Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how to interpret this conflicting statement, but I will reply by saying that it is not economically viable to put nuclear reactors on ships other than submarines and aircraft carriers, except in very special cases.
The gentleman who I ate lunch with yesterday and who I may see at a party tonight was a nuclear engineer for almost ten years before being promoted to his current position as executive officer on an Ohio class nuclear submarine. Over the years we have had quite a few discussions about naval technology, supply and logistics, and potential responses to future conflicts (without either of us ever violating our respective security clearances, of course). This project has been on the radar for a long time from both the civilian and military perspective, and it really is a big deal strategically. The fuel usage numbers for naval operations are classified, but if you read between the lines you can see very predictable behaviors that suggest how vulnerable carrier groups are to logistical threats. Their operations and survivability really depend on keeping a perimeter of ships watching above and below the surface as well as jets in the air, both of which require vast amounts of hydrocarbon fuels. Not many things can really threaten an operating carrier short of a nuclear device, but if the aircraft are grounded due to lack of fuel and/or the defensive support vessels are out of action, the list of dangerous threats increases dramatically.
Say high your friend and ask him about this idea. BTW I also was an engineering officer on nuclear submarines. So if you don't understand what I've written, read it again.
As I said before the Navy has previously built nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers. Fossil fueled escorts are just more cost effective. As I read the articles on this concept, aircraft carriers would be able to use the capacity of their nuclear power plants to make jet fuel when they weren't using the full power of the reactor to propel the ship. That idea isn't totally crazy. Making enough fuel for the escorts is.
There really aren't threats that exist today to our Navy's fleet operations so appealing to operations and survivability is kind of silly. We can safely replenish our ships at will. Note that even if escorts could become independent of the need for fuel resupply, they will still need munition and food resupply. So logistical support does not disappear.
Carriers do not have excess reactor power. They don't always use all the power they have because they aren't going around at Flank all the time.
The new reactors generate three times the power of the older class, go look it up.
If a reactor isn't generating maximum power and it has the capacity to do so, there is excess power capacity available when it isn't making maximum power.
That is like saying a car making 300 hp at 2000 rpms @ 70 mph but only requires 150 hp at that speed isn't producing excess power. Nonsense.
At flank speed they wouldn't be generating the other fuels and since as you stated, they aren't at flank all the time they could utilize the extra capacity of the reactor.
Pay particular attention to the note that the reactor can provide power for future systems. That means extra capacity not now needed but available - now.
This report is nonsense. Navy ships are not going to scoop up sea water and run it as a fuel. That violates basic physics. I'm not sure what the research has accomplished but it isn't logistics free fuel from sea water.
I'm not sure how you missed it, but this is the explanation from my post #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
What's the catch? Simple... the energy put into creating the fuel is greater than the energy contained in the resulting fuel, so you need an independent source of energy, like a nuclear reactor, to produce the fuel. It's strictly a matter of convenience not to have to ship oil around the world to refuel conventionally powered vehicles.
Now that the followups have clarified that jet fuel can be produced this way, I think it should be very obvious why this is such a big deal to the Navy, and why they will invest in bringing this into operational status.
Quote:
But the process could also be powered by solar power, or wind power, so even fixed bases with access to saltwater could reduce or replace their dependence on oil and produce their own fuel.
And this could be the tail that wags the dog someday. If any location in the world with sun or wind and saltwater can create fuel, it could alter the balance of power and the course of world politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
