3 ms·
Nuclear submarines cost on the order of $6B a pop, so I'd hesitate to describe anything about them as "cheap". We use nuclear reactors in them because there's n
by rippercushions 4y ago
Nuclear submarines cost on the order of $6B a pop, so I'd hesitate to describe anything about them as "cheap". We use nuclear reactors in them because there's no other power source that's as compact and self-contained.
- phone8675309 4y agoPlus worst case for a nuclear submarine is that you flood the reactor with sea water if you have a loss of cooling.
- sebcat 4y agoSurely there are worse cases for a sub than this?
- nine_k 4y agoThe idea is that you are not going to have a meltdown even in a badly malfunctioning reactor.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoIs it? It's not at all difficult to stock enough seawater to flood a terrestrial plant. What's distinguishing the submarine?
- HPsquared 4y agoSmaller size than commercial power station reactors, easier to keep cool.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoThis contradicts the comment I responded to, though. The scenario is that we've already failed to keep it cool.
- moloch-hai 4y agoThere is less of it to cool.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- phone8675309 4y agoA submarine (when submerged) has a large body of water for heat to radiate out into. A (previous generation) terrestrial plant already has systems that can dump ludicrous amounts of water onto the core, but they all rely on there being power to operate pumps. A nuclear submarine that can dump in sea water does not need this - the body of water it is in is cold enough (relative to the heat in the core) that it will naturally carry heat away.
- LgWoodenBadger 4y agoWikipedia says a 688 costs less than $2B in 2021 dollars. And that’s all in for the submarine on top of the reactor.