>which will inevitably warrant less attention and care.
Can you explain why this would be the case? I suppose you might need less manpower to run the reactor, which might mean fewer total man hours. But does that necessarily mean it gets less attention and care?
What's so unreasonable about this comment? Could someone explain?
I think, in other words, the cost to guard and physically secure a reactor doesn't depend on the size of the reactor, just the existence of the reactor [1]. A large reactor would require the same defense as a small one.
Note that the majority of the cost of nuclear is the people [2].
A large amount of small reactors would most likely need to be remotely managed. Think of it as a very large IoT toaster just begging to be played with.
I know your comment was sarcastic, but today I was wondering if you could do remote control via SIPRNet or JWICS (military computer networks) and avoid the issues associated with conventional controls.
Can you explain why this would be the case? I suppose you might need less manpower to run the reactor, which might mean fewer total man hours. But does that necessarily mean it gets less attention and care?