About subs, military/naval, missiles, nuclear weapons & politics. New Aussie subs have been just talk since 2009. Collins LOTE 2028-2040? of partial help. UUVs help more. POTUS may cancel AUKUS Virginias in 2031 as the USN needs all SSNs to the 2040s. Australian Gov ignores US higher priority to Columbia SSBNs (one/year being commissioned 2029-2041). Meaning minimal Virginia production until 2043. Shawn C and Gessler are excellent authors.
ASA nuclear waste at HMAS Stirling & Later Weapons Grade HEU Storage
The Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) has released "Australian Submarine Agency completes environmental
reporting baseline assessment at HMAS Stirling"
United States Navy Virginia-class submarine USS Minnesota alongside Fleet Base West at HMAS Stirling. Photographer: ABIS Connor Morrison (Image from here).
As responsible stewards of naval nuclear propulsion technology, the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) is committed to protecting our people, the public and the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation.
ASA conducted a radiological environmental monitoring baseline assessment over a 12-month period during 2024 at HMAS Stirling. This assessment establishes the environmental radiological baseline at Stirling prior to the commencement of increased Nuclear-Powered Submarine (NPS) visits by the UK and US under Submarine Rotational Force West (SRF-West).
“I am pleased to release our inaugural Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program baseline assessment for HMAS Stirling. This report is the culmination of 12 months of sampling and analysis to characterise the site (and surrounds) that will be the home of Australia’s Nuclear Powered Submarines. This baseline assessment establishes a clear, evidence-based understanding of existing levels of radioactivity in the local environment. This baseline is a reference point for future comparisons,“ Director General Australian Submarine Agency VADM Jonathan Mead said.
This baseline assessment will be used to inform the continuous Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program at HMAS Stirling. Results collected through this program will be compared on an annual basis to the levels established in the baseline.
The ASA is committed to ensuring that the NPS program meets the highest standards of environmental protection and provides transparency of results to foster confidence in the community.
-----------------------------------------------
Nuclear Stewardship and Waste [much more detailed ASA website with numerous hyperlinks]
"Where will Australia store and
dispose of radioactive waste?"
"No decision has been made on a location within
Australia for the disposal of radioactive waste from
nuclear-powered submarines. Further technical work
and consultation is required to determine preferred
disposal pathways. Operational radioactive waste will
be stored on Defence sites in Australia.
Defueling Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines
is not expected to occur for decades. However, the
complexity of the task means that early planning will
be important.
As an initial step, Defence and the ASA - working
with relevant agencies including the Australian
Radioactive Waste Agency - has undertaken a review
to inform the process by which the Government will
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 outcomes of the review will
inform a more detailed process which will include
consultation and engagement with community and
Indigenous groups, and consideration of wider social
license and economic implications."
"What facilities will be required for
managing [Highly Enriched "Weapons Grade" Uranium (HEU)] radioactive waste [of the US, UK and later Australia]?
"The storage and disposal of radioactive waste from
Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines will require:
• Facilities and highly-trained people to remove
radioactive waste and spent fuel.
• Transport in sealed and secure containers to storage
or disposal facilities.
• Purpose-built facilities for interim storage and
permanent disposal of radioactive waste, including
spent fuel.
• Social license earned and sustained with local and
regional communities."
Yes, nuclear submarines produce spent highly enriched uranium (HEU) and generate plutonium as a byproduct inside their sealed reactor cores. [1, 2]
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Waste
Weapons-Grade Fuel: Many naval reactors use HEU (often enriched well above 20% and up to 80%) so they can run for decades without refueling. [1, 2, 3]
Spent Fuel Legacy: When a submarine is decommissioned, the remaining fuel inside the reactor is still heavily enriched. [1]
Proliferation Risk: This spent HEU is classified as high-level radioactive waste. Because it remains weapons-usable, it requires military-grade security during storage and disposal. [1, 2, 3]
Plutonium Generation
Byproduct Creation: During nuclear fission, some of the non-fissionable uranium-238 inside the fuel absorbs neutrons and transforms into plutonium. [1]
Contained in the Matrix: This plutonium is not extracted or separated into a loose waste stream. It remains permanently trapped inside the solid metal and ceramic structure of the spent fuel elements within the reactor core. [1]
Disposal: Instead of individual chemical waste, the entire reactor compartment or sealed core is removed intact during decommissioning and managed as high-level radioactive waste [in practice FOREVER]. [1, 2]
I noticed there's a "Public Inquiry in AUKUS" on youtube that is basically the anti-nuclear coalition starting to warm up.. Slightly surprised Malcom Turnbull turned up to speak with them but I do agree with his criticism:
Note that there's also "extensive" Uranium and Thorium deposits in Western Australia, but there's a ban on uranium mining by the Westrn Australian government.
Turnbull at https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/submission-to-the-aukus-public-inquiry has written an excellent summary of arguments made by Admiral (Ret'd) Peter Briggs. Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter and SubMatts since AUKUS was announced in September 2021.
Re: https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-mines-petroleum-and-exploration/geological-survey-of-western-australia/uranium-western-australia - its fine Australia has radioactive raw materials - but turning them into a successful submarine reactor would be a $Trillion undertaking. Even the (immensely experienced with power reactors) UK required a completed US sub reactor in the 1950s to get HMS Dreadnought going https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)#Design_and_construction
A similar "have raw materials but no engine" leap is Australia having all the raw materials for an EV battery - but only China and to a lesser extend Japan first perfected/matured and mass produced EV batteries. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20251110-how-china-won-the-worlds-battery-race
Australia doesn't/cannot compete with NE Asia the US or Europe to invent and mass produce radically new engines.
So now that Australia has thrown AUKUS $Billions at the US and UK should we next throw $Billions at France or (never built a submarine reactor) SK?
Partnering with South Korea for submarine production may now sounds like a far better solution for Australia, instead of waiting on the crumbs of UK/US SSN production, thought the UK has spent a lot in recent years on improving Burrow and RR PWR production, and has fully funded Dreadnaught-class SSBN production, starting SSN-AUKUS production in 2027.
Australia’s current planning depends on too many “ifs”. If Virginia production speeds up (it’s actually slowing down) if SSN-AUKUS production is on time (but the UK will prioritise Dreadnaught SSBN first, and the first boat will take twenty years from steel-cutting to launch).
South Korea now has two experienced sub builders with the capacity to expand.. in fact, now that SK have lost the Canadian patrol sub contest, Australia should roll in and buy six Jang Yeongsil-class as ‘interim’ boats before AUKUS-SSN, as I’m pretty sure the RAN will soon find out that the refit of the 30 year old Collins-class will be more expensive than buying six new boats.
Then, when it becomes clear the AUKUS-SSN is not working out, ask SK to export their LEU powerplants, and build the hulls in ASC.
3 comments:
Hi Pete,
I noticed there's a "Public Inquiry in AUKUS" on youtube that is basically the anti-nuclear coalition starting to warm up.. Slightly surprised Malcom Turnbull turned up to speak with them but I do agree with his criticism:
https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/submission-to-the-aukus-public-inquiry
Note that there's also "extensive" Uranium and Thorium deposits in Western Australia, but there's a ban on uranium mining by the Westrn Australian government.
https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-mines-petroleum-and-exploration/geological-survey-of-western-australia/uranium-western-australia
Hi Shawn at 8/31/2026 12:31 AM
Turnbull at https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/submission-to-the-aukus-public-inquiry has written an excellent summary of arguments made by Admiral (Ret'd) Peter Briggs. Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter and SubMatts since AUKUS was announced in September 2021.
Re: https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-mines-petroleum-and-exploration/geological-survey-of-western-australia/uranium-western-australia - its fine Australia has radioactive raw materials - but turning them into a successful submarine reactor would be a $Trillion undertaking. Even the (immensely experienced with power reactors) UK required a completed US sub reactor in the 1950s to get HMS Dreadnought going https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)#Design_and_construction
A similar "have raw materials but no engine" leap is Australia having all the raw materials for an EV battery - but only China and to a lesser extend Japan first perfected/matured and mass produced EV batteries. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20251110-how-china-won-the-worlds-battery-race
Australia doesn't/cannot compete with NE Asia the US or Europe to invent and mass produce radically new engines.
So now that Australia has thrown AUKUS $Billions at the US and UK should we next throw $Billions at France or (never built a submarine reactor) SK?
Cheers Pete
Hi Pete,
Partnering with South Korea for submarine production may now sounds like a far better solution for Australia, instead of waiting on the crumbs of UK/US SSN production, thought the UK has spent a lot in recent years on improving Burrow and RR PWR production, and has fully funded Dreadnaught-class SSBN production, starting SSN-AUKUS production in 2027.
Australia’s current planning depends on too many “ifs”. If Virginia production speeds up (it’s actually slowing down) if SSN-AUKUS production is on time (but the UK will prioritise Dreadnaught SSBN first, and the first boat will take twenty years from steel-cutting to launch).
South Korea now has two experienced sub builders with the capacity to expand.. in fact, now that SK have lost the Canadian patrol sub contest, Australia should roll in and buy six Jang Yeongsil-class as ‘interim’ boats before AUKUS-SSN, as I’m pretty sure the RAN will soon find out that the refit of the 30 year old Collins-class will be more expensive than buying six new boats.
Then, when it becomes clear the AUKUS-SSN is not working out, ask SK to export their LEU powerplants, and build the hulls in ASC.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/08/south-korea-draft-law-jangbogo-n-nuclear-submarine-program/
Post a Comment