Australian Nuclear discussions

[oldsig127]

Rather than arguing about political parties and their stance, why not argue for the repeal of the ssction 22a of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999? That section says that that the Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, or a nuclear power station, or an enrichment plant, or a reprocessing facility.

Seems to me that enrichment, as much as it may make economic sense, can't go anywhere while this section is law.

Because repealing any legislation is dependent on the votes of members and senators belonging to political parties whose stance determines the outcome of the vote.

Get bipartisan agreement and no existing Act will prevent a change except in the event an activist High Court usurps the authority of parliament. Which, in line with the entire tenor of this thread, brings us back to the currently insurmountable issue of there being no political will to change

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

Well then there are two different problems here that a nuclear industry Aussie style would try to solve. One being Climate Change, and the rumours are from some people who have read on further than I about the most recent IPCC report is that the Earths resources have four hundred years left on the clock (but that's a debate for another day), and the other issue is Nuclear war. While nuclear energy can produce a more equitable distribution of energy, I am yet to see a combination or recipe of nuclear energy that can solve resource depletion. Now if you don't know I am a huge fan of Star Trek, but transforming energy into matter is simply, not possible.

Who said anything about resource depletion? And by the way what have the state of the planets resources have to do with this discussion?

This post is attempting to divert the discourse from the topic. The Moderators will be discussing your future on here forthwith.

 

[John Fedup]

Well my point is the anti-nuclear stance isn't universal. Greenies were opposed to uranium mining, but we have that. For a long time uranium enrichment had to fight the coal and oil and gas lobby. Today, that isn't really the case. There were powerful people who opposed nuclear development in Australia. However that seems to be changing.

I'm open to nuclear options personally, I think enrichment is the most likely, its basically just an extension of what we mine. But even that is a huge up hill ask. To get to commercial power and nuclear submarines is a huge jump and a half.

Japan and Canada have huge nuclear industries and no nuclear subs.

China is the threat? Huge economy, huge nuclear industry. Has 6 functional type 093 and 2 or 3 subs used for training of the older 91 class.
Building SSN's is building for the wrong threat and building the wrong capability.

Canada used to have a huge nuclear industry. AECL is gone. What remains is much smaller now and given the financial position of OPG and Ontario, it is unlikely any new reactor will ever be built. Even the Darlington reactor upgrade is questionable now. Another industrial wreck caused in no small part by both provincial and federal Liberals although they had lots of help from OPG.

 

[tonnyc]

Because repealing any legislation is dependent on the votes of members and senators belonging to political parties whose stance determines the outcome of the vote.

Get bipartisan agreement and no existing Act will prevent a change except in the event an activist High Court usurps the authority of parliament. Which, in line with the entire tenor of this thread, brings us back to the currently insurmountable issue of there being no political will to change

We of course know that, but we in this forum not only consider what is easy to achieve but also what is hard go achieve but will give a better result than the easy stuff.

Things like accepting the status quo and going along with it is easy. Things like attempting to change the status quo takes effort and is risky, but can yield better result than the status quo. With regard to nuclear energy, incorporating some nuclear energy into Australia's energy mix while the reducing coal use (along with renewable energy and so on) is better than an Australia without any nuclear energy. A uranium enrichment facility will also allow Australia to sell higher value enriched uranium rather than the current export of uranium ore.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Canada used to have a huge nuclear industry. AECL is gone. What remains is much smaller now and given the financial position of OPG and Ontario, it is unlikely any new reactor will ever be built. Even the Darlington reactor upgrade is questionable now. Another industrial wreck caused in no small part by both provincial and federal Liberals although they had lots of help from OPG.

Nuclear is generally unpopular these days, combined with difficult expensive decisions with considerable risk, and lack of motivation, I'm not that surprised. I don't think Canada will build any new reactors.

While I think Australia could easily power its economy with renewables and also export energy in a carbon free way, I think Canada will have a much greater challenge.

Shame the state of Canadian nuclear industry, the technology should be attracting investment, no doubt China and India will fund further development in this space.

Canada wanted to be a supplier of energy in terms of uranium and technology in terms of CANDU. Australia never went down that path. We need to work out how we will export energy in the future.

 

[Hazdog]

This thread is becoming ridiculously negative; the will power to support nuclear is present within Federal Parliament, as a majority of the LNP, ALP and the smaller right wing parties support nuclear. As such, having spoken to many federal members regarding the issue, it is not federal support that is lacking, rather it is the state political support that is lacking. Better yet, with alarmists all over the country it is extremely likely that nuclear is supported by the majority.
- The Coalition were almost able to make the final push for a nuclear power plant in SA recently, yet the Labor Party pulled its support for seemingly no logical reason. This is an issue that will be able to unite the left and the right, without need for extraneous debate.

The idea of renewables being able to power Australia without wiping out every majority production industry is ridiculous. The concept of 'battery storage' is an extremely illogical idea, as current and future technologies are not able to reasonably meet the demands, whilst reducing overall environmental impact; because after all it is the reduction of environmental and social impact that is at the forefront of the concept.
- Battery concepts require vast amounts of resources and money to build and replace. Renewables like wind and solar only last for around 20 years with current technical limitations and require huge sums of subsides. As such the viability of a renewables based grid is illegitimate.

Nuclear is able to provide clean, effective and reliable energy for our future demands allowing for reduced energy prices and reduced strain on government subsides that are the heartbeat of modern renewables, without the extreme grid realignment touted for renewables.

 

[ngatimozart]

This thread is becoming ridiculously negative; the will power to support nuclear is present within Federal Parliament, as a majority of the LNP, ALP and the smaller right wing parties support nuclear. As such, having spoken to many federal members regarding the issue, it is not federal support that is lacking, rather it is the state political support that is lacking. Better yet, with alarmists all over the country it is extremely likely that nuclear is supported by the majority.
- The Coalition were almost able to make the final push for a nuclear power plant in SA recently, yet the Labor Party pulled its support for seemingly no logical reason. This is an issue that will be able to unite the left and the right, without need for extraneous debate.

The idea of renewables being able to power Australia without wiping out every majority production industry is ridiculous. The concept of 'battery storage' is an extremely illogical idea, as current and future technologies are not able to reasonably meet the demands, whilst reducing overall environmental impact; because after all it is the reduction of environmental and social impact that is at the forefront of the concept.
- Battery concepts require vast amounts of resources and money to build and replace. Renewables like wind and solar only last for around 20 years with current technical limitations and require huge sums of subsides. As such the viability of a renewables based grid is illegitimate.

Nuclear is able to provide clean, effective and reliable energy for our future demands allowing for reduced energy prices and reduced strain on government subsides that are the heartbeat of modern renewables, without the extreme grid realignment touted for renewables.

@Hazdog In its present form, this post is sailing close to politics because it almost reads like a party political piece. So take note for the future.

Turning to your claims about current battery storage capabilities and technology, you make some rather emotive claims hence some evidence, with links, is required to back them up please.

 

[Hazdog]

@Hazdog In its present form, this post is sailing close to politics because it almost reads like a party political piece. So take note for the future.

Turning to your claims about current battery storage capabilities and technology, you make some rather emotive claims hence some evidence, with links, is required to back them up please.

My apologies for your perception of politics within my post; I can assure you that I am not a member for any party mentioned in my post.
But I do ask, if we are not allowed to directly discuss politics, how can we discuss nuclear in Australia? As it is a purely political topic currently.


Evidence for the social and political damages of battery production and consumption;
Industry giants fail to tackle child labour allegations in cobalt battery supply chains.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/lithium_batteries_lca.pdf.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261911008580.
Batteries Impose Hidden Environmental Costs for Wind and Solar Power.
The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction | WIRED UK.

Regards, H

 

[John Fedup]

I agree nuclear is needed to combat climate change. The problem is (at least in Canada) the actual construction of nuclear plants. NIMBY opposition and constantly evolving regulation results in grossly over budget projects being built in suboptimal locations. Exported CANDU reactors have a much better construction record. Hardly a surprise considering where they have been exported to. The downstroke is the importers then have the technology which they then utilize for future projects. CANDU and the emerging molten salt reactors are decent designs and molten salt reactors will be built in Asia at some point. Maybe the West can get by with solar farms and windmills as we seem to be out sourcing all our manufacturing to Asia. One addtion point on solar from a Canadian perspective. I have already mentioned Ontario's stupidity wrt to subsidization. The other objection I have is the conversation away from agriculture. Canada doesn't have an abundance of good farm land and combined with urban sprawl, it is becoming a significant loss.

 

[ngatimozart]

My apologies for your perception of politics within my post; I can assure you that I am not a member for any party mentioned in my post.
But I do ask, if we are not allowed to directly discuss politics, how can we discuss nuclear in Australia? As it is a purely political topic currently.


Evidence for the social and political damages of battery production and consumption;
Industry giants fail to tackle child labour allegations in cobalt battery supply chains.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/lithium_batteries_lca.pdf.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261911008580.
Batteries Impose Hidden Environmental Costs for Wind and Solar Power.
The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction | WIRED UK.

Regards, H

Thanks. I understand the restrictions on politics do make discussing a topic like this problematic in certain aspects. I worded my comments on the politics aspect your post very specifically in order to give you, and others, some guidance without wanting it to appear like it being a grumpy Mod reply. I would suggest staying away from an emotive style of writing and try to be somewhat dispassionate if possible.

There are no Aussie Mods active at the moment, and whilst the 2 active Kiwi mods understand a fairly reasonable amount of the Aussie, culture, vernacular and current affairs, we are not totally immersed in it, so we will still be outsiders looking in, and that can lead to misunderstandings. Now if we have issues like that, we have Mods, posters and visitors, from the UK, US, Singapore, Germany etc., and all over the world, who are far less familiar with Australia, which makes it harder for them to read between the lines. Just remember that you are writing for an international audience who are different to Australians and Kiwis in how they think and do things.

 

[hauritz]

My apologies for your perception of politics within my post; I can assure you that I am not a member for any party mentioned in my post.
But I do ask, if we are not allowed to directly discuss politics, how can we discuss nuclear in Australia? As it is a purely political topic currently.


Evidence for the social and political damages of battery production and consumption;
Industry giants fail to tackle child labour allegations in cobalt battery supply chains.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/lithium_batteries_lca.pdf.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261911008580.
Batteries Impose Hidden Environmental Costs for Wind and Solar Power.
The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction | WIRED UK.

Regards, H

There are a lot of myths out there about how "clean" clean energy really is. A lot of its supporters tend to overlook the environmental cost involved in actually manufacturing solar panels, batteries, wind turbines etc. Unfortunately logic doesn't seem to be a big part of any discussion about the merits of nuclear energy vs renewables. It is a debate so driven by emotion that the decision-makers have become paralysed with fear at actually even mentioning the possibility of nuclear power.

There are more votes in paying subsidies to people for sticking solar panels on their rooves than dealing with the issue of providing clean baseload electrical power. It all comes down to educating the masses and the difficulty of that when one side just has to show pictures of polar bears and the other has to churn out lots of boring data and actual evidence in support of their case.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Article in the Australian 2 days ago.. from 2 at RAND (John Birkler (John Birkler - Profile) is a senior fellow and Robert Murphy is a policy researcher, John has written a lot about Australia's ship building industry, and has a background in physics)
NoCookies | The Australian

This prospect raises two significant policy issues for Australia. The first is whether the commonwealth can operate and maintain nuclear submarines in a sovereign environment that has no civilian nuclear power industry to supply the nuclear-trained staffs, as well as build and maintain the infrastructure that is necessary. The second is whether Australia is prepared to establish an indemnification and regulatory environment that would be critical to safely and effectively operate and maintain nuclear vessels for 50 years.

Which is the argument going on here, can you do it with no civilian nuclear industry.

Then following in more specific details:

As Australian policymakers and the public debate the nuclear submarine option for the Royal Australian Navy, it could be valuable for them to broaden their understanding of what it would take to establish:

• A sovereign and robust industrial capability to operate and maintain submarines equipped with mobile nuclear power propulsion plants;
• A rigorous regulatory scheme to ensure mobile power reactors are safely built, tested, operated, maintained and deactivated;
• An indemnity scheme to cover third-party liabilities in the event of a “nuclear” incident;
• Training and development paths for regulators, engineers, operators and maintainers; and
• Facilities necessary to service nuclear-powered submarines.

We would have to look at whole of life going into nuclear propulsion. Nuclear waste created in the production, and these waste after used and the subs themselves.
The legislative thing I think is over blown, there are basics of that already (but would have to be expanded). We have operated 3 research reactors, have several pilot enrichment facilities. We have had nuclear testing in Australia that was a much bigger issue, and we have dealt with things like asbestos which a huge number of people were exposed to in Australia in the mining, production, application and use of.

IMO the logical path is an enrichment facility (probably in South Australia). Maybe 2 or 3 reactors, one in South Australia which is at the end of the power grid, vulnerable has no coal, has limited pumped hydro, and is where the subs would be built. Western Australia is another location, and is a likely one where the Subs would operate from, and then one on the east coast. Possibly a small one in Darwin or Broome. Skills IMO again mostly exist in the existing power industry and chemical industry. However, it is likely Australia will close all its coal power stations in the next 10-15 years, and much of its chemical industry so these jobs and skills are in decline. It will be much harder to establish an industry once these are gone, you kind of want a warm hand over between them.

For uranium reserves, Australia is spoilt for choices.

Again South Australia makes a logical place for enrichment, as there are several large reserves and an active mine (Olympic dam, 20% of its revenue comes from uranium). It has a dry environment and was used for atmospheric weapons testing. Its geologically stable and would also make a suitable place for a waste repository. As was pushed by Pangea Corp back in the late 90's.

I then wouldn't be making 12 nuclear SSNs, I would only have <6 SSNs and >6 conventional. I would go with the french reactor design and french barracudas, but run it at higher enriched so to make it a lifetime reactor (~20 years).
I would then be looking at making an indigenous cruise missile and rocket program to carry nuclear war heads based off uranium. Fired out of regular torpedo tubes. Then have a highly enriched uranium stockpile for nuclear weapons and leave it at that level. The missiles could be deployed on regular or SSN subs, as well as aircraft, and have a range ~500-1000km.

But at this point we are probably 100 billion bucks invested into this over and above the existing investment in subs etc. 3 large ish reactors, 2 small ones, ~4 SSN reactors. The Uranium enrichment would make some money, not huge amounts. You would have to wonder if it was all worth it.

For a whole lot less you could build some kick arse conventional subs with lithium type batteries, and make an indigenous rocket/missile program and have a boutique research enrichment facility. Or just go back to buying HEU from the UK like we did with HIFAR. Or be happy with our LEU stockpile and a pilot plant that could enrich it if needed. Or force the Americans into a nuclear sharing deal like NATO has.

Again what are we trying to do with this?

 

[Hazdog]

Article in the Australian 2 days ago.. from 2 at RAND (John Birkler (John Birkler - Profile) is a senior fellow and Robert Murphy is a policy researcher, John has written a lot about Australia's ship building industry, and has a background in physics)
NoCookies | The Australian

Which is the argument going on here, can you do it with no civilian nuclear industry.

Then following in more specific details:


We would have to look at whole of life going into nuclear propulsion. Nuclear waste created in the production, and these waste after used and the subs themselves.
The legislative thing I think is over blown, there are basics of that already (but would have to be expanded). We have operated 3 research reactors, have several pilot enrichment facilities. We have had nuclear testing in Australia that was a much bigger issue, and we have dealt with things like asbestos which a huge number of people were exposed to in Australia in the mining, production, application and use of.

IMO the logical path is an enrichment facility (probably in South Australia). Maybe 2 or 3 reactors, one in South Australia which is at the end of the power grid, vulnerable has no coal, has limited pumped hydro, and is where the subs would be built. Western Australia is another location, and is a likely one where the Subs would operate from, and then one on the east coast. Possibly a small one in Darwin or Broome. Skills IMO again mostly exist in the existing power industry and chemical industry. However, it is likely Australia will close all its coal power stations in the next 10-15 years, and much of its chemical industry so these jobs and skills are in decline. It will be much harder to establish an industry once these are gone, you kind of want a warm hand over between them.

For uranium reserves, Australia is spoilt for choices.

Again South Australia makes a logical place for enrichment, as there are several large reserves and an active mine (Olympic dam, 20% of its revenue comes from uranium). It has a dry environment and was used for atmospheric weapons testing. Its geologically stable and would also make a suitable place for a waste repository. As was pushed by Pangea Corp back in the late 90's.

I then wouldn't be making 12 nuclear SSNs, I would only have <6 SSNs and >6 conventional. I would go with the french reactor design and french barracudas, but run it at higher enriched so to make it a lifetime reactor (~20 years).
I would then be looking at making an indigenous cruise missile and rocket program to carry nuclear war heads based off uranium. Fired out of regular torpedo tubes. Then have a highly enriched uranium stockpile for nuclear weapons and leave it at that level. The missiles could be deployed on regular or SSN subs, as well as aircraft, and have a range ~500-1000km.

But at this point we are probably 100 billion bucks invested into this over and above the existing investment in subs etc. 3 large ish reactors, 2 small ones, ~4 SSN reactors. The Uranium enrichment would make some money, not huge amounts. You would have to wonder if it was all worth it.

For a whole lot less you could build some kick arse conventional subs with lithium type batteries, and make an indigenous rocket/missile program and have a boutique research enrichment facility. Or just go back to buying HEU from the UK like we did with HIFAR. Or be happy with our LEU stockpile and a pilot plant that could enrich it if needed. Or force the Americans into a nuclear sharing deal like NATO has.

Again what are we trying to do with this?

You had me until the nuclear submarine comment.

Strategically Australia should not pursue nuclear weapons as it provides an expensive capability with little gain in strategic outlook after the deterioration of relationships the we have with our neighbours. As such the CoA should look to continuing your first few points, disregarding the nuclear weapon and submarine component.

I have a question for the forum; Without being overly pedantic regarding the strategic outlook of Australia, why would you advocate for a nuclear weapons program?

Note: I am against Australia pursuing a nuclear weapons program due to the existing agreements and potential proliferation of nuclear weapons in our region.

 

[ngatimozart]

Australia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and if it pursued a nuclear weapons program without it being sanctioned by the US, UK and France, it would become an international pariah like North Korea and Iran. The PRC and Russia would push the illegality of it through the Security Council and there wouldn't be much that the US, UK or France could do if they don't agree to an Australian nuclear weapons program, because for any of them to veto any UN Security Council resolution would be too politically risky. Australia would have to present a very strong and valid case to the US, UK and France for them to agree to an Australian nuclear weapons program. That's how I see it.

 

[tonnyc]

I absolutely support the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Australia.

However, I do not support a nuclear weapons program for Australia. I must point out that if Australia does this Indonesia will feel compelled to pursue a similar program because of the implied imbalance of power otherwise. Malaysia will then feel compelled to do it too because it must keep up with Indonesia defense-wise. The Philippine will then feel compelled to have one too because it will otherwise be surrounded by nuke-armed states. Thailand will pursue them because they dare not let Malaysia have one and not have one themselves. Vietnam will them have one because dammit they can't afford not to.

I can't see how this will make the region more stable.

Nuclear submarines may or may not be tolerable, I don't know. Let's just say that we are glad Australia chooses regular diesel submarines so far.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and if it pursued a nuclear weapons program without it being sanctioned by the US, UK and France, it would become an international pariah like North Korea and Iran. The PRC and Russia would push the illegality of it through the Security Council and there wouldn't be much that the US, UK or France could do if they don't agree to an Australian nuclear weapons program, because for any of them to veto any UN Security Council resolution would be too politically risky. Australia would have to present a very strong and valid case to the US, UK and France for them to agree to an Australian nuclear weapons program. That's how I see it.

Theres quite a few things going on an nothing happens in a vacuum.

Currently as it stands Australia is a NPT advocate. However, Australia has always had rather good plan B's, particularly while we operated HIFAR and had a ready store of highly enriched uranium sitting in Australia straight from the UK weapons line. Which again, is a long way from deploying nuclear weapons, but its dual use capability was never underestimated. This was an acceptable compromise every seemed pretty happy with, we had a US umbrella, moral protection with the UK and our own capabilities could be developed, if required.

There are some major cracks in the NPT, there are also some major cracks in the US nuclear umbrella. Depending on the situation these may become much worse. Its also not just the NPT, there are a range of treaties and measures in play here
International Regimes : Department of Defence

However this isn't just an idea being put up by talkback radio redneck crack pots.

"The debate initiated by three former Australian deputy secretaries of defence—Hugh White, Paul Dibb and Richard Brabin-Smith—about the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear weapons is certainly being noticed by many Americans. ‘Is this serious?’ is a common question from security analysts here in Washington DC.. Yes and No."

For those outside Australia, it may sound completely impossible and unrealistic. But it is being thrown around, and in this space, not everything is made public that is probably relevant to discussions at think tank level.

NPT issues
What is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Here's why it's still important
Is Nuclear Arms Control Dead?
Australian nuclear weapon conversations
When Australian nuclear weapons could make sense | The Strategist
Australia, nuclear weapons and America’s umbrella business | The Strategist
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...da-argues-defence-expert-20190701-p52306.html
Why Australia needs nuclear weapons
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/professor-white-bomb-can-endanger-not-defend-australia
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/why-australia-should-consider-sharing-nuclear-weapons
https://www.aspi.org.au/opinion/get-nukes-or-not-get-nukes - also mention recent german discussions

Many of these explore what would perhaps happen if not just Australia, but all nations covered by a US umbrella felt insecure enough to seek something else.

North Korea threatening other nations, including Australia directly has also changed the playing field. A threat Australia takes very seriously. A nuclear state bullying a NPT state is very bad. Australia won't sit idly by and wear the threats with no change in policy or response.

So it wouldn't be Australia manufacturing nuclear weapons in a vacuum. But Australia playing a critical role with countries like Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore in building a new umbrella in Asia.

Its also more concerning given the nuclear arms race in the middle east.

I don't think its likely. But predicting the future is very hard these days. Australia would actively take a role in preventing mass proliferation by setting up some sort of nuclear arrangement involving 10+ countries. Many of these countries want a rock solid umbrella, but don't want to hold the firing button or for many reasons a dual key arrangement would make load more sense.

If things deteriorate, its likely it will happen quickly. So planning of some sort is going to need to happen either way. The understanding of the consequences of wider proliferation, and that in those cases the NPT doesn't stand forever if its broke.

Nuclear weapons aren't front an centre of the debate in Australia currently, but they are a big background issue.
Its not just about the cheapest commercial low carbon electricity. It is also not just about nuclear subs. its about a program that meets all of Australia s needs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Navy states subs could go nuclear...

NoCookies | The Australian

 

[ngatimozart]

Navy states subs could go nuclear...

NoCookies | The Australian

Pay wall, so we can't get at it.

 

[oldsig127]

Pay wall, so we can't get at it.

You aren't missing much. I'll try to scan and OCR my paper copy, but in essence (assuming fallible memory not completely failing) he made the point that over the life of such a long project the subs (and for that matter the Frigates) will evolve so that different propulsion systems may be used in the last tranche than used in the first. *Naturally* even if he didn't say as much that would be interpreted as "nuclear" rather than "maybe we start withg lead-acid batteries and transition through whatever makes most sense in later batches, which may or may not be nuclear"

The Australian's tame ASPI strategist was canning the new subs for not being designed "plug and play" like The Hunters, without realising that they too will likely be built in evolving blocks.

I *hate* New Limited's Defence coverage. Well written and reasoned yes, looks authoritative, yes, but often by people whose defence experience was in something like catering and whose academic speciality is accounting, leading to some very odd conclusions.

oldsig

(edit: spelling)

 

[buffy9]

You aren't missing much. I'll try to scan and OCR my paper copy, but in essence (assuming fallible memory not completely failing) he made the point that over the life of such a long project the subs (and for that matter the Frigates) will evolve so that different propulsion systems may be used in the last tranche than used in the first. *Naturally* even if he didn't say as much that would be interpreted as "nuclear" rather than "maybe we start withg lead-acid batteries and transition through whatever makes most sense in later batches, which may or may not be nuclear"

The Australian's tame ASPI strategist was canning the new subs for not being designed "plug and play" like The Hunters, without realising that they too will likely be built in evolving blocks.

I *hate* New Limited's Defence coverage. Well written and reasoned yes, looks authoritative, yes, but often by people whose defence experience was in something like catering and whose academic speciality is accounting, leading to some very odd conclusions.

oldsig

(edit: spelling)

Audio by ABC for those interested:

Submarines may be switched to nuclear, says navy vice admiral