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?]

  • dev_null@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I know nothing on the topic, but the points you raise don’t seem relevant to me?

    SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

    Yeah, economies of scale mean small things are generally less efficient than big things. This is a criticism of local power generation that applies just as well to wind turbines for example. Nothing to do with this idea really.

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

    Why would anyone expect large power plants to be less safe than this? I’d expect the technology in both to be safe. Tell me if this is safe or not, not if it’s “safer” than large power plants on some ambiguous scale. Rooftop solar is also less safe than commercial solar power plants just due to being located near someone’s living space, but it’s a useless relative comparison.

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

    That one is the only valid point to me.

    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.

    Why not? Seems like they would.

    SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

    This is just a repeat of the first point.

    Again, I know nothing on this and don’t have an opinion either way. I’m pointing out this seems to be a criticism but only one of the 5 points seems to actually criticize this.

    • solo@kbin.earthOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      These are not my points, they come from the article. So for example in relation to your question on the

      SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power…

      they have a couple of paragraphs that give an explanation.

      • Zoot@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        My first issue with this, is that he’s still using his information from 2013. For instance, he claims that the spent fuel is just as dangerous. Yet we have proven time and time again, that the spent fuel rods can be used in other nuclear facilities to generate even more power off of them. We have the technology (theoretically of course, you need to actually build the facilities for this to work…) get even more energy off this “waste”, in turn also making it far less dangerous!

        Second issue being he says the reactors would need a secondary power source in case of emergency. Duh? Thats his reason, is that they would need a backup power source to keep the coolant system running… Duh.

        • baru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          My first issue with this, is that he’s still using his information from 2013.

          That’s actually a thing against nuclear power. For decades it’s the best thing. But often drawbacks are only solved in a new design that isn’t in a lot of nuclear power stations. And if they’re actually build then the cost overrun by a factor of 2 and more.

          It’s always the next iteration that’ll solve things. It seems to be like a costly way to produce power if it’ll be built. Existing ones can be cheap, but then there are often several technical versions out of date.

          • Zoot@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes, nuclear if always hindered by money. It doesn’t have to be that way, and one way to help nuclear is by correcting the information of old, and embracing the new technology we do have.