Comment Ok, DO IT! (Score 1) 69
If it's good enough for Penn State, it should be good enough for me...
I've got 4 acres. Let's do some math and compare this against solar.
I did a rough calculation and found that, if I wanted to, I could install about 1MW worth of solar panels on my property. Scaling up to 10MW would take my nearest 10 neighbors, but lets roll with it. Cost would likely be in the range of $2/watt installed. (DIY I'm looking at $1) So call it $10m. In my area I pay $0.0981 per kWh, and I generate about 1400kWhr/year with a 1kW solar install. Or, to look at it another way, the sun shines 1400 hours per year here. 10MW worth of solar panels will generate ~14MWhrs per year and would return $1.37M in electrical energy, giving a payback period of about 7.3 years.
Assuming the nuclear is running 24/7 without any down time, always running at full efficiency - they'll generate 87.6MWhrs and have a return of $8.6M/year. Given the "under $100 million" price tag, they're looking at a payback period of around 11.6 years.. HOWEVER. Nuclear has ongoing costs and fueling, which I haven't included. And solar certainly has some maintenance and repair, but I really doubt it's going to be higher than nuclear.
This price seems, to me, to be completely reasonable and worth the expense. Even if its more expensive than solar, it's baseline power available 24/7, without the need for batteries. The 'using less land' bit is worthless to me, but a small reactor like this could power my entire town. A random business could install them somewhere ~50 miles out from a metropolitan area and it would be a fantastic investment. Imagine doing it in Southern California where they pay $0.35/kWh - payback period would be like 4 years!!