AURA — Deep Research Agent

The Shift from Technical to Social Viability

While the technical and regulatory hurdles of SMR development are systematically being addressed through international cooperation and massive public-private funding, the socio-political dimension remains precarious ^[16], ^[7]. The successful deployment of SMRs in the late 2020s hinges on the ability of developers and governments to design community consent strategies that transcend mere public relations. Meaningful engagement now requires addressing deep-seated anxieties regarding radioactive waste management, safety, and economic disruption, while simultaneously designing mechanisms for transparent, equitable benefit-sharing ^[1], ^[17].

[1] Introduction: The Imperative of Social License in SMR Deployment

As the nuclear industry approaches the critical 2025–2026 window for initial Small Modular Reactor (SMR) deployments, a fundamental paradigm shift is occurring. Historically, the nuclear sector has prioritized engineering feasibility, regulatory compliance, and macroeconomic impact. However, the contemporary landscape demonstrates that the "social license to operate" (SLO)—the ongoing acceptance of a company's standard business practices and operating procedures by its employees, stakeholders, and the general public—is the ultimate arbiter of project viability ^[1], ^[13].

The deployment of SMRs introduces unique socio-political challenges. Because these reactors are designed to be smaller (typically generating between 50 MW and 300 MW) and modular, they are intended for deployment in diverse environments: replacing retired coal plants in rural towns, powering remote mining operations, and directly supplying energy-intensive data centers ^[14], ^[13]. This distributed footprint means that communities with no prior history of hosting nuclear infrastructure are now being asked to evaluate and accept complex nuclear technologies ^[18], ^[19].

For senior design leaders, policymakers, and project developers, gaining public trust is no longer a peripheral communications task; it is a core design challenge. It requires the application of human-centered design thinking to build frameworks of transparency, equity, and long-term sustainability ^[20], ^[4]. This report critically examines the emerging best practices, regulatory innovations, and empirical case studies defining SMR community integration globally.

[2] Deconstructing the Social License and Bankability

The concept of bankability in the SMR sector is inextricably linked to community consent. Financial institutions and private equity firms evaluate non-technical risks—such as the potential for protracted litigation, local political opposition, and municipal withdrawal—as primary factors in funding decisions ^[1], ^[2].

[2] 1 The Financial Cost of Eroded Trust

A lack of social license introduces severe financial risks. When communities are excluded from the design and planning processes, or when financial realities deviate significantly from early promises, trust erodes rapidly. This erosion translates directly into project delays, increased capital costs, and in extreme cases, total project cancellation ^[17], ^[5].

Developers must design consent strategies that provide long-term, recurring benefits to host communities, alleviating concerns while aligning with the community's preferred economic development path ^[1]. Furthermore, as an orderbook for SMRs requires multiple, identical installations to achieve economies of series, the failure to secure a willing host for a First-Of-A-Kind (FOAK) deployment can stall the entire manufacturing supply chain ^[2].

[2] 2 Moving Beyond NIMBYism

The traditional dismissal of local opposition as "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) is reductive and counterproductive. Research indicates that community opposition to clean energy infrastructure often stems not from an inherent anti-technology bias, but from legitimate concerns regarding land use, procedural justice, and the equitable distribution of risks and benefits ^[17]. Communities are increasingly demanding a transition from passive stakeholders to active equity partners.

[3] Innovative Regulatory Frameworks and Public Consultation

Regulatory bodies play a pivotal role in shaping the environment in which community consent is negotiated. In the 2025–2026 timeframe, leading national regulators are pioneering new frameworks that emphasize technological inclusivity, international harmonization, and mandated public engagement.

[3] 1 The Trilateral Regulatory Harmonization (US, UK, Canada)

In March 2024, a landmark trilateral Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) was signed between the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) ^[7], ^[21]. This agreement establishes a framework for streamlined regulation, shared technical reviews, and collaboration on pre-application activities for advanced reactors and SMRs ^[8].

While the primary goal of this MoC is to reduce time-to-market for standardized designs, it has profound implications for community consent. By harmonizing safety standards across trusted international borders, developers can present a unified, globally validated safety case to local communities, thereby mitigating fears associated with novel technologies ^[22]. The ONR has already utilized this collaborative momentum in its Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process, advancing designs like the Rolls-Royce SMR to Step 3 and the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 to Step 2 ^[23], ^[24].

[3] 2 Canada's SMR Readiness and Indigenous Engagement

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has established a global benchmark for integrating public and Indigenous engagement into the regulatory process. Backed by $50.7 million in federal funding, the CNSC's "SMR Readiness Project" is a five-year initiative focused on four pillars: regulatory predictability, capacity and capability, policy/shared responsibility, and international collaboration ^[25], ^[26].

Crucially, the CNSC mandates that public and Indigenous engagement are essential elements of the regulatory decision-making process ^[25]. The regulator offers funding programs to support the participation of Indigenous Nations and communities, ensuring they have the technical and financial capacity to meaningfully engage with SMR proponents and regulatory staff ^[25], ^[27]. This structural commitment to capacity-building exemplifies how regulators can design procedural justice into the licensing framework.

[3] 3 The European Union Strategy

In March 2026, the European Commission published its Strategy for the development and deployment of SMRs, treating the technology as a joint European industrial project ^[14]. The EU strategy acknowledges that SMRs can play a critical role in hard-to-abate sectors and district heating, but it explicitly notes that successful deployment requires the backing of broad public acceptance ^[14]. However, as of early 2026, the EU faces challenges regarding the institutional credibility of these claims, with concerns surrounding unresolved waste management and the specialized fuel requirements (such as HALEU) that elevate proliferation risks ^[16].

Regulator / Region	Key Initiative	Budget / Scope	Primary Consent Mechanism
CNSC (Canada)	SMR Readiness Project	$50.7M over 5 years	Mandated Indigenous engagement, participant funding, Pre-licensing VDR ^[25], ^[28].
ONR / NRC / CNSC	Trilateral MoC (2024)	Shared global technical reviews	Building public trust through internationally harmonized safety validations ^[7], ^[21].
European Union	2026 SMR Strategy	EU-wide industrial alliance	Linking SMRs to district heating and industrial decarbonization to show direct public benefit ^[14].

[4] Case Studies in SMR Community Engagement

Analyzing real-world deployments provides the most critical insights into the mechanics of community consent. The contrasting trajectories of projects in Wyoming, Ontario, and Utah offer invaluable lessons in stakeholder engagement, financial transparency, and economic benefit sharing.

[4] 1 Success through Alignment: TerraPower's Natrium SMR (Wyoming, USA)

TerraPower's Natrium project in Kemmerer, Wyoming, represents a masterclass in aligning nuclear infrastructure with existing community narratives. Selected in late 2021 and beginning construction in June 2024, the 345 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor is situated at the site of the retiring Naughton coal-fired power plant ^[29], ^[11].

The Power of Engagement: According to the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), the success of the Kemmerer siting was rooted in a highly proactive, flexible engagement strategy ^[17], ^[29]. Key tactics included:

Flexible Siting and Reciprocal Interest: TerraPower and its utility partner, PacifiCorp, did not dictate the site. Instead, they spent five months evaluating multiple communities across Wyoming that possessed existing coal infrastructure. The communities essentially pitched themselves to the developer, creating a dynamic of mutual selection rather than imposition ^[29], ^[30].
Economic Continuity: In 2019, Kemmerer had already utilized an economic diversification grant to study life after coal, identifying nuclear energy as a viable transition pathway. TerraPower leaned into this established community goal, promising to retain energy jobs and utilizing local community colleges to retrain coal workers ^[29], ^[31].
Constant Local Presence: TerraPower maintained a relentless physical presence, hosting public hearings, radio updates, and detailed safety presentations. To gauge sentiment, the City of Kemmerer even included project surveys in residents' water bills ^[32], ^[17].

The AI Pivot: By 2025, the Natrium project evolved. Facing supply chain issues with Russian HALEU fuel, TerraPower pivoted its business case to align with the booming AI sector, raising $650 million in a round that included NVIDIA's venture arm ^[11]. By contracting with data centers, TerraPower de-risked the project financially, providing the local community with assurance that the facility had guaranteed off-takers and long-term viability ^[11].

[4] 2 Equity and Macro-Economic Impact: OPG's Darlington SMR (Ontario, Canada)

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is leading the G7 by constructing four GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 SMRs at its Darlington site, with the first unit expected to come online in 2030 ^[9], ^[33]. The project's consent strategy is heavily anchored in demonstrating overwhelming, localized macro-economic benefits and pioneering Indigenous equity models.

Economic Benefit-Sharing:

GDP and Job Creation: The four-unit project is projected to add $38.5 billion to Canada's GDP over 65 years and sustain 3,700 jobs annually ^[34], ^[35].
Supply Chain Localization: The provincial government and OPG mandate that 80% of project spending goes to Ontario companies, injecting $500 million annually into the local supply chain (including local steel and concrete) ^[9], ^[33].
Government De-Risking: To protect the public from early-stage financial risks, the project secured $3 billion in equity financing from government entities (the Canada Growth Fund and the Building Ontario Fund), which acts to catalyze subsequent private and Indigenous investment ^[36], ^[10].

Indigenous Equity Partnerships: Moving beyond mere consultation, OPG is actively pursuing an equity partnership with the Williams Treaties First Nations ^[9], ^[9]. This represents a paradigm shift in local integration: host communities and Indigenous groups are no longer just passive recipients of tax revenues; they are co-owners of the infrastructure, fundamentally aligning their long-term financial health with the success of the reactor ^[27].

[4] 3 The Cost of Opaqueness: The Collapse of UAMPS / NuScale (Utah/Idaho, USA)

The most instructive failure in the early SMR landscape is the cancellation of the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP). Initiated in 2015, the project was a partnership between NuScale Power and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) to build SMRs at the Idaho National Laboratory ^[5], ^[37]. By November 2023, the project was mutually terminated ^[38].

Anatomy of a Failure: The collapse of CFPP was primarily driven by runaway costs and the subsequent erosion of municipal trust:

The "Sticker Shock": The initial overnight cost estimate was $3 billion. By 2018, it rose to $4.2 billion; in 2020, to $6.1 billion; and by 2023, it skyrocketed to $9.3 billion ^[5].
Erosion of the Economic Value Proposition: UAMPS initially promised its municipal members an electricity cost of $55/MWh. By 2023, due to a 75% increase in estimated construction costs (driven by supply chain inflation and commodity prices), the target price jumped 53% to $89/MWh ^[37], ^[39].
Lack of Transparency: Critics and municipal leaders noted that UAMPS utilized opaque economic methodologies and refused to release the underlying data behind cost calculations, making independent verification impossible ^[5], ^[6].
Municipal Withdrawal: Faced with infinite financial risk, municipalities began to pull out. The city of Logan, Utah, dropped out first, with its finance director stating, "We don't have the experience to be swimming in these waters" ^[6]. The project required an 80% subscription rate to proceed, which it ultimately failed to achieve ^[37], ^[40].

Lesson Learned: The UAMPS failure underscores that technical certification (NuScale was the first to receive NRC design approval) cannot save a project that loses its social and financial mandate ^[37], ^[41]. When transparency is compromised, public and municipal consent rapidly disintegrates.

[4] 4 Social Value as a Supply Chain Strategy: Rolls-Royce SMR (UK)

Rolls-Royce SMR is approaching community integration through the lens of industrial revival and "social value." Acknowledging that SMRs can be sited beyond traditional nuclear locations (e.g., former industrial land in Teesside), the company recognizes that trust must be built from first principles ^[18].

Rolls-Royce SMR has launched a dedicated supply chain portal to identify local UK companies, ensuring the project maximizes domestic content ^[42], ^[43]. Their overarching Sustainability Strategy focuses heavily on social responsibility, aiming to build a capable, resilient, and sustainable supply chain that delivers social value directly to the host communities ^[44], ^[45]. By framing the SMR as a "factory-built" product that generates high-value manufacturing jobs in economically depressed regions, Rolls-Royce is designing consent into its procurement architecture ^[44], ^[42].

[5] Critical Challenges in Designing Public Trust

Despite the promise of SMRs, developers in the 2025–2026 window face a formidable set of socio-political challenges. Addressing these requires moving beyond engineering rhetoric to address human psychology and localized economics.

[5] 1 Financial Uncertainty and the Legacy of Overruns

The shadow of legacy nuclear projects—characterized by massive delays and budget overruns (e.g., Plant Vogtle)—looms large over SMRs ^[41], ^[6]. The UAMPS/NuScale cancellation proved that SMRs are not immune to these pressures. The primary challenge is that SMR cost certainty cannot be truly proven until an orderbook is established and multiple units are deployed, creating a "chicken-and-egg" scenario for the First-Of-A-Kind deployments ^[46], ^[2]. Host communities are highly sensitive to bearing the financial risk of unproven economic models.

[5] 2 Safety Perceptions, Waste, and Security

While Generation III+ and IV SMR designs boast inherent, passive safety features (e.g., relying on physics rather than active pumps to cool the reactor in an emergency), public perception remains anchored to historical accidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima) ^[47].

Furthermore, the management of radioactive waste remains an unresolved governance risk. In the EU and elsewhere, uncertainty regarding future disposal concepts for SMR waste—especially given the specialized nature of advanced fuels like HALEU—constitutes a major barrier to public acceptance ^[16], ^[1]. Security is also a localized concern; communities question whether small, distributed facilities will receive the same high-level security apparatus as traditional, massive nuclear plants ^[46].

[5] 3 Economic Disruption vs. Benefit

While SMRs bring jobs, the transition can be jarring. In coal-to-nuclear transitions, a mismatch exists between the timeline of a coal plant closure and the operational start of an SMR, potentially leaving a workforce stranded in the interim ^[31]. Furthermore, communities fear that highly specialized nuclear engineering jobs will be outsourced to external experts, leaving only temporary construction jobs for locals ^[29].

[6] The Role of Design Thinking in Nuclear Infrastructure

To overcome the challenges of transparency, equity, and sustainability, the nuclear industry is increasingly turning to Design Thinking—a human-centered approach to innovation that integrates the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success ^[48], ^[20].

Historically, the nuclear industry operated on a "decide-announce-defend" model, which structurally marginalized community input ^[3]. Contemporary design thinking requires transitioning to a "co-create and iterate" model.

[6] 1 Balancing Innovation with Regulatory Rigor

Designers working on safety-critical systems in the nuclear domain must balance their roles as innovators with the strict, rational problem-solving required by regulators ^[48]. A unique "design thinking" for nuclear requires acknowledging that while the core reactor physics are inflexible, the interfaces with the community—such as facility aesthetics, integration with local district heating, and surrounding landscape design—are highly malleable and should be co-designed with residents ^[48], ^[20].

[6] 2 Participatory Design and Youth Engagement

Pioneering academic research advocates for participatory design practices that position community members, particularly youth, as co-designers of energy infrastructure ^[4]. Recognizing youth not as passive future consumers, but as present-day rightsholders, projects in Metro Atlanta and at the University of Michigan have utilized design-build-test courses to map energy justice ^[49], ^[4].

In these programs, students engage in design thinking exercises, facilitating workshops with community members and conceptualizing nuclear campuses that reflect cultural relevance and community benefits ^[49], ^[4]. By injecting systems thinking into nuclear education, the industry can cultivate a workforce that possesses both technical acumen and "critical and creative nuclear energy literacies," ensuring that future infrastructure is deeply contextualized within its sociotechnical environment ^[20].

[6] 3 Building Cross-Disciplinary Networks

Organizations like the N Square Innovation Network (NSIN) represent a novel approach to the nuclear problem space. By bringing together top minds in media, technology, climate change, design, and finance, these networks use design thinking and strategic foresight to prototype new approaches to nuclear challenges ^[3]. This "creative abrasion" breaks down industry silos, fostering unconventional insights that are vital for designing community consent at the local level ^[3].

[7] Emerging Best Practices for Local Integration

Synthesizing the successes and failures of the early 2020s, several best practices for SMR community consent have emerged for the 2025–2026 deployment wave.

[7] 1 Proactive, Technology-Neutral Siting Criteria

Successful siting replaces aggressive land acquisition with flexible, opt-in frameworks. Developers should evaluate multiple communities simultaneously, utilizing transparent criteria (grid needs, infrastructure, regulatory feasibility) while prioritizing areas that actively volunteer to host the site ^[30]. Aligning SMRs with retiring coal infrastructure leverages existing transmission lines, industrial zoning, and a community ethos already accustomed to energy generation ^[31].

[7] 2 Equitable Compensation and Benefit-Sharing

To sustain a social license, economic benefits must be structural, recurring, and legally binding ^[1].

Equity Stakes: Offering minority ownership or equity partnerships to local municipalities and Indigenous Nations transforms opponents into stakeholders ^[9], ^[10].
Hyper-Local Supply Chains: Mandating that a specific percentage of construction and procurement budgets (e.g., OPG's 80% Ontario target) be spent locally ensures the economic multiplier effect is felt immediately by local small businesses ^[9].
Capacity Funding: Developers and regulators must provide upfront funding to local communities so they can hire their own independent experts, lawyers, and environmental assessors. This levels the power dynamic and builds trust in the data ^[25], ^[50].

[7] 3 Sustained, Transparent Communication Ecosystems

Communication must be a two-way street established years before ground is broken. It requires maintaining a constant physical presence in the community (town halls, local offices, regular media updates) ^[29]. Crucially, as learned from the UAMPS failure, financial transparency is non-negotiable. Cost models, including worst-case overrun scenarios, must be shared openly with municipal partners ^[5].

Furthermore, educational outreach should focus not just on engineering safety, but on system-level integration—explaining how the SMR supports local industry, desalinates water, or powers the new digital economy (data centers) without straining the local grid ^[25], ^[11].

[8] A Practical Framework for Effective Community Consent Strategies

For senior design leaders, project managers, and energy executives tasked with deploying SMRs, the following framework applies design thinking methodologies to the socio-political challenge of community integration.

Design Phase	Objectives & Actions	Common Pitfalls to Avoid
1. Empathize & Discover (Pre-Siting)	Identify potential host communities through an opt-in model. Fund local municipalities to conduct independent economic and environmental assessments ^[50], ^[17]. Listen to historical grievances regarding energy transitions.	Using the "Decide-Announce-Defend" approach. Selecting sites based purely on technical criteria while ignoring local political climate ^[3].
2. Define & Align (Narrative)	Align the SMR project with the community’s existing long-term development plans (e.g., coal-to-nuclear transition, data center expansion) ^[29], ^[11]. Map the exact economic multiplier, including job creation and supply chain integration ^[34].	Assuming climate change mitigation alone is a sufficient local motivator. Ignoring the threat of temporary workforce displacement ^[31].
3. Ideate & Co-Create (Design)	Engage the community in participatory design. Utilize local design-build workshops to shape the facility's non-nuclear footprint (aesthetics, public spaces, waste routing) ^[49], ^[4]. Establish transparent, technology-neutral safety dialogues ^[51].	Treating community input as a superficial PR exercise. Failing to include diverse demographics (e.g., youth, Indigenous groups) ^[4].
4. Prototype & Validate (Financials)	Develop clear, transparent financial models. Openly discuss the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) and the risks of FOAK cost overruns ^[5]. Structure equitable compensation models, such as Indigenous equity stakes or municipal revenue-sharing ^[9].	Hiding financial data or utilizing opaque economic methodologies ^[6]. Promising unrealistic, low energy costs to secure initial buy-in ^[5].
5. Deploy & Sustain (Integration)	Execute on local supply chain commitments via dedicated procurement portals ^[42]. Invest in local workforce retraining programs (e.g., community colleges) well before the plant is operational ^[31]. Maintain ongoing, transparent dialogue regarding operations and waste management ^[1].	Outsourcing the majority of high-paying operational jobs. Retreating from the community once construction begins ^[29].

[9] Conclusion

The global deployment of Small Modular Reactors in the 2025–2026 timeline represents far more than a technical achievement; it is a profound test of sociotechnical design. The contrasting realities of the successful TerraPower and OPG Darlington projects against the collapse of the UAMPS CFPP illustrate a definitive truth: advanced nuclear technology cannot survive on engineering merit alone. It requires a robust, meticulously designed social license to operate.

By moving away from archaic, top-down communication strategies and embracing participatory design thinking, SMR developers can transform skeptical municipalities into empowered equity partners. Transparent financial modeling, proactive regulatory harmonization, hyper-local supply chain integration, and deep, empathetic engagement are not merely best practices—they are the foundational architecture of community consent. As the energy transition accelerates, the SMR sector must recognize that building public trust is the first and most critical phase of building a reactor.

[10] References

[1] UK Office for Nuclear Regulation. (2025). "ONR outlines international collaboration on SMRs." ONR News. ²: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (2026). "Regulate small modular reactors." CNSC. ³: SMR Action Plan. (2020). "Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission." SMR Action Plan. ⁴: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. (2020). "Canada's SMR Action Plan: Regulatory Change at CNSC." BLG Insights. ⁵: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (2025). "DIS-16-04, Small Modular Reactors: Regulatory Strategy, Approaches and Challenges." CNSC Consultations. ⁶: Clean Air Task Force. (2025). "The Power of Engagement: A Critical Mass - Natrium Advanced Nuclear Reactor." CATF. ⁷: Nuclear Innovation Alliance. (2021). "Case Studies: Repowering Wyoming Communities with an Advanced Reactor." NIA. ⁸: American Nuclear Society. (2024). "NRC, residents discuss TerraPower SMR plans in Wyoming." Nuclear News. ⁹: Enki AI. (2025). "Industry Adoption: How TerraPower's Wyoming Natrium Project Is Moving from Blueprint to Commercial Reality." Enki AI Data Center. ¹⁰: TerraPower. (n.d.). "Wyoming." TerraPower. ¹¹: Time Data. (n.d.). "Time in Natrona County, US." Google Search. ¹²: Site Selection Group. (2026). "How Small Modular Reactors Could Reshape How Manufacturers Think About Energy." SSG Blog. ¹³: Nuclear Business Platform. (2025). "10 Major Nuclear Energy Developments to Watch in 2025." NBP Insights. ¹⁴: Baker McKenzie. (2026). "European Union Strategy for Small Modular Reactor Development and Deployment." Baker McKenzie Insights. ¹⁵: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. (2026). "Small Modular Reactors in Europe." Böll EU. ¹⁶: Cardinal News. (2025). "Goochland County will help us gauge the public acceptance of the next generation of nuclear reactors." Cardinal News. ¹⁷: EFI Foundation. (2024). "Enhancing Community Acceptance of SMRs." EFI Foundation. ¹⁸: ANSTO. (2024). "Small Modular Reactors: An Overview." ANSTO News. ¹⁹: Sustainability Directory. (2025). "What are the economic benefits of SMR deployment?" Sustainability Directory. ²⁰: EFI Foundation. (2024). "Making Small Modular Reactors Bankable Investments." EFI Foundation. ²¹: RBC Climate Action Institute. (2024). "Think Small: How Canada Can Make Small Modular Nuclear Reactors a Priority." RBC Thought Leadership. ²²: Ontario Newsroom. (2025). "Ontario Leads the G7 by Building First Small Modular Reactor." Ontario Government. ²³: SMR Action Plan. (2020). "Ontario Power Generation." SMR Action Plan. ²⁴: Ontario Power Generation. (n.d.). "Darlington SMR." OPG Projects. ²⁵: World Nuclear News. (2025). "OPG secures government equity financing for SMR project." WNN. ²⁶: American Nuclear Society. (2026). "Agreement signed to bring world's largest nuclear station to Port Hope, Ontario." Nuclear News. ²⁷: Time Data. (n.d.). "Time in Toronto, CA." Google Search. ²⁸: Rolls-Royce SMR. (2024). "Rolls-Royce SMR Power Plant Introduction." Rolls-Royce. ²⁹: Rolls-Royce SMR. (2023). "Rolls-Royce SMR seeks 'best of British' in supply chain portal launch." Rolls-Royce SMR Press. ³⁰: Rolls-Royce SMR. (n.d.). "Chapter 26 - Sustainability." GDA Rolls-Royce SMR. ³¹: WSP. (2025). "Can Nuclear SMRs redefine our relationship with nuclear?" WSP Insights. ³²: Rolls-Royce SMR. (2024). "Rolls-Royce SMR supply chain programme launched." Rolls-Royce SMR Press. ³³: European Leadership Network. (2021). "Building a new kind of nuclear network: The N Square example." ELN Commentary. ³⁴: Nordic Nuclear Safety Research. (2013). "Design activities in the nuclear industry." NKS. ³⁵: OSTI.gov. (2025). "Innovations in nuclear education and systems thinking." US Department of Energy. ³⁶: University of Michigan. (2024). "Future nuclear engineers: U-M hosts high school students to explore careers." Michigan Engineering News. ³⁷: American Nuclear Society. (2025). "Participatory design in nuclear engineering research and education." ANS ePubs. ³⁸: NucNet. (2023). "NuScale Cancels Utah Small Modular Reactor Project As Costs Increase." NucNet. ³⁹: NuScale Power. (2023). "Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and NuScale Power Agree to Terminate the Carbon Free Power Project." NuScale Press Releases. ⁴⁰: Nuclear Engineering International. (2023). "UAMPS and NuScale cancel plans to build SMRs at INL." NEI Magazine. ⁴¹: Utility Dive. (2024). "NuScale UAMPS project small modular reactor cancellation." Utility Dive. ⁴²: World Nuclear News. (2023). "NuScale CEO remains upbeat after CFPP cancellation." WNN. ⁴³: Clean Air Task Force. (2025). "The Power of Engagement Report." CATF. ⁴⁴: Clean Air Task Force. (2025). "A Critical Mass: Natrium Advanced Nuclear Reactor." CATF. ⁴⁵: Clean Air Task Force. (n.d.). "Community Engagement in the U.S." CATF. ⁴⁶: World Nuclear News. (2024). "Transatlantic collaboration on SMR regulation expanded." WNN. ⁴⁷: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2024). "U.S., Canadian and U.K. Nuclear Regulators to Expand Cooperation." NRC News. ⁴⁸: Nuclear Engineering International. (2025). "UK report outlines global collaboration on SMRs." NEI Magazine. ⁴⁹: Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. (2024). "Revitalising Nuclear: The UK Can Power AI and Lead the Clean Energy." TBI Insights. ⁵⁰: Haynes Boone. (2025). "Aligning Nuclear Regulatory Efforts Under the Technology Prosperity Deal." Haynes Boone Alerts. ⁵¹: Time Data. (n.d.). "Time in Natrona County, US." Google Search. ⁵²: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (2026). "Regulate small modular reactors - SMR Readiness." CNSC. ⁵³: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (2024). "Small Modular Reactor Readiness." CNSC. ⁵⁴: SMR Action Plan. (2023). "Progress Update." SMR Action Plan. ⁵⁵: Electricity Human Resources Canada. (2025). "Powering Intelligence 2025." EHRC. ⁵⁶: Generation IV International Forum. (2025). "GIF-IAEA Webinar on Regulatory Activities in Support of SMRs." GIF. ⁵⁷: Ontario Power Generation. (n.d.). "Darlington SMR - Economic Benefits." OPG Projects. ⁵⁸: Canada Action. (2026). "Canada Wave of Nuclear Projects to Create Prosperity." Canada Action. ⁵⁹: Ontario Newsroom. (2025). "Ontario Leads the G7 by Building First Small Modular Reactor." Ontario Government. ⁶⁰: Building Ontario Fund. (2025). "Ontario Power Generation SMR Project." BOF. ⁶¹: Ontario Newsroom. (2025). "Ontario Investing $1 Billion to Build Small Modular Reactors at Darlington." Ontario Government. ⁶²: NucNet. (2023). "NuScale Cancels Utah Small Modular Reactor Project As Costs Increase." NucNet. ⁶³: EnergyNow. (2026). "First U.S. Small Nuke Project Canceled After Costs Surge 53%." EnergyNow. ⁶⁴: Utility Dive. (2024). "NuScale UAMPS project small modular reactor cancellation." Utility Dive. ⁶⁵: Nuclear Costs. (n.d.). "The NuScale Failure." NuclearCosts.org. ⁶⁶: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. (2023). "Advisory: NuScale and UAMPS End SMR Project CFPP." NRECA

Sources:

SMRs: Designing Community Consent