This would be so cool, hopefully this helps get nuclear off the ground.
[0] https://www.nrc.gov/materials/new-fuels/haleu.html [1] https://www.orano.group/usa/en/our-portfolio-expertise/advan...
Also, as previously mentioned, naval reactors have nuclear proliferation concern. The reason naval reactors get to go 30 years between refuels is because they use use uranium enriched to >90% rather than the 3-5% used in commercial reactors. Not only is this very expensive, it adds a long list of concerns to the already long list of concerns surrounding nuclear energy.
I'll admit I was assuming that these naval are broadly similar, at least in cost per MW.
> If it were as simple as [...] everyone would be doing it already.
I think the main implicit claim here (and it's usually more explicit) is that using naval reactors is the only viable end-run around the morass that is civilian nuclear regulation.
> You cannot compare the A1Bs thermal power output and to the electrical power output [...]
True, but "thermal power station"[1] part of any nuclear plant is a well-solved off-the-shelf problem, as opposed to all the bespoke nuclear parts of it.
> The peak power output of naval reactors is very high relative to their size because they need to make ships go fast sometimes. Key word sometimes.
Do you have a source for this? I'm not doubting that you're right in practice, i.e. that naval nuclear reactors have variable power output, and spend a low part of their overall lifetime at a high percentage of the potential power output).
But by extension that means that they've got some average power output at which they could run perpetually over their shortened lifetime. What's that output?
> Civilian nuclear engineers are not stupid. Nuclear power plants don't just neglect naval reactors for no reason.
I don't think they're stupid, but they're clearly working within the narrow constraints given to them.
It's literally true that if our entire planet's electricity supply were generated with the RBMK-1000 design used in Chernobyl our mortality per MW would be vastly lower than it is today (look at current mortality statistics from coal etc.). So our current nuclear safety culture has clearly gotten out of hand.
> naval reactors have nuclear proliferation concern.
I don't think anyone's suggesting giving naval nuclear reactors to states that don't have nuclear weapons already, or at least those that are nuclear capable (e.g. Germany, Japan, etc. if they want highly enriched Uranium nothing's stopping them now).
If they're limited to those states I think these proliferation concerns can be dismissed.
I was a submarine nuke reactor operator. Can confirm, we spent most of the time at essentially idle. There are effectively three things that will cause you to operate at high power on a submarine:
* Boat needs to get somewhere _right now._ I've spent days at All Ahead Flank, which is mildly unnerving at first, because every parameter you can think of is just absolutely maxed out. Imagine Le Mans, but for multiple days, and when it's done you don't get to rebuild everything.
* Coners (non-nukes) are practicing maneuvers.
* Return To Port. While your Squadron more or less dictates this, I have definitely seen dates flex a little if your boat mysteriously makes far better time than expected.
Carriers AFAIK have a somewhat higher average output, because they use their steam for flight ops as well as propulsion and electricity, and the topsiders have their own schedules.
> ...they've got some average power output at which they could run perpetually over their shortened lifetime. What's that output?
Actual power output for current naval reactors is classified. You can find guesses in various places, some of which are close, and some of which is hilariously wrong.
Just like you might only use your car for 2 hours every day, but using its engine for 18 hours per day is probably fine.
Compare this to civilian reactors for which dismantling and repurposing of the location is part of the cost calculation nowadays.
There's enough players to give one hope this might come to pass: https://c3newsmag.com/five-of-the-worlds-leading-small-modul...
That said, there needs to be brutally transparent examination of operational safety and possible contingencies (e.g., terrorism, earthquakes, tidal waves, heat waves, etc).
Tidal wave energy usage would cause us to lock with the moon in 1000 years
Every bit of human progress we make is through more energy usage. Are we reducing the rate we build infrastructure? Are we building and manufacturing fewer things? Have we reduced transportation of people, goods, and services? No, it always goes up.
How are we going to dig ourselves out from under the weight of oil? Building renewables. They require massive amounts of energy.
It's all energy. The more energy you can harness the more comfortable your life will be.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44095
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/energy-supply/gl...
Exactly how much examination and experience do we need to have with nuclear before we start using it more?
Then getting third parties to vet designs/operational plans to look for weaknesses...
My point is simply that as promising as it is (very), we need a belt and suspenders approach to safety.
I think the key problems are the size (big projects always exceed budgets and timelines), as well as the bespoke nature of each power plant. That's why SMRs are attractive -- they address both of those issues.
The level of safety is different. There have been plenty of total loss accidents in aviation; a similar number of accidents of that severity would be unacceptable in nuclear power. Nuclear power plants need (and, AFAIK, have) a much higher safety factor than airplanes.