Budget issues for sure but maybe also fear that building now a large oil powered warship could be considered foolish in a few years?
How much will cost a barrell of oil in, let's say, 2015? And in 2050?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
caioduilio |
French PA2 gone? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 79 ( 4-Jun-2008 23:39:47) |
According to Mer et Marine french government is going to confirm SSBN and SSN buy but to postpone PA2 after 2012...
Budget issues for sure but maybe also fear that building now a large oil powered warship could be considered foolish in a few years? How much will cost a barrell of oil in, let's say, 2015? And in 2050? |
||
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 3 ( 5-Jun-2008 04:34:49) |
caioduilio wrote: Probably a stupid question, but are nuclear reactors getting smaller, less expensive and less manpower intensive? and are there any new power generator types under development? eg, different fuels or some exotic new generator type |
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3813 ( 5-Jun-2008 05:20:30) |
StevoJH wrote: There are proposals for reactors which are simpler, with more compact conversion machinery (there have been closed cycle gas turbines studied for the USN which were supposedly more compact than the present PWR's), and it's likely that greater levels of automation could be used, even with currently operating naval PWR's. I suspect that the major cost constraint will remain the need for highly enriched fuel, and the needed national infrastructure to produce the fuel. |
||
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 4 ( 5-Jun-2008 05:30:22) |
emc wrote: Basicly I'm asking if it would be possible to build the carrier with gas turbines now and switch for something new later, the reason i'm asking is
that if a ship is designed for a 50 year life you would assume that it is capable of being refit with different engines if fuel became prohibitably expensive.
Similar concept to how the CVF is fitted for STOVL but has all the space saved so it can be converted to CATOBAR.
|
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 300 ( 5-Jun-2008 13:12:10) |
Nuclear fuel is an upfront cost paid during construction. Operating costs drop over the 25-35 year life of the reactor core for the carrier and a medium
surface combatant in which case we are talking about life of the ship. You pay 330 million upfront and nothing from then on for surface combatant for fuel and
only one nuclear refuelling 25 years down the road. This drop in operating costs comes from ship fuel costs not being needed to pay out thhough the carrier
must be supplied with aviation fuel which is getting costly. As for manpower, the Ford or Seawolf nuclear plant from which this data comes from, needs only
half the manning of previous plants.
|
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3814 ( 5-Jun-2008 18:02:02) |
StevoJH wrote: My first thought would be "no," as the fuel for a fossil-fired plant is distributed throughout a ship; the fuel for a nuclear plant is
concentrated in the reactor core; there would be severe weight penalties to provide both bunkerage for oil and the structural features needed for a reactor.
I'm also unsure about how much energy it actually takes to produce the fuel needed for a naval reactor, as these need highly enriched fuel in order to have useful lives measured in many years (commercial plants are designed to be refueled frequently; naval plants are designed to avoid refueling as much as possible), and the process of enrichment is quite energy intensive. I don't know how energy intensive; it's possible that the net fossil fuel use in enriching the fuel for a naval reactor exceeds the energy that reactor produces during its lifetime. To conclude: I suspect that fossil fuel prices would have to go up quite a lot more to make nuclear power economical for most naval ships, even for countries, like France or the UK, which have the infrastructure in place to provide fuel (usually uranium) sufficiently enriched for naval reactors. For those countries without an indigenous nuclear industry, the infrastructure would be very difficult to build, as the facilities to produce the fuel for naval reactors are interchangeable with the facilities to produce the nuclear element of atomic bombs. I suspect that the current signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty would look at construction of the required infrastructure with something less than joy, even if that construction is in a country with absolutely no current aggressive tendencies. I don't think the US, for example, would say "go for it!" if Sweden decided to build nuclear submarines or if New Zealand ordered a batch of nuclear-powered cruisers. |
||
CVA02 |
|||
|
Posts: 406 ( 5-Jun-2008 18:25:07) |
westwords2020 wrote: French nuclear reactor technology is altogether different than that of the British and Americans, meaning that a 30 year, or even 10 year, life reactor core is impossible for the French. In short, you can't compare the life cycle costs of the CdG with a Nimitz, or the upcoming Baracuda class with Astute class. |
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2969 ( 5-Jun-2008 19:08:58) |
To my understanding, PA2 was to be GT-powered, with auxiliary oil-burning boilers just for the steam for the catapults... so they would only be running when
flight ops are planned or in times where rapid launches are a possibility.
By waiting 4 years, the French might well be planning to replace the intended steam catapults (to be purchased from the US) with EMALS (electro-magnetic aircraft launch system)... (to be purchased from the US). Allowing PA2 to be 100% GT-powered from the start. |
||
flyingdutchman1980 |
|||
|
Posts: 84 ( 9-Jun-2008 20:57:40) |
As for manpower, the Ford or Seawolf nuclear plant from which this data comes from, needs only half the manning of previous plants.Westwords; thanks for the informative post. Only this I don't agree completely with; didn't the French before tried adapting nuclear sub plants for surface ships without much success? So I doubt you can transplant those figures completely, even apart from CVA02's remark here; French nuclear reactor technology is altogether different than that of the British and Americans, meaning that a 30 year, or even 10 year, life reactor core is impossible for the French. In short, you can't compare the life cycle costs of the CdG with a Nimitz, or the upcoming Baracuda class with Astute class. |
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 305 (10-Jun-2008 12:41:40) |
My info comes from a Congressional Research Service or a GAO Congressional Report on the feasibility of adopting either Seawolf subs or the upcoming Ford class
carriers and fitting them to surface combatants. The USN claims a 50% reduction in manpower for the Ford plant of which one half, that is one reactor out of a
two reactor plant generated 104.5 megawatts for propulsion plus 64-96 megawatts for ship services including weapons/sensors/electromagnetic catapaults/advanced
arresting gear. The Seawolf plant is also long life at 25 years or more between refuellings and outputs 34 megawatts for propulsion plus ship service loads. In
terms of horsepower you are talking 140,000shp for the Ford plant single and 45,000shp for the Seawolf plant. Talk has been of using either one Ford plant or
multiple Seawolf plants depending on the size of the surface combatant the plant is to be installed on. A nuclear combatant incures an 800 million dollar
premium in construction costs but you can amortize that over the life cycle of the ship. These plants can operate for 30-35 years in a surface combatant, the
normal life of the ship and the Ford plant needs refuelling only once in a fifty year life.
|
||
CVA02 |
|||
|
Posts: 419 (11-Jun-2008 01:12:47) |
westwords2020 wrote: The information is in no way applicable to French reactor technology, which requires frequent refuelings due to the use of low enrichment uranium. French naval reactor designs are fundamentally different than their American (and British) counterparts. |
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 306 (11-Jun-2008 01:39:10) |
Point taken. Unless there was a way for the French to have a suitable reactor built in UK or US, very unlikely if not impossible, the French will incur too
many problems to build suitable nuclear plant for PA02.
|
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3611 (11-Jun-2008 23:20:46) |
(there have been closed cycle gas turbines studied for the USN which were supposedly more compact than the present PWR's),Gas cooled reactors? Oh my! |
||
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1795 (14-Jun-2008 17:44:33) |
westwords2020 wrote: 4-6 K15s should be able to provide the power. |
||
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 108 (14-Jun-2008 22:47:11) |
BenRoethig wrote: CdG has two. 4 should provide enough power to push PA2 along at least as fast, plus powering everything else. 6 would potentially enable a significantly
greater top speed, hull, etc. permitting.
|
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3850 (15-Jun-2008 01:07:10) |
Zen9 wrote: Well, they were design studies, so the authors' conclusions were heavily dependent on the initial assumptions. My suspicion is that a gas-cooled
reactor is bulkier, because water is a very good heat transfer fluid (not as good as liquid metals, but much easier to handle), with the putative savings being
from the elimination of the steam generating heat exchangers and more compact turbomachinery.
|
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3614 (15-Jun-2008 11:42:48) |
My point emc as you may well know is the UK once was a major builder of gas cooled reactors.
So it would be very ironic to go down the route of getting a gas cooled reactor for a carrier from the US and rather parallel to the idea of getting a MagLev train from Germany or a jet engine from the US. For France perhaps this does'nt have that irony. |
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3851 (15-Jun-2008 14:52:26) |
Zen9 wrote: I hadn't even thought of the UK and GCR. |
||