Australia goes nuclear

The MSM is always pretty slow on the uptake but some days you have to wonder if they’re dropping Mogadon. To wit:

Australia is embarking on its most significant change of defence and strategic direction in decades, aiming to make the Navy’s next submarine fleet nuclear-powered.

In a deal announced by US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the US will share secret nuclear technology to help Australia in the switch to nuclear-powered boats.

The fleet will be the first initiative of a newly formed trilateral security partnership called AUKUS.

Mr Morrison said the “next generation” partnership would help ensure the region’s safety.

“Our world is becoming more complex, especially here in our region, the Indo-Pacific,” Mr Morrison said.

“This affects us all. The future of the Indo-Pacific will impact all our futures.”

The deal does not extend to nuclear weapons, only the propulsion system, which has always been conventional diesel-electric in Australia’s submarine classes.

The deal may not extend to nuclear weapons but you still have to have the capability to power the subs, which will be provided by the UK. That’s nuclear tech and weapons are an easy extension.

In short, Australia is going nuclear.

This raises a second possibility. That the Morrison Government will make nuclear power a critical component of decarbonisation. It makes sense. Nuclear can wipe out coal and gas in a decade and make us net-zero years ahead of schedule.

The community may not resist this the way it once did and we’ve got oodles of uranium to send critical. It would play out as a terrific political wedge.

Whether it’s a good idea is open to debate.

Nuclear is expensive. But there’s nothing Canberra likes more than a costly subsidy for miners and captains of industry. And, at the moment, we’re busy subsidising dirty coal and gas anyway to keep them alive. Which is worse?

Then there is the possibility of developing a nuclear waste industry. That’s a huge money-spinner and could be porked into outback Nats electorates.

In strategic terms, going nuclear could be a very bad idea if it is not divided from weapons. That’s a diplomatic challenge as much as any. Indonesia is already toying with nuclear power via Russia so it may not matter too much.

As for the containment of China, nuclear-powered subs are all for the good. And the French pork subs we had to endure to offset a collapsed car industry should have been junked years ago.

The deeper ties with the US are excellent and help box in the ALP, China’s local political patsy. It appears Perth may become an Indo-Pacific subs hub for the US as well, which also ties WA in better. That’ll upset China no end and will intensify its efforts to rid itself of the Pilbara which I also applaud.

It’s worthy of discussion.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. If we do go nuclear for power, I hope we go the route of many small ones vs a couple of massive ones.

    Seems easier to long term deal with commissioning and decommissioning of the smaller, modular units than the monoliths.

    • Also a lot of research going into that space right now, as well as a few companies starting to commercialise it. Definitely the way to go.

        • It does work at night time though, which is a bonus.

          And as pricey as nuclear is, it might not be so much more than a fleet of batteries and another fleet of extra solar and wind to charge them up each day. Can’t use the main solar/wind assets to power the grid and charge batteries at the same time, right?

      • I know you’re joking, but the react in Chernobyl had many design faults. Which hopefully have been learnt from in order to better manage.

    • UNless its thorium it shouldn’t even be discussed.

      If moronic cold war nuffies sucking on the US teat were put back into the cupboard with Trump where they belong we could have Thorium reactors from China in Australia to go along with Bullet trains.

      But instead we will get another way, thousands more aussies killed, more trillions of resource revenue siphoned off to the US while US corporates take over our entire economy and run our beuracracy.

      Such a moronic view put forward on this blog – just childish stuff from yesteryear.

      • And then we wouldn’t need subs at all because the Chinese would let us have their hypersonic quantum lasers! 😲 🤣

  2. It’s about time. The French subs had 100 year old world war 1 batteries and diesels.

    It’s time Australia got some nuclear weapons so we don’t need to rely on the temperamental USA for protection. Japan and S Korea are thinking along the same lines.

    • “The French subs had 100 year old world war 1 batteries and diesels.”
      You do know that the french sub was nuclear powered? We changed the design to turn it into diesel / electric!

      • yep, with a hull designed for a powerful nuclear reactor.

        It’s like putting a lawnmower engine in a Porsche.

  3. This is exactly why voting Lab above Lib in my preferences is an easy choice for the next election. It will be impossible for Lab to move away from US in any meaningful way especially within the space of one term even if they wanted to. Makes the decision even easier. Thank you Scomo.

    • Arthur Schopenhauer

      That’s why the US insisted Albo was at the announcement. Last thing in the world Morrison wanted.

        • NelsonMuntzMEMBER

          Biden wasn’t sure if our PM should be addressed as “Scotty from Marketing”, “Liar from the Shire”, “PM for NSW”, “Happy Clapper”, Scummo or Clotto. (either way it was beautiful moment and highlighted the low standing of our PM)

      • Lord DudleyMEMBER

        Excellent point. It’s bipartisan. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, this plan is going ahead. Which is actually really good. First good decision I’ve seen come out of Australia for quite some time. I’m guessing the Biden Administration mostly came up with the idea, possibly in cahoots with the RAN.

        • Arthur Schopenhauer

          It’s great. In other news, Saul Griffith has moved back to Oz from the Bay Area. He’s a great advocate for an indigenous engineering industry.

  4. More seriously, I’m not particularly opposed to nuclear power in principle, but it’s hard to see it getting up politically or economically, and it’ll be a rort goldmine possibly even more wasteful than the subs – I’d err against wasting time on it simply because of that.

    It’d be a miracle if Australia could have a single reactor up and running in a decade, let alone enough to replace existing fossil fuel generation.

    • Arthur Schopenhauer

      Ideally there would be two nuclear plants to power two Giga-sized battery factories. When the battery build out is complete, as the battery/solar/wind transition is rolled out, they can transition to a modest base load supply.

      I’m surprised at the sensible submarine decision, so maybe the US will force a few more sensible strategic choices upon the Australian Government.

      Edit: 24 Type 216 submarines would probably be more cost effective, but lack the weapons systems…

      • By the time you finish building the batteries the first ones you built will already be end of life so you need to build them again…

      • Ideally
        Seriously wtf does that word mean
        Ideally Australia would have an Automobile design develop and manufacture capability (oh yeah wait a minute…)
        Ideally Australia would have a world beating semiconductor Industry
        Ideally Australia would have commercialized the Solar cell breakthroughs that resulted from Martin Green’s work
        Ideally …wtf is ideal about any of this.
        Ideally!

        • Arthur Schopenhauer

          Ideally means two, not one or zero. One would be better than zero.

          Ideally means it is incredibly difficult to raise capital for any sort of manufacturing in Australia.

          Fortunately, things are changing, and decision like this is going to make things easier.

          Edit: Australia needs to make nails, screws, chains, plasterboard and wood products before we can make anything like a battery. Semi-conductors? Not possible with the current industrial requirements.

          Electric bikes before electric cars.

          Electric vans before electric trucks.

          There needs to be a tax structure to support investment, and Labor policies similar to Germany’s.

          The electrification of everything has well and truly started, but you wouldn’t know it in Australia.

    • Nuclear power is totally uneconomic, especially as the build (and future decommissioning in 30 years) costs are enormous and ignored. Look at Hinkley station in the UK.
      Totally uneconomic Compared to solar, wind, etc.
      Then again governments love big uneconomic projects . Snowy 2.0 is uneconomic against solar or batteries, and the “forgotten” billions in transmission lines, and with large environmental impacts. But its nation building !

      • Arthur Schopenhauer

        We need at least two large battery factories to maintain Australia’s energy independence. They would consume an enormous amount of power.

        Nuclear? Or power them with coal? Can’t be done with renewables at this stage.

        • Yes, its an interesting comparison to calculate to include the whole of life energy (or greenhouse gas) usage.
          The contruction energy / greenhouse gases for the nuclear power station (such as Hinckley in the UK also need to be included.
          Although some references (such as carbonbrief.org) say the construction effort is comparitively small for nuclear and solar

          Volvo did an interesting study on the Polestar electrical vehicle – double the energy usage to build (due to batteries presumably) but half the total life (15 years) energy costs (or less C02 if use solar power)

      • Nuclear power is totally uneconomic, … build and future decommissioning … costs are enormous and ignored.

        What are these costs?

        Give them to me in terms of real resources consumed. Don’t mention dollars.

    • I agree. Let alone one stuff up and the price to pay is huge. Solar, Wind and Batteries are the answer. Plus Hydrogen. A couple of nukes for defence is not a bad idea. But if Indonesia get nuke power and they stuff up. Australia is close enough to suffer from fall out.

    • Why choose a power base that has limited participants who would hold the upper hand on pricing when the alternative is more competitive and also decentralised.

      • This is a fault of privatising the network, and just buying your own “solution” merely changes who has the pricing power.

        • Decentralised either in connectivity (small country towns etc) or ownership. The network can still be interconnected where it makes sense.

    • Once we have one, it will become a great earner to allow countries like Japan to dump their nuclear waste there. There are a lot of aging nuclear power plants that Japan cannot decommission due to having nowhere to put the spent rods.

      Maybe the ScoMo government will put it inside Uluru (Ayers Rock)? Making it glow in the dark will attract more Instagram tourist 😛

      • Lord DudleyMEMBER

        Australia is easily the most suitable nation on Earth for nuclear waste disposal. Vast, unoccupied, unusable areas of land. A massive continental plate with almost no geological activity. Australia should be charging the world megabucks to take the waste. Bury it 2 miles under Maralinga or something; no-one will see it for tens of thousands of years, more likely millions.

        • I’ve heard folks at GA speak about the constant mini quakes in central Australia due to the stresses on the continent. They weren’t as chipper on the notion that Australia was the foolproof answer to nuclear waste storage as it seems to most of us. That being said, I do think we have a responsibility for dealing with the waste as we dig up uranium. And the cost of storing the waste should be borne by the user.
          The method is always the problem. Especially for a country that likes overpriced short cuts that can end up being very expensive.

          When all of that gets taken into account the lifecycle cost of nuclear is huge. Maybe it is a price that needs to be paid to reduce greenhouse gas output? As advances in renewables occur it seems less likely. That is unless fusion becomes a reality.

          • the lifecycle cost of nuclear is huge

            What are these mystery costs that everyone keeps parroting on about?

            Are the huge costs taxes? Are they CEO bonuses? Is it the wages of cleaning staff? What is it?

        • Exactly.

          It’s almost our duty to store the waste. The safest location to do such a thing on earth. But we’ll be charging a pretty penny anyway lol.

    • The BystanderMEMBER

      I’m sure that no matter what spot the government selects, the local land council will suddenly discover that that spot is a sacred site and can’t be built on. Not without ‘modest’ compensation to somehow appeal the sacrilege. And even then, the Greens will ‘discover’ that the land council is corrupt, and let us know that another group of Indigenous people are the ‘true’ owners of the land. And those owners just happen to share the views of the Greens on anything nuclear…

    • Australia is probably the most geologically suited given all the remote locations, for nuclear waste storage.
      Western Australia already has a repository for radioactive waste (non nuclear), and given the challenges of disposal Australia could do with a few more.

      • CSIRO is running a process to build a nuclear dump site and have had two towns i think vote yes to the proposal of a very deep hole, modelled on a Finnish nuclear dump.

  5. In news just to hand, acting Kazatomprom chief Mazhit Sharipov announced a favourable deal with the Morrison Government to uranium-mine wherever it likes in Australia in perpetuity. “We like it that the environmental controls are a giggle, we can BYO workers, there are no resource rents, income tax is optional,” Sharipov explained. “How good is Australia?”

  6. If that means we’ll ditch the French subs, I’m all for it. But I suspect it’ll be an addition to the non-functional diesel submarines.

    Nuclear is great provided it’s in someone else’s backyard. Where are we going to put the submarines without the local NIMBY going completely insane?

  7. Subs good! But totally against Australia getting nuclear power simple as it won’t be economical, but as you say we are already paying massively for coal etc via subsidies, no tax receipts etc Going nuclear could also have some good effects if it stops Narrabri etc

  8. Bob Is Your Uncle

    There was a chap in the last few days kept posting uranium stocks are going up…
    Seems some saw this coming

  9. Lord DudleyMEMBER

    Good. Using American built submarines with local support will get a vastly superior capability in the water much faster and cheaper than the silly idea of building French designed diesel subs in Australia. Australia has largely lost the ability to build things.

    Will it lead to an Australian nuclear energy industry? Probably not. It does at least provide some local expertise and capability on that front, whereas now there is none.

  10. Mark WalmsleyMEMBER

    Brilliant move for Australia!!! US attack subs are like the F-22 Raptor fighter of the seas.
    And if we can get nuclear power for climate change…amazing.
    And a nuclear waste industry as well…a genius triple banger.
    Politics aside this a great day for Australia

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      With China’s manufacturing capacity, huge expendable population and growing technological prowess they could take out all our subs pretty quickly in an all out, gloves off, stoush.
      Partnership with America is still out primary deterrence to Chinese expansion and aggression.
      Having said that a nuclear deterrence of our own might be worthwhile.
      I reckon It would be better to field them in hidden bunkers in remote, sparsely populated, areas on them Russian style mobile missile launchers.
      Harder to take them out than having all your Nukes bunched up all together in a dozen odd, easily sunk, underwater boats.

  11. Arthur Schopenhauer

    Hey David, could you post an Election Day sweepstakes thread?

    It’s really smelling like an Election will be called very soon….

    • If we can stuff up the climate just that little bit more there is guaranteed to be more wind storms (problem solved). The LNP are cantering towards this outcome as we type.

    • TheLambKingMEMBER

      Energy Prices in Europe Hit Records After Wind Stops Blowing

      Peak prices up, average prices are down because of the wind and solar. Great headline from the fossil fuel backed Murdoch press – WSJ.

  12. TailorTrashMEMBER

    Now to piss the Chinese really off the port of Darwin
    should be resolved …..I look forward to the incandescent
    pages of The Global Times …..the threats will be wonderful to behold .

  13. I’m not against Australia having nuclear subs BUT I’ve yet to hear a single operation for Nuclear Sub that can’t be better performed with old school diesel/electric plus new fangled AIP (fuel cell) or F’ing big LiIon battery.
    There’s no doubt that Nuclear Attack subs had a role to play in the Soviet era but that role simply no longer exists.
    The bottom line is that Nuclear subs are noisy and noisy subs are about as much use as chocolate tea pots.
    The problem with any nuclear reactor is that you can’t just turn off the reactor water pumps without having your very own Chernobyl moment. Water pumps are noisy.
    That one problem (noise) makes your nuclear sub no longer suitable for 90% of the tasks for which you would deploy a sub.

    • Agree – they are warhead delivery vehicles but we aren’t buying the warheads. Many years back in war games, the Collins class beat the US subs in battle exercises due to stealth capability.

    • No longer suitable for 90% of what a sub is for?

      That’s why the US, the largest military on earth operates exactly 0 conventional diesel/electric subs, but an entire nuclear fleet. Because they are unsuitable for 90% of the tasks.
      hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      • US attack subs have a different primary role namely fleet protection
        That role requires true blue water capability that at least matches, if not exceeds, the capabilities of the Carrier’s .
        Now if this was a blue water matchup between a Gotland class and a US attack sub where each sub knows the others location. than it’s no contest that Gotland sub is going down, never to resurface.
        But that’s the thing you gotta find it before you can sink it.
        If you need any more information on just how difficult it is to find a silent sub familiarize yourself with the problems that Argentina had finding the sunken SanJuan…and it didn’t move in over a year.

        • Arthur Schopenhauer

          What about a small fleet of 6 Type 212 subs, bought ‘off the shelf’ to supplement the larger subs?

          After all, JobKeeper has shown there’s always a few more billion to throw about, if needed! 😀

          • Not a bad idea but to be honest Australia has difficulty just crewing the 6 Collins class subs even with their low availability stats.
            Even the technically best sub without an experienced sub crew is just a useless dock ornament.
            Experience means understanding your subs capabilities and deficiencies, understanding exactly how and when to use certain avoidance strategies Thermoclines etc. and these days it means fully understanding the ASW capability and preferred methodologies of our adversary.
            None of this knowledge / ability is easily won.
            So what use are additional subs without the crews?

        • If you have any significant capacity they are easy to find, just head to the nearest diesel supply…
          Sooner or later it’s gonna show up.

          And how quiet do you think those diesels are compared to a nuclear reactor? A diesel electric has to almost surface and run a diesel for hours and hours to recharge making huge amounts of noise. They are only quiet for short periods between making lots and lots of noise.

          And what do you think our subs are for besides sinking stuff?

          • And what do you think our subs are for besides sinking stuff?
            That explains why you have such a narrow view as to the role and capability requirements for a submarine in a modern day navy.

          • The US navy must have nuclear attack sub capability to support the defensive requirements of the Carrier fleet .
            We don’t actually have a carrier fleet so that role just doesn’t exist in our navy.
            What is however important to us is the ability to deploy very sensitive towed array sonar right on the enemies doorstep. This listening, cataloging and signature gathering capability is a core competency of the Australian navy that goes back to the 70’s
            Since we usually work in tandem with the US navy our role is to complement rather than duplicate their capabilities.
            But why am I bothering to explain any of this to an absolute expert like yourself ….pearls before swine etc

        • I'll have anotherMEMBER

          Was curious as to NZ WWII effort after your comment and did some quick calcs.

          As far as ment sent off NZ shores to fight overseas in WWII, NZ sent approximately 8.5% of their population, with an average deployed force of 140k men. Left another 100k at home on guard duty.

          Australia had about 400k men on average deployed overseas making about a 5.5% contribution from total population.

          It is also true that NZ lost the greatest / capita in combat.

          Interesting stuff.

          NZ can certainly hold their heads up high.

          I also seem to remember some quote from Hitler that in his opinion, the NZ soldiers were the fiercest fighters and very much disliked having his infantry have to face them.

        • Arthur Schopenhauer

          I’m not disputing that. Read up on NZ efforts during WW2 in the Pacific.

          When Australian PM Curtain asked the NZ PM to recall NZ troops from Europe to the Pacific after the fall of Singapore in 1942, the NZ PM refused, leaving it to the Australians, the US and handful of Maori Battalions to fight in the Pacific.

          It was shameful.

          That’s why NZ was left out of most of the organisation of post-WW2 Asian reconstruction.

  14. thefatgeneralMEMBER

    Personally I don’t see why we didn’t go with the French subs but get them as nuclear ones – france is a nuclear power too, and unlike the US and UK – has assets in the region which they will defend (New Caledonia). In my mind a more equal partner and someone who has a vested interest in the region

    • Yes, they are currently being used as storage for millions of teeth, artworks and precious gems. Lake Geneva is very deep apparently.

  15. ”As for the containment of China, nuclear-powered subs are all for the good. And the French pork subs we had to endure to offset a collapsed car industry should have been junked years ago.”
    The French conventional sub acquisition was not going well so in a way I’m not surprised. Will they manage this project and associated costs better? I do worry there may actually be a bigger blowout in costs because of the technical barriers and more importantly, blowouts in delivery which actually harm national security.

    As far as political theatre goes the announcement is, on the surface, an A . It diverts attention away from problems at home and it helps the LNP reinforce what it believes is its election winning “national security” brand. My concern though is that this government has been more form than substance from the start. It will be difficult for the government to manage not just the complexity of this project but, the perception issues that come with this acquisition.

    ”The deeper ties with the US are excellent and help box in the ALP, China’s local political patsy. It appears Perth may become an Indo-Pacific subs hub for the US as well, which also ties WA in better. That’ll upset China no end and will intensify its efforts to rid itself of the Pilbara which I also applaud.”
    The preoccupation with ALP ties to the CCP is nothing more than an unhelpful distraction (at best).

    Nuclear powered subs are generally perceived as being about power projection and not defence. So by acquiring these subs we are openly declaring power projection is a strategic imperative. China will see that as very aggressive and threatening to the trade routes they depend on. No doubt the US will be happy to have us solidly in their court in this respect but, we need to remember fighting an adversary overseas (rather than at home) is also the US’s preferred option.

    What will be important for us is to make sure our interests are not lost in this tussle between superpowers. That will require a deft hand in international relations. Something this government has also failed miserably at.

    FYI – Garden Island naval base has in fact been a destination for US nuclear subs for some time. Indeed, I took a tour of the USS Aspro (A Sturgeon class nuclear attack sub) there back in 1981. The Australian naval presence there was greatly expanded when Kim Beasley was the Defence Minister and it was then it became the current base for much of the Australian submarine fleet. A lot of the infrastructure needed to maintain submarines was built from initiatives enacted then. So there’s no substantial changes there.

    As I said, the announcement is high on theatrics but, as far as WA is concerned not a lot has changed other than we are going to have Australian nuclear subs.

    • This comment seems reasonable.

      The two key points:
      * Nuclear subs are weapons of offence, not defence.
      * You wouldn’t trust this Government to run the meat tray raffles at the local pub for your social golf club.

      • “Nuclear subs are weapons of aggression, not defence.”
        Indeed – that’s what I meant by “power projection.” It is not a defensive posture.

        Note: I would add to your 2 points – “We must not forget what our real interests are.”

          • Perhaps a better way of putting it is “Not getting into a war because the US elects another psycho and/or incompetent President.”

            PS: and yeah that too 🙂

      • I’m picturing Barnaby drunkenly snacking on raw sausages, Porter making unwanted passes at a group of ladies, Frydenberg using the takings to buy drinks for local dodgy tradies, and Morrison attempting to socialize in a very, very awkward manner with any group of people he sees. They then forget to draw the winner and dump it in the garden where it sits until an underpaid and over harassed female staff member has to pick it it up after it starts to let off a funk. The social media of the evening passes it off as a success and the press praise Morrison for his common touch.

    • I think Australias need for nuclear submarines is more about being able to keep them on station at a few key maritime chokepoints , critical to defending Australias North for example the Lombok Straight. In Australias case there not neccesarily an offensive weapon as all the bases are so far from where the subs are actually needed. The forward basing arguments, never really got off the ground.

      • I’m afraid I do not agree with your assessment. From Stirling Naval base (Where the subs are based) near Perth to Singapore (much closer the Lombok straight) is about 4000kms. The current Collins class boats have enough range to travel there more than five times over. More than adequate to defend the north and maintain a presence in Lombok straight. In any case anyone trying to invade or attack Australia by sea will have more to worry about from long-range anti-ship missiles and aircraft than subs. It would be a waste of resources to throw money at expensive nuclear subs for that role given there are other far more efficient and effective ways to defend the north from enemy ships and subs.

        Maintaining a presence in the Lombok straight does not require nuclear subs but, maintaining a presence further afield certainly does. Nuclear subs are more likely to be used to deny sea lanes to the enemy and protect our own shipping at distances well beyond that of a conventional sub. They also provide Australia with a potent platform to launch surface to surface missiles at distant military targets. In short, it declares an intent to project power well beyond our national maritime boundaries on a sustained basis. That is how it will most likely be interpreted in Beijing.

        • Good points .
          I believe the arguments against diesel subs for guarding the maritime approaches ( not just the lombok straight) was more based on the length of time it takes them to get there, and how much of that time a diesel electric sub would have to spend on the surface while transitting as opposed to a nuclear sub. As well as loiter time.
          Someone at the strategists penned an article recently that we would be better off scrapping the submarine idea entirely and spending the money on airpower and LRASM , putting all our eggs in one basket however.
          There are good reasons why very long range diesel subs arent widely used, or used by anyone outside australia as far as i know.
          I agree with you about how china will view this.

          • “I believe the arguments against diesel subs for guarding the maritime approaches ( not just the lombok straight) was based on the length of time it takes them to get there, and how much of that time a diesel electric sub would have to spend on the surface while transitting as opposed to a nuclear sub.
            No doubt. A nuclear sub can get places very quickly at 30 knots plus underwater (they do sacrifice stealth somewhat when they do this though). That said, if speed is really your thing then nothing will beat the other options you mentioned.

          • ”There are good reasons why very long range diesel subs arent widely used, or used by anyone outside australia as far as i know.
            Forgot to put this up yesterday. It may be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine
            You could buy 6 of these (at least) for every nuclear sub and they could fuel up at any ship or port in the region. It’s generally not good for the crew to spend too long underwater either so with a much bigger sub fleet of smaller conventional boats we would still have a serious deterrent and not churn and burn our sub crews. Certainly options there that are worth considering but, not going to happen now is it?
            PS: This boat was one of the options in the original bid the French won. How they won I have no idea.

  16. Its ironic that Comrade Xi will single handedly manage to nuclearise the entire region as we all do a “Nth Korea”. Now we just need a nutter in power to complete our defence.

  17. We have a lack of training and expertise to operate a diesel submarine right now let alone a nuclear one.
    I suppose we have to start somewhere and at sometime but I suggest that we start training personal on existing UK and US nuclear boats now, before this program starts.

  18. OMG, I can say the N word on here 🙂
    Dave I’d presume the older Subs could’ve been retrofitted with Nukes if it was ever deemed necessary?

    Fallibilities of us Monkeys with Car Keys (& now Iphones) is my only reticence. But, whatever it takes to keep running that Human Race that we’re in.

  19. Wonderful news. I really like the Astute Class subs and if they’re the ones Australia goes with it ties in with a FTA with the UK which the ALP would struggle to unbundle.

    As for atomic energy, I’m sure the Key Atomic Benefits Office for Mankind (KABOOM) will be pleased…

  20. There was no GST until there was.
    There will be no nuclear warheads inside these subs until they are are.

    In saying that I’m in favor on the nuclear subs and arming them to the teeth with nuclear warheads. The sooner the better. We got to protec our House and Holes way of life.

  21. Longer term fusion power plants seem the obvious answer. Phased out hydrocarbon power sources, filled out progressively by renewables will support existing power needs until fusion renders them all largely obsolete.

    The main barrier, I would assume, is the usual vested interests, using their political party proxies, will try to delay or derail any change to the existing energy provider models. The science has been making steady progress, and needs a similar style of world-wide focus to that which brought solutions to Covid-19, to make the necessary breakthroughs in the next two decades.

  22. The Collapse of Complex Societies is out there for y’all to read. There’s talk of a new edition likely coming out, and we’re in it.