[mrarjen]

Personally I'm all for having mini reactors if it means we can generate reliable energy with minimal pollution. Anything that helps reduce emissions should be considered.

But this would need to be a fail save type of reactor and with a clear plan(s) all the way down to how the waste is handled till it's no longer active.

[pferdone]

TerraPower [1] seem to have a good alternative with its Traveling Wave Reactor. It can be run on nuclear waste we already have and provide energy to 10bln people with US per capita power consumption for basically eternity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower

[nolok]

Always be wary of grandiose claims like this that amount as much to facts as to marketing material.

[sir_brickalot]

From your Wikipedia link:

TLDR: Its all just theoretical.

"TerraPower planned to build a 600 MWe demonstration Plant, the TWR-P, by 2018–2022 followed by larger commercial plants of 1150 MWe in the late 2020s.[15] However, in January 2019 it was announced that the project had been abandoned due to technology transfer limitations placed by the Trump administration."

[auiya]

I'd much rather nuclear production operations be handled by larger plants, and storage be handled by the customer. Storage efficiency is the current weak point, not production efficiency.

[stjohnswarts]

I'm for them if they make economic sense and also can't go critical, as in you can more or less hit a switch and they go dead and criticality isn't a possibility. There have supposedly been designs that guarantee that, but I saw nothing in the article about it.