I will talk about two different economic costs, one of which is building these small modular reactors and generating electricity from them. That is going to cost much more than alternatives like solar and wind because small reactors lose out on what we call “economies of scale”.
There's a reason CANDU reactors started small and became larger and larger. They were trying to take advantage of the fact that you'll not require five times as much concrete or five times as many workers to build a 900-megawatt reactor compared with a 180-megawatt reactor. When you go small, you're losing out on those economies of scale, so the cost per unit of power capacity or electrical energy generated would be higher for small reactors.
The cost of dealing with nuclear waste is literally a small fraction of this cost, but it is something that is going to be important when you consider different alternatives, or different kinds of waste management practices, as well as different kinds of reactor designs. In the case of small modular reactors, as I mentioned in the case of ARC-100 or the Moltex design, there would have to be an enormous amount of preprocessing done before these wastes can be converted into a form that can be placed inside a geological repository.
I mentioned some cost figures that we know from Oak Ridge in the United States. These are quite high compared with other kinds of radioactive waste forms. We do not have a complete figure, because there's uncertainty about how exactly these wastes will have to be processed.
I hope that answers your question.