FreeloaderUK wrote:
one would however have to take in reactor maintainance costs & costs of decommisioning & making safe into account. Russia has a lot of rusty old hulks to deal with & the west is having to assist in the clean-up operation.
Scrapping costs, in general, should be included in a ship's life-cycle costs; I don't think any rational person would have an objection to that.
I just wonder how often the decommissioning and scrapping costs of non-nuclear ships are actually quantified by government budget authorities.
For example, the batteries in diesel boats need to be replaced fairly often, and batteries, in general, are serious sources of various pollutants. Yes, some can be recycled, but the same is true of much of the spent fuel from a reactor core1. Overall, I suspect that USN or RN nuclear submarines, with their very long-lived cores, are less environmentally dangerous than some people think. Note that I do not think that nuclear submarines are "green;" it's just the environmental costs of diesel boats are not trivial.
In any case, naval reactors tend to use quite highly enriched fuel, which is something I'd want to make sure doesn't get into the hands of the various extremist groups and governments around the world. I (as a US taxpayer) believe buying the leftovers from the Soviet naval reactor and nuclear weapon programs is more likely to keep various lunatics from getting weapons-grade fissiles than thud and bluster.1That it can be done and that it is done are, obviously, distinct. As one of the East-Coast liberals, I get to see the costs of people burning coal everyday, and the benefits of nuclear plants every time I turn on one of my compact florescent bulbs.
