There is another model to consider, both cost- and operations-wise, when you zoom out. Submarines and Carriers of the US Navy, managed "Hyman Rickover style".

There is another model to consider, both cost- and operations-wise, when you zoom out. Submarines and Carriers of the US Navy, managed "Hyman Rickover style". They may have had mishaps, but not nuclear related. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover ) Problematic was the handling of their nuclear waste, but that got privatized at least partially, so don't do that. Let it stay military, administered and operated in the same successful "Rickover style". Maybe have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_Chin... , too. Also standardize on only a few, small modular models, and fuels. Not making every single one a special snowflake, needing its own special fuel. Their more compact size would also eliminate the bottleneck of forging the containment vessel, enabling shipyards to join in, for example. That's another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale to consider. Since being military, and well managed, they could also burn higher enriched fuel, utilising more of the precious stuff, instead of turning about 97.5% to 99% into waste. If this is deemed essential for the functioning of a nation, why privatize that? Why not make it military?