The reason for this is that the military is very experienced with building the smaller reactors. It also doesn't hurt that the reactors are remarkably small since they only need to power a single ship or sub.

There's also the reality that the military doesn't have to worry about expenses. They spend what needs to be spent.

In the civilian world, however, they're trying to build 'small' reactors that really aren't that small, and they keep trying to pitch them as 'cheap' to build. They're not.

Why? Because they need funding. That's it. Nuclear reactors, in the US, need decades of time to be built and decades more time before investors will see a ROI. That's a hard sell for anyone, so they pitch them as being cheaper than a regular plant. They undersell the costs and then start to come clean after a few years.

Could it be done quick and cheap? No. Time, money, quality. You get to choose two out of these three. You want quick with quality? That's going to cost you a ton of money. Quick and cheap? Low quality. Quality, with a cheap cost? That's going to take a fuckton of time.

>your never hear about the US submarine/carrier fleet having these problems.

Because it's only reported in like 3 magazines. The new Columbia Class is 50% over budget and it's budget could instead pay for free housing for all Americans for 10 years, college education for all prisoners, or a mars shot. Despite this it's approved because there's no debate regarding it, only like ~21 people want to dismantle the Navy's nuclear program and they are all fringe Republicans (and Bernie Sanders). For a more direct comparison: Republicans killed the X-33 when it was over budget, for the competing Lockheed product the F-35 which was also running over budget. We stopped hearing about that after Obama took office when it became uncool to criticize the military.

>Is there something majorly different about designing a really small reactor vs a much larger one?

yes because the supply chain doesn't exist, and what suppliers do exist are setup for more lenient military standards concerning fuel density and hazard level. Even then, it's the sort of huge government contractor that is impossible to easily monitor, there's no transparency, and all the workers are Unionized. It's big fat and slow compared to coal, gas or solar panels which are readily importable.

That's because the military doesn't release the full costs of their reactors. Naval reactors are almost guaranteed to be even more expensive because that's how the navy works.

You can build a working small reactor, but can you build it so the energy is cost competive. On a ship, you need a small compact system with a lot of power output. You can't do that with wind.

[deleted]