Small reactors, maybe even mobile, can only make this worse.
If you want to prevent nuclear accidents, you should be supporting attempts to build new reactors, because that's the fastest route to getting the old ones decommissioned.
Again: Solve nuclear waste problem first, before creating ever more nuclear waste.
In fact, small format nuclear offers a decent chance at bridging the (frankly archaic in my opinion) second and third generation reactors with fourth generation and beyond.
Small format allows for quicker iteration and greater distribution of development due to lower costs (witness start-ups across North America, Europe and China making progress that might make ITER or the EDF blush in a few years).
Small format encourages systems that actually use waste of previous generations reactors, thereby alleviating the single-biggest worry about 'nukular' beyond proliferation.. which in itself is physically and technically stymied by advanced techs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No I know, you fear, that this increases the number of reactors dramatically and therefore the likely hood and number of accidents.. but don't you think nuclear is a better alternative to coal etc. while we are switching to regenerative energy's?
Because we still need at least backup power plants for a while, due to the non constant nature of wind and sun.
Fossil energy is preferable to nuclear, and the volatility of wind or solar energy is much less of a problem than people think. Especially with newer technologies to even out the supply.
Yes we do. We store it, until we can use it. And even if we can never use it, which is very unlikely, in the core of the earth is already much, much more radioactive material, so adding a tiny bit to that, is not a big problem "as people think".
And as far as I know, there is a great deal of work to be done to upgrade the power grid, for 100% wind/solar. And much more needed storage capacity, than we currently have. And storing electricity is expensive, no matter how we do it. And unless there is really abundance of solar energy from the deserts for example, this is a real problem, since we still live in a money based economy, last time I checked.
And even if we have abundance of solar desert power ... that makes you also very dependent on it, and vulnerable to a attack on those lines for example, which is why I see small nuclear reactors even in that scenario helpful, for emergency backup.
The radioactive earth core isn't in my backyard, luckily. With nuclear waste, however, it is often stored close to the reactors, with obvious problems, of which limited space isn't the only one.
Somehow a large number of scientists do believe that nuclear waste storage is a really tough problem, and I haven't yet heard from a reliable source that it isn't. Storage facilities have been leaking and collapsing all the time.