Why is there no mention of the waste produced by the reactor. It would be extremely toxic and extremely long lived. In what way is this better than burning coal?
Also there's no mention of the nuclear industry's propensity to mis construction time deadlines and budget projections.
We don't have time to wait for the nuclear industry to clean up its act. We need to transition to renewables starting yesterday.

Wow! A double-barrelled boondoggle! Nuclear power has never been cost-competitive. The industry's latest lie is that they should have mass produced the original reactor sizes instead of scaling up like other industries do. There is still no hint of a solution to the near-eternal biohazards produced which spread like a stain even with the best containment budgets. Then, the hydrogen is terrible as a portable fuel. It is bulky, dangerous, and leak-prone, while making any steel containers brittle. This project is guaranteed to prolong the climate crisis, not help it.

It is extremely bad idea to use hydrogen as fuel or energy storage because it is explosive! Much more dangerous than gasoline or natural gas etc!
You seriously think there would be never any leaks or ruptures that can easily end in a massive explosion?

Electric cars do not need hydrogen!
& for heavy trucks & ships (even aircraft), it would be best to start producing biodiesel (which is extremely hard to catch fire & can be produced from many kinds of crops/biomass (maybe even trash))!

Author wonders why the small reactor for hydrogen. I’m betting the 250 megawatts of waste heat for the 77 megawatts of electricity is the reason. They have been promising these small modular reactors for years, but apparently need to make hydrogen to make the economics work. Note the first installations in the west have had some of the small utilities bail due to cost. I can’t think of a process that gets more efficient when you scale it down.

The hydrogen economy is something that refuses to die. As Bob Stuart has pointed out,H2 is a flawed fuel. After it is produced,it has to be compressed for storage and transported to where it is needed,which introduces large losses. If the Toyota Mirai FCEV is anything to by,FCEVs are produced at a considerable loss,and the fuel cells themselves have a limited lifespan,and would be expensive to replace. Refueling FCEVs requires the building of 10s of thousands of H2 filling stations nationwide. Who is going to pick up the bill for that? Government? Certainly not private industry. With no demand for H2,a business would be insane to invest in building a refueling infrastructure. BEVs have won the battle,as you can refuel anywhere there is an electrical outlet.

I've long thought small scale nuclear was a solution that is highly overlooked, due to the perceptions listed by others. Small scale like this is inherently much safer (no 3 mile island or Chernobyl like incidents possible), and can be located closer to end use. Large scale high risk plants have to be farther away from cities, increasing transmission costs as well. The high costs of large scale plants are due to all the extra redundancy, governmental requirements, and wasted engineering time. Companies that make them spend a lot of time in engineering, for projects that never see the light of day, and that money gets recouped by projects that get done. I'm very excited to see how NuScale and other companies going this route perform. While I do like the concept of hydrogen economy, I think the logistics are a problem. I think using the energy from these plants would better serve the bio-fuel industry, in making carbon neutral gasoline, natural gas (methane) and diesel alternatives

i have no problem with hydrogen as an energy source, what i have is a real fear of people that think using earths water supply to run our toys is a good idea, its right up there with those who think building machines smarter than we are is a great idea.

Wow the trolls are really out on this one. Looks like an incredible solution to me. Electricity to run all those EV's has to come from somewhere. There is no magic.

Are there any applications submitted for permits for this small nuclear reactors or they are just conceptual proposals? If they have not made a well working and permit ready prototype yet, this will never happen in our time or it is just a pipe dream that some investors are paying for to be dreamed of.

Such a lot of negativity in the early comments! I'm willing to give the economics a chance here, provided there is no subsidy -- including no subsidy on the issue of waste disposal. The so called renewables DO NOT pass this test.
On the subject of waste disposal, there is a lot more emotion than logic in the public. Despite public perception, nuclear waste can be safely disposed.