Wind turbines strive to be as big as they can, and they have grown a lot. Yet they are limited by physics and transport issues. Now you need to install thousands of turbines.
GE gas turbines for example are 35 to 570 MW. https://www.ge.com/gas-power. They have stopped making smaller ones. There probably are even 100 kW gas turbines made by some companies but that's not used for major power generation (maybe as an airplane APU).
You probably won't have these small reactors in towns of 5000 people run by some local operators, because nuclear technology requires so much special training and is so risky because of the potential radiation hazard.
You might have 20 in one powerplant in a city, to provide 100 MW, as part of the energy mix (it's always good to have multiple sources).
There is a certain threshold for nuclear technology. It's not the same as a diesel generator that anyone can put in their back yard. The risks are too high.
Yet, the current reactors like the Olkiluoto 3 EPR in Finland at 1600 MW electrical power are too big and unwieldy and risky. When it turns on or off, it causes some problems to the rest of the grid. One reason for such a huge plant was there was a legal process to provide permission for one reactor. So if you can only build one, of course you try to make it as big as possible. This doesn't make sense from engineering sense - it probably would make more sense to build something like power plants of 4x400 MW reactors (the seventies plants are 2x400 MW reactors).
So all in all, probably more optimal size for "small" reactors would be 20 to 200 MW. They're big enough that the radiation protection doesn't eat all the budget, yet they're small enough that you get to build many and can build a production line.
Engineering With Rosie has a truly excellent video that analyzes many of the scaling laws: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze-zaW3au9Q
GE gas turbines for example are 35 to 570 MW. https://www.ge.com/gas-power. They have stopped making smaller ones. There probably are even 100 kW gas turbines made by some companies but that's not used for major power generation (maybe as an airplane APU).
You probably won't have these small reactors in towns of 5000 people run by some local operators, because nuclear technology requires so much special training and is so risky because of the potential radiation hazard.
You might have 20 in one powerplant in a city, to provide 100 MW, as part of the energy mix (it's always good to have multiple sources).
There is a certain threshold for nuclear technology. It's not the same as a diesel generator that anyone can put in their back yard. The risks are too high.
Yet, the current reactors like the Olkiluoto 3 EPR in Finland at 1600 MW electrical power are too big and unwieldy and risky. When it turns on or off, it causes some problems to the rest of the grid. One reason for such a huge plant was there was a legal process to provide permission for one reactor. So if you can only build one, of course you try to make it as big as possible. This doesn't make sense from engineering sense - it probably would make more sense to build something like power plants of 4x400 MW reactors (the seventies plants are 2x400 MW reactors).
So all in all, probably more optimal size for "small" reactors would be 20 to 200 MW. They're big enough that the radiation protection doesn't eat all the budget, yet they're small enough that you get to build many and can build a production line.