[bayesian_horse]

As I said, new technologies might change that assessment, but these technologies are not even on the horizon yet.

The problem with nuclear waste, however, very much exists already.

And there is no mention that these SMR create less nuclear waste or that they can't be turned into weapons grade material. Certainly even the fissile material in an SMR would be enough for a dirty bomb out of hell. Let alone the material you can steal from a dozen reactors in a sparsely populated area, none of which will have significant security.

[eumenides1]

Again you are trying to broad brush the argument as the parent comment has already stated.

How do we get better nuclear technology? we iterate on it. SMR are an iteration to solve flaws in the previous versions. A quick wiki search indicates that they are designed to create less waste because of their higher burn-up rates. So yes, technology is on the horizon. Consider changing your assessment.

Nuclear waste? Some SMRs are also breeder reactors which convert fissionable materials into usable fuels. Consider changing your assessment.

The security issue is another board brush attempt to continue to scare people away from nuclear power. SMR inputs and output are not desired for weapons production because they are consider low-enrichment. And once fuel has been irradiated, it requires special handling for safety. So you'll probably die before you'll make your dirty bomb. Consider changing your assessment.

If you really wanted to attack SMRs, you really should say that, SMRs are "small" so they don't generate a lot of energy and have to be placed in many locations. This can multiply problems that exist. But that doesn't mean they won't have significant security, that is an (incorrect) assumption on your part. Consider changing your assessment.

Look, I don't expect to change your assessment, but I wanted to thank you for bringing me to read about SMRs. I learned a lot and had fun. I think SMRs are interesting and try to solve real problems with previous generations of nuclear energy. The addition of SMRs just add to what I believe will the best future for humanity, having a diverse and varied options of generating energy.

[bayesian_horse]

Of course distributed SMRs have lesser physical security than bigger facilities. If they had the same level of physical security, costs would increase by a lot and the advantage of being small and distributed in inaccessible areas would diminish.

I don't care about iteration and the promise of eventually getting to something safer, if the intermediate result is accumulating more nuclear waste and poses serious security risks.

[rubber_duck]

The ammount of effort required to steal fissile material from multiple reactors, without anyone figuring it out long enough to detonate and being caught, just to make a dirty bomb ? With what estimated impact ?

[bayesian_horse]

Good luck trying to track down the thieves if they raid a couple of reactor sites and just disappear. Doubly so if it's somewhere in the wilderness. I don't even think they need to raid more than one SMR to create a pretty nasty dirty bomb...

Estimated impact varies on how much material is in an SMR and how easy it is to take out.

And a raid isn't even technically necessary if an SMR gets into the wrong hands in the first place.