[gmkiv]

It's not obvious how to translate this figure into a standalone plant cost. The COB study is quoting the acquisition cost premium of a nuclear ship over a non-nuclear ship. I believe that estimate is the premium for taking a non-nuclear design and adding a nuclear reactor to it, so it does not include a lot of plant infrastructure that is part of the cost of civilian power stations. Also I would think the requirements for the containment structure and safety systems would be significantly different.

[credit_guy]

Fair enough. Currently each America-class ship [1] uses 2 GE LM2500 turbines [2]. This type of engine has been produced in huge quantities, more than 2000 to date. The unit cost is about $11 MM [3], so it's negligible compared to a naval nuclear reactor.

Where a nuclear reactor comes ahead is the fuel cost. Which is zero (it's included in the construction cost, and there's no refueling for the lifetime of the ship). A conventional turbine burns fuel, and over the lifetime of a ship it can add up to quite a lot. It can certainly get above $1BN.

In fact, the CBO analysis shows that the total cost for 5 such ships would be $14.2 BN using conventional engines, and $14.8 BN using nukes ([4] page 6 top table). That was when the oil price was $86/barrel. Now it's $110, so just because of that the calculus can switch to favor the nukes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assau...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM2500

[3] http://www.fi-powerweb.com/Engine/Industrial/GE-LM2500.html

[4] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-...