Above are the UK RN's 4 Resolution class SSBN's laid up, awaiting decommissioning at Rosyth Dockyard. Photo courtesy Navy Lookout - this also has an excellent table revealing 9 UK SSNs, though laid up are still "Fuelled" along with other decommissioning don'ts. One, HMS Splendid, has been bobbing away in saltwater, at Devonport, ever more rusty, but still fuelled, since 2003-2004.
---
Anonymous, on March 14, 2021, made some interesting comments regarding the huge training and decommissioning costs of SSNs. Also Australian conventional submarines have their advantages. My response is:
Yes Lucas Heights, already surrounded by Sydney suburbs (and vulnerable to large aircraft strikes) would need a $multi-billion
expansion in facilities and much more land for an enlarged exclusion zone. The 100,000s of Sydneysiders surrounding Lucas not only would be reminded
a reactor is in their midst but forthrightly nail any government trying to
expand nuclear facilities within Australia’s largest city. The same goes for anyone suggesting Australian SSNs could be even temporarily berthed in Fleet Base East (Sydney Harbour).
-
- more problematically 100km from Fleet Base West/Rockingham which is a southern
district of Perth (100km north of south is in even more intensive farm, holidaymaker areas.
Just one west coast basic nuclear and naval nuclear engineering university might Only need 2,000 students and 5,000 support staff on a 40 square km campus, surrounded by maybe 15,000 dependents. That is if its anything like US Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Yes Australia has had great difficulty captaining and crewing just 6 conventional subs (SSKs). I'm always concerned about politicians of aiming at a 12 SSK force. Maybe 12 is intentionally large to be whittled down to 8, just like a projected 10 Collins became 6.
I suspect Australian SSKs expert in ambush in the narrows and shallows compliment blue water US SSNs.
Yes Australia should note well the UK's inability (due to cost) to decommission any of its rusty, radioactive, laid up fleet of old nuclear subs. At least 7 of them bobbing away at Rosyth Dockyard (see photo above). As at August 2019 20 UK nuclear subs were awaiting decommissioning - laid up at Rosyth and Devonport.[32] Even their first nuclear sub, HMS Dreadnought, laid up for 41 years.
With "The cost of building and operating nuclear reactors is nothing compared to the cost of getting rid of them." I wonder if the US and France have had any problems decommissioning their nuclear subs?
13 comments:
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/english/dga/equipement/dissuasion/le-demantelement-des-batiments-a-propulsion-nucleaire
Please find the Fr Gov. link in Fr, English or Spanish about the process
This is a 2010 article describing the process for the dismantlement of the first 6 SSBM redoutable class (this one is now a museum open to the public in Cherbourg(w/o the reactor section!)
Basically after removing the N section in a few months the nuclear part is progressively cooled/deconstructed over a 25 /30 years period and then the ultimate reduced size waste put back into deep storage in special container, as for civilian energy fuel, medicine ..waste (Andra)
This specific naval issue is not present in the debate or even known in France where most of the question are about fuel recycling (MOX with Pu extraction)vs deep storage as in Finland or even no N at all (no majority and on the contrary a reverse trend with Global warming and the landscape destructive , limited impact of wind mills
U rich ores were once extrated..
Pete
I am the the Anonymous you refered to. Thanks for the mention & for actually looking further into some of the points of my post.
A couple of additional points & questions.
Oak Ridge has an annual budget of US$1.65 billion. That's each & every year. This is not a cheap exercise.
Without a local nuclear power industry, what do you do with all the excess nuclear engineers that don't become submariners? Note: Engineering (regardless of type) is a 4 year university course. That's a lot of time & money.
How many nuclear engineers do you actually need per Baracuda sized SSN per year (plus a few spares)? Nuke submarine reactors operate 24 x 7 x 365, unlike the diesels of a SSK. How many would be required & how many new one's per year? ie how many would be required before you start & what would be required to maintain that.
What is the likelyhood of recuiting enough from UK or USA (RAN already seems to have a very high number of ex RN personel)? Recruiting from France would be more problematic. There are existing pathways from RN & USN.
To add on my previous comment on the French situation
https::/www.smart-appart-fr/en/news/351-le-saphir-french-nuclear-submarine-will-be-dismantled-in-cherbourg
This link in english from July 2019 about the dismantling of the SSN Saphir is interesting not only about the dismantling date and the data about the saphir service, it shows that this activity is public, open ,with a very positive tone in a local anglophone tourist app...
In a country with 50 + reactors in service for over 40 years this is marginal
Public acceptance of N technology (no oil, no coal, no gaz,lowest E power cost in Europe export to UK , Germany , Switzerland ect)) is the key.A visit to ANDRA website (long term disposal) completes the picture
The oldest 900 MW PWR in Fr , Fessenheim 1,has been shut down last year after 45 years, and its dismantling is planned over the next 22 years..
BTW Australia is a leading supplier (along Canada and Kazakhstan) of U to France!
Hi Anonymous [Mar 18, 2021, 11:48:00 PM and Mar 21, 2021, 11:03:00 PM] On French nuclear propulsion situation.
Yes France’s quite large nuclear industrial base and nuclear submarine experience since the early 1960s with the Redoubtable SSBNs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redoutable-class_submarine_(1967) give France some efficiencies in disposing of its nuclear subs.
Also enough of the French public support France’s nuclear deterrent that they accept the high costs of disposing of nuclear subs and nuclear reactors. As you say French “Public acceptance of N technology (no oil, no coal, no gas, lowest E power cost in Europe export to UK , Germany , Switzerland etc”
The Australian public, in comparison, are sceptical of all things nuclear (even nuclear waste dumps).
Compared to SSNs Australia’s SSK’s can be cheaply sold to scrap merchants (eg. Australia’s Oberon SSKs) meaning disposal may actually be free for the Australian Government, rather than costing UK Billions of Pounds.
Your comments indicate nuclear sub disposal is a long-term process given the “cool(ing)” Need for a drop in radioactivity? you describe. With environmental protection rules needing be observed. Thanks for https://www.defense.gouv.fr/english/dga/equipement/dissuasion/le-demantelement-des-batiments-a-propulsion-nucleaire
Australia’s seems to be part of France’s fuel recycling process. See https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearFuel-France/Report_179/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024162%2F25857 “The Agreement is necessary to satisfy the requirements of French domestic law before reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from the Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) research reactor can be undertaken in France.”
Thanks for https://www.smart-appart.fr/en/news/351-le-saphir-french-nuclear-submarine-will-be-dismantled-in-cherbourg of 4 July 2019 about the dismantling of the SSN Saphir. It shows how supportive the French public are of nuclear power reactors and nuclear propulsion.
Note just the rear section of Saphir is/was being dismantled. Saphir’s front (non-reactor) section will be connected to the Perle’s reactor section by 2023 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Perle_(S606)#2020_fire
Thanks, interesting comparing France’s https://international.andra.fr/ which talks up front about “radioactive waste” and “natural risks”. So far ahead of Australia, where “radioactive waste” publically is a dirty word.
Re: “Australia is a leading supplier (along Canada and Kazakhstan) of Uranium to France!” here is an Australian site: - https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/security/non-proliferation-disarmament-arms-control/policies-agreements-treaties/nuclear-cooperation-agreements/Pages/australias-network-of-nuclear-cooperation-agreements
Regards
Pete
Hi Anonymous [at Mar 19, 2021, 1:01:00 AM]
I can assign you “MAR2021” if you don’t want to be confused with the many other Anonymouses :)
No worries. Cost of decommissioning land power reactors and nuclear subs are that little 10 Billion Dollar/Pound detail that pro-nuclear project experts never quite get around to mentioning until about 25 – 30 years of reactor operation.
BTW there is also a thriving, profitable nuclear power plant decommissioning industry for some of the same salaried experts 30 years on; eg. in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Costs
Thanks for the Oak Ridge annual budget of US$1.65 billion every year. Funny how nuclear reactor proposers in Aus don’t mention AU$2+ Billion just to train a generation of nuclear engineers/scientists at grad and post-grad levels
not to mention training more humble nuclear technicians and Essential nuclear disaster clean-up emergency worker/Authorities to handle future Fukushimas (however “1 in 1,000 years”).
With 3 or 4 shifts/watches for US, UK and French sub-N engineers whose reactors are operating 24 x 7 x 365 it sounds expensive.
This is compared to Attack class SSK’s that might run their diesels (say) once every 2 days on missions or a few hours every 2 weeks in port.
Re likelihood of recruiting enough submarine reactor engineers in the UK? I know that the RN has been losing N engineers to much more comfortable, family orientated, land based power stations, for years. So the RN is calling out for additional qualified sub-N engineers.
I don’t know the US situation – although if they came packaged with leased Virginias their first loyalty may be to serve US interests first in any WWIII.
An unknown quantity is French speaking French sub-N engineers. But one concern is their English is much worse than Germans, Swedes and Dutch in my limited pre-1981 as well as (monitored) phone/skype experience. Also there is none of the naval personnel sharing tradition seen in ex-RN (non sub-N engineer Commanders and other seniors) and some sharing of USN combat system experts.
Yeah. “Why-don’t-we-have-SSNs-for-the-RAN” bright ideas are best left for discussion from 2027 onwards.
Regards Pete
Hi Pete
You are confirming that the discussion about SSN in the australian context W/O an existing, sustainable, N power industry is a "diversion" . Again the real issue are Li batt. and may be AIP (to ambush the Macassar straights you have too sail there!)
The pro and con of nuclear power are quasi religious groups, highly emotional, each with their "rights"numbers. For the foreseable future Europe will rely on german coal ,russian gas and N power..
BTW ,Gravelines(Dunkirk), the largest plant in Europe (6X900 Mw) is closer to London ,75 miles, or Rottedam than Paris ! But Nogent at 70 miles from Paris has 2X 1300 Mw !
If you want a quiet, longterm employement for the next 40 years, become a nuclear engineer!
On your technical question:the dismantling of N sub consists of three very different activities:
1- removal of the fuel rods (quasi routine for the LEU ship :2 weeks), reprocessing or ultimate storage in deep underground structure (very, very, long period but small size, ie a few cubic meter container)
2- separation of the sub N section. There materials, reactor kettle , heat exchangers, exposed to neutrons have been activated, but their period is short.(One of the longest is Co60 from stainless steel ,5 years and a gamma emitter) After 15 to 20 year 90% + of the activity is gone and pieces are cut and stored in low level activity facilities in concrete above ground.For that period they are stored on a concrete sismic slab under a light kind of barn to protect from the weather (see picture in the French Gouv link). By design these structures , already within a steel hull section can be easily sealed
3-deconstruction of the remaining non N parts
not as trivial as older sub are full of asbestos , lead.. as most older navy ships
Cost of the deconstruction of the 6 SSBM in France by civilian Veolia,( not in a poor african or asian country !) was close to 50 M euros!
The USN has dismantled close to 40 N sub..
So it can be done
Dear Pete,
I have to remind you that France still has no site for long term storage of highly radioactive waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository#Nuclear_repository_sites
Australian nuclear submarines could be a way to reopen such a repository in Australia for all French waste.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Yes this is correct
The Bure underground facility for CIGEO (deep geological area ,440m deep tunnel in the selected geology in rural empty N.E France)is not operationnal.
It is a "lab" .(budget , land purchase , tunneling machine , hundreds of people.. )
Following the government decisions made in 2006 and 2016 work has been progressing with the actual large construction starting in 2022. The facilty should be operationnal by 2028/2030
The lab is really a pilot phase to study the best approaches but also to fight the unsuccessful legal guerilla of the opponents.The "lab"terminology gives the impression that it could be a reversible experiment
There is no majority in France against N power, on the contrary it is decreasing with global warming , electric cars.. .No real good alternatives besides a very frugal society
The green mvt is growing but over the last 40 years it succeeded in growing from 3% to 8 % in the presidential election (no proportionnal vote as in UK or the US ie no coalition ..)
The green have an exceptional talent at destroying their agenda by beeing divided in chapels , by killing any kind of potential leadership (not democratic enough) and by muddling the issue with anti capitalism ,relax on security and islamism, pro immigration..
The chance that Cigeo will not be constructed are extremely slim because nearly everybody is happy to have a solution and also because the physical size is very limited (90 hectare is an average corn farm and a "3 metro station underground line"). Security and guards for 100 years ,yes , you mean like the gold of the Banque de France or the Louvres Museum say the supporter..
Hi Anonymous [at Mar 23, 2021, 1:52:00 AM]
Aus SSKs range (11,500nm and Attack class may have 18,000nm) already permit them to “sail there”.
If no LIBs or AIP better they operate at/near northwestern mouth of the Malacca Strait – not the Chinese fixed and mobile sonar- surveilled southeastern mouth and certainly not in South China Sea (SCS) (too dangerous for non-AIP SSKs or even LIB (but no AIP) SSKs!)
In fact US WWII SSKs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gato-class_submarine operating out of Fremantle/Perth had the range (11,000nm) to sail in the SCS. But that was because Japanese ASW was not very good (not up to UK-Can-US “Battle of the Atlantic” standards) and no modern advanced enemies then.
French land reactor electricity has always been crossed subsidised (or economy of scaled) by dual use industry for French N-sub reactors. I also think civilian nuclear might also be seen (by the French public) as a bundled public “benefit” of France’s N weapons program
Yes, I imagine N-sub engineers would age quickly on missions due to stress/disturbed sleep.
France’s longterm investment in nuclear industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#History “In 1945 the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF) created the Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique (CEA) governmental agency” would reduce the costs of the whole process of decommissioning/scraping French N-subs.
Australia would take Decades (20-30 years) of investing/training/experience of enrichment and building N-power reactors and N-sub reactors (perhaps) at average of AU$7 Billion per year, to develop a similar Efficient French style Nuclear Military Industrial Complex.
I assume French use of LEU N-sub reactors (as against US/UK very HEU N-sub reactors) may reduce costs in some respects being a LEU dual-use sector efficiency dividend.
Regards
Pete
Hi MHalblaub [Mar 23, 2021, 4:59:00 PM]
Thanks for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository#Nuclear_repository_sites
and for "Australian nuclear submarines could be a way to reopen such a repository in Australia for all French waste."
All proposals for an Australian nuclear waste dump over the last 60 years have not progressed as many/most the Australian public and many politicians hate the idea. Aus being an international waste dump is considered even worse. Aus politicians will not consider these ideas as they are political suicide.
In fact France seems to be the destination of some Australian Spent Fuel for recycling "reprocessing?" in France. See Australia’s seems to be part of France’s fuel recycling process. See https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearFuel-France/Report_179/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024162%2F25857 “The Agreement is necessary to satisfy the requirements of French domestic law before reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from the Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) research reactor can be undertaken in France.”
Regards
Pete
Hi Anonymous [at Mar 24, 2021, 10:54:00 AM]
Re the proposed deep underground French high level nuclear waste depository at Bure CIGEO in the Meuse Haute Marne area – this seems an excellent reference https://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Project_CIGEO.htm with a good video – all in English. I don’t know how old it is, though.
A “Bure” site all looks politically controversial, with many French anti-nuclear protestors and will, no doubt, cost $Billions. A bit like Yucca Mountain, USA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
Question: Is most of the high level nuclear waste caused by developing highly enriched Nuclear Weapons or disposing of their HEU+Pu?
https://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Project_CIGEO.htm states:
“Anti-nuclear associations are protesting against the location of the planned repository. The scientific community is at a loss to understand such a position, given that the purpose of such a facility is to minimise the impact of radioactive waste for future generations.”
... If the goal of developing fast breeder reactors capable of burning plutonium is abandoned [has it been?] stockpiled plutonium will have to be treated as waste. From a radioactive waste perspective, plutonium is a minor actinide. As spent reactor fuel contains 10 times more plutonium than minor actinides, several CIGEO repositories would be required to dispose of it all.
If the license is granted, the facility will be built in a 200 km² "transposition" area in the vicinity of the laboratory in Bure, in order benefit from the advantageous geological conditions. The task will be to identify a homogenous, fault-free volume of clay in the Callovo-Oxfordian, argillite rock formation approximately 500m underground. This volume should be of suitable size: approximately 2 km x 2 km and around 200 m thick.”
COMMENT: So even pro-nuclear France is having politically contested, very expensive problems disposing of high level nuclear waste.
Regards Pete
Australia has finally (2020) come up with a site in SA for low level waste. Australia is physically 14 times bigger than France. Australia’s first reactor at Lucas Heights came online in 1958. In 2021, medium to high level waste is still stored at Lucas Heights (including used reprocessed fuel returned from processing in France). It seems kicking the nuclear can down the road is a global phenomenon. At some point you need to ‘pay the butcher’s bill’, to use an old military saying.
Hi Anonymous [at Mar 24, 2021, 9:13:00 PM]
Four problems:
1. Aboriginal "decision making" means
- total consensus acceptance or rejection of a waste dump anywhere in Australia
- on the understanding aforesaid "total consensus" can be undermined at any time by inter-tribal/group bickering/change of mind, and white anti-nuclear activists manipulating Aboriginal decision making
- causing Aboriginal go ahead consensus to be subsequently withdrawn
- ie. rejecting the best laid plans of rngineers, governments and legal redrafters.
1(b) So all this boils down to is "Senate inquiry recommends passing nuclear waste site at Napandee, South Australia" Tuesday 15 Sep 2020 at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-15/senate-committee-recommends-nuclear-waste-facility-at-napandee/12658266
"there were three MPs who opposed the decision — the Greens' Sarah Hanson-Young, independent senator Rex Patrick and Labor senator Jenny McAllister.
"The proposed facility has not received the support of the relevant traditional owners, or of many other First Nations representatives in South Australia," Ms McAllister wrote in the report.
"In particular, the process undertaken to assess community attitudes to the facility has been criticised as inadequate by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation on the grounds that its members were excluded from participating in the community ballot commissioned to assess sentiment."
SO DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH WAITING FOR SA STATE GOV OR FEDERAL GOV TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING CONCRETE - ESP AS A FEDERAL ELECTION IS COMING 2021-22
_______________
2. Napandee waste dump can only "temporarily store our intermediate-level waste" again see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-15/senate-committee-recommends-nuclear-waste-facility-at-napandee/12658266
So we need a permanent solution for intermediate waste disposal. Another waste dump?
3. Is there any High Level Waste (however diluted) at Lucas Heights?
4. If so, how will Australia's High Level Waste be disposed of? Yet another waste dump?
Pete
Post a Comment