Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

brunnock t1_ja7wwss wrote

Why aren't the defense contractors that build reactors for ships and subs building civilian reactors? The naval reactors are small and have been operating safely for decades. What am I missing?


MpVpRb t1_ja8fvms wrote

Defense contracts are insensitive to cost


Here4thebeer3232 t1_ja8n60j wrote

Naval reactors have the advantage to having the Navy as a customer, who is used to spending billions of dollars for single ships. So naval reactors get the best material, equipment, and operators that are borderline in a cult.They also aren't expected to be profitable.

Civilian reactors don't have any of those advantages, normal size or mini.


MoirasPurpleOrb t1_ja9tlo3 wrote

I’d wager that the naval reactors also are highly classified and they would be extremely reluctant to let that technology out of their immediate control


newworkaccount t1_jaaa21g wrote

The tech is so sensitive that recent deals with close Anglophone allies to share it with them made waves (gettit?). To be fair, that is "nuclear sub capability" as a generic package, though, and so surely encompasses many sensitive technologies beyond nuclear capabilities.

Though powering a nuke sub is VERY different from powering a power plant.


547610831 t1_ja85p0x wrote

The specifications for a naval reactor are completely different than a power reactor. It simply wouldn't work well for this application.


KickBassColonyDrop t1_ja9dg3e wrote

Regulations get in the way more than money. DoE's regulations on anything nuclear sometimes borders on insane.