Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Australian Nuclear discussions

Discussion in 'Geostrategic Issues' started by Boagrius, Sep 24, 2019.

Share This Page

  1. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    314
    Location:
    Sydney
    Again extremely unlikely. But as mentioned the final one is so far in the future it is hard to say what exactly be powering them, but it's unlikely to be nuclear.

    It was made clear at an industry briefing, that we aren't just building a converted barracuda. It's a whole new sub based around some key capabilities.
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  2. Stampede

    Stampede Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Before considering building Nuclear subs we may want to consider the price of scrapping them.

    MoD criticised over submarine disposal

    The challenge for the UK and others in the N club.

    Regards S
     
  3. tonnyc

    tonnyc Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    26
    It is unfortunately silent on why the cost is that high. Going by physics, once the fuel is removed, only the reactor vessel is radioactive. The radioactivity is weak and shortlived. It will decay in a couple decades and if the reactor vessel is removed and kept separately the rest of the submarine can be treated as scrap metal.

    My guess the UK submarines were not designed for easy removal of the reactor vessel? Or maybe it was but the politics make it impossible to find a storage site so the Royal Navy decided to indefinitely delay it?
     
  4. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,207
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    When it comes to nuclear waste, NIMBY is the biggest problem. Despite millions of dollars spent on "best site" location studies by both the US and Canadian governments, minimal progress has been made. Most civilian nuclear waste remains on site at nuclear sites. The US has reprocessing capabilities so some of their stuff gets reused for MOX and probably some bombs. Site availability in the UK would be even more difficult. Don't know about reactor removal wrt UK subs but cutting the sub apart for reactor removal seems ok assuming there is a suitable containment location for performing this. What happens to the reactor after removal is another matter. As for fuel rods, I believe the UK has some reprocessing capabilities and other waste would likely be stored at power plants sites already housing their own waste.
     
  5. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    1,202
    Location:
    In the rum store
    I think that parts of the vessel around the reactor chamber may have higher than normal levels of radiations well. I am unsure about this though. One who would know no longer posts here.