Productivity Commission casts doubt on the federal government’s decision to build nuclear-powered submarines
The Productivity Commission noted that for many years, the defence sector had received effective subsidy rates for domestic production of up to 300 per cent, compared to zero for most other parts of the economy.
It said that given the large sums of money involved in defence, more scrutiny from outside the sector was needed.
Australia should reconsider building its own defence equipment, review finds https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-should-reconsider-building-its-own-defence-equipment-review-finds-20230319-p5ctbc.html By Shane Wright, March 19, 2023,
The Productivity Commission has cast doubt over the federal government’s decision to build nuclear-powered submarines in Australia, using its major report into the nation’s economy to argue for a complete re-appraisal of how the country meets its defence needs.
In the same week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed off on the AUKUS submarine project with the United States and Britain, at a cost of between $268 billion and $368 billion, the commission’s five-year review of productivity found that in most cases Australia was better off not developing its own defence production capability.
The commission’s report, Advancing Prosperity, made 71 recommendations across more than 1000 pages of analysis. It follows a long-term decline in Australia’s productivity growth rate, which over the past decade has slipped to its lowest level since the 1950s.
Part of the report focused on government infrastructure spending and procurement, particularly around defence, which it noted had for years suffered from “imperfect processes” and huge cost overruns.
It found there were problems in defence spending due to the complexity of much of the equipment, the need for a high-skilled workforce and the costs associated with integrating new technologies with old. This meant in almost all cases, Australia should avoid building its own defence equipment.
“Depending on the context, buying an already proven technology from overseas and not quickly, if ever, developing a domestic production capability is likely to be optimal in many contexts,” it found.
“A sophisticated domestic capability to use, store and maintain equipment would still be required regardless of where it was sourced from but would involve lower costs than domestic production and assembly.”
Under the AUKUS deal, Australia will obtain three Virginia-class submarines from the United States – to arrive in 2033, 2036 and 2039.
In the 2040s, Australia will build a new type of submarine, the SSN AUKUS, based on an updated version of the current British Astute-class submarine and featuring American parts.
The Productivity Commission noted that for many years, the defence sector had received effective subsidy rates for domestic production of up to 300 per cent, compared to zero for most other parts of the economy.
There was also less transparency around projects as governments cited national security grounds. But the commission said these reasons did not justify “the present level of opacity”.
On Sunday, Defence Minister Richard Marles refused to be drawn on the individual cost of the submarines to be supplied under the AUKUS agreement.
Since announcing the project, the government has been at pains to talk up its benefits to the Australian economy, particularly in South Australia and Western Australia.
Last Friday, Albanese said the submarines would create 20,000 jobs directly in Australia and “many tens of thousands” more through the broader economic impact of the project.
“What this will do is highly sophisticated manufacturing will lead to a renaissance of high-value manufacturing in Australia. That money, that economic activity stays right here,” he told ABC radio.
The Productivity Commission said the focus on local industry needs had added to the cost problems around many defence projects. It said that given the large sums of money involved in defence, more scrutiny from outside the sector was needed.
“Defence procurement is ripe for deep and disinterested scrutiny of its processes. There are strong grounds for re-thinking defence procurement, drawing on advice from those outside Defence,” it found.
“The productivity and efficiency benefits of better practices are large given the $270 billion of anticipated defence spending over the next decade.”
Apart from an outside examination of defence spending, the commission also argued all government spending needed closer inspection. It backed the public release of cost-benefit analyses of public projects.
The Grattan Institute’s transport and cities program director, Marion Terrill, said the growth in the number of “mega-projects” demanded more scrutiny.
She said two-thirds of the current major infrastructure projects under way across Australia are worth more than $5 billion, which meant the potential for cost blow-outs was increasing.
The $100 billion cost range for the submarine project meant it faced the same problems as a major infrastructure project.
“The larger the projects, the bigger the contracts, the greater the chance of a cost overrun and the size of that cost overrun being larger. We’ve got to the point where a $100 million project is little more than a rounding error,” she said.
Terrill said she backed the commission’s call for more transparency around public projects.
“We need to look at these projects in terms of taxpayers being shareholders, so it’s only fair that they understand why a decision has been made on their behalf but also the underlying assumptions around the costs and benefits.”
Marles on Sunday rejected suggestions that Australia had given the United States a commitment to assist in a war over Taiwan in return for the purchase of its Virginia-class submarines.
“The answer to that is, of course not. Of course not. And nor was one sought. I’ve listened to that conjecture from a number of commentators. It is plain wrong,” he said.
“What Australia would do or not in respect of any future conflict will be a matter to be considered at that time by the government of the day.”
What to do with dead nuclear submarines? A cautionary tale for Australia.
Legacy. It is unacceptable to leave waste for future generations to deal with……
End game
To some extent, the Ministry of Defence is stuck in a vicious circle whereby the cost of storing submarines eats into the budget for their disposal. ………but the glacial pace of work …. is more concerning. There are always more pressing priorities for defence expenditure and the dismantling project has been continually delayed. In the meantime the nuclear and health and safety regulatory requirements that must be met are getting stricter, adding further costs. There is almost complete reliance on Babcock for UK submarine support activity and there is a very finite number of SQEP with nuclear expertise available to recruit in the UK.
Project to dismantle ex-Royal Navy nuclear submarines inches forward, Navy Lookout, 7 Feb 22.
There are currently 21 former Royal Navy nuclear submarines awaiting disposal, 7 in Rosyth and 14 in Devonport. Here we look at the process and the modest progress in efforts to dismantle them.
Kicking the can down the road ………. Unfortunately, successive governments failed to make arrangements for the timely disposal of these boats. In a less environmentally conscious era, filling the boats with concrete and sinking them in the deep ocean was the original plan but the disposal of nuclear waste at sea was banned by the London Dumping Convention in 1983. Planning for the dismantling of these submarines should have been started at that time, but only in the last 10 years has there been a serious effort to grip the issue.
Over time the nuclear regulatory frameworks have become ever-more demanding than when the submarines were conceived. Stricter rules have added more complexity and cost to the dismantling process, ironically adding delays and increasing the amount of nuclear waste awaiting appropriate disposal. HMS Dreadnought decommissioned in 1980, has now been tied up in Rosyth far longer than she was in active service. In the civil nuclear industry, operators are required by law to put aside funds and make plans during the life of the plant to pay for decommissioning. It would be prudent if a similar principle was applied by the MoD to all new nuclear submarine construction.
Besides the attraction of deferring costs in the short-term, a major cause of delays has been the selection of a land storage site for radioactive waste. Low-Level Waste (LLW) is stored at Sellafield in concrete-lined vaults and in 2017 URENCO Nuclear Stewardship Ltd at Capenhurst in Cheshire was selected as the interim site for storing the more dangerous Intermediate Level Waste (ILW). The Reactor Pressure Vessels (RPV) removed from the submarines are classed as ILW and will temporarily be stored in purpose-built buildings above ground. They will eventually be moved to a permanent underground Geological Disposal Facility (GDF)
Afloat storage
While awaiting dismantling, decommissioned submarines are stored afloat in a non-tidal basin in the dockyard. The 7 submarines in Rosyth have all had their nuclear fuel rods removed but of the 14 in Devonport, 10 are still fuelled. This is because in 2003 the facilities for de-fuelling were deemed no longer safe enough to meet modern regulation standards and the process was halted. Submarines that have not had fuel removed have the reactor primary circuit chemically treated to guarantee it remains inert and additional radiation monitoring equipment is fitted.
Apart from regular monitoring, once every 15 years each boat has to be dry-docked for a Survey and Docking Period (SADP) which involves hull inspection and preservation work.
Reasons to accelerate disposal
Cost. The expense of afloat storage and maintenance of decommissioned boats is rising – currently costing approximately £30M per year. Every further delay adds to this and will have to be funded from a defence budget that is much smaller in real terms than when the boats were ordered and built during the Cold War. The total disposal cost will be at least £3bn over 25 years and continue into the 2040s. (This is for the 27 boats listed above – Astute-class dismantling is not yet being considered.) All this effort and expense is a drain on precious MoD resources for zero operational gain with each delay adding to the cost.
Legacy. It is unacceptable to leave waste for future generations to deal with and it is simply common sense to dispose of old equipment at around the same time their replacements come online. Responsible care of the hulks afloat means they pose minimal risk to the environment or local population, but a tiny risk does remain. This makes some people living nearby uneasy and provides another grievance for those ideologically opposed to nuclear submarines and Trident. The minimal environmental hazard they pose is sometimes exaggerated by media, politicians and campaigners to suit their own agenda. The old boats are also a rather uncomfortable reminder of the time when the RN had an SSN force approximately double the strength it is today.
Space. When HMS Trenchant is moved to 3 Basin at Devonport for storage, the basin will be at its licensed capacity. Currently, the MoD only has permission from the nuclear regulator to store 14 boats. Approval to hold 16 will be needed in order to accommodate HMS Talent and Triumph when they decommission. Storing more boats in Rosyth is not an option because of limited space in the basin which is also used for civilian vessels as well as by the aircraft carriers to access the dry dock. Once the purpose-built disposal facility at Devonport is up and running in the early 2030s, it will be more efficient (and likely deemed politically less sensitive than anything in Scotland).
Progress at Rosyth
The Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) finally started at Rosyth in December 2016, around 15 years behind schedule. A team of around 150 people are working on the site pioneering the two-stage process to remove radioactive waste. Swiftsure was the ‘pilot’ submarine for the project and stage 1 – the removal of LLW. This work was completed and the boat was sealed up and returned to afloat storage in the basin during August 2018. So far, 129 tonnes of mainly metallic LLW have been removed from Swiftsure and Resolution. Many of the older boats have asbestos lagging around pipes, which also has to be removed with exceptional care and disposed of in sealed containers. Stage 1 work on Resolution was completed on time in March 2020 and on budget.
Stage 1 work on Revenge started in March 2020 but was suspended on the 24th due to COVID lockdown and (almost) normal working was not resumed until June 2020……………..
Disposal at Devonport
Progress at Devonport is considerably behind that of Rosyth. The unplanned refuelling of HMS Vanguard added a six-month delay as Babcock engineers were diverted from the SDP to work on the more urgent SSBN refit. ………………..
End game
To some extent, the MoD is stuck in a vicious circle whereby the cost of storing submarines eats into the budget for their disposal. The modest progress at Rosyth in the last 5 years is encouraging but the glacial pace of work in Devonport is more concerning. There are always more pressing priorities for defence expenditure and the dismantling project has been continually delayed. In the meantime the nuclear and health and safety regulatory requirements that must be met are getting stricter, adding further costs. There is almost complete reliance on Babcock for UK submarine support activity and there is a very finite number of SQEP with nuclear expertise available to recruit in the UK.
Like so many problems in defence, the failure to dispose of the boats cannot be blamed on one person, government or company, rather a series of decisions made by many individuals that seemed justifiable at the time. There must be some sympathy for those working to deal with this legacy today, although the thrust of 2019 HoC Public Accounts Committee report on submarine disposal efforts can be summarised as saying “this is simply not good enough”. https://www.navylookout.com/project-to-dismantle-ex-royal-navy-nuclear-submarines-inches-forward/
No country in the world has worked out what to do with its old dead, radioactive, nuclear submarines
In light of Boris’s new enthusiasm for lots of Rolls-Royce’s so-called “mini-nukes” to generate electricity, it should be better known that the Ministry of Defence has not scrapped any of its 21 similarly Rolls-Royce-powered old nuclear submarines, berthed for up to 40 years.
It has made a start dismantling the hull of one, but there are still no plans for dealing with the reactors beyond burying them. Indeed, no country in the world has properly made safe a worn out mini-nuke-powered ship or submarine.
Guardian 10th April 2022
The AUKUS nuclear deal “stinks” – former environment minister Peter Garret
Former Labor environment minister Peter Garrett has lashed the Aukus
nuclear submarine deal, calling the former Coalition administration’s
decision “the most costly and risky action ever taken by any Australian
government” and saying Anthony Albanese’s decision to back it was a
departure from established ALP policy.
The Midnight Oil frontman and longtime nuclear disarmament activist claimed the $368 billion deal
“stinks”, suggesting the money could be better spent and raising
concerns about how Australia will dispose of nuclear waste from the boats.
Guardian 17th March 2023
Australia needs to rethink plan to buy nuclear submarines
If the sale goes ahead, this would be a clear violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and open up a Pandora’s box
SCMP Editorial, 20 Mar, 2023
The Aukus alliance powers – Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States – have revealed details of the controversial plan to equip Australia with eight nuclear-powered submarines in coming years. This does nothing to ease growing concerns about an arms race and a threat to peace and security in the region. The three countries are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
But the plan amounts to nuclear proliferation because, unlike the other two, Australia is not presently a nuclear power and will become the first to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. The US is willing to share nuclear technology with a Pacific ally as part of its containment policy towards China.
No matter how the narrative is shaped around the defence needs of a security partner, this is proliferation. Where is the line to be drawn now? How are other nuclear powers to be restrained when it suits their geopolitical interests to export nuclear technology and weapons potential to other, non-nuclear countries?
Consider the real potential for nuclear proliferation through a loophole in the NPT that exempts fissile material for military use such as naval propulsion from scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This raises concerns among proliferation experts about the future diversion of exempt fissile materials to weapons production. This would make it difficult to avoid a nuclear arms race in the region……….. more https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3214086/australia-needs-rethink-plan-buy-nuclear-submarines
New Mexico says no to storing spent nuclear fuel as Biden touts nuclear energy: ‘The trouble is this is a forever decision’
Yahoo Finance, Susan Montoya Bryan, The Associated Press, Sun, March 19, 2023
New Mexico’s governor on Friday signed legislation aimed at keeping spent nuclear fuel produced by commercial U.S. nuclear power plants from being shipped to the state, just hours after the measure cleared its final legislative hurdle
Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham wasted no time adding her signature after the New Mexico House voted 35-28 in favor of the bill following a lengthy debate. Five Democrats joined Republicans in opposition, arguing that the measure would challenge longstanding federal authority over nuclear safety matters and lead to new court challenges.
The bill from Democratic state Sen. Jeff Steinborn, of Las Cruces, will impact a proposed multibillion-dollar facility in southeastern New Mexico that would have the capacity to temporarily store up to 8,680 metric tons of used uranium fuel. Future expansion could make room for as many as 10,000 canisters of spent fuel over six decades.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may announce a decision soon on whether to grant a license for the project spearheaded by Holtec International, which has spent an estimated $80 million over the past eight years on the approval process.
Lujan Grisham and members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation have voiced strong opposition to building the facility along the state’s border with Texas. Both states sued the federal government over the issue, and top elected officials in Texas were unsuccessful in their efforts to stop a similar facility in neighboring Andrews County from being licensed.
If a license is granted for the complex in New Mexico, it would still need permits from the state Environment Department. That’s where critics say the state could lean on the legislation and halt the project.
Rep. Gail Chasey, an Albuquerque Democrat, argued that there has been no incentive for states with nuclear power plants to find permanent solutions for dealing with spent fuel. As long as New Mexico is seen as an option, those states won’t be concerned with the long-term effects, she said.
“The trouble is this is a forever decision. We don’t get to decide, oh, let’s not do this anymore and take it away,” Chasey said. “So think about the fact that if it were such a profitable and good thing, then the states that produced it would have it near their facilities.”
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear reactors across the country produce more than 2,000 metric tons of radioactive waste a year, with most of it remaining on-site because there’s nowhere else to put it.
Since the federal government has failed to build a permanent repository, it reimburses utilities to house the fuel. That cost is expected to stretch into the tens of billions of dollars over the next decade, according to a review by independent government auditors.
The fuel is sitting at temporary storage sites in nearly three dozen states, either enclosed in steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel and concrete containers known as casks…………… https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mexico-says-no-storing-spent-155358959.html—
Spent Matters: The AUKUS Nuclear Waste Problem
March 19, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark https://theaimn.com/spent-matters-the-aukus-nuclear-waste-problem/
When Australia – vassal be thy name – assumed responsibilities for not only throwing money at both US and British shipbuilders, lending up territory and naval facilities for war like a gambling drunk, and essentially asking its officials to commit seppuku for the Imperium, another task was given. While the ditzy and dunderheaded wonders in Canberra would be acquiring submarines with nuclear propulsion technology, there would be that rather problematic issue of what to do with the waste. “Yes,” said the obliging Australians, “we will deal with it.”
The Australian Defence Department has published a fact sheet on the matter, which, as all such fact sheets go, fudges the facts and sports a degree of misplaced optimism. It promises a “sophisticated security and safety architecture” around the nuclear-powered submarine program, “building on our 70-year unblemished track record of operating nuclear facilities and conducting nuclear science activities.”
This record, which is rather more blemished than officials would care to admit, does not extend to the specific issues arising from maintaining a nuclear-powered submarine fleet and the high-level waste that would require shielding and cooling. In the context of such a vessel, this would entail pulling out and disposing of the reactor once the submarine is decommissioned.
Australia’s experience, to date, only extends to the storage of low-level waste and intermediate-level waste arising from nuclear medicine and laboratory research, with the low-level variant being stored at over a hundred sites in the country. That situation has been regarded as unsustainable and politically contentious.
The department admits that the storage and disposal of such waste and spent fuel will require necessary facilities and trained personnel, appropriate transport, interim and permanent storage facilities and “social license earned and sustained with local and regional communities.” But it also notes that the UK and the US “will assist Australia in developing this capability, leveraging Australia’s decades of safely and securely managing radioactive waste domestically”.
That’s mighty good of them to do so, given that both countries have failed to move beyond the problem of temporary storage. In the UK, the issue of disposing waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines remains stuck in community consultation. In the US, no option has emerged after the Obama administration killed off a repository program to store waste underneath Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. The reasons for doing so, sulked Republicans at the time, were political rather than technical.
Where, then, will the facilities to store and dispose of such waste be located? “Defence – working with relevant agencies including the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency – will undertake a review in 2023 to identify locations in the current or future Defence estate that could be suitable to store and dispose of intermediate-level waste and high-level waste, including spent fuel.”
The various state premiers are already suggesting that finding a site will be problematic. Both Victoria and Western Australia are pointing fingers at South Australia as the logical option, while Queensland has declared that “under no circumstances” would it permit nuclear waste to be stored. “I think the waste can go where all the jobs are going,” remarked Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. “I don’t think that’s unreasonable, is it?”
-ADVERTISEMENT-
Western Australia’s Mark McGowan, in furious agreement, suggested that a site “somewhere remote, somewhere with very good long-term geological structure that doesn’t change or move and somewhere that is defence lands” narrowed down the options. “[T]hat’s why Woomera springs to mind.”
South Australia’s Premier, Peter Malinauskas, insists that the waste should go “where it is in the nation’s interest to put it” and not be a matter of “some domestic political tit-for-tat, or some state-based parochial thing.”
When it comes to storing nuclear waste, parochialism is all but guaranteed. The Australian government is already facing a legal challenge from traditional owners regarding a 2021 decision to locate a nuclear waste site at Kimba in South Australia. The effort to find a site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility intended for low and intermediate radioactive waste produced by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation at Lucas Heights, New South Wales, took three decades.
According to members of the First Nations group opposing the decision, the proposed facility risks interfering with a sacred site for women. Dawn Taylor, a Barngarla woman and Kimba resident, told the ABC that, “The Seven Sisters is through that area.” She feared that the waste facility would end up “destroying” the stories associated with the dreaming.
The federal resources minister, Madeleine King, has stated with little conviction that a cultural heritage management plan “informed by the research of the Barngarla people” is in place. “There are strict protocols around the work that is going on right now to make sure there is no disturbance of cultural heritage.”
Local farmers, including the consistently vocal Peter Woolford, are also opposed to the project. “We just can’t understand why you would expose this great agricultural industry we have here in grain production to any potential risk at all by having a nuclear waste dump here.”
The Australian security establishment may well be glorifying in the moment of AUKUS, itself an insensibly parochial gesture of provocation and regional destabilisation, but agitated residents and irate state politicians are promising a good deal of sensible mischief.
UK’s costly struggle to deal with dead nuclear submarines.
The MoD has also been slated for the cost of maintaining the subs, £30 million a year.
Rosyth to be ‘de-nuclearised’ with removal of old submarines
https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/23150469.rosyth-de-nuclearised-removal-old-submarines/ By Ally McRoberts 27th November, 22
ALL of the laid-up nuclear submarines will be gone as part of a UK Government pledge to “de-nuclearise Rosyth” by 2035.
Councillors were given an update on the programme to remove radioactive waste and turn the seven boats that have been parked at the dockyard for decades into “tin cans and razor blades”.
The Ministry of Defence have faced heavy criticism for the delays in dealing with the nuclear legacy, with 27 Royal Navy subs to be scrapped in total.
Christine Bruce, from the Rosyth Submarine Dismantling Project, said most of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) should be gone by the end of 2024.
She added: “The subs will take a bit longer but we’ve got a forward programme which definitely does remove them all by about 2035.
“It absolutely is our aim to do what we said all those years ago, to de-nuclearise Rosyth.”
One of the decommissioned subs, Dreadnought, has been in the Rosyth basin since 1980 and she admitted that it had been out of service for so long that a lot of the low-level radiation had “disappeared naturally”.
The MoD has also been slated for the cost of maintaining the subs, £30 million a year.
At the South and West Fife area committee yesterday (Wednesday), Ms Bruce acknowledged: “It’s taken a long time to get to where we are.
We started in 1998, I was part of it from the beginning, it’s taken quite a long time to come up with the policy and for good reasons.
“There were no easy answers. If it had been easy we would have done it a long time before now.
“The aim is to get rid of 27 submarines, of which seven are at Rosyth and the rest are, or will be, at Devonport.”
A facility to deal with the boats at Rosyth had to be brought up to date, to make sure it was safe to remove the radioactive material, with funding from the MoD.
Work started on Swiftsure in 2015-16 and around 52 tonnes of LLW was removed, with most of the metals recycled.
With lessons learned from the first sub, they progressed and removed 77 tonnes from Resolution and then 120 tonnes from Revenge.
The next step was a world first, the removal of the reactor from Revenge, the most radioactive part left in the sub, as well as the steam generators.
Next will be removing the rest of the LLW from Swiftsure so all that’s left is the reactor, which should be taken out around 2025.
The sub was to be recycled elsewhere but it’s cheaper, safer and more secure “to do the first one at Rosyth” and then sell it off to scrap merchants.
Gordon McAughey, head of internal assurance at Babcock Rosyth, added: “Hopefully, by 2026, the skyline change at Rosyth will occur where the first boat will be gone, it will be tin cans and razor blades.
“It’s a very challenging programme to build a facility to do all this work and to get all the permissions from regulators, but what I will say is we never compromise on safety for the sake of progress. We can’t compromise on safety.”
LLW is to be taken to a facility in Dorset, which should be completed next year, by 2024.
The reactors are to be taken to Capenhurst in Cheshire and it hasn’t yet been decided if they’ll be transported by road or sea.
Ms Bruce said safety and security would be paramount.
The daunting, long and untested effort to deal with UK’s dead nuclear submarines.
CUTTING up an old nuclear sub to turn it into “razor blades and tin cans”
will be a world first for Rosyth. Seven vessels have been laid up at the
dockyard for decades – the last one came out of service in 1996 – and
there’s finally some progress in getting rid of them.
Three subs, Swiftsure, Resolution and Revenge, have had 90 per cent of their low-level
radioactive waste removed and the next step is something no-one has tried
before. Christine Bruce, assistant head of nuclear liabilities at the
Submarine Delivery Agency (SDA), explained: “Stage two is the most
challenging and in some ways the most exciting part, when we take out
what’s left of the centre of the reactor. “It’s the reactor pressure
vessel, it’s like a giant kettle, but it’s the most radioactive part that’s
left so taking it out is key to the rest of the submarine being able to be
disposed of like a conventional ship.” Some countries with old subs have
left the reactor intact but a different approach is being taken at Rosyth.
She added: “The method we’re adopting is dismantling and no-one else has
done that.
“When we manage to cut it up by 2026 that will be a global
first. No-one else will have cut up a nuclear submarine.” Ms Bruce told
Forces News that safety was “paramount” and they expect to start work in
late 2025. She said: “Once that’s out, the rest of the vessel will be
non-radioactive, it’s scrap metal and can be put into the final stage of
disposal, which is recycling. “There’s lots of very valuable steel and
other alloys in there, there’s even some gold connectors!” It costs £30
million a year to maintain and store the subs and dismantling all 27 is
expected to cost more than £3 billion.
The Ministry of Defence has faced
heavy criticism for the delays in getting rid of the subs – Dreadnought
was retired in the 1980s and has been at Rosyth longer than she was in
service.
Dunfermline Press 18th Feb 2022
https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/19934615.rosyth-nuclear-sub-recycled-scrap-metal-global-first/
The worst of plans — Beyond Nuclear International
Condemnation continues over impending Fukushima radioactive water dump
The worst of plans — Beyond Nuclear International
NSW in landmark crown land tender for major solar and wind projects — RenewEconomy
NSW in innovate role reversal, offering crown land for use by major wind and solar developers after striking deal with landholder. The post NSW in landmark crown land tender for major solar and wind projects appeared first on RenewEconomy.
NSW in landmark crown land tender for major solar and wind projects — RenewEconomy
What Australia could do with $368 billion on the very real climate threat — RenewEconomy
Australia is willing to spend $368 billion on submarines to protect national security. What could it do with that money to counter the very real climate threat? The post What Australia could do with $368 billion on the very real climate threat appeared first on RenewEconomy.
What Australia could do with $368 billion on the very real climate threat — RenewEconomy
Boom cycle means 82 pct renewables target is doable, says regulator — RenewEconomy
Clean Energy Regulator says 82 per cent renewables target is within reach, but new installations need to ramp up. The post Boom cycle means 82 pct renewables target is doable, says regulator appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Boom cycle means 82 pct renewables target is doable, says regulator — RenewEconomy
March 19 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “The President Miscalculates On Climate Change” • Running for president, Joe Biden promised, “No more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.” No matter how he tries to sell his approval of the Willow project, an $8 billion plan to extract 600 million barrels of oil from federal land in Alaska, he […]
March 19 Energy News — geoharvey
Submission to Senate – nuclear power an expensive waste of money and time.
Submission No. 58 to Inquiry on the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing
Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
– from a vistor to nuclear facilities and presentations in Japan and Canberra on nuclear power
I was part of a group which visited Japan after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power station meltdown. In
Sendai, and in Canberra, we listened to days of presentations on the costs and benefits of nuclear
power.
It became clear that there was only one reason for any country to go down the road of nuclear power,
and that was to acquire nuclear weapons at some point in the future. The reasons against doing this are
obvious, and it vexes me that the idea that we might take up nuclear power as an energy source
continues to be dug up and considered again.
Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build;
- is impossible to get out of once you have nuclear power stations to keep watch over;
- puts people’s health and safety at risk — research is showing that even low levels of radiation are
harmful; - raises terrifying possibilities of annihilation of large areas of the planet;
- requires transparent operation practices but is inherently secretive due to security concerns;
- and attracts private investors who operate under the assumption that they will not be liable if things
should go terribly wrong (they will have made their money, and the public will foot the long-term bill).
Should anything go wrong, as we saw in Fukushima, we will need to have in reserve large numbers of
trained workers to go in, incurring certain damage to their health and in some cases their lives, to try to
fix the damage.
Decommissioning of nuclear facilities and disposal of nuclear waste are still not resolved anywhere,
and so far, experience suggests that those with the weakest political clout may see a nuclear dump in
their territory. This may be us, one day.
Nuclear power plants can be threatened and used as bargaining chips by criminal actors as is feared in
the Ukraine.
In short, given that we must proceed very fast to move over to a sustainable and much cheaper energy
system, putting nuclear power back on the agenda is an expensive waste of money and time, and I
suspect is being done for reasons which would not stand up to public scrutiny.
The public wants a sustainable and benign energy system, and a government which will provide this.
Please let this be the government that understands this and acts accordingly.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 