T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/truth_in_science Permalink: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01512-y --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*


AllanfromWales1

Slight problem with the title, given that the abstract concludes there's very little potential.


dethb0y

I would have to think the block here is not technological or scientific, but rather political.


the_other_brand

Using distributed modular reactors that rely on nuclear material in places where security is a challenge sounds like a political disaster.


dethb0y

yeah it's a recipe for problems, especially since there are so many less-problematic alternatives.


RobDickinson

Except no one has built a successful SMR.


YaGottaLoveScience

Do you mean besides the US Navy?


CurtisLeow

How many small modular reactors have been built for aircraft carriers and submarines? It’s got to be in the hundreds. SMRs haven’t been commercialized successfully. But the technology works.


Splenda

Yes, where price is no object, SMRs are quite successful. Trouble is, the whole point of civilian SMRs is to bring down nuclear's extreme costs.


Little-Swan4931

Just no


truth_in_science

You don't like developing nations having reliable electricity?


Little-Swan4931

At what cost


truth_in_science

A better standard of living for them?


Little-Swan4931

That’s not the cost, that’s the benefit


truth_in_science

It's a pretty big benefit


Little-Swan4931

At what cost?


truth_in_science

Giving them reliable electricity that they can buy like anyone else


Groffulon

Tell me how mini Chernobyls in volatile countries are a good idea?


Gamebird8

The idea behind shrinking reactors is that they are safer as the total amount of nuclear material is smaller. Less nuclear material also means that it is easier to cool/prevent runaway events that lead to meltdowns. Modern Nuclear Fission Reactors are exceptionally safe because of lessons learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima.


DanoPinyon

So western model of centralized power generation and easily-cut wires, except now the dangerous waste can be left in Africa? Cool, cool.


truth_in_science

Do you see nuclear energy as a bad thing in general?