Nuclear reactors inherently enable people to associate them with danger, this likely the result of the negative connotation the phrase “nuclear power plant” seems to carry most likely a result of disasters that took place in locations such as Fukushima and Chernobyl in Ukraine. Even though someone might not necessarily know much about nuclear reactors it is common knowledge that they pose potential hazards and if not handled properly may result in meltdowns. Regardless, throughout history there has only been few incidents which have had negative outcomes that have lasted to this day. The incident in Chernobyl led to a complete evacuation of the city because of a meltdown and incidents such as these may enable society to quickly become skeptical of the outcome harnessing energy from reactors can provide towards civil society. (NRC, Background on Chernobyl…). This leads to the question as to the safety and reliability of them. Are Nuclear …show more content…
SMRs are much smaller and therefore the construction time is less meaning the financing behind them will be much less which is promising for companies trying to get into the industry. The price tag along with the construction doesn’t yet exist because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hasn’t licensed a designed, but steps are being taken which might eventually approve of them. These smaller machines can have natural cooling systems which can be supported even if backup generators fail to provide energy for them which can prove beneficial in the even of natural disasters. Though Small Molecular Reactors aren’t yet made they’re an alternative to current reactors which are bigger and aren’t as flexible with their placements because of their size. (Moinz, Ernest Why We Still Need Nuclear