Small modular reactors (SMRs) are currently being viewed by many in the EU as a possible solution to meet their increasing demands for Low-Carbon Electricity. The key to their successful implementation is whether or not they will be able to make the transition from Vision Statements into Binding Commitments.
Why modular nuclear is moving toward binding agreements
Throughout most of the last ten years, discussions about SMRs were centered primarily on design readiness and the theoretical benefits that could result. More recently, the focus has shifted toward practicality. This includes whether designs can be vetted by government agencies to meet regulatory standards, attract industry partners, and initiate preliminary on‑site work.
Modular approaches are being viewed as a means to minimize the length of time it takes to get a project off the ground and decrease the risk associated with designing and building large, custom‑built nuclear facilities. However, this benefit is contingent upon something more tangible than just having a design ready — namely, contractual certainty and the ability to start doing some initial site preparation work.
In this environment, the metric for success will no longer be based solely on conceptual readiness. Instead, it will depend on establishing a clear path for delivering projects that incorporate regulatory requirements, industrial capabilities, and financial structures supporting repeated deployments.
Establishing momentum through early commitments
Against this backdrop, Rolls‑Royce SMR announced an Early Works Agreement with the Czech energy company ČEZ Group. The agreement enables site‑specific design activities for the Czech Republic’s first small modular reactor at the Temelín site, including preparation of permit and license applications.
The signing of the agreement represents a major milestone for both companies, bridging the transition from planning to execution. However, it does not signify that a final investment decision has been made or that construction has commenced. Rather, it marks an important first step that enables both parties to lay the necessary groundwork for deploying the technology.
Rolls‑Royce emphasized that this agreement complements their earlier efforts in the United Kingdom, where they entered into a contract with Great British Energy Nuclear to provide the design and delivery of the first SMR units in the country. Together, the two agreements position Rolls‑Royce SMR as the only company with multiple contractual commitments to deliver SMR units in Europe.
Early commitments like those made by Rolls‑Royce SMR and Great British Energy — Nuclear play a critical role in creating certainty for regulators, suppliers, and investors alike. They also enable organizations to convert long‑term nuclear strategies into actionable plans that can be developed, analyzed, and improved iteratively.
Preparing for a rollout of small modular reactors across Europe
The company indicated that its partnership with ČEZ Group is expected to ultimately contribute to supporting the deployment of approximately 3 GW of electricity in the Czech Republic over time. This would commence with site‑specific design work for the first unit at Temelín. Additionally, the early works phase of the agreement includes work related to infrastructure planning and regulatory preparation.
Chris Cholerton, CEO of Rolls‑Royce SMR, stated that he believes this agreement unlocks a substantial body of work at the Temelín site and underscores its significance as an initiative to create momentum in various markets throughout Europe. Rolls‑Royce has further stated that its SMR design is currently the furthest advanced in a European regulatory process, reinforcing its position as a first mover in Europe.
The recent agreements made by Rolls‑Royce SMR reflect a broader shift in Europe’s nuclear sector. As modular concepts move from policy discussion to binding agreements, companies such as Rolls‑Royce SMR are using early works contracts in the UK and the Czech Republic to anchor rollout plans in regulatory preparation and site‑specific development.
