This 70-Year-Old Naval Technology Could Pave a Path for a Nuclear Energy Revolution
https://www.thedailybeast.com/70-year-old-naval-technology-could-usher-in-a-nuclear-energy-revolution
Not sure comparing SMRs to Navy reactors is relevant other than they are both small. A submarine reactor compartment can be shipped by barge then by road (heavy hauler). After size the differences are large. Navy reactors are designed to withstand depth charge attacks and have survived collisions with other subs and underwater mountains making cost much higher. A number of submarines have been lost descending below crush depth breaking them apart and there has been no major spread of radioactive material. Navy fuel is highly enriched that would not make a lot of people concerned with non-proliferation happy. On the plus side Navy reactors have a much higher response to power transition making them a better match in an all of the above power grid with other renewable energy sources. Current submarine reactors probably will not have to refuel for the 30–40-year life of the submarine. Can't say apples and oranges but maybe apple crisp to granny smith apples.