There are recognised entry pathways by which newcomer countries begin and progress their journey towards deploying nuclear power plants. As they set out upon these journeys countries initially build infrastructure such as research centres, simulators, possibly some research/training reactors – or perhaps even uranium mines as important nurturing steps for developing nuclear competencies and bringing in key partners. The international nuclear community is comfortable with this and geared towards supporting this familiar journey.
Very much not on the list is nuclear submarines. While this is indeed the path that the USA took in the pioneering days of the cold war – launching the first nuclear powered submarine before establishing the first nuclear power plant – there is little reason to do so today. Nuclear submarines have been described as the most complex machines ever invented. They take all the nuances of nuclear engineering and combine them into a sophisticated combat vessel which must survive in a high-pressure underwater environment.
From this perspective, the AUKUS deal is therefore quite simply mind-blowing. It is worth recapping for those that are unaware or have forgotten the details. Announced initially in 2021, with a more comprehensive agreement set out in 2024, the deal remains on track according to recent media stories. The agreement forms part of a long term defence pact that ties together the USA, Australia and the UK. Under the deal Australia will first experience the rotational deployment of US and UK nuclear-powered subs in the late 2020s, go on to acquire as many as five Virginia class submarines from the US in the 2030s, whilst jointly developing (with the UK) the SSN AUKUS submarines for the deployment in the 2040s. When that first nuclear sub enters Australian hands, it will join an elite league of only six countries to possess these vessels. Along with this comes new responsibilities and waste streams.
By jumping straight to nuclear subs and apparently eschewing nuclear power, Australia has chosen a hard path. Apart from the USA, only China has developed nuclear submarines in advance of nuclear power. Nuclear industry veterans know well that there are strong synergies between the power sector and the nuclear navy, as it allows for sharing of vital human and technology resources. While sometimes nuclear energy sceptics have claimed that the naval sector ‘subsidises’ the power sector, in truth given the comparative size of the sectors it is more often the other way around.
It is frankly difficult to imagine that Australia could end up possessing these nuclear machines and not split atoms for electricity, despite whatever politicians are currently saying. The long-term energy trajectory of Australia has been influenced by AUKUS whether today’s politicians know it or not.
For the international nuclear community, the notion that a country could develop nuclear submarines and have this effectively serve as an entry pathway to nuclear energy sits uncomfortably. Many people in this group see energy as the overriding objective and are frankly concerned about the perceived connection with military applications (and especially weapons).
Which gives rise to a number of questions. Is security and propulsion any less an important an objective than heat and electricity? Must all countries be locked into the same script in terms of their nuclear developmental journeys? In other words, is AUKUS an anomaly or will we see more countries opting to build unexpected nuclear infrastructure before, or perhaps even instead of, building nuclear power plants?
At stake here is the nuclear power-centric view of the nuclear establishment. There are many possible nuclear futures, and in some of these nuclear propulsion – subs, ships or both – become a sizeable part of the global industry, perhaps even rivalling electricity and heating. Whereas the international nuclear community seems to be warming up to the idea of nuclear propelled ships, as proven with the widespread support for the Nuclear Energy Maritime Organisation, it’s clear it still has a way to go in other areas.
For the record, Australia is not alone in pursuing nuclear submarines, although it is alone in doing so while not (currently) operating nuclear power plants. Brazil has been working on a nuclear sub programme since the 1980s. This year South Korea made its intentions clear in an agreement with the USA, while Japan is also considering joining the nuclear sub club as newly appointed defence minister Shinjiro Koizumi made clear in statements on national television. We are faced with the very real prospect that one of the next big nuclear reactor growth markets could be under the sea.
And while we are looking beneath the waves, lets spare a thought for the critical infrastructure there, such as energy and data transmission networks. It would be great if there was a way to reliably monitor this remotely over timeframes of decades, but this is a task that requires reliable energy in a place it is notoriously difficult to provide energy to. Another once popular but almost forgotten nuclear technology seems ideal for this purpose – the radio-isotope power system.
Familiar to most people now almost solely through the Martian rovers and space missions, radioisotope power systems (RTGs) were once deployed fairly extensively at monitoring stations and lighthouses by the US and former USSR. There were even about 3000 plutonium-powered pacemakers produced and inserted into human bodies – an idea that seems almost unfathomable now! As the Soviet Union collapsed many of these RTGs were lost or stolen, a history that has soured views on terrestrial applications.
Radioisotope power systems are coming back into vogue, most notably with US start-up Zeno Power seeking to commercialise the technology for a range of seabed applications. While initially tied to US government and defence applications, one hopes that this might become more widely available for civil and industrial applications. There is also renewed excitement for space exploration, with americium 241 being proposed as an alternative to rare plutonium 238 isotope by UK research institutions, the European Space Agency, and Zeno. Another exciting development is the carbon-14 diamond batteries that has come out of UK fusion research.
The bottom line is that so-called nuclear batteries could be of interest to many industries and countries. Which again raises questions. Will we be comfortable if
the remote and inaccessible parts of the Earth are covered with sealed radioactive sources? Have we collectively learnt from and gotten over the Goiânia accident in which a medical radioactive source was stolen and led to contamination and deaths? Will the international nuclear community seek to help or hinder the expanded use of this technology?
The main point is that no one can predict the state of the future nuclear industry or indeed the world’s future generally with 100% confidence. Today the nuclear sector is rightfully proud of the international network of support that exists to support newcomers and nuclear energy development globally, but perhaps we also need to encourage some more open-mindedness.
Or then again, perhaps we don’t. The nuclear community has clearly embraced its medical and industrial radioisotope heritage, with lots of information exchange internationally. Maybe it’s only a matter of time before it accepts and creates guidance and standards for nuclear propulsion and the proliferation of radioisotope power systems?
The importance of the defence sector to the evolution of technology is also long-standing and undeniable. It is clear that it will continue to drive important developments. For instance, if the USA is pursuing microreactors for battlefields we shouldn’t be surprised if other countries eventually do so as well. We also, arguably, shouldn’t demonise the technology providers who serve this need. While there will always need to be clear separation between nuclear weapons and civil applications, this distinction may be less vital for other nuclear applications.
For those of us focused on nuclear power plants and the nuclear fuel cycle, it is worth being reminded that the full spectrum of nuclear technologies covers so much more than this. In the age of unbridled nuclear optimism that we now find ourselves in, there may be developments that not all of us end up entirely comfortable with.
