I disagree with this take. The main claim here is that naval reactors are very expensive, and getting even more expensive as the civilian nuclear industry dwindles.
If only we could compare the cost of a submarine with and without the nuclear reactor. Fortunately we can: it is the French Suffren-class which is nuclear and has a conventional version, the Orka-class ([1], [2]). The cost of one Suffren-class is listen on wikipedia as €1.94 in 2022 money (or €2.1 in 2024 money) , and of one Orka-class as €1.4 in 2024 money. So the nuclear powered version is 50% more expensive, it would seem. Except that it has a much larger displacement, at 4690 tons vs 3248 tons for the conventional one (i.e 44% larger). So, all in all, it does not appear the reactor adds that much to the overall cost. Why? Military stuff is extraordinarily expensive already. One single torpedo fired by one of these submarines costs a whopping $5.39m in 2022 dollars. Firing such a torpedo is the equivalent of destroying about 20 Ferraris.
On average, only 1 Suffren-class submarine has been laid every 3 years since 2007, and no new orders have been placed since 2020. That is not enough dealflow to support an SoE like TechnicAtome, let alone a private sector nuclear energy player like a Westinghouse. On top of that, the reactor used (the K15) has only been used in just 12 naval applications since 1980.
Entire decades can pass without new military deals for a K15-type reactor, which can lead to skill and experience attrition for what is a fairly complex piece of technology. Meanwhile, the know-how to build a diesel-electric transmission for naval applications is constantly in demand as the same technology is used in commercial naval vessels as well as locomotives.
By trying to justify a dual-use case for SMRs for energy as well as commercial propulsion (which is what both China and India are investing in), it makes it easier to help maintain the knowledge needed to develop nuclear propulsion systems as well as ensure deal flow exists so a Westinghouse-style bankruptcy does not occur.
They're absolutely dual use, which is why the greens have always been against them.
But that's like trying to prevent cow rearing by outlawing mince. You don't rear a cow for mince, you rear it for steak. The customer will pay for steak pretty much whatever.
My country just had ~180 GWh of lost load from wind, in winter. That's not even a 1-in-5 event, that's a multiple-times-per-year event, and it's billions in cost to the economy. Industry is dead, I've personally seen steel orders go to China because even if renewables were free we could't handle delivery estimates of "lol idk", and nor can anyone else. I just can't comprehend the levels of denial around this, as if my and literally everyone with industrial experience is irrelevant. Data centres want SMRs and that's the easiest, most trivial task to time-shift around I can imagine. Electricity that is not reliable is not the same product, it is not even a comparable product, in no other field would it be treated as such, and if you can't provide an actual monetary estimate for turning it into a reliable product, not just "iT's gEtTiNg cHeApEr BRO", you should not be in this conversation.
Plenty of blame lies with the German Greens, but I'd also blame the German economy's stagnation from 1991-2004.
People forget now because of the 2010s, but Germany was the sick man of Europe before the recession because the reunification of West and East Germany was extremely expensive - West Germany was averaging 3-4% GDP growth rates in the 1980s, and reunification led growth rates to collapse to the 1% range. It was in this macroeconomic climate that German firms like Siemens AG were unable to sustain nuclear energy operations and began either shutting down or selling off entire product lines and business units in order to weather the storm.
Heck, much of Germany Inc's growth in the 2010s could be attributed to Germany's openness to export deals and JVs in countries like Russia (eg. Germany becoming one of the largest FDI sources in Russia both before [0] and after [1] the annexation of Crimea), China (eg. VW Group and SAIC since the 1980s [2]), and India (eg. Siemens Energy AG ToTing their entire renewables, gas turbine, battery energy storage system, and Hydrogen Electrolyzer IP to an Indian subsidiary that was then de-merged from Siemens Energy into it's own business that IPOed in India a couple months ago [3]).
Essentially, Germany's nuclear industry collapsed for the same reasons why the German renewables industry collapsed in the 2010s, and why German automotive industry is in such dire straights today - Germany Inc basically sold out and transferred their IP to such a degree in the 1990s to 2010s that entire competitors were spawned within a generation using that know-how. Owning shares or generating revenue on IP licensing deals doesn't matter when you don't own the actual means of production, leaving you open to either nationalization (Germany Inc and Russia), JV partners building competitors to undercut the JV (VW and SAIC), or entire operations being directly regulated with IP access under their purview (Siemens Energy and India).
I disagree with this take. The main claim here is that naval reactors are very expensive, and getting even more expensive as the civilian nuclear industry dwindles.
If only we could compare the cost of a submarine with and without the nuclear reactor. Fortunately we can: it is the French Suffren-class which is nuclear and has a conventional version, the Orka-class ([1], [2]). The cost of one Suffren-class is listen on wikipedia as €1.94 in 2022 money (or €2.1 in 2024 money) , and of one Orka-class as €1.4 in 2024 money. So the nuclear powered version is 50% more expensive, it would seem. Except that it has a much larger displacement, at 4690 tons vs 3248 tons for the conventional one (i.e 44% larger). So, all in all, it does not appear the reactor adds that much to the overall cost. Why? Military stuff is extraordinarily expensive already. One single torpedo fired by one of these submarines costs a whopping $5.39m in 2022 dollars. Firing such a torpedo is the equivalent of destroying about 20 Ferraris.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffren-class_submarine
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orka-class_submarine
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo
The issue is economies of scale.
On average, only 1 Suffren-class submarine has been laid every 3 years since 2007, and no new orders have been placed since 2020. That is not enough dealflow to support an SoE like TechnicAtome, let alone a private sector nuclear energy player like a Westinghouse. On top of that, the reactor used (the K15) has only been used in just 12 naval applications since 1980.
Entire decades can pass without new military deals for a K15-type reactor, which can lead to skill and experience attrition for what is a fairly complex piece of technology. Meanwhile, the know-how to build a diesel-electric transmission for naval applications is constantly in demand as the same technology is used in commercial naval vessels as well as locomotives.
By trying to justify a dual-use case for SMRs for energy as well as commercial propulsion (which is what both China and India are investing in), it makes it easier to help maintain the knowledge needed to develop nuclear propulsion systems as well as ensure deal flow exists so a Westinghouse-style bankruptcy does not occur.
This is fairly on the dot, at least in regards with how the Indian [0][1], French [2], and Chinese [3] are approaching SMRs.
SMRs - like most other technology - are dual use.
[0] - https://www.stimson.org/2021/prospects-for-small-modular-rea...
[1] - https://maritime-executive.com/article/india-to-explore-supp...
[2] - https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defense/pa-ng-une-propulsion-...
[3] - https://cimsec.org/neither-fish-nor-fowl-chinas-development-...
They're absolutely dual use, which is why the greens have always been against them.
But that's like trying to prevent cow rearing by outlawing mince. You don't rear a cow for mince, you rear it for steak. The customer will pay for steak pretty much whatever.
My country just had ~180 GWh of lost load from wind, in winter. That's not even a 1-in-5 event, that's a multiple-times-per-year event, and it's billions in cost to the economy. Industry is dead, I've personally seen steel orders go to China because even if renewables were free we could't handle delivery estimates of "lol idk", and nor can anyone else. I just can't comprehend the levels of denial around this, as if my and literally everyone with industrial experience is irrelevant. Data centres want SMRs and that's the easiest, most trivial task to time-shift around I can imagine. Electricity that is not reliable is not the same product, it is not even a comparable product, in no other field would it be treated as such, and if you can't provide an actual monetary estimate for turning it into a reliable product, not just "iT's gEtTiNg cHeApEr BRO", you should not be in this conversation.
Plenty of blame lies with the German Greens, but I'd also blame the German economy's stagnation from 1991-2004.
People forget now because of the 2010s, but Germany was the sick man of Europe before the recession because the reunification of West and East Germany was extremely expensive - West Germany was averaging 3-4% GDP growth rates in the 1980s, and reunification led growth rates to collapse to the 1% range. It was in this macroeconomic climate that German firms like Siemens AG were unable to sustain nuclear energy operations and began either shutting down or selling off entire product lines and business units in order to weather the storm.
Heck, much of Germany Inc's growth in the 2010s could be attributed to Germany's openness to export deals and JVs in countries like Russia (eg. Germany becoming one of the largest FDI sources in Russia both before [0] and after [1] the annexation of Crimea), China (eg. VW Group and SAIC since the 1980s [2]), and India (eg. Siemens Energy AG ToTing their entire renewables, gas turbine, battery energy storage system, and Hydrogen Electrolyzer IP to an Indian subsidiary that was then de-merged from Siemens Energy into it's own business that IPOed in India a couple months ago [3]).
Essentially, Germany's nuclear industry collapsed for the same reasons why the German renewables industry collapsed in the 2010s, and why German automotive industry is in such dire straights today - Germany Inc basically sold out and transferred their IP to such a degree in the 1990s to 2010s that entire competitors were spawned within a generation using that know-how. Owning shares or generating revenue on IP licensing deals doesn't matter when you don't own the actual means of production, leaving you open to either nationalization (Germany Inc and Russia), JV partners building competitors to undercut the JV (VW and SAIC), or entire operations being directly regulated with IP access under their purview (Siemens Energy and India).
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/business/international/as...
[1] - https://www.economist.com/business/2021/03/27/deutschland-ag...
[2] - https://www.ft.com/content/05db03d8-85c5-11e2-bed4-00144feab...
[3] - https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/press-releases...