because greentards and environazis are blocking them from using their own gas, oil, coal and hydro, that’s why.
Why are developing economies pursuing small modular reactors?
Because the other subsidised boondoggles are oversubscribed. It’s the latest free money for non-economically viable products in the subsidy harvest game.
It’s a sales gimmick. Economies of scale are such that you will get 4 times the electricity by spending twice as much money…so the size tends to get outlandishly large through the economic evaluation stage. However the fact remains….just cuz LEGO blocks are cheap, modular, mass produced…..doesn’t mean you can or should build a high-rise out of them….
Demand for power will drive development of rational development of electricity using the most affordable approach.
Whole life analysis has raised serious questions about the cost of wind and solar facilities for centralized generation. Land use, requirements for minerals, grid development, plant lifetime and waste disposal are negatives from a purely economic perspective. In addition, “renewable” generation has major technical issues related to reliability, energy storage, and demand responsiveness.
While governments are primary drivers for both “big” nuclear and renewables, development of modular nuclear reactors is also being driven by industrial demand—with major companies participating in both technology development and capitalization of the process. Hence, I would bet on the multiple approaches to SMRs as the winner type of technology. There will likely be different versions for different applications, such as molten salt in arid regions where water supplies for cooling where water isn’t available. Another factor favoring SMRs is the practicality of using waste heat for industrial processes or centralized heating/cooling systems.
Let the market decide.
Headline: “Why are developing economies pursuing small modular reactors?”
Body Text:
“SMR program would contribute”
“can be located”
“can be deployed”
“can be located”
I’m for it, but I read this article the same way I read articles from the other point of view. Headline said “economies”, which made me wonder “which ones?” I only found references to one specific nation – South Africa. Is South Africa building any or are they just talking? Post read, I’m thinking “who is pursuing whom?”
Why is there no progress in doing the same thing that is used for space exploration?
A nuclear reactor with control rods, and cooling fins on the outside of the reactor Vessel with no water in the vessel.
However the interior wall of the Vessel is lined with a radiation capturing liner that turns radiation into Electricity.
No super high water pressure, No radiation contaminated cooling medium. No “Loss of Cooling Accident.” No Pumps, No boilers. No corrosive coolant medium, Hours, weeks, months years of use with absolutely no operators needed to control the reactor.
Don’t buy the SMR story. SMRs are not for us, but for the super-elite. SMR’s may make sense for small power demands in remote sites, but LARGE USC reactors are more efficient and safer. The global power demand is the same, but the expertise of the cadre of operators will be much higher for 2500 USC 5 GW breeder reactors, than for 50,000 500 MW SMR reactors. SMRs are just what the oligarchs want for their personal AI needs and powering their bug-outs.
Normal humans will be paying for their peccadilloes.
From the above article’s third paragraph:
“South Africa expects to lift the care and maintenance status of its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) by the first quarter of next year or even earlier.”
Be aware that decision is not what it sounds like on the surface:
“So, what does this decision really mean? It’s going to enable the PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor), that we can reopen the fuel development laboratories to undertake the research and development,” the minister told a press briefing. “So, we have placed them on ice. Now we’re reopening these development laboratories and making sure that scientists get to participate in this space.” . . .
“South Africa now needs to make up for about 16 years of ‘lost time’ for development while the PBMR has been under care-and-maintenance but has ‘every ambition of catching up’, Ramokgopa said.”
— https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/south-africa-lifts-pbmr-from-care-and-maintenance (my bold emphasis added)
Also, no mention in the above article that there has only been one PBMR-type nuclear power plant connected to a grid anywhere in the world: the Shidaowan power plant in Shandong province in China, comprised of two PBMR units, each of 250 MWt capacity, together driving a single 210 MWe steam turbine, and which began providing power at commercial levels in December 2023.
(Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs )
So, with two years of (presumed) operational experience with these two PBMR-type reactors, it is interesting that there has been essentially no public release of information from China—according to my Web searches—as to (a) how trouble-free these reactors have been, or (b) what their overall realized MWt-to-MWe conversion efficiency has been.
Nuclear technology is much more complicated that extracting oil and gas, and it only gets you electricity. Developing economies need to start with the simpler tech that gives them a basis for industrial development
The reason countries should be looking at nuclear is because it works, fossil fuel also works. Build the stuff that works. Wind and solar don’t work don’t build them. I’m sure SMRs will be the generation of choice in many instances but that doesn’t mean we should not build fossil fuel and conventional nuclear. You know the old saying, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. If you have coal build coal, if you have gas build gas, if you have both build both and of course build nuclear also. It is not hard, build with what you have or can get and don’t build wind or solar.
In the past I used to work in the same industrial park as NuScale Nuclear. From where I sit I could, with a bit of effort, put a bullet into the fake containment vessel training structure NuScale have erected. So I am somewhat biased, but somewhat more informed.
SMR designs like NuScale have two important features not yet mentioned. First, they can begin to produce power when the first reactor is up, and scale power production as the plant is finished. This is not like big plants: power production starts years earlier after start of construction. A nice feature, for sure. Second, and almost always overlooked, is the power slew rate, the second derivative of energy. Big plants take a long time to go from low power to high power, like a day or so. Large plants are not dispatchable (DNPER). A design feature of NuScale is (for a nuke plant) very high slew rate. Something like 400 MW/hour. So a single small reactor can go from idle to full power in about 15 minutes. This means that NuScale units are about as dispatchable as large hydro, and way, way more consistent that solar or wind.
AFAIK, SMR units like NuScale are the only solution for New York’s mythical non-emissions dispatchable power requirements, the ones due to be completed in 4 years. A responsible NY governor would order up 10GW worth of these things. But that is not going to happen.
Several years ago a poster named Col. Mossby {I think, but spelling …?} made repeated affirmations of the SMR “real soon now”. Several times I responded thusly: Get 10 running and connected, 100 under construction, and 1,000 approved, sited, and financed. My 10/100/1000 rule.
Maybe Stein/Jeffrey/Vaughan were using that Col. M. moniker back then.
Russia has built and is building 1000 MW reactors in many poor countries, Bangladesh, Egypt, also India which has its own nuclear program. Russia builds them economically and also supplies fuel. A single site has 4-6 such reactors giving a total of 4-6 GW electricity, a capacity much beyond any SMR.
Western nuclear technology is anyway far more expansive than Russian or Korean and is simply unviable and noncompetitive with solar.