Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

News

Pros and cons of nuclear submarines | ticker VIEWS

Published

on

The Australian Government has declared a historic Trilateral deal with the United States and the United Kingdom that will see a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines

As part of the new trilateral alliance between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Australia will have the technology and capability to deploy nuclear-powered submarines. However, what is a nuclear submarine and how does it differ from its diesel rival?

What is a nuclear submarine?

The most important thing to note about this defence deal is a nuclear-powered submarine is not a nuclear weapon. The key difference between a nuclear submarine and a diesel submarine is the way they’re powered.

Submarines with nuclear propulsion systems have a limitless range, are less detectable, and are faster. Reports suggest nuclear submarines can reach speeds of 55 kmh in comparison to conventional submarines’ speeds of approximately 15 kmh.

A nuclear submarine would give the Australian navy the ability to patrol the Indo-Pacific for a longer time and farther, venturing as far north as Taiwan.

Each nuclear submarine draws power from its own onboard nuclear reactor.

“At the heart of every atom is an atomic nucleus, made of protons and neutrons. The number of protons defines what chemical element that atom belongs to; nuclei with the same number of protons but varying numbers of neutrons are called isotopes of that element.”

“Some very heavy nuclei are highly susceptible to a process known as nuclear fission, whereby they split into two lighter nuclei with a total mass less than the original nucleus. The remainder is converted to energy.”

“The amount of energy released is immense, as we can see from Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc², which tells us the energy is equal to the change in mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light!”

“Reactors in a nuclear-powered submarine are typically fuelled with uranium. Natural uranium mined from the ground consists mainly of an isotope called uranium-238, mixed with small amounts (0.7%) of the key isotope uranium-235.”

AJ Mitchell, Research Fellow, Australian National University

Mitchell explains for the reactor to work, the uranium fuel must be “enriched” to contain the proportion of uranium-235. This is normally about 50% for submarines.

The fuel enrichment determines the chain reaction to ensure a consistent and safe energy output. This is a crucial factor in maintaining a chain reaction that gives a consistent, safe level of energy output.

The output occurs as heat, which the turbines used to generate electricity for the submarine.

PROS & CONS

One huge advantage of nuclear-powered submarines is they don’t require refueling. The vessels will have enough uranium fuel to last more than 30 years.

Australia wants eight nuclear submarines. It is likely to take as many as 18 months to work out details of the agreement before work on the submarines begins in Australia. Building and commissioning such nuclear-powered submarines can take years or even decades.

Nonetheless, this deal will move closer to China’s existing fleet of six Shang-class nuclear submarines, who also own an additional 50 diesel/electric submarines.

The high efficiency of nuclear power enables the submarines to operate at high speed for longer periods than conventional diesel-electric submarines. Nuclear reactions do not require air, meaning they can stay submerged at deep depths for long periods of time.

The downside of nuclear is the eye-watering cost. Estimations suggest each submarine will cost billions of dollars to build and a highly skilled workforce with expertise in nuclear science.

Australia has plenty of uranium in the ground but doesn’t have the capacity to enrich or fabricate the reactor fuel.

Where does the spent fuel go?

What will happen to the spent fuel? There are heavy debates over the waste storage and disposal options for nuclear fuel.

Australia doesn’t have a domestic nuclear industry to support the manufacturing of these vessels, unlike other countries like the US and China.

Australia will have to rely on another nation for nuclear fuel. Devil will be in the detail over the coming years.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Murdoch loses trust control bid for son Lachlan

Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to alter family trust for Lachlan’s control denied by Nevada commissioner, citing bad faith.

Published

on

Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to change the family trust to consolidate control under his son Lachlan has been rejected by a Nevada commissioner.

The ruling, made by Commissioner Edmund J. Gorman Jr., stated that Murdoch and Lachlan acted in “bad faith” while trying to amend the irrevocable trust, which divides control equally among Murdoch’s four oldest children.

The 96-page opinion characterised the plan as a “carefully crafted charade” intended to secure Lachlan’s executive roles unconditionally.

Murdoch’s lawyer expressed disappointment and plans to appeal the ruling.

FILE PHOTO: Media mogul Rupert Murdoch poses for a photograph with his sons Lachlan and James in London.

Media empire

This dispute is critical as it affects the future control of Murdoch’s media empire, which includes Fox News and other major outlets.

While the intention was not to diminish financial stakes, the ruling reflects deep family tensions, especially given differing political views among the siblings.

The commissioner noted Lachlan initiated the proposed changes, created a plan dubbed “Project Family Harmony,” and labeled James as a “troublesome beneficiary.”

Despite Lachlan and Rupert’s efforts, the attempt to marginalise James was deemed insufficiently justified by the court.

Murdoch’s family trust, established in 2006, retains his control until his death, and includes provisions allowing amendments.

However, the commissioner found that Murdoch and Lachlan’s actions were not supporting their siblings’ best interests.

The ruling is not final and may be contested further in court.

Continue Reading

News

Post-Assad Syria poses new challenges for US strategy

Post-Assad Syria challenges US strategy amid power vacuum, risk of extremism, and Iran’s weakened influence in the region.

Published

on

Syrian rebels ousted Bashar Assad after a 13-year civil war, prompting a shift in the region’s dynamics that presents risks and opportunities for the US.

President Biden acknowledged Assad’s removal as a historic opportunity, signaling the need for careful US engagement to avoid chaos in Syria.

Experts highlight this change as a chance to weaken Iran’s regional influence, as the overthrow of Assad hinders Iran’s strategic interests.

The US has had limited involvement in Syria, focusing mainly on combating ISIS, which complicates its response to the new power vacuum.

Expectations suggest a low-level US campaign against ISIS will continue until a stable government is established, with efforts to maintain order and support allies.

The end of Assad’s rule has opened a security vacuum that extremist groups may exploit, further jeopardizing the humanitarian situation.

Iran and Russia also seek to reassert their influence following Assad’s departure, which could lead to competition for power among various factions.

Key figures, including the leader of Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, may vie for control in the power vacuum, raising concerns given the group’s past affiliations with terrorism.

Washington faces the challenge of engaging with groups like HTS while avoiding further destabilization.

Continue Reading

News

ByteDance, TikTok request pause on US ban

ByteDance and TikTok seek appeal to pause U.S. divestiture law to avoid ban, pending Supreme Court review.

Published

on

ByteDance and TikTok have requested a temporary court order to block a U.S. law requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok by January 19.

They filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The companies warned that the law would shut down TikTok, affecting over 170 million U.S. users.

Without this injunction, TikTok faces a possible ban in six weeks, significantly diminishing its value and hurting businesses reliant on the app.

A three-judge panel recently upheld the law, mandating the divestiture.

The companies argue the likelihood of a Supreme Court reversal justifies a pause for further deliberation.

Additional time

They also pointed to President-elect Donald Trump’s opposition to a ban, suggesting additional time could help resolve the issue without Supreme Court intervention.

The Justice Department has indicated the appeals court should deny the request promptly for a timely Supreme Court review.

TikTok requested a decision by December 16, noting that the next actions depend on President Biden, who could extend the deadline, and Trump, who assumes office on January 20.

The feasibility of ByteDance demonstrating significant progress on divestiture remains uncertain.

Trump’s incoming national security adviser expressed his commitment to protecting user access to TikTok while ensuring data security.

Continue Reading

Trending Now