Re: The Future Navy Will Be Nuclear

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:10:04 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:39:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx>
:wrote:
:>"David Loewe, Jr." <dloewe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>:On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:20:59 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx>
:>:wrote:
:>:>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>:>:On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:02:37 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx>
:>:>:wrote:
:>:>:>"David Loewe, Jr." <dloewe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>:>:>:On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:28:00 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx>
:>:>:>:wrote:
:>:>:>:>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>:>:>:>:On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:14:42 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx>
:>:>:>:>:wrote:
:>:>:>:>:>Dennis <tsalagi18NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>:>:>:>:>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:>:> Except that nuclear power ISN'T more expensive, given current fuel
:>:>:>:>:>:> prices. The ship displacement where nuclear power wins has dropped
:>:>:>:>:>:> into the current 'destroyer/cruiser' size range.
:>:>:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:>:> The problem is development costs for the initial plants.
:>:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:>:Couldn't you use an existing design, like the D2G reactor, without
:>:>:>:>:>:too much modification?
:>:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:>:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D2G_reactor
:>:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:>You could, but you're just swapping development costs for operating
:>:>:>:>:>costs. Refueling is very expensive and you'd have to refuel every
:>:>:>:>:>ship at least once during its operating lifetime if you used those.
:>:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:>We try to use reactors that don't require refueling these days in
:>:>:>:>:>order to avoid the expense of having to do that.
:>:>:
:>:>:Whether or not you refuel would have more to do with the operational
:>:>:life of the platform than anything else.
:>:>:
:>:>:For example, both A4W and A1B have a planned core life of ~23 years -
:>:>:necessitating one RCOH during the 50 year planned life of each vessel
:>:>:with either plant (which is to say any Nimitz or Ford class carriers).
:>:>
:>:>Really? I thought they were trying for 30 year core lifes so that
:>:>they wouldn't need the shore establishment to manage refueling and
:>:>such.
:>:
:>:http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA448400&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
:>:indicates that RCOH for the Ford-class carriers will be performed at the
:>:22 year point. They also discuss a plan for a 30 year life for the Ford
:>:platform (part of this plan is the elimination of RCOH), but indicate
:>:that the reactor cores will have to be redesigned for longer life to
:>:achieve this.
:>:
:>:>[Yeah, I know. They tend to keep carriers longer than that because
:>:>they're so bloody expensive.]
:>:
:>:A 30 year core doesn't make much sense if you are keeping the vessel for
:>:50 years.
:>
:>Well, that was rather the point of my parenthetical remark. If you're
:>going to keep them for 50 years, you may as well design for a 24 year
:>core life and refuel them during the mid-life SLEP.
:
:And I was just agreeing with you...

With you it is frequently difficult to tell.

You react that way to *most* people. Perhaps a little introspection is
in order?

:>:>:>:>:Well, you'd certainly use a new core design...
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>Then it wouldn't be a D2G anymore, right?
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Wrong.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:D2G is the plant, not the core. In Navy terminology, the plant is the
:>:>:>:plant and the core is the core and the two do not always correspond to
:>:>:>:each other.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:For example, when the S5W series of reactors was refueled, they used a
:>:>:>:core designed for the S3G plant (S3G Core 3).
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3G_reactor
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:"Although the design of the entire S3G reactor plant (core, piping,
:>:>:>:pumps, etc.) saw only limited use, a design version of the reactor core
:>:>:>:("S3G3" or "S3G core 3") was later used for replacement cores for the
:>:>:>:Navy's 100 S5W reactor plants when refuelled."
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5W_reactor
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:"Later-model S5W reactor plants were often refueled with a S3G core-3,
:>:>:>:the third version of the S3G core."
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:S5W with S3G Core 3 was what I was taught in Nuclear Power School.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Similarly, the S8G Prototype at Ballston Spa was refueled with an S6W
:>:>:>:core, but is still an S8G plant.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:The S6G plant uses Destroyer cores.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:"The S6G reactor plant was originally designed to use the D1G-2 core,
:>:>:>:similar to the D2G reactor used on the Bainbridge class guided missile
:>:>:>:cruiser, which is rated at 148 MW. All Los Angeles class submarines from
:>:>:>:USS Providence (SSN 719) on were built with a D2W core rated at 165 MW.
:>:>:>:The D1G-2 cores are being replaced with D2W cores when the ships are
:>:>:>:refueled."
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Moreover, a redesign of the core need only be the next iteration of the
:>:>:>:design.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>But there has got to be some coupling between core design and the rest
:>:>:>of the plant. As radical a change as going to a 'contained' core that
:>:>:>doesn't require refueling is going to affect plant design. I think
:>:>:>you'd have to redesign a lot of things and it wouldn't be a D2G anymore.
:>:>:
:>:>:The POINT here, McCall, is that it isn't NECESSARILY so. It is not a
:>:>:given.
:>:>
:>:>The POINT here, Loewe, is that it is virtually guaranteed to BE so in
:>:>this sort of case.
:>:
:>:No. It is not.
:>
:>Yes. It is too.
:
:Prove it. Prove *something*.

You first.

This Made Me Laugh

1) I'm the only person in this subthread who has produced any references
(aka proof) for anything.

2) I'm the only person in this subthread who IS a graduate of the Hyman
G. Rickover Technical School for Wayward Geniuses (otherwise known as
Naval Nuclear Power Training).

:>:>:You don't think that sticking the S3G-Core 3 into an S5W plant wasn't a
:>:>:rather radical change?
:>:>
:>:>Not as large as changing to a 'long life' core, no.
:>:
:>:Why? Changing a reactor to a longer life core is pretty much a matter
:>:of changing fuel loading and poison doping.
:>:
:>:Explain what mechanical factors you think will change to accommodate a
:>:redesigned core and try and contrast that with the idea of putting a
:>:core that wasn't designed for the system (S3G Core 3 into S5W) into a
:>:reactor.
:>
:>Gee, no differences in power response and profiles from the 'long
:>life' core?
:
:Those are operating parameters, not disqualifying mechanical factors.

No changes to control rods, etc? None at all?

Why would changing the control rods require a different plant
designation if changing the core does not?

:I have already shown that increasing the power output of a plant (S6G),
:with a different core design (D2W versus the original D1G-2 cores),
:which would change the power response and profile, did not change the
:plant from one designation to another.

It would not necessarily change either.

?

Extending the power curve 17 MW doesn't change the profile in your mind?
It takes it past the end of the profile here on Planet Earth.

To produce more power overall, you have to produce more power in all
parts of the core. Initially a reactor uses fuel in the bottom of the
reactor. Therefore critical control rod height would start off lower.
Also the same movement of the control rods would produce a larger
response in the higher power core.

:>No size differences?
:
:No.

You know for a fact that there would be no size difference in the core
size of a 'long life' reactor when compared to a 'short life' core of
the same power output?

At least not one that required a different vessel and a different plant
designation.

To oversimplify it, you add extra fuel (positive reactivity) and
burnable poisons (negative reactivity). The neutron flux from operating
uses up fuel (which adds negative reactivity to the core) and burns the
burnable poisons (which adds *positive* reactivity to the core).

:>No cooling differences?
:
:Now you're getting into the realm of things I don't know that I'm
:allowed to talk about. However, the fact that they could up the power
:on S6G by 17 MW without changing the plant designation should tell you
:*something*.

Oh, it does, but not necessarily what you might like. Note that that
power difference is only around 10%

And... ?

:>Yeah, it's just all fookin' magic, ain't it?
:
:No. It is engineering and science and they have done this type of thing
:before.
:
:In fact, if they hadn't done this type of thing before, I'd have never
:said anything.

They've replaced a 'short life' core

There is not really such a thing. The new cores simply have longer
lives than the previous cores. You really wouldn't design a 'short
life' core.

with a 'long life' core of the same power in the same plant?

Cite?

USS Nautilus.

The original core had a design and service life of two years.

http://www.ussnautilus.org/events/commissioning50th/bowmanrmks.html

"NAUTILUS steamed for 2 years and over 62,000 nautical miles?more than
Jules Verne?s 20,000 leagues?on her first reactor core."

Later cores had a much longer life.

Arguably, D2G.

http://www.e-yearbook.com/yearbooks/California_CGN_36_Cruise_Book/1994/Page_13.html

"California has recently completed her Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH)
at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton. Washington. THis RCOH
began in April 1990 and has providedCa/i/orHw with two high endurance
D2W reactor cores for her power plants and the revolutionary New Threat
Upgrade Combat Systems Suite which makes her the most capable Anti-Air
Warfare platform of her type in the World."

We already know that D2W is higher *powered* than D1G-2, but you
wouldn't term a higher powered core than your old one as high
*endurance*.

:>:>:>:>And you're back to those development costs again...
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Sure, but a lot of that is either already known or already done for
:>:>:>:other core designs.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>I think you're underestimating the costs, but whatever.
:>:>:
:>:>:The crux of that is whether or not it would be a deal breaker.
:>:>:
:>:>:In any case, the D1G/D2G plant is no bigger than the largest submarine
:>:>:plants and the article claims that two sub plants won't hack it for this
:>:>:proposed platform, so the whole damned thing is moot as far as putting
:>:>:D1G/D2G into the proposed CGN(X).
:>:>
:>:>You sure you don't want to try to start a pointless argument about
:>:>that, too?
:>:
:>:<sigh>
:>:
:>:One cannot assure that YOU won't get into a pointless argument. Even if
:>:someone agrees with you (as I did there), you seem willing to throw down
:>:the gloves and go.
:>
:>You're the one who seems interested in picking a fight about it...
:
:Spare me.
:
:*You* are the one throwing down the gauntlet, McCall. And *you* are the
:one doing that after a paragraph where I agreed with you.

Perhaps you need to learn to be less disagreeable in your
agreements...

You are not exactly "a lovable little fuzzball," McCall.
--
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries
to build a tradition."
Admiral Andrew Cunningham at Crete
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Future Navy Will Be Nuclear
    ... :Naval Nuclear Power Training). ... :>:I have already shown that increasing the power output of a plant, ... :parts of the core. ... :>size of a 'long life' reactor when compared to a 'short life' core of ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: University rank of Computer Architecture
    ... Doubling the size of this on-die branch predictor might gain 7% ... more power than the tiny core and delivers less performance. ... replication than through complicated design. ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: The Future Navy Will Be Nuclear
    ... :Naval Nuclear Power Training). ... You need to have designed a reactor to figure out that NR has put ... of the core - including how to achieve longer life. ... You really wouldn't design a 'short ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Any DIY balun info for S-video to Cat5 conversion?
    ... There is lots of balun design info out there, and here on my drive I ... baluns for use in a receiving converter between 40 and 70 MHz. ... The number Al will be different but is obtained from the core manufacturers literature. ... We haven't considered power levels or core saturation since we ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT Can We Replace Obama With An Honest Black Man
    ... unethical tyranic things I have seen in this country. ... Second time is for life. ... For religion, I guess I'm a buddhist, at least that's ... cyborgs) is a core value of mine. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)