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.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits