SMR is now a very general term, ranging a few megawatts to 450. We also have the term 'microreactors' now which are like 0.1-10 MWe or so. We have built dozens of microreactors and small reactors in these ranges in the past. Invariably, they were all too expensive to keep operating.
Major microreactor examples include PM-3A, which powered McMurdo station in antarctica for some years, SM-1A in Alaska, PM-2A in Greenland, PM-1 in Wyoming, truck-mounted ML-1 in Idaho, the ill-fated SL-1 microreactor in Idaho, the prototype SM-1 in DC, and the MH-1A floating power barge in Panama.
The smaller power reactors like the Peach Bottom HTGR ran fine, but were still too small to compete with their GW-scale neighbors. They all shut down. Larger advanced reactors like Ft. St. Vrain shut down due to operations and maintenance challenges.
Nuclear history is littered with failed advanced reactor projects. This doesn't mean they can't be done well, but it does mean that it's not easy. The guys out there right now hyping up that they're going to change the world but who have never handled radiation are in for a big reckoning. I hope they succeed, but they probably will not.
I do think small reactors are a good way to re-establish technical know-how. If you can make a few fringe small reactors and sell them in remote areas, then that's a great way to re-bootstrap people who do know how to build and run new types of reactors. For commodity power, e.g. powering data centers, this will help people be able to build larger more economical reactors.
Powering datacenters with microreactors is very likely an impossibly expensive proposition due to inherently poor chain reaction neutronics. Too many neutrons leak out.
Major microreactor examples include PM-3A, which powered McMurdo station in antarctica for some years, SM-1A in Alaska, PM-2A in Greenland, PM-1 in Wyoming, truck-mounted ML-1 in Idaho, the ill-fated SL-1 microreactor in Idaho, the prototype SM-1 in DC, and the MH-1A floating power barge in Panama.
The smaller power reactors like the Peach Bottom HTGR ran fine, but were still too small to compete with their GW-scale neighbors. They all shut down. Larger advanced reactors like Ft. St. Vrain shut down due to operations and maintenance challenges.
Nuclear history is littered with failed advanced reactor projects. This doesn't mean they can't be done well, but it does mean that it's not easy. The guys out there right now hyping up that they're going to change the world but who have never handled radiation are in for a big reckoning. I hope they succeed, but they probably will not.
I do think small reactors are a good way to re-establish technical know-how. If you can make a few fringe small reactors and sell them in remote areas, then that's a great way to re-bootstrap people who do know how to build and run new types of reactors. For commodity power, e.g. powering data centers, this will help people be able to build larger more economical reactors.
Powering datacenters with microreactors is very likely an impossibly expensive proposition due to inherently poor chain reaction neutronics. Too many neutrons leak out.