Royal Australian Navy Submarines to go Nuclear

...........The anti nuclear lobby hate anything nuclear because they can’t differentiate between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
Not just Australia. MOST folk think a nuclear submarine carries deliverable mushrooms rather than what is basically just a damn efficient kettle!

I wonder what they (ill informed people in general) think happens in nuclear power stations?
 
You'd think that a huge country full of miles and miles of FU would be ideal for nuclear power, although I suppose there is also the question of cooling water.

Hell, a place like Australia could desalinate water using nuclear power if they wanted to. Just a matter of will.

I suppose the real question is: Who benefits from keeping Australia tied to fossil fuels, or from pushing renewables less suited to heavy industry? A pretty short list I imagine...

We have desalination plants already.

The "renewable" power generation is massively subsidised with fossil fuels being demonised. Renewables can't stand on their own, they need heavy subsidies and favourable government regulation to creat an artificial environment.
 

Yokel

LE
Not just Australia. MOST folk think a nuclear submarine carries deliverable mushrooms rather than what is basically just a damn efficient kettle!

I wonder what they (ill informed people in general) think happens in nuclear power stations?

Why though - 'nuclear submarine' is no more indicative of role than 'steam ship' or 'motor vessel', or even 'sailing vessel'? Lazy journalism and a public that swallows anything? I always shake my head at the way journalists often seem to lack the science education that that they should have got at school. I wonder if there is a business opportunity there?

I remember that the BBC made a documentary about our forces in Iraq in 2003, and there was an issue with electrical systems in Iraq. The journalists had no idea how an electrical grid works and an Army spokesman had to explain what transformers and power lines do.

I never use the term 'nuclear submarine' - just submarine. That would save some confusion.
 
The Australians are asking someone else to supply them with nuclear powered submarines so I suspect they're not yet ready to make the effort to develop their own.
If I read the advertising bumpf correctly, the reactor will arrive fully assembled and fuelled, and the fuel will last the expected lifetime of the sub. Just weld the front on, back on, bolt the output to the propellors and off you go.

The RAN should not have to do anything other than twist the knobs and keep it clean.
 
Why though - 'nuclear submarine' is no more indicative of role than 'steam ship' or 'motor vessel', or even 'sailing vessel'? Lazy journalism and a public that swallows anything? I always shake my head at the way journalists often seem to lack the science education that that they should have got at school. I wonder if there is a business opportunity there?

I remember that the BBC made a documentary about our forces in Iraq in 2003, and there was an issue with electrical systems in Iraq. The journalists had no idea how an electrical grid works and an Army spokesman had to explain what transformers and power lines do.

I never use the term 'nuclear submarine' - just submarine. That would save some confusion.
I agree with what you say! However, there is a place for 'nuclear submarine' in the vocabulary, as there are many conventional submarines around too.

Re journalistic licence... it boils my pee when the media report that 'the Army' have been called in, then show pictures of Naval, even RAF (!) personnel doing whatever the task is/was. Why not the phrase 'Services' - Can't say Forces or Armed Forces, as that might upset Tarquin and Samantha!
 
Well, the winner usually gets to call bits of territory what they want. Ayers Rock was good enough for my grampy, and my dad, and it's good enough for me.
That’s what it was called in ‘74 … when we may or may not have ridden our trail bikes up it …
1D8AA826-0595-4CFC-8959-05362E2756A6.jpeg
 
Not just Australia. MOST folk think a nuclear submarine carries deliverable mushrooms rather than what is basically just a damn efficient kettle!

I wonder what they (ill informed people in general) think happens in nuclear power stations?
My mother once pointed out that nuclear power stations couldnt be green because of the oil and coal needed to run them.

I dont know who was more confused - her on being told they didnt use oil etc to run them or us trying to work out how in the name of all that holy she had managed to come to that conclusion about nuclear power.


My mother has many sterling qualities Logic and a sense of direction are not on the list
 
Uranium 238 is as much use in a nuclear reaction as tits on a fish. It's not fissile unlike U235. Unfortunately U235 and U238 are chemically identical so the only way to enrich U238 to U235 is very difficult and hugely expensive.
Natural non-enriched uranium works fine in a civilian power reactor provided the reactor is designed to make efficient use of neutrons. Canada uses natural uranium reactors and has sold them to other countries around the world. A proportion of the U238 is converted to fissile elements and then "burned up" during the course of the reaction, providing a significant proportion of the total energy output, so it's not just a passive part of the fuel. UK Magnox reactors operated on a similar principle but used a graphite moderator instead of heavy water.

The design is not suitable for nuclear submarines however as the system is mainly suitable for larger installations where space is not a constraint. US light water civilian power reactor designs are directly derived from submarine reactors. Indeed the first one was simply a submarine reactor installed on land.

The Canadian natural uranium reactor design has a direct line of descent from the first reactor built as part of the joint Canada-UK nuclear weapons program in WWII and so has a separate and completely independent engineering lineage from ones where being able to fit into a submarine was a design constraint. This led to very different fundamental design assumptions which in turn meant radically different designs.

If Australia wanted a civilian nuclear power industry without any reliance on enriched uranium there are off the shelf solutions.
 
Why though - 'nuclear submarine' is no more indicative of role than 'steam ship' or 'motor vessel', or even 'sailing vessel'? Lazy journalism and a public that swallows anything? I always shake my head at the way journalists often seem to lack the science education that that they should have got at school. I wonder if there is a business opportunity there?

I remember that the BBC made a documentary about our forces in Iraq in 2003, and there was an issue with electrical systems in Iraq. The journalists had no idea how an electrical grid works and an Army spokesman had to explain what transformers and power lines do.

I never use the term 'nuclear submarine' - just submarine. That would save some confusion.
The public shouldn't be ill informed. I did GCSE History in high school in 1997/1998. We covered the Cold War and MRBM/ICBM and the nuclear arms race was part of the topic at large.

We were taught about SLBM as well as the platforms they were delivered from, ie Ballistic Missile Submarines. I I was able to grasp that as a 15 year old.. surely adults older than me should have more sense.
 
Last edited:
In the middle of all that treeless MAMOFA. Where else?

Though if I really wanted to annoy the Aborigines, I'd stick it under Ayer's Rock.
You unwoke bastard.

Uluru is I believe the approved nomenclature.

Although the idea has merit.
 

TamH70

MIA
Noooooo Star Trek

At least her name, "Uhuru", means something cool, like "Freedom", whereas "Uluru" means "We got the dumbass whiteys to guilt-trip themselves into changing the name of this gurt big hill".
 
Not just Australia. MOST folk think a nuclear submarine carries deliverable mushrooms rather than what is basically just a damn efficient kettle!

I wonder what they (ill informed people in general) think happens in nuclear power stations?
Netflix documentary series called Pandora’s promise is worth a watch for you. It’s written by an environmentalist who is against fossil fuels who’s daring to ask why this wonderful source of zero carbon, reliable energy isn’t being promoted.

Nuclear energy fell out of the nuclear weapons development. People can not separate the two and there’s been that much misreporting on the topic ever since that nobody knows what’s fact or fiction.

You get more radiation from the beach in Rio de Janeiro than Fukushima.

The tens of thousands of deaths caused Chernobyl doesn’t seem to have fractured in that those deaths were happening in those numbers pre Chernobyl. (All from a report from the anti nuclear lobby who decided to say that anybody who died of any form of cancer was the result of Chernobyl.)

The key to winning over anybody to your argument these days is sorted misinformation and berate anybody who questions it.

God help the Australians if they get TLAM on their subs. The next thing you’ll hear is proliferation of nuclear weapons and the Americans have the codes.
 
I suppose the real question is: Who benefits from keeping Australia tied to fossil fuels, or from pushing renewables less suited to heavy industry? A pretty short list I imagine...
From an interview I heard last night, the biggest coal producers in Australia are Chinese owned. To complete the madness one of our less well endowed with grey cell MPs' (National Party - who else could be so dumb) is calling for subsidies for coal producers because they are suffering due to Australia gradually shifting to renewable energy. You couldn't make it up it is so looney.
 
Bollocks.

Sorry mate, but it's utter bollocks.

Your evidence is.......?

So wind and solar generation in Australia isn't subsidised by the tax payer? Governments aren't encouraging "renewables" while refusing to allow the construction of High Efficiency Low Emission coal fired power stations? Why can't renewable power generation stand on it's own?

Power prices in Australia are artificially high because of these policies. Australia has enormous reserves of the best coal in the world. There is no reason we can't have cheap reliable power. We should have this natural advantage to power competitive industries but instead we have some of the highest power prices in the world. This cripples our manufacturing industries.

You obviously have no knowledge of the subject and get all your information from the ABC or other leftard propaganda organisations.
 

Latest Threads

Top