Nuclear powered submarines 'do-able' for Australia

Aug 14, 2013

Developing a nuclear-powered submarine may present no greater challenge for Australia than developing its own uniquely modified conventional submarine, according to a green paper published today by University College London.

Developed by UCL's International Energy Policy Institute in Adelaide, the discussion paper considers in detail for the first time the question: 'What would it take for Australia to develop a nuclear-powered submarine capability?'

The Director of the IEPI, Professor Stefaan Simons, says the Australia-first research finds a civil nuclear industry does not need to be developed first in order for a nuclear-powered submarine option to become feasible. Indeed, in most cases around the world, defence needs have preceded civil ones. Perhaps more importantly, nuclear-powered submarines have proven operational capabilities – modifying a conventional submarine to deliver Australia's operational requirements is fraught with risk, he says.

Professor Simons, whose own research includes a focus on nuclear fuel reprocessing, and low carbon energy technologies, says it is possible that Australia would only need to manage short-lived (radioactive) wastes produced during operations and maintenance of such submarines; which could be done within the facilities already planned for development in Australia.

"With the exception of the nuclear fuel in the reactor, all of the radioactive waste produced in the decommissioning of a nuclear submarine should be lower-level and manageable within the planned facilities," he says.

"It is virtually certain that the fuel would be provided with the reactor. With the modern design trade-offs, indicating that fuelling for life is preferable, issues around refuelling (i.e. the management of spent fuel) would probably not apply and any spent fuel could possibly be the responsibility of the country of origin, depending on negotiations."

The green paper was developed to kick start an informed debate about what would be the necessary requirements if Australia wished to develop a nuclear-powered submarine capability in Australia.

Professor Simons says the green paper creates a broad non-classified understanding of the requirements for nuclear naval (submarine) propulsion. It identifies the necessary infrastructure, workforce, legislative and regulatory (both national and international) requirements.

The green paper highlights eight key issues and outlines a further 15 points for policy consideration. The key findings are:

1. Developing a nuclear-powered submarine capability may present no greater challenge than Australia developing its own uniquely modified conventional submarine design and construction capability.

2. A nuclear industry per se does not need to be developed first in order for a nuclear-powered submarine option to become feasible. Indeed, in most cases around the world, defence needs have preceded civil ones.

3. There appears to be little evidence supporting the argument that Australia would be more dependent on its allies if it leased or acquired nuclear-powered submarines.

4. There is a significant global shortage of nuclear regulatory personnel and there are significant challenges in developing this capability, although some already exists in Australia. In practice, the primary training ground for many potential recruits into nuclear safety inspectorates is a nuclear submarine engineering force. The existing nuclear regulatory bodies in Australia would benefit in the long run from the use of [nuclear-powered submarines] by the Royal Australian Navy.

5. It is virtually certain that the fuel would be provided with the reactor. With the modern design trade-offs indicating that fuelling for life is preferable, issues around refueling (e.g. the management of spent fuel) would probably not apply and any could possibly be the responsibility of the country of origin, depending on negotiations.

6. It is possible that Australia would only need to manage short-lived wastes produced during operations and maintenance [of nuclear-powered submarines], which could be done within the facilities already planned for development in Australia.

7. It is unlikely that any major maintenance of the reactor would take place in Australia, unless a phased approach to procurement took place where, for instance, the first boat would be leased (to provide capability quickly), with more of the final assembly carried out locally for subsequent vessels.

8. With the exception of the in the reactor, all of the produced in the decommissioning of a nuclear should be lower-level and manageable within the planned facilities.

Download the Could Australia's future submarines be nuclear-powered? green paper.

Explore further: Many tongues, one voice, one common ambition

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A new clean nuclear fusion reactor has been designed

Jan 14, 2013

A researcher at the Universidad politécnica de Madrid (UPM, Spain) has patented a nuclear fusion reactor by inertial confinement that, apart from be used to generate electric power in plants, can be applied ...

French nuclear designers tap American expertise

Jun 11, 2013

The world's nuclear experts have reached out to U.S. Department of Energy engineers for help evaluating a new nuclear reactor design that could increase safety margins while reducing waste.

UK stays cautious over thorium as nuclear fuel

Sep 16, 2012

(Phys.org)—The claim is dramatic: An alternative nuclear fuel that could offer a safer and more abundant alternative to the uranium that powers conventional reactors. That is what supporters have to say ...

US teen designs compact nuclear reactor

Mar 01, 2013

Eighteen-year-old Taylor Wilson has designed a compact nuclear reactor that could one day burn waste from old atomic weapons to power anything from homes and factories to space colonies.

World needs joint nuclear safety approach

Oct 13, 2011

The global upsurge in the use of nuclear power in countries such as China, Russia and Britain must be accompanied by a greater focus on security and the management of nuclear waste, a report said Thursday.

Recommended for you

Qi wireless charging standard offers more design freedom

9 hours ago

Wireless charging is getting a new technology treatment which offers more design freedom. The Wireless Power Consortium's advance in its Qi wireless charging standard means that phones and chargers will no ...

'Wetting' a battery's appetite for renewable energy storage

13 hours ago

Sun, wind and other renewable energy sources could make up a larger portion of the electricity America consumes if better batteries could be built to store the intermittent energy for cloudy, windless days. Now a new material ...

New system to optimize public lighting power consumption

14 hours ago

In order to meet the efficiency requirements of the latest public lighting regulations, researchers from the School of Industrial Engineers of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), in collaboration with ...

Many tongues, one voice, one common ambition

Jul 31, 2014

There is much need to develop energy efficient solutions for residential buildings in Europe. The EU-funded project, MeeFS, due to be completed by the end of 2015, is developing an innovative multifunctional and energy efficient ...

Panasonic, Tesla to build big US battery plant

Jul 31, 2014

(AP)—American electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc. is teaming up with Japanese electronics company Panasonic Corp. to build a battery manufacturing plant in the U.S. expected to create 6,500 jobs.

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MarkoRamius
not rated yet Aug 14, 2013
This UCL paper is a blatant manoeuvre in the field of sales representatives and written by people who have no experience in submarine design.

UK lobbyists are desperate to find some funded work for nuclear and submarine industries. These Poms do take Aussies for dummies if they believe they can influence/convince with such poor material.