Slashdot Mirror


Is Britain Secretly Funding Its Nuclear Submarine Program? (nytimes.com)

Why is the U.K. funding a risky $22 billion joint project with China to produce electricity at twice the cost? mdsolar quotes a nuclear specialist from the University of Oxford: ...it only makes sense if one considers its connection to Britain's military projects -- especially Trident, a roving fleet of armed nuclear submarines, which is outdated and needs upgrading. Hawks and conservatives, in particular, see the Trident program as vital to preserving Britain's international clout...the government and some of its partners in the defense industry, like Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, think a robust civilian nuclear industry is essential to revamping Britain's nuclear submarine program...

Merging programs like research and development or skills training across civilian and military sectors helps cut back on military spending. It also helps maintain the talent pool for nuclear specialists. And given the long lead times and life spans of most nuclear projects, connections between civilian and military programs give companies more incentives to make the major investments required. One might say that with the Hinkley Point project, the British government is using billions of Chinese money to build stealth submarines designed to deter China.

The Op-Ed -- published in The New York Times -- calls for more openness about military spending, arguing "If Britain's energy policy were solely about energy, rather than also about defense, the nuclear sector would be forced to stand on its own two feet."

20 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. mdsolar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know, ad hominem and all that, but nuclear is the only direct, carbon free, base load power source.

    Either carbon dioxide emissions matter, in which case the price of generation is irrelevant, or they don't, and everyone can continue to use natural gas and coal for cheap base load.

    1. Re:mdsolar by bobbied · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nuclear waste is only a problem because we make it one by refusing to reprocess spent fuel and have some mind numbingly strict storage requirements that really don't make all that much sense.

      If we could re-process the spent fuel, two things would happen. 1st the physical amount of high level waste would go DOWN because we would be taking the inert and low level stuff out of the fuel assemblies. Much of the really nasty stuff would decay more quickly on it's own and could be separated out into a much lower volume. Some of this high level stuff could be "burned off" faster by putting it to high levels of neutron flux, making the problem even smaller. 2nd, we'd have a lot of very useful fissionable material that we could then use to generate power with a lot fewer high level waste products.

      So, nuclear power is indeed a long term environmental issue, but the technology to deal with this issue is well known and understood. Which leaves the "problems" really limited to cleaning up the "accidents" at these plants, which here to fore has been relatively easy with two notable exceptions. Chernobyl, which was just plain stupidity in both operations and risky design, and The plants in Japan which suffered though TWO natural disasters, both of which were well beyond designed limits and where 2 decades older than the state of the art today.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:mdsolar by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Of course, all that fossil fuel to process the raw ore doesn't count
      Nor the countless driving hours to guard the warehoused high level radiowastes for the next 600 years
      nor the enormous costs of wars to keep open access to the monopolists who set the world price for IMOX, yellowcake and Thorium Floride fuels.
      Oh, wait, compared with solar?
      Total LOSER!

    3. Re:mdsolar by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Call back when we have viable fusion power.

      Fusion produces high levels of neutron flux, creating radioactive isotopes in the reactor structure. It is somewhat cleaner than fission, but the waste problem doesn't just magically go away.

    4. Re:mdsolar by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I know, ad hominem and all that, but nuclear is the only direct, carbon free, base load power source.

      ... except for hydro and geothermal.

      Besides, the UK doesn't really need "base load", they need intermittent power that can be brought on-line quickly when there is a gap in wind and solar. Like gas turbines.

    5. Re:mdsolar by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      One proposed alternative to Hinckley Point was for Rolls Royce to build a fleet of "small modular reactors", i.e. nuclear sub reactors -- maybe thar was what the "obscure" document was talking about, because the whole point of Hinckley point is that there is no UK civil nuclear industry -- Hinckley is a French/German design, built by France and financed by France and China.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:mdsolar by fisted · · Score: 2

      Or we could change the space treaties to allow it to be sent into the sun.

      Do you have any idea what kind of energy it takes to send something to the sun? Earth's orbital speed is around 70,000 mph, that's 70,000 mph you have to decelerate your payload.

      Speaking of the payload, nuclear waste consists of heavy atoms. Heavier than lead, or gold. Have fun getting that even into earth/sun orbit at an acceptable cost.

  2. It sounds like... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    ...they want a carbon free steady power source that works no matter if it is cloudy out or not. I heard in the UK it gets cloudy. Maybe just a rumour.

    1. Re:It sounds like... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      Britain is an island mon, like Hawaii or Jamica. We got the blue skies every day. Never rains, just a tropical paradise. Britain's sheep grow spandex instead of wool.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  3. Re:Watch all those pro-nuclear shills foaming! by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    But Thor... I... um... MY god carries a hammer! YOUR god died nailed to a cross? Any solar panels NOW?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  4. Why build one by hsmith · · Score: 2

    When you can build two for Twice the price!

  5. Re:Loony 1 gets Op-Ed in NYT, loony 2 posts on /. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

    One has to balance the practicalities between effectiveness and usefulness.

    I imagine lead would do a much better job at blocking alien mind-reading technology than tin; however, tinfoil would be lighter and easier to wear. If the leadfoil is too heavy to wear when walking the dog, who really is going to use it?

    Tin foil might only block out some alien technologies and leadfoil blocks them, but let's face it; no-one is going to wear the leadfoil in public unless they're crazy, So it's tinfoil for me all the way. Might not work as well, but at least it is wearable.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  6. Re:Loony 1 gets Op-Ed in NYT, loony 2 posts on /. by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    I imagine lead would do a much better job at blocking alien mind-reading technology than tin

    See, [glances around, drops voice to whisper] it's not... not the aliens... it's the... the... RADIASHUN! Cuz NUKYULAR!

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  7. Peter Wynn Kirby by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Informative

    I started to read through the NYTimes article, and about half-way through realized that it's an opinion piece. I had to check the summary just to make sure I didn't get baited.

    I looked up the author, Peter Wynn Kirby.
    http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/staff...
    "Peter Wynn Kirby is an environmental specialist, ethnographer, and Research Fellow in the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford"

    So you'd think this guy would have a PhD in geology, chemistry, or one of the other physical sciences. Nope, his PhD is in Social Anthropology from Cambridge. I'm sure he's a smart guy, but that's hardly what I'd call a "nuclear specialist from the University of Oxford" as the summary states.

    Not to mention that this falls under Betteridge's Law....

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  8. Has mdsolar jumped the shark? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think most of us have suspected for some time that mdsolar is a shill for the nuclear industry, paid to make supporters of renewable energy look ridiculous, but this latest screed is just too over the top and risks exposing his true agenda.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  9. Re:Two nations separated by common fantasy by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

    "Two nations separated by common fantasy"

    Well, except for the fact that Trump quite openly and repeatedly said the first, whereas May not only never acknowledged- let alone "admitted" the truth of- the "story" and certainly hasn't come close to saying anything like the second quote even allowing for paraphrasing... but also that the only "evidence" that this might even be the case is an unsubstantiated article that speculates on some vague connection between Hinkley Point and Trident without explaining clearly how that might work (i.e. how the overlap between the two projects is supposed to work- i.e. how does research and work at Hinkley Point benefit the rather different Trident programme- and also, how exactly are they going to do this without the Chinese finding out about it?)

    That said, something *does* stink quite badly about Hinkley Point C; at face value, the Tories are funding it this way to avoid being seen to be increasing public borrowing for purely dogmatic reasons, ultimately costing the public and taxpayer a lot more, and involving China in Britain's energy supply. But that's Tory hypocrisy all over for you, and entirely plausible in itself.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  10. Re:Two nations separated by common fantasy by Alomex · · Score: 2

    President Trump, we have good news and bad news.

    The good news is that Mexicans agreed to build the wall. In fact over forty million Mexican volunteers totally finished it in a matter of weeks.

    The bad news is that they built it while standing on our side.

  11. Re: Close by tomxor · · Score: 2

    ...Britain's sheep grow spandex instead of wool.

    Close... fallout from Chenobyl ended raining down on the Welsh highlands (West side of UK island) causing a ban on the sale of farm animals in affected areas (mainly sheep): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-w...

    In total, 344 Welsh farms were put under restrictions, with animals' radiation levels monitored before they were allowed to be sold at market. The number of failing animals peaked in 1992, but some still recorded higher levels of caesium as recently as 2011.

  12. Bullshit by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's about 0 overlap between civilian nuclear reactors and submarine powerplants. The UK might as well hide the SSBN budget inside the NHS.
    The cost for a new nuclear submarine powerplant has been openly discussed already, making it unlikely they'd try to hide that cost now.

    Then again, it's an mdsolar submission, so par for the course.

    1. Re:Bullshit by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

      re 'There's about 0 overlap between civilian nuclear reactors and submarine power plants."
      The UK has has 3 historic nuclear issues to think about.
      In the very early days it trusted the USA to share atomic work as an equal. The UK never got anything back and had to start its own expensive work.
      Tube Alloys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The United States terminated cooperation after the war ended."
      That was a huge issue that shaped the UK's thinking on ever trusting the US again for generations.
      "The cost for a new nuclear submarine power plant" would be in buying US turnkey stock or a shared US platform again.
      The second issue is Scotland and the one site the UK really needs to work on its subs. With the EU, calls for Scotland to alter its role in the UK again, having a new site in England is now more vital.
      "Britain will lose nuclear capability for 20 years if Scotland votes for independence" (24 Oct 2012)
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
      A new site for fuel, modern sub repair and work within England would be a new cost.
      As for the overlap, recall the origins of the materials, Capenhurst Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Sellafield, Chapelcross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., the use of the Magnox reactors. Recall how long Calder Hall was kept running for military plutonium? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Tritium from Chapelcross. Dual-purpose sites, with electric power production.
      The history of the UK's thinking on power production and its military needs is very easy to find.
      So now the new reactors are been considered. What new weapon designs would be needed to replace Trident?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      " One othe the public options considered was: ...the UK would need to develop effective warheads for cruise missiles, which would necessitate the construction of two additional submarines to "fill the gap" between the expiration of the current fleet and the launch of an alternative cruise missile-based system in approximately 2040."

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"