Nuclear Energy is Feasible in Serbia: Presentation of the Preliminary Technical Study on the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy

The results and conclusions of the preliminary study on the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Serbia were presented today at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia. The study concludes that nuclear energy can be incorporated into Serbia’s energy mix and utilized as a key lever for the decarbonization of the Serbian energy sector.

The study defined the crucial steps that must be fulfilled before, colloquially speaking, “building a nuclear power plant” in Serbia. It elaborated on a roadmap leading to the start of construction, and ultimately, commercial operation. As expected, the study listed several technologies and potential strategic partners, the potential impacts of various combinations, and identified fields where more precise, extensive, and structured further research is required. However, the study did not speculate on possible locations or the eventual cost of the project—as these were beyond its scope.

Divided into three work packages, the study proposed a development roadmap, assessed nuclear technologies and markets, and (in the third package) provided a supply and demand analysis to define potential future electricity delivery in Serbia.

The study also notes that a key step in the process is public relations and the adequate involvement of the public in any final decision regarding the introduction of nuclear energy. It emphasized that a final decision has not yet been made—a point further underlined by several experts during the Q&A session.

Regarding the roadmap, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) “Milestone Approach” was utilized. The roadmap identified priority activities and critical milestones, providing, as claimed, “a structured path that will guide Serbia through the preparatory phases of infrastructure establishment.” The process is divided into three phases: consideration (1–2 years), preparatory work (approx. 5 years), and construction activities, which are projected to last over 6 years. (We agree; it is almost certain they will last longer). This results in a timeline of approximately 13 to 15 years for the entire journey—which we consider an extremely optimistic plan.

Furthermore, the study analyzed the optimal implementation model for nuclear facilities, assessing the impact of five different options and combinations: two or four units of 400 MW each (SMR options), a single 1000 MW reactor, a single 1200 MW reactor, and two units with a net capacity of 1200 MW each. However, these “balancing studies” require further, deeper analysis with more structured climate assumptions and different time horizons.

Among the large-capacity reactors identified as potential technologies are EDF’s EPR1200, Rosatom’s VVER-1200 design, KHNP’s APR1000, and Westinghouse’s AP1000. This evaluation was based on projected lifespan, power output, fuel cycle efficiency, seismic resilience, containment characteristics, grid compatibility, and supplier support. The study further notes that subsequent steps should include technical feasibility studies, cost and regulatory analyses, infrastructure planning, and alignment with international safety and economic standards. Interestingly, we did not see the “classic” EPR-1650 (1650 MW) in the offering—despite it being EDF’s most mature project with the most export experience.

Regarding Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), the “usual suspects” were present: Hitachi, Rolls-Royce SMR, Nuward, Holtec, and Westinghouse. Given that these are not yet commercial technologies with operational examples, the evaluation was based on design safety features, modularity, constructability, and market readiness. (On that note, we observed the conspicuous absence of the RITM reactor as well as the NuScale design—the “spice in every SMR soup.” NuScale was the first to seriously begin SMR development over twenty years ago; until recently, it seemed they were the most likely to produce a successful commercial design. Today, it appears that everyone except NuScale might actually build one.)

Returning to the central theme: the study’s final conclusion is that nuclear energy can be successfully applied as a decarbonization lever for Serbia’s energy mix. However, further complex balancing and grid capacity studies are required. The process must involve adequate public consultation before a final decision, and serious investment in domestic capacity building is essential—a point particularly emphasized by Dr. Koviljka Stanković in response to our inquiry.

The study was presented by EDF’s Head of Business Development, Antoine Guelphi, and Head of Business Development for Serbia, Christian Di Lizia. Following the presentation, questions were answered by: Dr. Miroslav Popović (Head of the Expert Working Group and Special Advisor to the Minister); Mr. Radoš Popadić (Acting Assistant Minister); Dr. Milutin Jevremović (Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences); Dr. Koviljka Stanković (Associate Professor at ETF and President of the Serbian Nuclear Society); Lt. Col. Miloš Stanković (Ministry of Defense); Dr. Vladan Ristić (EMS); and Zoran Drače (Independent Expert).

The full study will be available for download on the Ministry’s website this Monday, at which time we will provide a more detailed review.