DAVID HESS | OPINION


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


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. ■


www.neimagazine.com | December 2025 | 13


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45