1. 6% of the size of a traditional reactor is tiny. This makes them uneconomic on operational costs alone because you have to do things 20 times. Which is why e

1. 6% of the size of a traditional reactor is tiny. This makes them uneconomic on operational costs alone because you have to do things 20 times. Which is why every nuclear program in history moved to larger ones. It still wouldn't be worth building one if capital and fuel were free. 2. Going from a breeding ratio of 0.6 and efficiency of mid 30s to 28% and 0 makes them uneconomic on fuel and waste handling costs alone. It still wouldn't be worth building one even if it were free and operated itself. 3. All of the alleged advantages of US naval reactors go away at low enrichment. New, bigger, more complex designs are involved. 4. Still attempting sleight of hand. Cumulative capacity is not rate of construction. This is another lie. The tactics used by propagandists are as informative as correcting the facts individually. This is a consistent theme and claiming that others are not allowed to call it out is just cry-bullying. If you don't want your comments being called lies then stop lying. 5. With the exception of sweden (which was a weapons program before they changed their mind) and CANDUs (which are largely actually civilian and thus not very popular outside of the need to keep a bit of tritium handy). Those countries are all dependent on foreign fuel cycles. So your counter is the existence of half a dozen or so reactors pushed by the US and France in an attempt to do the same thing Russia is doing.