[Looking for Diogenes]

This is very nice, conceptually. The author discusses the various efficiencies in energy, space, and maintenance required. What he doesn't mention is reliability and survivability. These aren't cruise ships.

There was a case a few years ago when a destroyer, as I recall, was brought to a full dead in the water halt for one hour because a zero had been entered in the wrong place in the engine control computer screen by a stressed ensign. It crashed the system. If that had been a combat situation it would have been tragic.

I hope they'll build a few at a time so they can get more of the bugs out. It probably is the way to go in the long run.

[Mariner]

Never has been, and never will be........a substitute for raw tons under sail.

By the title I feared a strategic departure from that axiom, but it appears the author exaggerated a bit.

[weikel]

There is one problem with this scenario making it all electric leaves it totally at the mercy of EMP weapons( more than we already are). It would be nice if they could design a gaussian cage type ship( ie only defense against EMP) that would work.

[nightdriver]

"An all-electric design replaces the current maze of steam and hydraulic systems with electric cables and motors throughout a ship, Sullivan said. Doing so allows a vessel to spread out its essential systems and become more damage-resistant, he pointed out."

Maybe, maybe not. An atomic bomb detonated high in the stratosphere and 500 miles away wiped out the electric utility in Hawaii in the 1950s. An all-electric ship would go dead in the water after something like that.

[Hank Rearden]

There's also the serious issue of creating shipborne power grids capable of handling currents as high as 13,000 volts on the next-generation aircraft carrier, he said.

Aren't there any technically-savvy editors left anywhere?