Small Modular Reactors No Quick Nuclear Path for Australia

There is an ongoing debate in Australia to finally adopt nuclear reactors for "carbon free" electricity needs. This debate is heightened by reactor companies (eg. GE Hitachi and Rolls-Royce) marketing small reactors.

Tristan Prasser at ON LINE opinion, August 22, 2019 argued

"...Nuclear power could prove to be the circuit breaker needed for Australia to resolve its current energy and climate woes. It is a technology that is already proven to decarbonise large electricity grids in combination with hydro and/or renewable technologies as has been achieved in France, Sweden and Ontario Canada. 

According to data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, countries that have the highest shares of nuclear power also have some of the cleanest electricity grids on the planet. Their ability to generate large flows of electrons cleanly, affordably, and reliably means citizens of these countries continue to enjoy modern and energy-rich lives, without worrying about whether they are killing the planet.

...Should Australia choose to go down the nuclear power path, it will be considering designs of the future, not the past. Nuclear reactor designs have evolved since the days of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Today numerous companies...are working on smaller, safer, and more efficient designs often referred to as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). 

Such reactors promise to overcome the financial burdens and safety concerns that have long plagued conventional reactors, particularly in the West. The ability of SMRs to be deployed as single or multiple modules provides wider flexibility in their applications, from supporting remote and regional communities to combining with other clean energy technologies to provide grid-scale generation. This makes them ideally suited to Australia's diverse range of energy needs..."

___________________________________________________________

PETE COMMENT

Tristan Prasser points to France, Sweden and Ontario, Canada as successful users of nuclear energy. But this success is not from using small (up to 300 MW), new technology, reactors but instead they use VERY LARGE CONVENTIONAL REACTORS. It also needs to be noted that civilian nuclear power in these countries gained initial impetus from nuclear knowledge and facilities for military purposes, ie:

-  "France" where:

  ;  all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi GW. A Gigawatt being 1,000
     Megawatts. Note France is now constructing reactors
     of 1.6 GW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#France

  ;  France mainly began its nuclear investment as a military activity in the late 1940s. France
     continues to cross subsidise its knowledge and civilian reactor base with its nuclear
     weapon/submarine propulsion base. 

-  "Sweden", which:

   ;  first embarked on reactors for its 1940s-ended 1970s nuclear weapon

      program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program

    ;  which provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Sweden's civilian nuclear sector 

    ;  where all reactor complexes are VERY LARGE conventional multi

       GW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Sweden and

-  "Ontario Province, Canada". Noting: 

    ;  Canada first embarked on nuclear reactors in support of the US MANHATTAN NUCLEAR
       WEAPONS PROJECT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Canadian_sites which

       subsequently provided a lower cost knowledge/infrastructure base for Canada's civilian nuclear
       sector 

     ;  reactors that are operational in Ontario are at the Pickering complex of reactors

        equalling 3GW and Darlington complex equalling 3.5GW. 

So for France and even for SWEDEN and CANADA they cut some costs by beginning with Nuclear weapons reactor knowledge-infrastructure bases which then transitioned to VERY LARGE civilian electricity reactors
_________________________________________________

So the author falls down when he suggests NON-COMMERCIALLY proven VERY SMALL MODULAR REACTORS (SMRs) (which are up to 300MW) http://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors

Australia's low nuclear knowledge/reactor base and very small electricity market compared to the main reactor building nations (US, UK, France, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, India) means AUSTRALIA by itself CANNOT DEVELOP AND DEPLOY Small Modular Reactors without spending maybe $100+ Billions.

Australia needs to wait for Small Modular Reactors to be:

-  developed
-  legally/publically accepted
-  then cheaply deployed en masse

in North America, Europe and/or Asia.
___________________________________________

Visions of SMALL Modular Reactors being deployed in SMALL Australian country towns-small cities (Alice Springs? Longreach? Kalgoorlie? Broken Hill?) forget

the HUGE public/political/legal/police security opposition that would descend AGAINST EVEN VERY SMALL, HIGH COMMERCIAL RISK, reactor proposals 

and delay them at Australian Federal, State and Local GOVERNMENT and COURT (Supreme and High Court) can levels for DECADES.

Pete

Excellent Indian Ocean Strategic View on US, India, China

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2019/08/18/yahapalana-and-the-republic-of-china-part-9/

Claim Russia's Nuclear Cruise Missile 9M730 Skyfall is "SUBSONIC"

PETE COMMENT

Following on from the August 14, 2019 article on Russia's failed liquid rocket fuel and nuclear powered cruise missile booster+engine test at Nyonoksa.  The missile's Russian designations include
Burevestnik 9M730 and "Petrel". NATO reporting names are SSC-X-9 and Skyfall. I'll call it simply "Skyfall".

Russia has always culturally been secretive, especially about its latest weapon systems. As an authoritarian country (Tsar-Communist-Putin) Russia does not need to inform its citizen-taxpayers much about its latest expensive missile or submarine disasters. Disaster details are only drip fed once details have been discovered by the Western press/internet, which ordinary Russians now have access to. 

Most Russian research on Skyfall is taking place at Sarov  a closed city of around 100,000 "inmates" east of Moscow, but still in European Russia. A "closed city" since 1946 because Sarov is a center of  Russian nuclear weapon and propulsion research as well as missile research (a bit like Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Sandia and Huntsville all rolled into one).

With that in mind the article below looks too good to be true concerning its details of Russia's Skyfall technology and strategy. So I'm treating the article below as mainly (Russian derived word) "disinformation". This includes the article implying the Skyfall program is more advanced than is  actually the case. Given the US' 7 years to cancellation Project Pluto it is highly unlikely Russia could field a Skyfall prototype in under 10 years.

Also the article's description of Skyfall as "subsonic" flies in the face of its rumoured hypersonic ramjet nature. Skyfall requires hypersonic speed to keep it aloft on its nuclear engine stage and make Skyfall a viable short time to target, global strike weapon.

I have therefore bolded and redded suspicious parts, with some [..] brackets for extra comments.

ARTICLE

/Kjell has kindly located from Russian website New Defence Order Strategy (see About us) the following Russian language article, of August 15, 2019 at https://dfnc.ru/katalog-vooruzhenij/nazemnye-raketnye-kompleksy/9m730-burevestnik/ . Pete has now translated it into English (there being no New Defence Order Strategy article on Skyfall in English).

"Nuclear-powered strategic cruise missile 

[Skyfall] was supposedly being created by the Novator Design Bureau (Yekaterinburg [Russia's 4th largest city, which is east of the Urals]) [see NPO Novator] together with one of the [Russian Atomic] Rosatom research centers. The creation of a rocket with an air-jet [turbofan? ramjet? or what?] engine with a nuclear power plant became possible as a result of successful work to create a new generation small-sized nuclear reactor.

“At the end of 2017, a successful launch of a rocket with a nuclear power plant took place at the Central [Novaya Zemlya?] training ground of the Russian Federation. During the flight, the power plant reached its predetermined power and provided the necessary level of thrust. The flight tests, coupled with ground tests, allow us to move on to creating a strategic nuclear weapon complex with nuclear power plant "(from a speech by V.V. Putin before the Federal Assembly, 03/01/2018).

[Skyfall?] Missile tests have been conducted at least since 2017. As of mid-2019, according to Western data[where?] at least 13 missile launches have been completed. During launches at the Novaya Zemlya training ground, launches were monitored by IL-976 SKIP [Il-76/A-50 based Range Control and Missile tracking platform] Rosatom aircraft.

Work on Skyfall in a training ground assembly and test building (http://mil.ru) [a pointy nose for a merely
---

The NATO name for the Petrel missile system is SSC-X-9 SKYFALL.

 Skyfall in the Russian Armed Forces

If the missile test program is successfully completed, and if there is a political decision to deploy the missile, Skyfall missiles can become an important part of Russia's nuclear deterrence forces. Launch sites for Skyfall can be built in any - even the most remote - region of Russia.

The composition of Skyfall

Probably, if Skyfall enter service, they will include the following components:

• transporter erector launchers (TELs) or stationary missile launchers
• a flight information training center
• long-range radio communications for adjusting flight and target designation
• reconnaissance and target designation systems
• facilities for Skyfall maintenance and preparation and nuclear power plants
• [Skyfall Warhead?] Arsenal equipment and vehicles

During the tests, presumably wheeled 9P113 transporter erector launchers (TELs) were used (with 9P113s aleady being used for short range 9K52 Luna-M artillery rockets).  With the Skyfalls being fired from launch containers previously used for P-35B GRAU 4K44B GLCMs.

Skyfall design

Skyfall's design is similar to the designs of most modern land and sea-based cruise missiles, but differs from them in size and layout. Presumably the rocket has the following layout: 

- the central body of the fuselage 
- a propulsion system with side air intakes and side nozzles 
- folding swept wings and plumage.

The rocket uses a solid fuel launch booster. [not liquid?]

The main engine of the rocket is supposedly a nuclear air-jet engine (NAR) in which atmospheric air heated by a nuclear power plant acts as a working medium. On the tested rocket prototypes, a valid non-nuclear prototype of this engine was probably installed.

TTX missiles Skyfall

Length - not less than 12 m;

Case diameter - not less than 1 m;

Case width - about 1.5 m;

Plumage height - 3.6-3.8 m;

Maximum speed - subsonic or transonic

[transonic being Mach 0.72 to Mach 1]

Range of action - unlimited

One of the first test launches of the Skyfall (http://mil.ru)
---

Combat equipment

Presumably, the missile will be equipped with a megaton class 
thermonuclear warhead 

Preparation of Skyfall components for testing in the assembly and testing building of the test site (http://mil.ru)
---

Control and guidance system

Skyfall's control system is autonomous inertial - with the flight reajusting using 
navigation system adjustment and ground HQ commands. Perhaps Skyfall's flightpath can be  updated and re-aimed midflight. 

Modifications:

The Skyfall prototype is the first experimental prototype "of the rocket demonstrator." 

Skyfall  "- is an experimental series of cruise missiles for testing." Ends

 [no mention of the "13" alleged "completed" flights here.]
------------------------------

Article identified by /Kjell and translated from Russian by Pete

Rick Joe China aircraft expert: China J-20 Stealth Fighter's Status

On The Diplomat (paysite) 

see https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-today-and-into-the-2020s/

Excellent StrategyPage article on Barracuda Sub & Attack class

Strategy Page has penned an excellent article of August 14, 2019,

at https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20190814.aspx :

“Submarines: Barracuda

On July 12 [2019] the first of six new French Barracuda class SSN's (nuclear attack submarines), the SNA Suffren, was launched [see]. This first one is scheduled to enter service in 2020. All six will enter service in the 2020s [see wiki]. Back in 2006, France decided to buy six new Barracuda class SSNs, for about $1.5 billion each. The 4,700 ton (surface displacement) boats are smaller than America's new 7,300 ton Virginia class subs (which cost about $2.8 billion each). A new [Husky?] class of Russian SSNs will displace 6,000 tons. The older American Los Angeles class boats were about 7,000 tons. Size does matter, as it indicates how much space you have available for sensors and weapons. Larger boats are better equipped and more heavily armed. The new Russian SSN construction was delayed by shortages of cash and qualified shipyard personnel. The U.S. already had two Virginia's in service by 2006 and now there are 17 with 11 under construction. Two Virginia's a year are entering service, for an eventual total of about 60 subs.

Construction on the first Barracuda began in 2007 and it was supposed to be launched by 2012. That launch date was tentative because the development of the Barracuda nuclear power plant began in 2003 and soon ran into problems [see Pete’s earlier article]. Problems with the power plant were no surprise because France, unlike Britain, did not license the American sub-power plant. This would make it more difficult to export French nuclear subs and so on. The French chose a different design that used commercial [actually LEU] (not weapons) grade nuclear fuel. This meant French nuclear subs had to be refueled more often but this was made easier by building the hull with special large hatches that could be quickly opened for the once every 7-10 refueling then sealed again. France is the only nation using this type of ship power plant and has to handle development and maintenance procedures [by] itself. With a small fleet of nuclear subs, this drives up the cost per sub. Britain, by licensing the American tech, [see] gets the benefit of a much larger American nuke fleet and the larger budget for work on the power plants. Ever since the first Barracuda began construction, the delays have come from power plant problems. By 2012 it was believed that launch date could be 2017 but delays perfecting the power plant continued. The sub could not be launched until the power plant was completed and the hull made watertight

The Barracudas will rely on a lot of automation and have a crew of sixty, plus berths for 12 passengers. These will usually be commandos and their gear will be stored in a pod attached to subs sail. The Barracuda design emphasized silencing, making it more difficult to detect. The Barracuda's have four 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes, which can also be used to launch missiles, mines or torpedoes. Twenty weapons are carried, the mix of torpedoes, mines and missiles depends on the mission. French SSNs have two crews which each having the boat for three months. Enough food is carried to sustain the crew for 70 days. The nuclear power plant must be refueled every ten years. Two more Barracudas are under construction,

In early 2016 Australia selected a French firm (DCNS [now renamed Naval Group]) to build twelve new submarines for the Australian Navy. Australians preferred the French design because it was a larger boat than those offered by Germany and Japan. The French proposal was a diesel-electric version of their new Suffren (Barracuda) class SSNs. This “Shortfin [Attack class]” design [will be 4,500 ton] (in surface displacement) [hence less] than the 4,700 ton nuclear powered Suffren but was otherwise very similar with a crew of about 60, four [to eight?] 533mm torpedo tubes and 24 torpedoes, missiles or [around 48] mines.

A major selling point for the Barracuda was the proven silencing technology France had developed for their SSNs [eg. the propulsor/pumpjet]. This would now be added to an inherently quietly diesel-electric design. The [Attack class] are being built in Australia and will cost about $2.4 billion each. This [may] include an AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) system that will allow these boats to operate submerged for two weeks at a time. French firms will only control about [a third to a] half of that, with much of the rest going to American firms that will provide the [combat system, sensors] electronics and weapons. The twelve [Attack class] will replace six Collins-class boats and the first [Attack class] [may] begin construction in 2022 and enter service in [the early to mid] 2030[s], about when first of the six Collins-class subs are four decades old and very due for retirement. France is offering the Shortfin Barracuda to India as well.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another great StrategyPage article is Submarine: Russia Got The AIP Blues of March 18, 2019 at https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20190318.aspx

Russia's White Sea Missile Reactor + Hydrogen(?) Explosion

On Thursday night, August 8, 2019, an explosion occurred at Nyonoksa naval rocket/missile test site on the White Sea coast (map below) in extreme northwest Russia. This killed 5 and injuring 6 test site workers (reported so far). The explosion caused an unexplained spike in radiation levels. This in turn caused alarm and then a temporary or permanent evacuation of nearby Nyonoksa village. Both the test site and village are effectively under the control of the Russian Navy (Northern Fleet area).

According to the Russian nuclear agency (Rosatom) the explosion happened on a sea platform/pontoon at Nyonoksa Russian Navy rocket/missile launch facility when a "liquid-propellant engine" was tested. Those killed were allegedly working on "isotope power source”. While Russian authorities refuse to identify the missile engine tested, Russian media and the US suspect that the explosion was a test of the 9M730 Burevestnik (aka “Skyfall”), nuclear propelled, nuclear armed cruise missile. That missile is part of (evidently) a dangerously accelerated development effort due to Putin's March 1, 2018 boast that this missile is a Russian wonder weapon.

"Skyfall's" under development nuclear fission   nuclear thermal engine is centred around a mini-reactor using enriched Uranium 235, to create extreme heat. The reactor may have super-heated a "liquid-propellant" in the form of highly explosive hydrogen.

Rocket thrust is a controlled explosion. The Skyfall engine explosion may have been an uncontrolled reactor explosion alone - and/or one boosted by a super-heated hydrogen explosion. 

Western nuclear sample collection technology (like this) with computer modelling in the US, can ascertain what type of explosion took place. 

Since 1965 the Nyonoksa facility has been the site of many SLBM and SLCM tests including R-27s, R-29s and R-39s.

Josh, in Comments below, has brought to my attention that video footage of the “Nyonoksa” explosion all seems to be an unrelated east Siberian munitions dump or military warehouse explosion.

I've been trying, without success, to find fully credibale still or moving imagery of the August 2019 Nyonoksa explosion. The public media all seem to be using pre-existing video images of an east Siberian ammunition dump/warehouse explosion instead of any Nyonoksa explosion.

MAYBE NYONOKSA WAS A FULLY SUBMERGED TEST WITH NO PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE VISION OR SOUND?

Alarm and Confusion

There was major initial alarm and confusion in Nyonoksa village (2km from the test site). This was heightened by the Russian Government issuing contradictory Press Releases on a Little Increase In Background Radiation and then a Major Release (Evacuate Nyonoksa Now).

(Map courtesy Moscow Times, Reuters and TASS).
---

Severodvinsk and Arkhangelsk

Residents of the naval base/shipyard cities of Severodvinsk and Arkhangelsk may have been close enough to see the flash and hear the Nyonoksa test site explosion. Confusion continues in those cities regarding  how dangerous the Russian Government admitted radiation is and what to do about it.

In mid August 2019 “Russia's state weather service said radiation levels spiked in the Russian city of Severodvinsk, about [47] kilometres west of Nyonoksa, by up to 16 times [greater than average background radiation level] following the explosion.”

“There are reports of panic buying of iodine drops in Severodvinsk [and Arkhangelsk]. Emergency officials reported a spike in background radiation. The White Sea bay where both the shipbuilding port and the regional capital, Arkhangelsk, are located has been ordered closed for swimming and fishing because of the presence of toxic rocket fuel [or, more secretly, radiation].”

Pete