Australian Politics Forum - Nuclear submarines

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #15 - Mar 13^th, 2023 at 6:58pm

issuevoter wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 5:04pm:

I am not against Nuclear power, but if I can believe Sabine's report, we use 60,000 tons of Uranium per year out of a worldwide resource of about 8 million tons. Increasing nuclear power times 10, means that in 15 to 20 years U235 production will not be economical. Let alone the billions to build a power stations.

It also takes up to ten years to build a Nuclear Power plant even with the expertise....We can also forget about investment in alternative energy once a Nuclear Power plant is proposed....The cost is also a major factor which will only increase and the storage of waste for centuries is not free!!!

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 55495 Gender:	Re: Nuclear submarines Reply #16 - Mar 13^th, 2023 at 7:08pm Wind and solar are sop for know -fkk-all purple haired city Greens. They will never support industry, shipping, steel, aeronautics, freight transport, mining.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6041
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #17 - Mar 13^th, 2023 at 7:09pm

issuevoter wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 5:04pm:

I am not against Nuclear power, but if I can believe Sabine's report, we use 60,000 tons of Uranium per year out of a worldwide resource of about 8 million tons. Increasing nuclear power times 10, means that in 15 to 20 years U235 production will not be economical. Let alone the billions to build a power stations.

Uranium can be obtained from sources other than conventional mining, like sea water and rock phosphates as well as recycling spent fuel. Then there is Thorium, as yet unexploited but with vast potential.

https://www.daretothink.org/numbers-not-adjectives/how-long-will-our-supplies-of...

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 115931
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #18 - Mar 13^th, 2023 at 9:52pm

Times have changed - we don't need subs.
We only need missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva

The Russian warship Moskva, the flagship of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet, sank on 14 April 2022 during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Ukrainian officials said that their forces damaged the ship with two R-360 Neptune anti-ship missiles,
and there was a fire, information which was later confirmed by the United States Department of Defense. Russia reported the ship sank in stormy seas after the fire caused munitions to explode.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Nuclear submarines Reply #19 - Mar 13^th, 2023 at 10:20pm Fine when ships are close to shore not so much when they are in the middle of the Indian Ocean!
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #20 - Mar 13^th, 2023 at 11:33pm

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 9:52pm:

Times have changed - we don't need subs.
We only need missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva

The Russian warship Moskva, the flagship of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet, sank on 14 April 2022 during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Ukrainian officials said that their forces damaged the ship with two R-360 Neptune anti-ship missiles,
and there was a fire, information which was later confirmed by the United States Department of Defense. Russia reported the ship sank in stormy seas after the fire caused munitions to explode.

https://gdb.voanews.com/03a90000-0aff-0242-1f0d-08da1db0bf04_w1023_r1_s.jpg

There was no storm. In suppressed photos, Moskva listed heavily to port. That meant she was flooding due to the missile strikes. That was terminal. They didn't magically stop the list. She capsized and sank. And they lied about it to save face, saying they got the crew off, but there was a hurried service in Sevastopol for those lost, and they wouldn't say how many.

At the time, the Russians were preparing an amphibious assault on Odessa. Ukraine destroyed the main landing ship as well. Then the mighty Russian Navy ran away and hid in the eastern Black Sea.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 115931 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Nuclear submarines Reply #21 - Mar 13^th, 2023 at 11:34pm Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 10:20pm: Fine when ships are close to shore not so much when they are in the middle of the Indian Ocean! You're wrong - the ships can be picked up by satellites and missiles can fly 1000s of km.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 115931
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #22 - Mar 13^th, 2023 at 11:35pm

issuevoter wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 11:33pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 9:52pm:

Times have changed - we don't need subs.
We only need missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva

The Russian warship Moskva, the flagship of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet, sank on 14 April 2022 during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Ukrainian officials said that their forces damaged the ship with two R-360 Neptune anti-ship missiles,
and there was a fire, information which was later confirmed by the United States Department of Defense. Russia reported the ship sank in stormy seas after the fire caused munitions to explode.

https://gdb.voanews.com/03a90000-0aff-0242-1f0d-08da1db0bf04_w1023_r1_s.jpg

There was no storm. In suppressed photos, Moskva listed heavily to port. That meant she was flooding due to the missile strikes. That was terminal. They didn't magically stop the list. She capsized and sank. And they lied about it to save face, saying they got the crew off, but there was a hurried service in Sevastopol for those lost, and they wouldn't say how many.

At the time, the Russians were preparing an amphibious assault on Odessa. Ukraine destroyed the main landing ship as well. Then the mighty Russian Navy ran away and hid in the eastern Black Sea.

So we don't need any subs.
We're also broke -
we owe $1 trillion so where's the money coming from?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #23 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 5:49am

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 11:34pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 10:20pm:

Fine when ships are close to shore not so much when they are in the middle of the Indian Ocean!

You're wrong -
the ships can be picked up by satellites and missiles can fly 1000s of km.

And intercepted.

You need to think things through a lot more, if you can.

Back to top

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #24 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 5:51am

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

issuevoter wrote on Mar 13^th, 2023 at 5:04pm:

I am not against Nuclear power, but if I can believe Sabine's report, we use 60,000 tons of Uranium per year out of a worldwide resource of about 8 million tons. Increasing nuclear power times 10, means that in 15 to 20 years U235 production will not be economical. Let alone the billions to build a power stations.

It also takes up to ten years to build a Nuclear Power plant even with the expertise....We can also forget about investment in alternative energy once a Nuclear Power plant is proposed....The cost is also a major factor which will only increase and the storage of waste for centuries is not free!!!

Roll Eyes

More like 20 years. While not opposed to nuclear it is expensive and not very flexible. Fusion is making real breakthroughs so have hopes of that.

Back to top

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 55130 Gender:	Re: Nuclear submarines Reply #25 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 6:57am $368 billion dollar blowout!!! ...if you thought we blew our money on the French, now comes the Yanks to really sink our budget.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 115931 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Nuclear submarines Reply #26 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 7:11am Jasin wrote on Mar 14^th, 2023 at 6:57am: $368 billion dollar blowout!!! ...if you thought we blew our money on the French, now comes the Yanks to really sink our budget. And we don't need any subs - missiles are the future.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 55130 Gender:	Re: Nuclear submarines Reply #27 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 7:12am Drones are more fun.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #28 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 9:10am

When the Liberal government withdrew from the French diesel submarine contract, and opted for nuclear subs, the Labor opposition and the Greens were all over them with everything from ridicule and budgetary constraints, to anti-nuclear rhetoric.

Now you listen to the defense minister and Albanese, and you'd think it was their idea.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6041
Gender: male

Re: Nuclear submarines
Reply #29 - Mar 14^th, 2023 at 10:38am

issuevoter wrote on Mar 14^th, 2023 at 9:10am:

When the Liberal government withdrew from the French diesel submarine contract, and opted for nuclear subs, the Labor opposition and the Greens were all over them with everything from ridicule and budgetary constraints, to anti-nuclear rhetoric.

Now you listen to the defense minister and Albanese, and you'd think it was their idea.

While Labor were very critical of the French deal and its aftermath, they were onboard with the SSN deal. Given the nature of this programme the major parties in all three countries would have had to be supportive or it would never have been made.

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged