Layer 1 · head to head
Small modular reactors (SMR) vs Grid interconnection
Two answers to the same question, both arriving in the 2030s.
| Small modular reactors (SMR) | Grid interconnection | |
|---|---|---|
| Lead time | 2030s for meaningful capacity | 4-5 years typical, approaching 5 on average |
| Capital cost | Very high, and first-of-a-kind cost risk is real | Utility-funded upgrades billed back; site cost varies wildly by region |
| Carbon | Effectively zero operational carbon | Whatever the local grid mix is |
| Maturity | emerging | proven |
Small modular reactors (SMR)
The catch: Nuclear belongs in the 2030+ baseload layer, not the 2026 energisation path, unless you inherit an existing plant interconnection. Any vendor implying otherwise is selling a press release.
Decides: A real answer to the decade-out question and no answer at all to the this-year question. Both things are true and the industry keeps conflating them.
Grid interconnection
The catch: The US queue exceeds 2,600 GW and roughly 80% of projects withdraw before energising. A queue position is not a power supply, and treating it as one is the single most common planning error in this industry right now.
Decides: If your interconnection date is 2031, your 2026 chip decision is really a 2031 chip decision. Plan the silicon around the power date, never the reverse.
What this powers
Want this whole layer as one table?
The power and cooling options on these pages as a single CSV — lead time, capex, carbon, maturity, density supported, PUE, the catch and what each one decides — ready to sort, filter or load into a notebook.
Get the energy table — free for research and evaluation
Four short lines and the download starts at once (CC-BY-NC-4.0, built from these pages the moment you ask). What you type is used only to answer the request and is never sold. Prefer Hugging Face? Request it there.
Using it inside a product, a client report or anything you sell? That needs a commercial licence.