| > A1Bs are not submarine reactors but I guess that's not important. 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. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_station |
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.