Nuclear submarines? Nuclear aircraft carriers? Are they really nuclear powered?

Dumploads? Covert uses? Radiation? Submarines? Chernobyl, Fukushima &c. Coal, oil, wind, solar. Electric grids

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby Lark » 21 Nov 2011 23:24

He owns a gun store. He used to be a factory worker.
Lark
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 18:52

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby FirstClassSkeptic » 25 Nov 2011 23:27

I was re reading that article about the surface navy being a sitting duck. Found something I didn't notice before.

We had commented that the article says a nuclear air craft carrier must be refueled every day. Some have countered that, and said it's every week. Still pretty often.

But I found something surprising: the air craft carrier not only takes on jet fuel, but diesel fuel, because, get this: it doubles as a tanker for the rest of the battle group.

Nuclear carriers do take on Fuel despite being nuclear but it is not every day,[nit picking]

they also take on more than just JP-5 for their air wing, this might surprise you but they also act as a tanker for the battle group they sail with. [I am surprised but I see the logic] and do unreps with them for food and fuel.

Modern ships also do not burn Bunker oil, that generates billowing clouds and isn't efficient, modern warships are Gas steam turbine driven, they run on Diesel. [Whatever]


http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html

OK, it's getting more obvious to me. How about you?
User avatar
FirstClassSkeptic
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 21:19

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby Lark » 27 Nov 2011 20:10

I was walking around the carrier in the shipyard last week. Each engine room has two set of steam turbines connected to shafts that run to the back of the ship. They sure did not look like any diesel engine I ever saw. I was told that each one is about 50000 horsepower. There are also some giant electrical generaters powered by turbines too. Everything is bigger than the submarines, it is much easier to walk around in it too.

I asked about the fuel transfer stuff and was told that the carrier can race across the oceans, then pick up jet fuel and food if they run low. I heard that there was some diesel engines on the carrier, but I did not see them in the engine room or connected to the propeller shafts. I did not see any electric motors connected to the shafts like I did on the subs.

The submarine guys call the carriers targets. They like to say that there are two kinds of ships in the navy. Submarines and targets. hahahahah

In the article you posted, it seeems like the guy who wrote it does not like the navy or sailors that much. He does not even like the way they talk. He also says that a bottle of gasoline might be more effective than a ships gun as a weapon. I do not think so. Some of the other stuff he says about needing fuel alot and being a target is the same as what I hear from sailors and shipyard workers.
Lark
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 18:52

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby FirstClassSkeptic » 28 Nov 2011 23:40

Ask them what the temperature of the steam is, if they will tell you. Ask them if it is wet steam or dry steam. They might get suspicious if you ask too many technical questions. But they might answer those.
User avatar
FirstClassSkeptic
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 21:19

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby Lark » 30 Nov 2011 16:35

It is dry saturated steam. The plants do not have superheaters, just steam generators with moisture separaters. I was told the steam is always less than 500 degrees. I asked about why it was not like the older power plants on boiler powered ships and they said it had something to do with the limitations of the metal used to clad the nuclear fuel. I was told that they can not use steel to hold the fuel plates together because it absorbed neutrons too much. One older guy told me that making the first nuclear power ship was a giant leap backwards for steam plant tech and that the nuc subs and carriers have to use lower temperature saturated steam because they can not heat the reactor core as hot as a boiler.
Lark
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 18:52

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby FirstClassSkeptic » 01 Dec 2011 01:16

Yes, that' sounds about the same as what they say about land based nuclear plants. I don't understand 'dry saturated'. Sounds like an oxymoron.
User avatar
FirstClassSkeptic
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 21:19

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby Lark » 01 Dec 2011 03:52

Saturated means that the steam is at saturation conditions. If it gets a degree cooler and stays at the same pressure, it condenses into liquid water. If it gets any hotter, it becomes superheated. I had to read about it to understand it. When the water is boiled in the steam generator it passes through some moisture separators to ensure the steam is not pushing water droplets down the steam pipe. I was told that if there is too much water in the steam then the water crashes into the turbine blades and erodes them away or can break them off and then it is real trouble because they could shoot out of the turbine and kill someone in the engineroom.

I heard some of the larger land based plants operate at higher temperatures so they have better efficiency. The sub plant is much smaller and simpler than other nuclear power plants. One guy told me that the sub plant is so rugged and simple that most of the heat is lost to the sea in the condensor. Wikipeda says that the 165 MW reactor plant has 26 MW engines pushing the boat. This is like only 15% effeciency. I do not know if this is true, but if it is then they are really wasting lots of power.
Lark
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 18:52

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby Heiwa » 01 Dec 2011 17:30

Lark wrote:Saturated means that the steam is at saturation conditions. If it gets a degree cooler and stays at the same pressure, it condenses into liquid water. If it gets any hotter, it becomes superheated. I had to read about it to understand it. When the water is boiled in the steam generator it passes through some moisture separators to ensure the steam is not pushing water droplets down the steam pipe. I was told that if there is too much water in the steam then the water crashes into the turbine blades and erodes them away or can break them off and then it is real trouble because they could shoot out of the turbine and kill someone in the engineroom.

I heard some of the larger land based plants operate at higher temperatures so they have better efficiency. The sub plant is much smaller and simpler than other nuclear power plants. One guy told me that the sub plant is so rugged and simple that most of the heat is lost to the sea in the condensor. Wikipeda says that the 165 MW reactor plant has 26 MW engines pushing the boat. This is like only 15% effeciency. I do not know if this is true, but if it is then they are really wasting lots of power.

Have you painted anything recently at the yard? What color was it?
Heiwa
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 22 Oct 2011 10:19

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby Lark » 01 Dec 2011 21:25

I paint in the yard almost every day, mostly white but also some red green gray and primer. I am doing lots of prep work that does not involve using a paint brush. I have also been loaned out to the insulators at times. I will be trained as a control point watch soon to help out the radiological control division. I do not want to be a painter forever. I am trying to get into the apprentiship program and am working on a associates degree.

Why do you ask?
Lark
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 18:52

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby Lark » 07 Dec 2011 22:41

Met a guy at the rifle range yesterday. He was testing out a new silencer on a 45 caliber ar15. He was unhappy with it as it was not effective enough to keep a 2 inch flame from coming out the muzzle on the first round. It was much quieter with the silencer on, but I still needed ear plugs.

He was taking a day of sick leave from the shipyard because he had an injection of radioactive technicium for a bone scan. His said his ankle is radioactive due to the isotope collecting in his ankle where he broke it years ago. He said he would show me how radioactive it is when he goes back to work tomorrow. He said he used to be on a sub when he was in the navy, said it sucked big time and the shipyard is almost as bad but he has to make a living. He is training people to assist the radcon division, something that I will be doing soon. He wasn't exactly a big help on getting information, but I can ask him some more later.
Lark
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 18:52

Re: Nuclear submarines?

Postby Lark » 16 Dec 2011 08:09

I was watching some technicians doing some radiation surveys on a submarine today. They had the reactor shield marked off in grids and were slowly scanning it with their detectors. Some of them had large neutron detectors but were not picking up hardly anything. The smaller gamma detectors were picking up lots more though.
Lark
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 18:52

Re: Nuclear submarines? Nuclear aircraft carriers?

Postby Lark » 24 Dec 2011 22:35

I was standing watch at the entrance to the reactor compartment two days ago. My job now is to monitor people as they go in and out of the compartment. It is better than painting, but it will only last until March.

I had some time on my hands so I took out one of the radiation survey meters and played with it for a while. Some of the pipes near where I was working had higher radiation levels. The nuclear trained people call them crud traps. They say the radiation is from radioactive rust that circulates in the coolant and becomes radioactive then settles out in parts of the system where it makes the radiation levels go up. I had seen them do these surveys inside of the reactor compartment, but I did not know that the pipes outside were radioactive too. They have ropes up around the ones that are hotter though to keep people away.
Lark
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Nov 2011 18:52

Return to Nuclear Power Doubts: Nuclear Disasters? Safe Power? Is 'Nuclear Power' a Hoax?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest