backtop

Print 68 comment(s) - last by V-Money.. on Nov 16 at 1:50 AM

Experimental destroyer in dock  (Source: Navy Times)
Retired destroyer is remotely controlled

The U.S. Navy has made no secret about wanting to transition its ships and other vehicles from petroleum to alternative fuels. The move is being cited as a way to reduce the consumption of imported oil. The Navy has already been showing off ships and other vehicles that run on a mix of biofuel and diesel.
 
The fuel in question is the same mix of algae oil based bio fuel and diesel used on the small Riverine command boat. The ship is the former destroyer known as the Paul F. Foster and it will be the largest ship yet to operate with the biofuel.
 
The fuel in the tanks is a 50/50 blend of F-76 petroleum and the hydro-processed algae oil. The fuel will be used to power one of the LM2500 gas turbines the ship uses for propulsion and it will power the ship’s service turbine. The experimental ship will travel on November 16 from Point Loma in San Diego to the Navy Surface Warfare Center in Port Hueneme, California. The trip is considered a short overnight jaunt.
 
The ship will take on 20,000 gallons of the biofuel previously said to sell for over $400 per gallon.
 
The retired destroyer is known as the Self Defense Test Ship and is a remotely controlled, self-defense weapons engineering platform that can be used without risking personnel. The test is part of the Navy's push to have a "Great Green Fleet" by 2016. 

Sources: Navy Times, Marinelink


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/2011 12:43:27 PM , Rating: 4
Okay I know what you guys are thinking; "oh here goes the Conservative neo-con nutball flipping out over green tuff"

But hear me out. I'm not against bio-fuels at all. My question is...

quote:
The U.S. Navy has made no secret about wanting to transition its ships and other vehicles from petroleum to alternative fuels.


Why is ANY SHIP, especially one as large as a destroyer, burning ANY fuel in this day and age? Our goal should be to have a near 100% nuclear powered surface fleet. We should be "wanting to transition" away from ALL fuels on Navy ships. Right?

Nuclear power has been used by the United States Navy with overwhelming success and safety. It's the most logical choice by far. There are many fine applications for bio fuels, but I just can't imagine why this would be one of them.




RE: Why Bother?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/12/2011 12:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed 100%


RE: Why Bother?
By Spuke on 11/12/2011 1:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree also. The US Navy probably has the best nuclear energy safety record. Makes perfect sense.


RE: Why Bother?
By Ringold on 11/12/2011 1:48:05 PM , Rating: 4
Since none have posted yet, I'll repeat an environmentalist party line: But what happens when such a ship is sunk in battle?

My personal answer: People should think twice before sinking our ships. :P

I'd assume the reactors are hardened beyond belief, too.


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/12/2011 2:04:02 PM , Rating: 5
Speaking as a former Navy nuke on submarines, the sinking of the ship would represent little to no risk because of the design of the reactor and the massive amount of shielding around it.

Aside from that, the reason that not all navy ships are nuclear powered is cost and resources. There used to be nuclear powered cruisers but the cost of running them was still far greater than the cost of oil (well, now its starting to become debatable). Aside from that, you have extra testing requirements, extra training requirements, extra security requirements, higher manpower requirements (you can't just lock up a nuclear vessel and walk away) and most importantly, you need nukes (Nuclear MM's, EM's, and ET's). The navy is already undermanned for nukes, that's why we get paid so much to stay in. The nuclear community is already stretched thin enough and the only way to make that many more nukes would be to lower standards, and the reason we haven't had any accidents so far is because of our high standards.


RE: Why Bother?
By Solandri on 11/12/2011 2:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There used to be nuclear powered cruisers but the cost of running them was still far greater than the cost of oil (well, now its starting to become debatable).

The nuclear powered cruisers (Virginia class) were decommissioned in the late 1990s, when oil was less than $20 a barrel. So yeah I can see the cost having flipped back in favor of nuclear powered cruisers.


RE: Why Bother?
By Samus on 11/12/2011 4:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
Holy crap can you imagine the fuel economy of that thing? I can't believe a ship that big isn't nuclear. That's unbelievable.


RE: Why Bother?
By SPOOFE on 11/12/2011 6:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
I recall reading one random bit of trivia (that I've never bothered to verify because I'm lazy, so take this with a grain of salt) claiming that if an aircraft carrier ran on gasoline, it'd get about six inches to the gallon.


RE: Why Bother?
By gwem557 on 11/12/2011 6:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Uh...it's a destroyer. One of the smaller ships in the Navy. Only frigates, I believe, are smaller.


RE: Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/2011 6:57:36 PM , Rating: 1
Uh the Spruance-class destroyer is almost 200 yards long and displaces eight thousand tons. It's not a super carrier, but it sure as hell isn't small either. Anything in service that size today should be nuclear powered. Frigates too, why not?


RE: Why Bother?
By gwem557 on 11/12/2011 7:03:37 PM , Rating: 3
...none of which changes what I said: It's one of the smallest ships in the navy. I didn't say it was SMALL. I said, it's small, compared to cruisers, oilers, carriers, amphibs...the bulk of the rest of the navy.

I agree on the nuke thing, because it's just simple logic. Unfortunately, 'nuke guy' up above is right: There just isn't the personnel available.


RE: Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/2011 7:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
People can be trained though. I don't see how that's some huge roadblock. If the Navy needed hundreds or thousands more nuclear technicians, they WOULD fill those with quality personnel. Of that I have no doubt. It's not like it would happen overnight anyway.

But yeah unfortunately reality and common sense don't always mix lol.


RE: Why Bother?
By gwem557 on 11/12/2011 7:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. If I recall from my time in the navy 20 years ago, the training program for nukes was something like 2-3 years, and had a dropout rate that approached that of the SEALS. So it's no easy thing to suddenly come up with thousands more, I think. Unless something has changed significantly in how they're training them these days.


RE: Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/2011 7:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be "sudden" though. It takes years from conception to construction on a new class of ship, correct? It could be just a gradual ramp up.


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/13/2011 12:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't you say you know some navy nukes, ask them about the quality they are churning out right now (I'm serious, that school is like a pump now more than a filter). Its sad if you ask me, but its doable because the poor quality nukes go to carriers in their huge divisions where they perform the menial tasks while the others take care of the important tasks. This doesn't work on smaller vessels. You think the attrition rate is high at nuke school, its much higher on submarines, and the sub fleet is undermanned. In small crews you need the highest quality individuals to perform these tasks, and I just don't see it happening unless you phase it in very gradually or lower the standards even more.


RE: Why Bother?
By Jabroney701020 on 11/13/2011 1:19:09 AM , Rating: 2
I taught at one of the schools the Navy uses to train Navy Nukes, for 3.5 years. I did this after being a Nuke on an Aircraft Carrier for 4 years.
The ability to train and maintain a larger force of Nuke Electrician's Mates, Mechanic's Mates and Electronics Technicians is not nearly as easy as you are thinking that it is.
Most people that join the Navy are not of an Engineering aptitude, which is entirely what a Nuclear Reactor worker needs to have. That being said, the percentage of people joining the Navy who have that aptitude can't be raised, it's a fixed percent. So the Navy has used money and extra college tuition as a lure to increase the number of Engineering-minded people to join and stay in the Navy for as long as they can.
The other aspect to increase manning, which killed me inside, was the dumbing down of the program in order to allow for more people to enter. People were let in who I would say are NOT quality personnel for that field, but still held to the same high standards. Some make it and some are weeded out.

Those are the only two methods I can think of to bring manning up, but still (from a boots on the ground perspective) manning is extremely low, and no, if the spots aren't being filled enough now then they will not be filled if a ton more spots open up.

Go to ANY recruiting office for the Navy, Officer or Enlisted, and ask them how valuable a kid who has the test scores to go Nuke is to them. A Nuke recruit is valued as 2 points where every other rate is valued as 1 point. This is the actual scoring for monthly recruiter quotas. Yet, with as hard as all recruiters are selling NUKE, the response is barely there.


RE: Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/2011 3:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it was "easy", but you guys are making it seem impossible. I really don't understand where this is coming from. Have we gone THAT astray as a country that we have lost all confidence in everything? If we can train fighter pilots we damn sure can find people who can operate a nuclear reactor, and that's the last I'm speaking on that front. This really isn't an option anyway, sooner or later we just won't have the luxury of filling up ships with 20 thousand gallons of fuel year round.

I have a profound respect for your service to my/our country. And it goes without saying you have far more experience in the Navy than I. But I've always been amazed at the ability of the United States military to find a way to meet a challenge. I cannot believe the goal, if there was to be one, of having a full nuclear Navy is unreachable.


RE: Why Bother?
By 3DoubleD on 11/13/2011 8:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say the difference is that everyone wants to be a fighter pilot. I doubt many children grow up wanting to run a nuclear reactor.

Then on top of that they have to have the aptitude for math and physics that fighter pilots just don't have to have. People with these skills just don't consider the military a career choice.


RE: Why Bother?
By kyp275 on 11/13/2011 9:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People with these skills just don't consider the military a career choice.


bingo, why do the same thing for 10x less pay if you don't have to?

I remember thinking during my first tour in Iraq how the guy in the MWR doing nothing other than handling a sign-in sheet and watch TV all day is getting paid 8-10x more than I was.


RE: Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Why Bother?
By 3DoubleD on 11/13/2011 1:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
Just because something is computer controlled doesn't mean you want a monkey operating it. I work in the field of physics and there are few machines that won't "blow up in your face" if you don't know exactly what is going on. And yes, they are "computer controlled". A nuclear reactor isn't a coffee maker or a microwave oven, you can't just mash the buttons until is works.

quote:
Great argument...not. I doubt the guy who changes the oil on my car "grew up" wanting to do that, but hey, life is a journey.


That is fair, but the difference is the required commitment to attaining the education required for the job. You don't need straight A's to get a job changing oil.

I'm also not saying a fighter pilot has an easy job or that they aren't smart. On the contrary. It is extremely difficult to become a fighter pilot, but there is always a great supply of fighter pilot trainees because they have the commitment to work towards that goal. Being a fighter pilot is cool! Wanting to be a fighter pilot, especially from a young age, makes a big difference in terms of the number of people willing to commit to attaining that goal.

quote:
Saying being chief nuke engineer on a nuclear boat holds NO appeal is ridiculous anyway. There is no set rules when it comes to what attracts people to certain things.


Again, I agree, there will be some people who are attracted to this. But the problem is that there are very few, which is what we've been discussing.

Back to training nuclear engineers, and I'm talking about engineers and not some technician, but the guy you run to when your sub/boat is under attack and systems are failing and you need them fixed or your dead. You can't compare the math and physics they must learn to what a pilot has to do. The pilot isn't running fluids simulations of his plane while he flies it. We are talking relatively basic math skills for a pilot versus advanced partial differential calculus and computer simulation skills required for an engineer to operate a reactor. These skills might not be needed regularly on the job because the computers have been setup to do the dirty work, but you better hope to god the people operating them understand what is going on so they can interact with that computer.

Both jobs are difficult in their own ways. Again, not everyone could be a pilot. But few people are committed to learning the gnarly math and physics for the privilege of mediocre pay and giving control of their life to the military for a less-than-flashy job (I'm just settling for the mediocre pay at this point in my life, haha). What movie would you rather be in: Top Gun or k-19? I know k-19 is a bad example, but honestly, there aren't many movies about nuclear engineers in subs or boats.

My remedy for the low interest in the job is three-fold.

1) If you want the talent, you have to pay for it. We got to the moon... but it wasn't cheap.

2) Bright minds are attracted by cutting edge work. Give them something shiny, new, and exciting. This covers your man on the moon comment. Why do people want to work on rockets and space travel? Because it's cool and exciting!

3) Being at sea for extended periods of time is not attractive to people who could be living Homer Simpson's life in the suburbs. You are likely looking at training engineers and then having them leave once their time commitment is up. They need to make it more attractive for experienced engineers to stay. Again, even more money and perks.

Unfortunately, that's just $$$ x3. The fourth option would be to increase the level of education in our graduating youth such that more are interested in science and engineering. I guess that's just $$$ x4 then, haha. Cheers.


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/13/2011 4:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but apparently we cannot find a few hundred people who can run a nuclear reactor?


Last time I checked a submarine (with a small crew) had ~50 nukes onboard, what you are talking would require thousands of nukes.

quote:
Seriously isn't 99% of the job computer controlled anyway? It's 2011 for god sakes! You guys are blowing this out of proportion I think. Everyone clams up when they hear the word "nuclear", but from what I've studied running a modern Navy nuclear reactor is now child's play.


Running the reactor is the easy part, its being able to handle casualties that is difficult. I could train monkeys to run the reactor, but to be able to readily handle any situation instantly and without fail, that's what makes a nuke a nuke. Also, nukes have extra training, extra maintenance, and higher standards we have to uphold. On subs we had 18 hour days and on average I worked for ~15 of them, and it was not uncommon to go a couple days without sleep.My last 3 years in I spent 29 months out to sea. In port we worked 100+ hour weeks. I did it and I was good at it, but I wouldn't have wished my job upon my worst enemy.

In contrast, a fighter pilot is guaranteed 8 hours a sleep at night, and they can focus solely on their job. I doubt they get up if a fire is called away or there is a scram. They also have maintenance technicians to fix their planes.Also keep in mind they are officers so they get more pay, better quarters, and they don't have to spend countless hours every week cleaning their ship. I personally liked working for a living, but its not for everyone.


RE: Why Bother?
By knutjb on 11/14/2011 12:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We can put a man on the moon but apparently we cannot find a few hundred people who can run a nuclear reactor?
Well for one colleges don't turnout engineers like they did in the 60s and to "run" a nuclear reactor not only requires one to "run" it but to fix whatever breaks. Add to what you might think is relatively easy becomes extraordinarily difficult once you throw in the security clearance. There are some areas you just can't lower standards.


RE: Why Bother?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2011 12:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously isn't 99% of the job computer controlled anyway? It's 2011 for god sakes! You guys are blowing this out of proportion I think. Everyone clams up when they hear the word "nuclear", but from what I've studied running a modern Navy nuclear reactor is now child's play.


WOW do you not have any idea what you're talking about.


RE: Why Bother?
By Skywalker123 on 11/15/2011 11:11:30 PM , Rating: 1
you've watched too many Simpson episodes.


RE: Why Bother?
By Samus on 11/14/2011 1:02:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I didn't say it was "easy", but you guys are making it seem impossible.


And it is easy. The largest obstacle with nuclear fission (or fusion) is the cooling system. A ship on the ocean has an infinite supply of coolant. Problem solved. Throw the reactor behind a few tons of lead and pump that water for 20 years with virtually zero-maintenance.


RE: Why Bother?
By Calin on 11/14/2011 6:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
One of the problems is the very capacity of things to go bad, fast. A WW2 destroyer had fuel capacity for several days of sub hunting (high speed dashes and some slow cruising). A nuclear thingy (be it ice breaker, carrier, cruiser or sub) had on board the fuel necessary for a decade of operation.
Just like with the transition to rail guns: instead of having 10 tons of propeller charges (explosives), which can blow out in half a second when hit (ships hit in the magazine are pulverized), you have 100 times as much fuel oil (that contains the same energy). However, when it "blows up" is slowly burns over days and days, and the crew has a chance to fight it, call help or evacuate ship.


RE: Why Bother?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2011 12:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
And neither do you.


RE: Why Bother?
By TeXWiller on 11/14/2011 3:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Corrosion, heat signature, pump noise, friction, metal fatigue, algae and other marine life would likely limit the use of seawater as a heat exchange medium in the secondary circuit.


RE: Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/14/2011 7:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
No he's correct. Most U.S Navy ships have the ability to desalinate seawater quite effectively. Certainly any new nuclear-class ship would have this ability. So ships pretty much do have an unlimited supply of water, limited only by the rate at which it can be desalinated.


RE: Why Bother?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2011 1:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
at about 8000 displacement tons, its pretty small as far as the navy is concerned.


RE: Why Bother?
By Argon18 on 11/14/2011 5:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Um, perhaps you are not aware, but ALL large ships run on petroleum oil. Even the huge mega cargo ships. All of them. They run on a very lightly refined oil, it's just one step away from crude. Not diesel or gasoline. And they have massive fuel tanks. They refill only once every few YEARS.


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/13/2011 12:07:45 AM , Rating: 2
Don't quote me on it, but there was a lot of discussion on this and I thinkthe magic number was $105 a barrel when nuclear power became cheaper for cruisers.


RE: Why Bother?
By drycrust3 on 11/13/2011 2:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well, this thing uses $400 per gallon fuel.
The impression I get is fuels used in commercial vessels are much cheaper than diesel, but don't have the ease of handling diesel has. They can be more like grease than like an oil, so they need to be heated up to be useful. Thus, at the start of a voyage the vessel would run on diesel for the first few hours while the cheaper fuel is heated, and then the cheaper fuel is used and the diesel is turned off. This is why its taken so long to get the fuel off the Rena which struck a reef off the coast of NZ about a month ago, the fuel was solid inside the tanks and needs to be warmed up so it could be pumped off the ship.
As I see it, if one is prepared to accept issues such as running on diesel until the fuel tanks and fuel lines are all nicely warmed up, then there are a huge range of options that are much cheaper than $400 per gallon, e.g. running the engines on used fat collected from food processing factories.


RE: Why Bother?
By Calin on 11/14/2011 6:21:53 AM , Rating: 2
The fuel used on large ships is the lowest grade fuel that can be burned somewhat safely. It usually has a lot of sulfur, so that might be the reason why it isn't used in territorial waters.


RE: Why Bother?
By andre-bch on 11/13/2011 5:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think this could answer that question. Now everyone can stop speculating.

quote:
The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships


http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12169


RE: Why Bother?
By knutjb on 11/14/2011 12:22:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, one very good point. The other is the foolishness of an exercise such as this. @ 400 a gallon to "test" on a gas turbine that can run just about any liquid or gas that burns with little or no modification is insane. This is just another overly expensive exercise in feel good politics. Oh, and here's the bill...Feel better now?


RE: Why Bother?
By axeman1957 on 11/14/2011 10:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
The Virginia Class is a submarine, currently in production. The 2 nuclear powered cruisers built were the California Class


RE: Why Bother?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2011 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 3
Just so everyone gets it right:

USN Nuclear Cruisers (CGN)

Long Beach Class
USS Long Beach CGN-9

Bainbridge Class
USS Bainbridge CGN-25

Truxtun Class
USS Truxtun CGN-35

California Class
USS California CGN-36
USS South Carolina CGN-37

Virginia Class
USS Virginia CGN-38
USS Texas CGN-39
USS Mississippi CGN-40
USS Arkansas CGN-41


RE: Why Bother?
By Ringold on 11/12/2011 4:55:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The navy is already undermanned for nukes, that's why we get paid so much to stay in. The nuclear community is already stretched thin enough


This is another reason why people should feel limited sympathy for the liberal arts majors populating the bulk of the Occupy protests, whining about student loans they can't pay off. I've been aware of shortages like this one, and others, for many years. They could've taken interest in their future and identified a field where they'd make a megaton of money, but instead, hey, lets major in psychology! Sounds fun!

They're too lazy to get real, in-demand degrees, so want to be taken care of. Oil/energy industry also has huge shortages, and has for almost a decade. Most anything with "engineer" in the title is a good bet, along with lesser but still well-paid technician jobs with 2 year degree/vocational programs.


RE: Why Bother?
By Ringold on 11/13/2011 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 1
Down-rate it all ya want, people above are pointing out the Navy's throwing money at kids to try to get them to join, but they're too lazy.


RE: Why Bother?
By bigdawg1988 on 11/14/2011 11:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
I for one, didn't know there was a shortage of Nuclear engineers. Maybe they aren't recruiting well enough, or the right places.
Maybe they should make it an officer track and recruit accordingly. Surely there are some future college graduates who are willing to work on a boat?
Unfortunately, the increased pay will probably eat up any cost savings, but I thought the whole point of this thing was to decrease imported fuel, not save money. Or else they wouldn't be spending $400/gal for some fuel test.
Thing is, how long will it be before we build up a new fleet of ships? We probably have more than we need now anyway.

And don't assume every Occupy protester is liberal arts. Besides, if you have no aptitude for math, why the heck would you get a degree requiring math? That'd be like Chris Rock trying to be a physicist. You stick with what you're good at.


RE: Why Bother?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2011 1:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
There are already nuclear officers as well. They went to school alongside the enlisted (in Orlando, back in my day).
They command the nuclear departments and supervise operations as watch officers underway. They're part of the chain of command, as any line officer would be.


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/14/2011 2:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Admiral Rickover originally wanted all nukes to be officers, but it was shot down by congress. It is true there are nuke officers, but nuke officers don't run the reactor, and since no college graduate in his right mind would take enlisted nuke over officer nuke, it wouldn't work well to try recruiting at colleges. As far as promoting it, the recruiters try. I wanted to go in as a corpsman, but after my practice asvab the recruiter was pushing nuke so hard that I finally decided to give it a try.


RE: Why Bother?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2011 7:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
One of the 'Nuke' E-4's I worked with on my ship had a BS in Electrical Engineering. He could also bench close to 400 pounds. Not all enlisted nukes WANT to be officers. They have high enough stress as it is. It takes a special kind of masochist to want to be a nuke officer.


RE: Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/2011 5:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since none have posted yet, I'll repeat an environmentalist party line: But what happens when such a ship is sunk in battle?


True. But on the flip side what happens when 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel or bio fuel leaks out of a sinking ship?

Not that we should really base what hardware we use on "what happens" when it's destroyed.


RE: Why Bother?
By bjacobson on 11/12/2011 4:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
worst case in a meltdown you can just sail away into the middle of the ocean!!!


RE: Why Bother?
By Googer on 11/14/2011 2:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't get it eitehr. We are spending $400 a gallon on bio fuel so we dont have to buy $100 barrels of petroleum?


RE: Why Bother?
By mindless1 on 11/12/2011 1:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
... because somebody high up has a buddy making money off $400/gallon biofuel.

... but hey, it's only 20,000 gallons, only $8M for this "short overnight jaunt". I feel my tax money went to good use, don't you? </sarcasm>


RE: Why Bother?
By acejj26 on 11/12/2011 1:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's simple. There isn't enough room to protect the reactor room from an attack, whereas a carrier does.


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/12/2011 2:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with the size, only the cost. We used to have nuclear power cruisers, and the Navy reconsidered bringing them back into service when the costs were told to be less than conventional cruisers. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4226195
If you have ever been inside a reactor compartment, you would know that by convention it will be better protected than any other part of the boat, and all that flooding would do is better ensure the reactor stays in a safe condition.


RE: Why Bother?
By Solandri on 11/12/2011 2:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine power output has a lot to do with it as well. The Arleigh Burke class uses 4 20MW gas turbines. The smallest naval nuclear reactor I can find specs for is about 40-45 MWe, so theoretically you should be able to replace it with two nuclear reactors.

But gas turbines are much quicker to spool up/down than a nuclear reactor. On a large ship which naturally takes a longer time to speed up or slow down, this isn't much of an issue. Even if you could spool up the nuclear reactor's turbines quicker, it wouldn't accelerate the ship much quicker. But on a small ship whose maneuverability is a major defining characteristic, I can see it having a significant negative impact on performance.


RE: Why Bother?
By FishTankX on 11/12/2011 5:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine this is slightly offset because nuclear can be operated at full throttle for most of the voyages they undergo.

In conventional ships, when you operate at full throttle you have diminishing fuel economy and range, so I'm guessing that the navy doesn't operate their ships at full throttle for most of their jaunts.

With nuclear, I can't see much reason NOT to operate it at full throttle the entire time, other than slowing down for maneuvering purposes, so you could probably achieve higher average speed than with a fossil fuel powered ship.


RE: Why Bother?
By 3DoubleD on 11/12/2011 8:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
Also, most people are forgetting the massive difference between refueling stops. I'm sure a navy nuclear reactor can operate for years before refueling at a port. I doubt that is true with fossil fuels.

Moreover, since the energy density is so incredibly high, you could simply rendezvous for fuel exchange instead of going to a port.

This seems like a such a strong strategic value that I can't imagine why they ever gave it up over fossil fuel based systems. In a similar example, before ballistic missiles, the Air Forces' dream was to have nuclear powered bombers nearly perpetually circling in the air as a MAD deterrent. If a full on naval war was in progress, access to oil would be severely crippled. I would think they would rather not have to deal with fueling with oil (bio or fossil).


RE: Why Bother?
By StevoLincolnite on 11/13/2011 3:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure a navy nuclear reactor can operate for years before refueling at a port. I doubt that is true with fossil fuels.


However. You still have the same problem as the nuclear Submarines... You may have enough power for years. But I highly doubt you have the food or water to sustain the crew for years at sea.


RE: Why Bother?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2011 1:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
food would be the issue. All Navy ships make their own fresh water. As long as their's power and kept in good operating condition, they won't run out.


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/13/2011 12:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is actually a completely wrong idea, each reactor has a given life in EFPH, the biggest draw on the reactor is propulsion. The difference between say 50% and 100% might only equate to ~1 knot, therefore you can make the reactor last twice as long while not giving up a significant amount of propulsion by not running at 100%. Keep in mind I am not using real numbers because they are classified, but my point is that you do have diminishing fuel economy, and refueling a reactor is a long process. You can make a core last the lifetime of the ship if you only use excess power when you need it.


RE: Why Bother?
By Kurz on 11/14/2011 10:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
Could this be an issue of the Turbine itself not being able to draw enough energy? Since the motors themselves are meant for silent operation they are not meant to run past a certain RPM.


RE: Why Bother?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2011 1:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
as with any ship, fuel efficiency decreases as speed increases. This is no different for nuclear powered ships, its simply the physics of friction and drag. The difference is that a nuclear ship has DECADES of fuel on board, where a conventional ship at best has several weeks. Why not operate at full throttle all the time? because commanders don't drive their ships as fast as they can go just for kicks. Its all about operational needs.


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/13/2011 12:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
There are smaller reactors out there. My first boat, submarine NR-1 had a much smaller reactor, feel free to look it up but I think the rating is still classified.


RE: Why Bother?
By gixser on 11/14/2011 4:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
Out of interest I started googling and came across this interesting article. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/11/navy_nr1reti...

Regarding power output: Didn't find any definitive but I did come across this tidbit...

"This is not the smallest reactor out there. The smallest I know of has a core about the size of a trash can and fits into a cylinder about 12ft in diameter and 10 ft feet long (for the whole primary plant, there is about 35 ft at 12 ft diameter used for support equipment). The reactor is used on board the submarine NR-1, google it if you want to know what it's for. I believe the core is rated around 3MW."

Source: http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-27860...


RE: Why Bother?
By V-Money on 11/16/2011 1:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
If it ever becomes declassified, I'll post the actual power output. But I can say that his beliefs are off. He did make a lot of well thought out assumptions for the rest though.


RE: Why Bother?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/2011 6:09:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's simple. There isn't enough room to protect the reactor room from an attack, whereas a carrier does.


Room? Think how much room is taken up by 30,000+ gallons of diesel fuel. Think of the weight! I'm pretty sure nuclear takes up far less space and weight.

Like the Navy 'nuke' guy said, it's about cost. Sounds like something our typical short-sighted Congress ruled on years ago. That nuclear was "too expensive" bla bla bla. Now here we are today with oil at like $100/barrel and bio fuels costing 8 million dollars a pop. And a world wide demand that's apparently matching the supply and our ability to refine it.

Even IF nuclear has a larger initial investment on ship design than fuel oil...isn't it worth it in the long run? Unlike cars and other forms of alternative energy, Navy ships is the one area where there absolutely IS a better alternative to petroleum.


RE: Why Bother?
By Bubbacub on 11/12/2011 3:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
money is the reason.

nuclear reactors cost more than gas turbines


RE: Why Bother?
By Shig on 11/12/2011 8:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
When has money ever been an object for the US military? When every single branch of the US military is screaming about energy security, maybe we should listen. I'm in favor of ANY energy option that can be produced domestically.

Drill baby drill? Ok! Nuclear? Ok! Biofuel? Ok! As long as it's domestic. The US is beyond political trash, it's time we start banding together.


Algae Biofuel
By algaepreneur on 11/12/2011 7:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
To learn more about the algae production industry you may want to check out the National Algae Association.




Other uses
By Adam M on 11/13/2011 6:40:48 PM , Rating: 1
This testing goes beyond our own ships and what we use to power them. If this testing is successful, there could be private sector uses too. There can’t be anything wrong with cleaner shipping and fishing fleets running on bio-fuel mixes. The nuclear argument is perfectly valid for the US Navy to consider. In terms of the rest of the world I feel that that level is very far off. I have seen the disaster an oil tanker can cause, what could a drunk sea captain do with a nuclear vessel?




Irony
By Meccadonz on 11/12/11, Rating: 0
"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki