Electric plane-flinger for US and Royal navies doing well

The Register ^ | 30th September 2011 | Lewis Page

[mamelukesabre]

over 90% of all power generated in the world is done so with steam. The ten percent or less is generated with wind, solar, hydro, and gas turbines. Gas turbines are typically used only for peak loads and virtually every gas turbine has a waste heat boiler attached to its exhaust that produces steam.

[rottndog]

Electric propulsion has already been tried, and it simply didn’t work—It’s just not efficient enough at converting thermal energy from the reactor into kinetic energy turning the screws.

There is still nothing as efficient as steam turbines in propulsion powered by nuclear reactors.

[Charles Martel]

If these turbines are similar to those used in the Arleigh Burke - class destroyers, then there are variants that can run on propane, natural gas, kerosene and diesel fuel. The likely standard fuel is the latest NATO-spec shipboard propulsion diesel.

[mamelukesabre]

see post 21

[Erik Latranyi]

Electric propulsion has already been tried, and it simply didn’t work—It’s just not efficient enough at converting thermal energy from the reactor into kinetic energy turning the screws.

Electric works very efficiently for locomotives who also have to turn a wheel under load.

[Iron Munro]

If there is a more expensive, more complex, less proven way of accomplishing a basic task that is the option the federal government will take.

Are the “Plane flingers” shielded from an EMP burst?

Very little is.

[rottndog]

Locomotives don’t have nuclear reactors...although that has been tried as well.

[Erik Latranyi]

Locomotives don’t have nuclear reactors...although that has been tried as well.

No, they don't use nuclear reactors nor do they use coal to create steam anymore because you have to build lots of pressure before steam becomes useful.

Using diesel or natural gas to run a generator to product electricity and electric motors attached to your wheels or screw, you get instant torque --- on demand.

Steam cannot do that.

[org.whodat]

LOL, all the modern tourist ships have electric motors, even the biggest one.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/extreme-machines/4217987

[rottndog]

Aircraft carriers don’t use diesel or natural gas....

[rottndog]

LOL, all the modern tourist ships have electric motors, even the biggest one.

Yes...but they don't have nuclear reactors.

[PAR35]

the USN will be saddled with the world's only hundred-thousand-ton nuclear helicopter carrier

The US could land and launch a C-130 from a carrier a generation ago, all without the benefit of catapults or wires. Just takes pilots with skill and guts.

[Erik Latranyi]

Aircraft carriers don’t use diesel or natural gas....

The Queen Elizabeth class carriers under construction use both.

Nuclear fission is expensive and outdated. Until nuclear fusion is feasible, we will see a migration away from fission.

[Calvin Locke]

An uncle of mine said one of his first technician jobs (1950s) was working on the tail gun of the US Navy A-3.

It was originally designed as a Naval Strategic Bomber, and became the heaviest regularly operated carrier plane at something like 80,000lbs

[rottndog]

Nuclear fission is expensive and outdated. Until nuclear fusion is feasible, we will see a migration away from fission.

Um...no. Nuclear fission is what still gives US Navy Carriers and Submarines their VAST SUPERIORITY over anything else in the water.

Their ability to deploy virtually anywhere for any amount of time exists ONLY because they do not have to worry about refueling.

Until nuclear fusion is feasible...and I don't see any evidence that it will be ANY time soon, nuclear fission is the only option for serious naval applications.

And, BTW, when you consider that diesel/natural gas turbine driven ships must be supported by a fleet of at sea fueling ships, and when you consider how much of the ship must be dedicated to storing the fuel AND how much of the fuel must be burned just to carry its' own weight, nuclear power is actually much more economical in the long run.

[Erik Latranyi]

Um...no. Nuclear fission is what still gives US Navy Carriers and Submarines their VAST SUPERIORITY over anything else in the water. Their ability to deploy virtually anywhere for any amount of time exists ONLY because they do not have to worry about refueling.

Do carriers travel alone?

Do all their escort/support ships run on nuclear as well?

[Chode]

the USN has ~19 fleet oilers in service, how many to you plan on building to replenish the CVA's? and where will the money come from???

[rottndog]

Do carriers travel alone?

No...but they can...and because they don't have to carry their own fuel, and because the amount of space on the ship that would have to be dedicated to carrying fuel is now dedicated to carrying more warfighting stuff, the carrier is far more effective than it otherwise would be if it was powered by diesel or natural gas.

[MarkL]

Locomotives have been using diesel engines to run generators because using electric to run the wheels is far more efficient than steam.

I, for one, would like to welcome the military to the 20th century!

Using steam is stupid.

No matter what, you're going to wind up using steam in a nuclear reactor. So if they were going to use electric motors for the screws, they'd still need steam turbines to generate the electricity.

Mark

[reed13k]

Except for the jet fuel withou that they are just moving bricks