NY Times climate correspondent David Wallace-Wells, in Forests Are No Longer Our Climate Friends, Sept. 6.
Carbon Footprint
SMRs Set for Breakout: Global Nuclear Capacity Forecast to Jump Nearly Sixfold by 2030
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are moving from concept to commercial reality. A new forecast from GlobalData suggests global SMR capacity could increase nearly sixfold between 2025 and 2030.
The projection reflects rising confidence in advanced nuclear technology as countries search for reliable, low-carbon electricity. This demand is being driven by electrification, artificial intelligence (AI), data center growth, and industrial decarbonization.
For years, SMRs were seen as a long-term idea. That view is now shifting. Governments are updating nuclear policies. Regulators are speeding up licensing reviews. Utilities are forming partnerships with technology developers.
At the same time, electricity demand is rising sharply, strengthening the case for firm power sources capable of operating 24/7. This momentum comes as countries try to meet net-zero targets while also ensuring stable and affordable energy supplies.
Why SMRs Are Gaining Momentum
SMRs are nuclear reactors that typically produce up to 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity per unit. Unlike large nuclear plants, they are designed to be built in factories and assembled on site.
Supporters say this modular approach can reduce construction time, improve cost control, and make deployment more flexible. SMRs can also be added in phases, depending on demand growth.
GlobalData’s forecast reflects a wider revival in nuclear energy. The firm expects global nuclear capacity to grow steadily over the next decade, by almost sixfold from 2025 to 2030. That increase could even reach a hundredfold by 2040. Cleaner energy goals, policy backing, and increasing demand for stable baseload electricity will support this growth.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) also expects strong long-term growth. In its Announced Pledges Scenario, the IEA predicts over 1,000 SMRs to be used worldwide by 2050. This would add up to about 120 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. It also estimates SMR investment could rise from about $5 billion today to more than $25 billion by 2030.
Meanwhile, major SMR projects are moving forward. GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300 design will be used at Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington site in Canada. This is one of the most advanced SMR projects currently in planning.
Holtec International is also advancing plans to install SMR-300 reactors at the Palisades site in Michigan. The company has outlined a long-term vision that could scale SMR capacity across North America to as much as 10 GW in the coming decades.
These early projects are important. They will test cost, speed, and performance. Their results will help determine how quickly SMRs can scale globally.
Nuclear Power’s Quiet Climate Comeback
As countries move toward net-zero targets, nuclear energy is receiving renewed attention as a low-emissions power source.
According to the IEA, nuclear is the world’s second-largest source of low-emissions electricity after hydropower. In 2024, more than 410 reactors in over 30 countries supplied about 9% of global electricity. Nuclear also generated more low-carbon electricity than wind and significantly more than solar.
- Since 1971, nuclear power has helped avoid roughly 72 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
This climate contribution is becoming more important as electricity demand rises and countries retire coal plants. The IEA expects global nuclear generation to reach a record high in 2025, supported by reactor restarts in Japan, maintenance work in France, and new builds in Asia.
More than 60 reactors are currently under construction worldwide, adding over 70 GW of new capacity.
SMRs could strengthen this role further. Their smaller size makes them suitable for regions where large nuclear plants are not practical. They may also replace aging coal plants by using existing grid infrastructure.
In addition, SMRs are being considered for industrial uses such as hydrogen production, mining, and heavy manufacturing, where steady heat and power are required.
Big Tech and Data Centers Drive New Power Demand
One of the strongest drivers for SMR growth is the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and data centers. AI systems require large amounts of electricity. Training and operating these systems depend on high-performance computing infrastructure that runs continuously. This is pushing electricity demand higher in key technology hubs.
Goldman Sachs has raised its forecast for AI-related capital spending by major hyperscalers. The bank now expects Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet to invest about $5.3 trillion between 2025 and 2030, up from a previous estimate of $4.5 trillion. A large share of this spending will go into AI infrastructure, data centers, and supporting energy systems.
Moreover, Goldman Sachs Research estimates global data center electricity demand could increase by as much as 165% by 2030 compared with 2023 levels.
This surge in demand is changing energy planning. While renewable energy remains central to corporate climate strategies, many technology companies are also looking for stable, round-the-clock power sources.
SMRs are increasingly viewed as a potential solution because they can provide constant power without weather dependence. Unlike wind or solar, nuclear plants can operate day and night continuously. This reliability is becoming more important as AI workloads grow and grids face higher stress.
As a result, several SMR developers are now targeting data center operators as future customers, alongside traditional utilities.
The First Wave of SMR Projects Breaks Ground
The SMR industry is now entering a more practical phase, with several flagship projects moving toward construction and deployment.
In Canada, Ontario Power Generation is advancing the first commercial deployment of GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300 reactor at the Darlington site. This project is widely seen as a key test case for SMR commercialization in North America.
In the United States, TerraPower continues development of its Natrium reactor in Wyoming. The project, backed by Bill Gates, combines nuclear generation with advanced energy storage. This design aims to improve flexibility and help balance electricity grids with growing renewable energy penetration.
These developments mark an important shift. The industry is moving beyond design and licensing discussions and into construction, financing, and real-world deployment.
The Roadblocks on the Nuclear Revival Path
Despite strong momentum, SMRs still face major challenges.
- Cost remains the most important issue. Early projects must prove that factory-based construction can reliably reduce total costs compared with traditional nuclear plants.
- Regulatory approval is another barrier. Even though licensing frameworks are improving, nuclear projects still require long review timelines in most countries.
- Fuel supply is also a concern. Many advanced SMR designs depend on high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), but global supply chains are still limited.
- There are also broader concerns around nuclear waste management and public acceptance, which continue to influence project timelines in several regions.
These challenges explain why some analysts remain cautious about near-term deployment, even while long-term forecasts are becoming more positive.
Outlook: A Defining Decade for SMRs
The next five years could be decisive for SMRs. Global momentum is being driven by several overlapping trends. Electricity demand is rising. AI growth is accelerating. Countries are committing to net-zero targets. Energy security has become a national priority. At the same time, nuclear technology is improving.
GlobalData’s forecast of a nearly sixfold increase in SMR capacity by 2030 reflects growing confidence that the sector is approaching commercial scale.
While SMRs are still in the early stages of deployment, progress in Canada, the United States, China, and other regions suggests the industry is moving closer to wider adoption.
If current projects succeed, SMRs could become an important part of the global low-carbon energy mix. They may help support grid stability, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and provide the steady power needed for a more electrified and digital economy.
The post SMRs Set for Breakout: Global Nuclear Capacity Forecast to Jump Nearly Sixfold by 2030 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
“…”What gets measured gets managed. But what gets audited gets trusted….”
The disclosures regulators, auditors, and investors now read the same way they read your financial statements.
For most of the last decade, Scope 3 emissions sat in the appendix of the sustainability report. Auditors skimmed past it. Investors filed it under “nice to have.” Boards approved it without much pushback. The number was directional, the methodology was opaque, and everyone seemed comfortable with that arrangement.
That arrangement is now over. In the last 24 months, your Scope 3 reduction strategy has migrated from the appendix to the front of the disclosure file. The auditors who used to skim past it are now flagging it. The investors who used to file it are now asking follow-up questions on earnings calls. The boards that used to approve it are now asking whether you can defend the number under sworn testimony. The shift is uncomfortable but it is also rational, and you need a Scope 3 reduction strategy that holds up.
This article explains what changed, where most Scope 3 inventories fall apart under scrutiny, and what corporates with material exposure are doing to prepare.
What “audited Scope 3” actually means in 2026
Under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, large companies operating in the European Union must now disclose Scope 3 emissions across all relevant value chain categories, with the same assurance expectations applied to financial reporting. The European Sustainability Reporting Standards require limited assurance now, with reasonable assurance phasing in over the next several years.
In the United States, the SEC’s climate disclosure rule remains contested in court, but California’s SB 253 requires large companies doing business in the state to disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with third-party assurance. The International Sustainability Standards Board’s IFRS S2 standard, adopted in over 20 jurisdictions, requires climate-related disclosures that auditors and securities regulators can test.
The practical effect is consistent across geographies. Scope 3 is no longer a marketing number. It is a regulated disclosure that travels with your financial statements and carries comparable legal weight.
Where most Scope 3 inventories fall apart under scrutiny
Three failure modes turn up over and over.
The first is over-reliance on spend-based methods. Most companies started Scope 3 reporting by multiplying spend by an industry-average emission factor, following the methodology set out in the GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard. That works for an initial estimate. It does not work for an audit. When the auditor asks why your category 1 number assumes the industry average for your top supplier, the answer “because we have not asked them” is no longer acceptable.
The second is missing or inconsistent supplier data. Category 1 (purchased goods and services) and category 11 (use of sold products) together can represent 70% or more of a company’s total footprint, according to CDP Supply Chain research. If half your tier-one suppliers have no measured data, your Scope 3 number is half a guess, and the auditor will say so.
The third is the boundary problem. What counts as part of your value chain, where the boundary sits between Scope 3 category 1 and category 4, how franchised operations are treated, how joint ventures are consolidated: each of these is now an auditable judgment. Two years ago, a quiet footnote covered the ambiguity. Now the footnote itself becomes the audit finding.
The shift from disclosure to defensibility
The reframe you need is not technical, it is governance. Your Scope 3 reduction strategy is now a disclosure controls question, in the same way that revenue recognition is a financial controls question. The auditors apply the same logic: where did the number come from, who signed off on the method, how is the supporting evidence retained, and how do you correct it when it turns out to be wrong.
What this means in practice: the procurement and finance functions are now stakeholders in your carbon math, whether you invited them or not. Procurement controls supplier data quality. Finance controls the documentation discipline that supports the disclosure. The CSO who used to own Scope 3 alone now owns it jointly with the controller and the head of procurement.
Why reduction strategy now sits inside procurement and finance
This is where the strategic question shifts. If the data sits with procurement and the disclosure controls sit with finance, your reduction strategy has to sit there too. Buying offsets in November to clean up a Q4 disclosure is not a reduction strategy; it is a write-down. Reducing the emissions inside your supply chain, at the supplier level, with verifiable interventions: that is what survives audit.
The Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 found that current and future carbon credit buyers expect 65% of their net-zero progress to come from inside the value chain, with 24% from supplier action and 41% from their own operations. Only 7% expect to rely on carbon removals to offset residual emissions. That number is the consensus view of where Scope 3 reduction strategy is heading: into the supply chain, embedded in procurement contracts, with finance signing off on the documentation.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class purpose-built for this shift. They sit inside the company’s value chain rather than outside it. They generate verifiable emissions reductions that flow through Scope 3 categories 1 and 4 under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard. They produce the documentation trail an auditor can test. And they deliver operational co-benefits, including yield resilience, supplier loyalty, and regulatory readiness, that make the carbon math sustainable across the multi-year horizon that disclosure now requires.
If you are responsible for a Scope 3 reduction strategy that will face audit, investor questioning, and regulatory review across the next reporting cycle, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure to a Dual-Value Model engagement built for that scrutiny. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- GHG Protocol. Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. https://ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard
- Science Based Targets initiative. Corporate Net-Zero Standard. https://sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero
- CDP. Climate Change reporting guidance. https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance
- IPCC. AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 12: Cross-sectoral perspectives. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
- WRI and WBCSD. GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard. https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
- CDP. Global Supply Chain Report. https://www.cdp.net/en/research/global-reports
European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022L2464
Selecting a carbon credit provider has become a material decision for corporate sustainability teams. Regulatory requirements are tightening, independent rating agencies now scrutinise credit quality, and procurement standards have risen accordingly. Buyers increasingly require clear evidence of where capital is directed and what each credit delivers.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测