Minus the proliferation risk of somebody stealing this comparatively small reactor and builds a dirty bomb with it - oh, and you still have to dismantle it and store safely for millenia after use.
No, thanks... looks to me like nuclear is dead in the water.
The proliferation risk seems like a valid concern, but that we have to store radioactive material for millennia isn't a valid criticism of nuclear in general because we already have to store nuclear material and the costs associated with storing more waste are marginal (if you can safely store a little nuclear waste then you can safely store a lot of it).
Norko, and Israel are best evidence.
The waste heat from a mini nuke is also perfect for district heating.
Using that logic, we should stop production of ammonia fertilizer.
> and you still have to dismantle it and store safely for millenia after use.
The fact is that the entire worlds nuclear waste can be contained in about one swimming pool, which can be placed in the middle of a mountain or some other geologically stable area. You can't say that about coal, or wind (junk turbines that can't be recycled), or solar. The death rate per terawatt-hour of generated nuclear is far less than any other fuel source.
The idea that Nuclear is a dead end has been made popular by pop culture from the 1970's and bad science driven by an agenda to keep everyone on a globalized fossil fuel monopoly run by the military industrial complex.
Deaths per terawatt-hours comparison chart: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
Los Alamos built a reactor that fit on a plane circa 1967 and it worked.
However, this fission doesn’t produce plutonium and so it can’t make bombs. So thorium was put away and now there is a movement to revive it.