Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

Nuclear propulsion question

122 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,229 posts
6,722 battles

I’ve never looked hard in person, but I’ve never passively noticed any sort of exhaust stack on our CVNs does that mean nuclear power plants don’t create an exhaust that needs to be expelled from the ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
831 posts
1,260 battles

Sounds like it. Nuclear power plants are cooled by water, so maybe CVNs have similar systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[PVE]
Members
500 posts
4,144 battles

There is no gaseous exhaust from nuclear powered warships. The steam that is generated is typically fed back in to be reheated again in a closed system.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
942
Members
4,463 posts
6,199 battles

I love nuclear power.  Needs to be perfected.  Still a bit scary.  Can be!  Perfect source of energy. NO pollution. Just ask Captain Nemo. 20,000 leagues under da sea. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,227
[RKLES]
Members
7,113 posts
8,760 battles
29 minutes ago, MeKanism said:

Sounds like it. Nuclear power plants are cooled by water, so maybe CVNs have similar systems

Yes they are quite similar, the fuel rods are cooled by water, and water is heated into steam which powers turbines to produce energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,391
[O_O]
Members
4,336 posts
9,309 battles
14 minutes ago, dmckay said:

I love nuclear power.  Needs to be perfected.  Still a bit scary.  Can be!  Perfect source of energy. NO pollution. Just ask Captain Nemo. 20,000 leagues under da sea. 

Spent fuel isn't completely benign. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
942
Members
4,463 posts
6,199 battles
4 minutes ago, desmo_2 said:

Spent fuel isn't completely benign. 

This is true. The French got it going on.  Very high tech nuke plants. Anyone know bout their nuclear systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,227
[RKLES]
Members
7,113 posts
8,760 battles
24 minutes ago, dmckay said:

I love nuclear power.  Needs to be perfected.  Still a bit scary.  Can be!  Perfect source of energy. NO pollution. Just ask Captain Nemo. 20,000 leagues under da sea. 

Actually we could have had Nuclear power be a lot safer than it is now with something called a Breeder Nuclear Reactor, it isable to recycle fuel rods over and  over So produces very little waste at all. Plus if you try putting the reactor into melt down in various ways the reactor can't sustain reaction so shuts it'self down without melting down.

They have had a perfectly functional reactor plant using this Tech for years, but only reason we use the other far less efficient and dangerous type of Nuclear power plants is thanks to political squabbling, can't go into details here thanks to EULA but worth taking look into since it's shocking which party disagreed with the safer more Eco friendly nuclear reactors I will say that much...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
942
Members
4,463 posts
6,199 battles
28 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Actually we could have had Nuclear power be a lot safer than it is now with something called a Breeder Nuclear Reactor, it isable to recycle fuel rods over and  over So produces very little waste at all. Plus if you try putting the reactor into melt down in various ways the reactor can't sustain reaction so shuts it'self down without melting down.

They have had a perfectly functional reactor plant using this Tech for years, but only reason we use the other far less efficient and dangerous type of Nuclear power plants is thanks to political squabbling, can't go into details here thanks to EULA but worth taking look into since it's shocking which party disagreed with the safer more Eco friendly nuclear reactors I will say that much...

 

Are the French doing this?  Breeder reactors?   I know it's a touchy political issue BUT from what little I do know much much better technology is out there. Windmills are NOT the future IMO.  Expensive and not cost effective.   Solar will get better but safe nuke plants IMO are the way to go.  No pollution. Clean. Issue is that older nuke plants have had some scary sh#t happen. The Russian one (cant spell it) was 1940's technology. Tell me more!  

Edited by dmckay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,227
[RKLES]
Members
7,113 posts
8,760 battles
1 minute ago, dmckay said:

Are the French doing this?  I know it's a touchy political issue BUT from what little I do know the technology is out there. Windmills are NOT the future IMO.  Solar will get better but safe nuke plants IMO are the way to go.  No pollution. Clean. Issue is that older nuke plants have had some scary sh#t happen. The Russian one was 1940's technology. Tell me more!  

Oh it's the United States actually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
942
Members
4,463 posts
6,199 battles
32 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Actually we could have had Nuclear power be a lot safer than it is now with something called a Breeder Nuclear Reactor, it isable to recycle fuel rods over and  over So produces very little waste at all. Plus if you try putting the reactor into melt down in various ways the reactor can't sustain reaction so shuts it'self down without melting down.

They have had a perfectly functional reactor plant using this Tech for years, but only reason we use the other far less efficient and dangerous type of Nuclear power plants is thanks to political squabbling, can't go into details here thanks to EULA but worth taking look into since it's shocking which party disagreed with the safer more Eco friendly nuclear reactors I will say that much...

 

I know which party. The party of scare and Jane. They are way behind the curve in part for, frankly, political stuff. No secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[HELLS]
Members
1,692 posts
15,333 battles
41 minutes ago, dmckay said:

This is true. The French got it going on.  Very high tech nuke plants. Anyone know bout their nuclear systems?

Don't go there. Half of Europe is scared s---less of the French system. And for you fans of nuclear propulsion, it will take a couple of centuries at a bare minimun before the current lot of decomissioned nuclear warships of the USN is even remotely safe upon dismantling. They defuel, pull out the reactor cores and spent fuel and encase what cannot be recyled, but the hulls cannot be completely torn apart and fully recycled for a long time yet. And the USN's systems are the best on the planet, bar none, including the nuclear recycling facilities And don't even talk about the Russians, their nuclear rustbuckets are polluting the Arctic. Rickover's legacy to the planet is a huge delayed action poison pill. Add Fukushima and the current continuous nuclear contamination of the entire Pacific Ocean basin and then ask questions about nuclear tecnology and its ''Benefits'' to humanity...and I am not a tree hugger, folks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
3 hours ago, MasterDiggs said:

There is no gaseous exhaust from nuclear powered warships. The steam that is generated is typically fed back in to be reheated again in a closed system.

From my knowledge of nuclear aircraft engine development, it is entirely possible create thrust through an Indirect Air Cycle which avoids the fuss of having radioactive exhaust.  All that's transferred to the engines is heat using pressurized water or liquid metal from the reactor which is then recycled within the system.  (sorry if this seems random)

havgm03.jpg

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,109
[WOLF3]
Members
6,025 posts
2,203 battles
11 hours ago, dmckay said:

Windmills are NOT the future IMO.  Expensive and not cost effective.

They're actually terrible for the environment, killing birds and bats by the millions.  Here in Texas we have enough wind-generated power we could shut down all our fossil fuel plants - if the windmills produced reliably.  But now there's a steep decline in bats.  Bats are like bees: they pollinate many of our commercial crops.  The "eco-friendly" windmills are causing a serious agricultural problem. 

We need nuke.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
12 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

They're actually terrible for the environment, killing birds and bats by the millions.  Here in Texas we have enough wind-generated power we could shut down all our fossil fuel plants - if the windmills produced reliably.  But now there's a steep decline in bats.  Bats are like bees: they pollinate many of our commercial crops.  The "eco-friendly" windmills are causing a serious agricultural problem. 

We need nuke.

 

I’m ambivalent to nuclear power.  Less we forget the Soviet Union collapsed partly due to reactor #4 in Chernobyl.  The cover up of reactor accidents and rod flaws doomed that safety test.  But the same kind of safety cover up happened right before 3-Mile Island, exposes by the Nuclear Industries reaction to the movie The China Syndrome.  It wouldn’t take that much for a greedy CEO to realize that bankruptcy will protect them in the instance they render a US State uninhabitable for 100 years via radiation disaster caused by saving money on safety.  The EPA is pro-business at the moment which is not encouraging nuclear safety.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,109
[WOLF3]
Members
6,025 posts
2,203 battles

Don't go completely overboard.  "Chernobyl partly causing the collapse of USSR?"  No.  And look at the recent forays into the radiation zone.  Ecosystem appears normal.  People have moved back in with no apparent ill effects.  Yes, the rad level is still high, but it's not like the place was soaked with ricin.  Life adapts.

But Chernobyl is a way far out edge case.  There are and never have been reactors like that in the West.  It had no containment vessel.  Similar situations such as Three Mile Island resulted in no escape of radioactive materials.  Fukushima is a slightly different animal, but frankly, that is a stupid design.  Little accounting for tsunamis in the most earthquake-prone area of the world?  Stupid.  But its sister complex down the coast got portable generators in to keep cooling pumps running, has now fixed the design and is ready to restart.  Release of radiation into the ocean freaks everyone out, but geez, this is the PACIFIC OCEAN we're talking about, not a pond.  The net effect will be zero.

As for the evil greedy CEO, what employee is going to obey?  (BTW, EPA doesn't have jurisdiction; NRC does.)

Edited by iDuckman
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
43 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

Don't go completely overboard.  "Chernobyl partly causing the collapse of USSR?"  No.  And look at the recent forays into the radiation zone.  Ecosystem appears normal.  People have moved back in with no apparent ill effects.  Yes, the rad level is still high, but it's not like the place was soaked with ricin.  Life adapts.

But Chernobyl is a way far out edge case.  There are and never have been reactors like that in the West.  It had no containment vessel.  Similar situations such as Three Mile Island resulted in no escape of radioactive materials.  Fukushima is a slightly different animal, but frankly, that is a stupid design.  Little accounting for tsunamis in the most earthquake-prone area of the world?  Stupid.  But its sister complex down the coast got portable generators in to keep cooling pumps running, has now fixed the design and is ready to restart.  Release of radiation into the ocean freaks everyone out, but geez, this is the PACIFIC OCEAN we're talking about, not a pond.  The net effect will be zero.

As for the evil greedy CEO, what employee is going to obey?  (BTW, EPA doesn't have jurisdiction; NRC does.)

Your taking the wrong lessons out of these disasters.  It wasn't the radiation that toppled the Soviet Union, it was the sheer economic cost and exposure of the corruption at the heart of the Union.  The staff in reactor #4 were bullied into conducting the unsafe test because their jobs at the nuclear plant as well-to-do nuclear engineers was being threatened by Anatoly Dyatlov.  Their revolt against his unsafe orders failed because they overestimated the safety of the reactor and didn't want to risk their jobs and families well-being.  You better believe a employee is going to follow the directions of a greedy CEO, or the directives that had been trickled down as a part of company policy that neglects safety.  People don't spend all those years in college just to get themselves fired from their job.

The sad state of affairs in Russia meant they couldn't afford to lose the electricity Chernobyl provided, so despite the radiation, it had to keep reactors 1 thru 3 running, and the cleanup costs of the disaster were enormous.  It was the beginning of the end for the Soviets.

As for Three Mile Island, radiation was not the point.  Because of the release of The China Syndrome, the Industry reacted to it as character assassination and sited "a meltdown might occur once in one million years".  A few days later, Three Mile Island did meltdown and the company issued nothing but lies.  When the people should have been evacuated, they assured everyone that the issue had been resolved.  It took the President of the United States, who was knowledge in nuclear submarines to cut through the corporate [edited], but the fact that these nuclear power companies will resort to blatant lies, before and after the disaster, means the Industry is a powder keg waiting to go off.  There will be another incident in America as it is inevitable, and they will attempt to cover it up, and that's the problem.  Greed trumps public safety for Corporations, which is not a policy a Nuclear Plant should ever consider.

As for Fukushima, the company has spent enormous amount of money on safety features, emergency drills and redesigns of their reactors.  It's all for naught because they lost the trust of the Japanese people.  You can get away with tombstone technology with airplanes, but not nuclear reactors, these safety features are no good after the disaster.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,229 posts
6,722 battles

Ok, so say an experimental burke is designed as a DDGN, what extra weapon systems can be fitted in the space previously occupied by the smoke stack?

more VLS? How many? Would a mk110 be reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles
45 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Ok, so say an experimental burke is designed as a DDGN, what extra weapon systems can be fitted in the space previously occupied by the smoke stack?

more VLS? How many? Would a mk110 be reasonable?

I would think, with the greater power generation, it would make more powerful laser-based weapons a lot more viable. It would be interesting to see an AAW ship based around laser defense for the fleet - forget SAM's, and maybe have only one gun or so, and some AShM's... Just loads of lasers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
11 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

I would think, with the greater power generation, it would make more powerful laser-based weapons a lot more viable. It would be interesting to see an AAW ship based around laser defense for the fleet - forget SAM's, and maybe have only one gun or so, and some AShM's... Just loads of lasers.

And to think, Nikola Tesla tried to introduce such weapons before WWII.  And now here we are with the Death Rays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles
11 minutes ago, Sventex said:

And to think, Nikola Tesla tried to introduce such weapons before WWII.  And now here we are with the Death Rays.

Such weapons are a lot more viable today, especially on warships, for power supply - and the potential uses are perhaps even greater, being capable of engaging missiles, drones, aircraft, fast attack craft... I wonder if it would be possible to intercept a torpedo...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,025 posts
5,102 battles
2 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Such weapons are a lot more viable today, especially on warships, for power supply - and the potential uses are perhaps even greater, being capable of engaging missiles, drones, aircraft, fast attack craft... I wonder if it would be possible to intercept a torpedo...?

Water absorbs an incredible amount of energy.  I doubt it.  Even in Star Trek, they have to use Photon Torpedoes as depth charges when engaging underwater targets.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles
3 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Water absorbs an incredible amount of energy.  I doubt it.  Even in Star Trek, they have to use Photon Torpedoes as depth charges when engaging underwater targets.

I figured as much. I would hazard a guess that shallow targets could be possible, especially if you're just trying to set off a warhead, but in general they're probably not suited towards ASW warfare.

Still, having the ability to quickly react to and intercept torpedoes would be a massive gain for ship survivability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,229 posts
6,722 battles
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

I would think, with the greater power generation, it would make more powerful laser-based weapons a lot more viable. It would be interesting to see an AAW ship based around laser defense for the fleet - forget SAM's, and maybe have only one gun or so, and some AShM's... Just loads of lasers.

Lasers probably won’t ever leave the realm of CIWS/point defense while warfare is atmospheric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×