4 ms·
I've always wondered is the any reason we can't task the Navy with building these? They already make reactors for aircraft carrier and subs.
by tick_tock_tick 4y ago
I've always wondered is the any reason we can't task the Navy with building these? They already make reactors for aircraft carrier and subs.
- nine_k 4y agoThe newest US nuclear aircraft carrier uses Bectel A1B reactors [1], which produce 125 MWe and additional 260 MW of mechanical turbine power, which we could optimistically convert into another 260 MWe. This would be 385 MWe. Each of the two reactors mentioned in the article produces 1250 MWe. OTOH maybe a row of smaller reactors could offer a better economy of scale for production, even if they require more parts and more maintenance overall. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor
- brandmeyer 4y agoThey are extremely expensive in LCOE terms. Their core life relies on highly enriched uranium. Production and delivery at commercial power scale is a weapons proliferation risk in addition to being more expensive. Refueling a naval reactor is a multi-year operation that happens only a tiny handful of times in the life of the ship. Current-gen submarines don't get refueled at all. They can get away with this in large part because they aren't running at 100% power. They are shut down in port, and even at sea they only operate at low power most of the time. To reduce LCOE, commercial power reactors run at full power all the time. Refueling a commercial power reactor takes a month or so and happens every 1.5 years.