A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

What are SMRs?

  1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

  2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

  3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

  4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

  5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

[Edit: If people have links that contradict any the above, could you please share in the comment section?]

  • @anonymous111
    4•6 months ago

    I though the use case was that these reactors can be mass produced in a factory and not require large scale infrastructure projects?

    I appreciate this hasn’t been proven but comparing apples with oranges seems odd.

    • @baru
      3•6 months ago

      I though the use case was that these reactors can be mass produced in a factory and not require large scale infrastructure projects?

      The mass production takes time to build up. It takes time to get experience. I’ve read various articles around SMRs. For at least the first 9 there will not be any mass production. It’ll be very costly.

      Usually production improves as more is produced. Possibly it improves by the experience gained, possibly by a new factory.

      It’ll not be immediately cheap and mass produced. While that is often claimed for SMRs.

      As small ones aren’t as efficient, it’ll be more costly per kWh. That it’ll be cheaper than regular nuclear power seems mostly wishful thinking.