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?]

  • Blue_Morpho
    90·
    5 months ago

    I was very pro nuclear but in the past few years, solar+batteries have become cheaper than nuclear. We can go 100% solar + batteries for less than building nuclear and save the uranium for important things like spaceflight.

    • mynachmadarch
      42·
      5 months ago

      It’s not just the financial cost though. Going solar+batteries requires a significant increase in lithium production which has all kinds of environmental downsides. New battery tech is in the world to use just sodium and such but we’re nowhere near large scale for that yet. Nuclear (alongside other technology and reducing our power usage) could bridge the gap to the new tech.

      Either way, good luck getting anyone in charge to agree on anything, let alone that hurts their coal and gas profits.