Navy leads the way in advanced fuels!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("military.com")</div>

(Full Story)

I think this is pretty cool, especially since it coincided with my wife and I celebrating our 3rd anniversary. Unfortunately, I couldn't be there for the ceremony

There's supposed to be many more where this one came from; we'll see what happens in the next few years.

 

Yes, the Nautilus was commissioned back in '54; in fact, she sits about a mile away from my house - if you could get there in a straight line. Connecticut, however, won't allow such a thing.

Thanks for the wishes! The wife sends her thanks as well.

As far as being advanced, I'm sure there's a lot in that boat that even the crew don't know about. However, I think nuclear power is definitely advanced even in the 21st century, and I hope to see it more thoroughly developed and explored. In fact, my computer is nuclear powered; the region I live in is powered by Millstone, which is a nuclear plant not too far away.

In spite of all the concern about the radioactive waste, I still think nuke power is a good direction to go, and an option that I don't believe to be well enough explored. Same for geothermal power.

I hope that much of what the military does can be translated into the civilian sectors as well. Fact is, though, I don't think there's much else than *can* find its way into the civilian sector, unless nuclear power becomes more widespread in the marine industry. However, in due time I'm sure more will make it's way into the civilian markets.

 

Well, you see, the thing is this: the United States Navy spends a huge amount of time and energy to ensure that all of their nuclear plants maintain top operating condition - be it on a carrier, or on a sub.

I think some companies may just be flat out afraid to invest the time required to run such a vessel. Something else to consider is the fact that a nuclear-trained and qualified plant operator is not going to be easy - or cheap - to find. AFIAK, most nuke sailors that get out of the Navy have absolutely no intention of going back to the seafaring life. Like Pinto Girl said, first and foremost, they're seeking other kinds of efficiencies. Cost effectiveness is probably one of those things.

All that said, however, I do think that the companies running the commercial shipping lanes have the financial muscle required to do such a project. I also believe that regulation of commercial seagoing plants would not be a difficult thing, although it would be very complicated at first. And they run the ships that would benefit the most - the superfreighters.

After all, I'd consider running a nuke plant if I had to run this thing:


She burns 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour, which equates, roughly, to about $5K/hour, if marine grade diesel is priced at $3.00/gallon. Now, say you're on a voyage from Yokosuka, Japan to San Diego, CA. That's approximately a 4,800 nm one-way voyage. Most supertankers run at a constant speed of about 16 knots. That's a 12.5 day trip (or 300 hours) if the supertanker maintains speed and course in a straight line. So, altogether, to make that kind of run, you spend $1,500,000.00! I would definitely consider converting to nuclear power.

Wow, I just thought about it and that vessel gets 103...gallons per nautical mile! And that's *IF* you're doing 16 knots. And you thought your neighbor's International CXT got bad gas mileage...