[Spktyr]

“But the kinds of marine reactors the Russians are promoting also create a by-product - used fuel - that no one knows how to handle. Right now, that spent fuel is being stored at naval yards in the Russian Arctic. No engineering solution has yet been devised to decontaminate the fuel. “

BS, we already know what to do with but the Democrats won’t let us. Carter’s ‘no reprocessing’ EO which became a congress-passed law is why we have so much nuclear waste.

Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused over and over until about only 1% of the original mass is left.

[OCCASparky]

Russian nuclear reactors in my back yard? Oh, hell no.

[Cheetahcat]

There are reactors that are clean and also can handle nuclear waste.

[USNBandit]

At least some of those Soviet reactors used liquid sodium as the primary coolant.

[tanknetter]

Using these kinds of reactors is actually pretty dumb. They're designed to create steam to turn turbines, which in turn are designed to provide propulsive power to the shafts/screws.

If the USN had used the USS Lipscomb style plant for the 688s, it might be a different story. The Lipscomb was a one-off sub between the Sturgeons and the 688s that had a turbo-electric plant. Reactor provided steam to turbines that were designed to generate electricity, the electricity being used to power electric motors that drove the shafts/props. Similar in concept (much more advanced, obviously) to the plants on the USS Lexington and Saratoga (CVs 2 and 3) which were used to power the city of Tacoma in the late 1920s and early 30s (clocks allegedly ran fast when the Lex was plugged into their power grid).

[SuziQ]

I think I’d feel safer with the nuke plant from a US sub, rather than a Russki one.;o)

[El Gato]

I’d be OK with a US Navy sub/ship reactor in my backyard, but I wouldn’t want a Russian one in the farthest corner of my state, and I live in he second largest state, after Alaska.

[Ackackadack]

Do an online search for “thorium energy”. THAT’S what we need.