Posted on 04/19/2020 11:18:02 AM PDT by texas booster
The only way to fix the faulty engine is to lift it out of the hull and replace it with a new one, a work that will cause another year of delay for Russia’s new prestigious nuclear-powered icebreaker.
It was during sea trials in the Baltic Sea in February a short circuit caused serious damage to the winding in one of the three electro engines onboard the “Arktika” icebreaker.
Sea trials continued with only two of the engines working.
Newspaper Kommersant can now tell, with reference to the investigative commission’s work, that it is considered impossible to repair the broken engine on board. It needs to be replaced and that can’t happen before 2021.
The only way to replace the engine is to cut a hole in the superstructure, a comprehensive operation that can only be done while the vessel is docked. According to an article on Bellona’s portal, the weight of the 20 MW electro engine is 300 tons.
Meanwhile, the question is how to proceed with the sea trials. After three years delay, “Arktika” was finally supposed to sail from the Baltic Yard in St. Petersburg to Murmansk this May.
If she sails north around Scandinavia, that would be with power on only two of the three propellers. Anyhow, the “Arktika” would then have to return back to the yard in St. Petersburg next year.
“Would you buy a car with one missing wheel,” Andrey Zolotkov asks rhetorically in reply to Barents Observer’s question about the fate of the icebreaker if upholding the decision to sail north in May.
Zolotkov is director of Bellona in Murmansk, a group focusing on nuclear safety in the Russian north. He has previously worked as an engineer with Atomflot, the service base for the fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers.
“A new icebreaker from the Baltic Shipyard should be taken into operations by Rosatomflot only in good conditions, there are no other options,” Zolotkov states.
He believes it is possible to sail the vessel to Murmansk and continue sea trials, maybe even into the Northern Sea Route, but, as he puts it “what is the need and why?”
“It is difficult for me to assess the necessity of transferring the unfinished “Arktika” to the jurisdiction of Rosatomflot and call it “experimental operations.”
Zolotkov questions the maneuverability of a ship when one out of three propellers is not working.
“Other nuclear-powered icebreakers always have spare blades on board ready to replace damaged ones while sailing in the Arctic.”
“In order to reduce all risks, it is advisable to leave the “Arktika” icebreaker in St. Petersburg and wait for the repair of the engine,” Andrey Zolotkov concludes.
“Then it can sail north to Murmansk together with the second icebreaker in the class, the “Sibir”, supposed to be commissioned next summer,“ he adds.
A third icebreaker of the class, the “Ural” is scheduled to be delivered in 2022. A decision is taken to build icebreaker numbers 4 and 5 in a similar design, but construction work is yet to start.
Shipping along Russia’s Northern Sea Route is by President Vladimir Putin ordered to reach 80 million tons by 2025. That is an 8-fold increase compared with 2017 when 10,7 million tons were shipped through Russia’s Arctic waters.
Upgrading of the icebreaker fleet plays a key role in Putin’s plan.
There is a lot to unpack here, from a 300 ton 20 MW reactor (is this reasonable with modern designs?) to the statement about Putin's Grand Arctic plan to open up shipping along Russia’s Northern Sea Route.
I will post a translation of another article concerning the failure next.
Thoughts?
Changing engines? On a ship that size? I would sure love to see that.
Three words never used in the same sentence: Russian Quality Assurance-
Why do we need ice breakers? Global warming is making them obsolete. Instead of frivolous ice breakers they should be spending the money saving the drowning ice less polar bears.
We’ve had problems with those too.
Probably yes, if you factor in 2-to-3 nuke-tipped missiles they keep on board in case they need to signal for help... Their weight might be included just to explain the overall weight of the icebreaker...
/s
Just their luggage. They ain't going nowhere. Other than that, the article is pretty plain.
In early February 2020, during mooring trials at the Baltic Shipyard (St. Petersburg), a rowing electric motor (GED) on the right shaft of the Arctic icebreaker failed. According to Kommersant, during the commissioning of the electromotor system, when the voltage was supplied from the frequency converter to the right HED, the protection tripped, and the frequency converter failed. A short circuit to the housing of the stator nasal stator winding was detected, the winding was damaged. Now a special commission is investigating the causes of the breakdown, but it has already been established that engine repair on board is not possible.
According to the director of ANO Bellona (Murmansk) Andrei Zolotkov, the failure of such an important unit during mooring tests at the mooring wall is a very sad fact. In the Arctic, in real ice, operating conditions will be much tougher.
“I think we are not informed of all the details of this incident. The constant failure to meet the deadlines for putting into operation a new nuclear icebreaker is already a loss of reputation. And the failure of the GED added one more big minus to the builders, ”said Zolotkov, who worked for several decades at the Atomflot FSUE, including nuclear icebreakers.
Recall that for new icebreakers, the construction of which is in full swing, an innovative set of electrical equipment was specially developed: two generators with excitation control systems and three propeller motors. Each of the GED has a capacity of 20 MW (27 thousand horsepower). And it weighs about 300 tons.
The contract for the construction of the lead icebreaker of project 22220 between FSUE Atomflot and Baltic Plant LLC was signed in August 2012. The cost of the ship is 37 billion rubles. The commissioning of the Arctic icebreaker was originally scheduled for late 2017. Subsequently, the postponement of the dates was announced for December 2019, then - for May 2020. In addition to the Arctic, the Baltzavod is to build four more serial nuclear-powered icebreakers of project 22220 of the LK-60Y type, two of which Sibir and Ural are already under construction.
At present, “50 years of Victory” remains among the long-term nuclear-powered icebreakers. It was laid down on October 4, 1989 under the name “Ural” and launched on December 29, 1993. Further construction was suspended due to lack of funds. In 2003, construction was resumed, and on February 1, 2007, the icebreaker entered the Gulf of Finland for sea trials, which lasted two weeks. The flag was raised on March 23, 2007, and on April 11, the icebreaker arrived at the permanent home port of Murmansk.
Who needs an icebreaker when the polar bears are drowning?
But both navies keep sending out young sailors on them to conquer the Arctic.
While the politicians and admirals stay warm with full samovars, on both sides.
“I did not have to be at the final acceptance of any icebreaker at the factory. There were always some shortcomings, and they were eliminated even in Murmansk, but this did not concern the main equipment, especially the GED. Basically, there were adjustments and improvements, but this did not concern the main components, ”says Zolotkov.
There is the only case in history when a serious repair was carried out with an atomic icebreaker, affecting its structure and hull. This is the flooding of the entire reactor compartment of the Lenin atomic icebreaker, followed by the installation of a new nuclear power plant.
Since a broken outboard electric motor cannot be repaired, and no one icebreaker will accept the broken GED, the option of replacing it in the dock in Kronstadt in 2021 is being considered (the cycle of manufacturing a new GED is at least a year).
The government is considering various options for the delivery of the icebreaker, which should be handed over to the customer no later than May 2020. The most likely - the icebreaker will be commissioned this year in the so-called pilot operation with a loss of power from 60 MW to 50 MW. That just means the term “trial operation”, it implies a transition to Murmansk and access to the Arctic or something else, no one explains.
According to Zolotkov, power loss is a problem for any ship. It is not for nothing that many use a cautious phrase about a possible “trial operation,” since the icebreaker cannot even be tested for the parameters announced in the plans. The main thing is ice penetration in terms of ice thickness and speed. There is no required power - there are no reliable indicators.
Now the vessel continues to test - an electric propulsion system, reactors and a steam system have been launched, but the deadlines for their completion will be shifted due to non-working weeks.
“On the ship it remains to complete a number of commissioning works, construction work has been completed in full. Problematic issues during commissioning, of course, arise, but the company copes with them. Next, the nuclear-powered ship will have to complete sea trials, ”Kommersant was told in the United Construction Corporation.
Since much remains unclear in the situation, departments and corporations refuse official comments. Shipbuilders find it difficult to say when the Arctic will be ready for commissioning, and whether the deadline for the delivery of the nuclear-powered ship will be shifted.
FSUE Atomflot declined to comment on Bellone.Ru whether the company is ready to accept a new icebreaker without a single engine.
However, Rosatom extended its operational life.
The reactor design is entirely feasible - for example the French have a submarine reactor that produces 48MW and is smaller, but that’s a strictly military reactor design. Even the Russians will derate designs for (ostensibly) civilian use.
Off the top of my head, she looks top heavy to me.
Why so many people/crew on an icebreaker?
Proper factory acceptance testing should have discovered the winding fault before the engine was mounted.
How would a short damage a reactor? A motor, yes.
The surprising thing is a recent model GE BWR weighs 400 tons. The article says the engine weighs 300 tons.
That sounds more like a stealth setup to run a laser or rail gun in the future.
As a comparison the Zumwalt’s engines are about 40MW. The GE reactor is over 1,000 MW.
Each D2G reactor was 37 feet long, 31 feet wide, and weighed 1,400 tonnes (1,400 long tons; 1,500 short tons). One reactor was located in the aft of the hull, the other in the fore. The California class’ reactors were replaced by D2W reactors, both rated at 165 megawatts (221,000 hp), in the early 90s.
I didn't find any 20 MW naval reactors in use by us, so this may just be a design choice. I suspect that they won't need to replace the main reactor but it makes sense that, at 300 tons, it is more difficult than replacing a Chevy big block.
I don’t think it’s a reactor, but rather an electric motor.
It's not exactly "prestigious" if it's got a burnt-out engine already. It's more like typical Bolshevik junk wrapped up in propaganda but unable to deliver on any of its glorious promises.
Is there a crack in the ship's hull, directly below the massive bridge structure? Looks like the hull plates are coming off! Must be an optical illusion.
I'm leery of another Soviet nuclear disaster (my mind replaying scenes from Chernobyl and Widowmaker).
Does replacing a "Motor" require removing the reactor vessel? I would think not...
There is a house in my rural neighborhood that has multiple different colored roofing shingles. The owner collected leftovers from roofing jobs he had worked on.
I’ve seen similar in house paint jobs in other neighborhoods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.