Australian Liberal’s Nuclear Policy Lacks Weapons

In Australia the myth of quick, easy, uncomplicated building anywhere of "economical" small modular reactor (SMR) projects just won't die out. 

Large conventional reactors of over 3 GW, as in France, make more sense in Australia. This is from a zero base of no power reactors in Australia at present. This will lead to decades-long legal, planning and political battles for each and every reactor project and nuclear waste dump in Australia. This will be followed by 2 decades of construction and high security protection costs for reactors and waste dumps. 

The minority Australian Liberal Party's nuclear electricity lobby, that makes  outlandish claims, please take note of the following:

71 years ago the Father of the US Nuclear (propulsion) Navy and Father of the US electricity reactor in the US Atomic Energy Commission, Admiral Rickover, pointed out the nuclear ignorance of the likes of our Liberal Party.

"Admiral Rickover's 'Paper Reactor' Memo" written on June 5, 1953 at http://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html is as accurate now as it was then. Rickover drew a distinction between:

A. academic "paper reactor" policy proponents "The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects." and

B. those who actually build reactors. Noting "Rickover oversaw the development of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, the [world's] first commercial pressurized water reactor nuclear power [ie. electricity] plant."  

Wrote Rickover in 1953:

A. "An academic reactor...almost always has the following basic characteristics:

1. It is simple.

2. It is small.

3. It is cheap.

4. It is light.

5. It can be built very quickly.

6. It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”)

7. Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components.

8. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now."

[eg. there is still no built SMR for sale on the market.]
 

B. "On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics:

1. It is being built now.

2. It is behind schedule.

3. It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem.

4. It is very expensive.

5. It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems.

6. It is large.

7. It is heavy.

8. It is complicated."

Does all that sound familiar?

The biggest political question is what majority of Australian voters in a town, city, state or Electorate would welcome a reactor in their "backyard"? Given that concern it is best to build a reactor on defence land, ie. long owned by the Federal Government, not somewhere pretty or with a long Aboriginal heritage (that will not be questioned).

The overarching reality is, unless a national nuclear industry has dual-use civilian and nuclear weapons qualities (a reality the P5 early sprinters, eg. the US, UK and France, exploited for THEMSELVES) Australia won't accept reactors politically, economically or strategically.