Canada has been involved with nuclear power development for over 60 years and over 20,000 people are directly employed with another 10,000 sub- contractor employees. Nuclear powered vessels could be supported. If the RCN were allowed to pursue nuclear propulsion, it would likely have to be a foreign purchase as it is unlikely the government would support the creation of a submarine construction industry. We already have enough headaches with the surface ship industry.
Why do they need a nuclear industry, the life of a modern nuclear subs reactor is the life of the submarine, there no need to refuel it ever. If Aussie bought SSN's from the US I would presume part of the deal would be returning them to the US when it was time for them to be deactived.
Stuff happens, having local support (which Canada has) that can deal with "nuclear" stuff just makes things easier and likely less expensive. Australia lacks this support so having SSNs is a steeper climb. Neither Canada or Australia will go for SSNs albeit for different reasons and both Electric Boat and Newport News would be hard pressed to offer export Virginias especially since the Ohio replacement is in the works. Perhaps the UK, US, Australia, and Canada should consider a future SSN for post 2050.
Kettles still need to be understood and maintained. Not needing to be refueled removes a major cost of ownership but not the need to look after them by suitably qualified and experienced personnel using suitably designed and certified processes, equipment and facilities, which all needs to come from somewhere. This could all be built from scratch, making extensive use of contracted talent but would be a lot easier and safer if there was an existing industry or capability to tap into, something that provides a critical mass of the required expertise.
Just imagine if the same level of problem had been found on a Collins, i.e. a substandard item from a contractor identified and replaced before failure. Yep it would have been dud subs all over again and the guilty party getting off Scott free while the RAN, ASC and poor old Kim Beazley copped all the blame again.
Australia has a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, this is the second one at this location, it's only 20MW but it is a reactor which has to be maintained to the same standards as any other reactor.
Correct, a new open-pool reactor replaced the HIFAR reactor which ran from about 1960 to 2006. However the industrial infrastructure required for operating a research reactor doesn't compare with Canada's nuclear industry which designs and builds reactors. With 18 power plant reactors currently running in Canada, there are plenty of nuclear technologists available in the unlikely event the RCN were to obtain SSNs. This is the only reason the SSN path for Canada would be easier as compared to Australia. Again, neither country will follow this path any time soon and if the polar ice disappears Canada won't need to.
It was a turn key project and is a research reactor that also produces isotopes for medical purposes, it is staffed by research scientists and research technicians, so a very different sort of set up to a reactor designed for baseload power generation. There are not the large number of process engineers and techs a commercial reactor has, there are not the specialist project managers and project engineers you need for building and doing major work on reactors, these are contracted in when as required, as there is simply not enough work to maintain the capability locally. Just look at the grief the Soviets got themselves into by stuffing around and lacking professionalism in nuclear operations, not the sort of thing that would ever be acceptable in Australia.
Noticed in the Melbourne "Age" an article on Zcells. A new storage battery technology which may be more suitable for the RAN future submarine than Li-ion batteries. In no way an expert in evolving battery technology but perhaps it may pay for the RAN to investigate & trial this 'new' battery technology?
Interesting technology which was developed in Australia by Redfow. Not sure if the liquid ZnBr electrolyte would be suitable in subs but I am sure the RAN would want to compare it the the current Li-ion technology (and whatever else might be in development) for their future subs.Noticed in the Melbourne "Age" an article on Zcells. A new storage battery technology which may be more suitable for the RAN future submarine than Li-ion batteries. In no way an expert in evolving battery technology but perhaps it may pay for the RAN to investigate & trial this 'new' battery technology?
Try Google to access links to this battery, "Zcell electric battery"
Fact check ...... Third actually. HIRAR (10MW), OPAL (20MW) and MOATA (a very small 100 KW) which ran for 35 years. Most sites miss MOATA.
The Australian waste is progressively preprocessed and what cannot be recycled is vitrified and encapsulated. Mind you the waste from HIFAR and MOATA is not a lot. Spent fuel rods are stored in cooling ponds prior to reprocessing. Some countries have an issue with reprocessing as they fear plutonium can be hived off. As a result the rods are all stored in cooling ponds.
Storage pools are a big problem that will eventually get worse. Look at Fukishima.
I read the article from Shearer from the CSIS in The Australian today and the article by Greg Sheridan. I also read the numerous comments following the articles. There seems to be a real cheersquad for nuclear propulsion subs (which isn't going to happen). They're so numerous and so vocal I get the impression that it's an organised group. Are you aware of such a group in Defence circles?Australia needs to make 'grown-up decisions' about submarines: Andrew Shearer
Posted 56 minutes ago
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says he won't guarantee that the details of Australia's politically sensitive submarine building contract will be released before the election. But a former security adviser to Tony Abbott says he has no doubt that US defence advisers would have been giving frank advice to their Australian counterparts to try to encourage them to partner with Japan to build the new submarines. Andrew Shearer from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC says strategic alliances are certainly a factor.
Rule No:1 in the tender evaluation matrix should be to penalise competitors for slagging off at their industrial opposition when their own houses are not in order
nope. I even know some ex nuke drivers and they don't carry "if only for nukes" flag....
Might eliminate a whole bunch, who use it as SOP.