Yeah, so basically, you want to spam the world with nuclear waste.
You may be vastly underestimating the amount of toxic waste produced by our energy production processes, renewable or not. (Wind, as I understand it, being the least nasty.)
> Ideally, the reactor would not need service until end-of-life (e.g. ~10 years). That way, it can be encased in concrete and buried.
This will blow up the level of radioactive waste that needs to be buried by about 1000x. Instead of a couple of kilos of long-lived isotopes after reprocessing, you'll need to bury THE WHOLE FREAKING REACTOR CORE.
Why the scare caps? The first word in SMR is “small.”
We currently wash out the industrial waste from processing and manufacturing our energy inputs and infrastructure. Also, nothing stops reprocessing those cores in the future. Next to a spent-fuel tank or tailings pool, a buried core seems preferable.
It's "small" only when compared to full-scale PWRs.
And mines and tailing pools, to say nothing of acres and acres of panels and wind farms.
Sorry, but this idea is about as stupid as they come.
And what "end of life"? Fuel will be exhausted in 3-5 years max. And I very much don't want disposable nuclear reactors. Modern PWRs are designed to last for 50 years and can probably last for 100.
TerraPower wanted to build "nuclear candle" reactors that can last for 50 years without refueling, but they had an inconvenient problem of requiring unobtanium for the reactor vessel walls (a material that can sustain 400-500 dpa, while the best steels can maybe push 150). "DPA" is "displacements per atom".