Electric Sonex

"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message
. ..

I've slept on a nuclear powered Navy ship and felt very comfortable about it.

I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept a night
or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually).

I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In ways, their
operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the of the Navy because
they tend to operate at a constant power for months at a time. They have (for
example) no such thing as a fast scram recovery procedure, and, being attached
firmly to the ground, don't have to deal with the pitch, roll and vibration of
operating at sea. Furthermore, they use injected fission poisons so that they
can operate with the rods pulled out, resulting in safer core power
distributions and giving them a tremendous shutdown margin for emergencies.

The Navy has the tradition of Adm. Rickover's obsession with safety.

Yes, they do. The nuke Nave has roving squads of examiners that descend on
ships without notice and, after a white glove inspection, will drill the crew
beyond mercy. Failing an inspection can be a career-ending event, especially
for the Captain, XO, and Engineering Officer.

A publically held utility run by executives compensated with stock options
just has too much incentive to cut costs.

That is a concern, and not just for the nuclear power industry. We threw
out some canned goods today that my wife found on the government recall list.

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:


I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept
a night or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually).

I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In
ways, their operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the
of the Navy because they tend to operate at a constant power for
months at a time. They have (for example) no such thing as a fast
scram recovery procedure, and, being attached firmly to the ground, don't
have to deal with the pitch, roll and vibration of operating at
sea. Furthermore, they use injected fission poisons so that they can
operate with the rods pulled out, resulting in safer core power
distributions and giving them a tremendous shutdown margin for
emergencies.

Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up
and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up
and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide.

That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a nuclear
submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the
turbines that drive the prop.

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were
set up
and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant
provide.

That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a
nuclear
submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the
turbines that drive the prop.

Vaughn


From all I've heard, that is a passable analogy. I've also heard that
aircraft carriers are the ones that can really generate the electric
power--and even there, the electric power is probably small compared to the
porpeller drive power.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes
were set up and run at a continuous power how much electricity
could the plant
provide.

That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply.
On a nuclear submarine the turbines that drive the generators are
small compared to the turbines that drive the prop.

Vaughn


From all I've heard, that is a passable analogy. I've also heard that
aircraft carriers are the ones that can really generate the electric
power--and even there, the electric power is probably small compared
to the porpeller drive power.

Peter

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor, such as
one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

On Jul 27, 6:21 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:

...

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor, such as
one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

I _think_ that the Gerald R Ford Class carriers are to be equipped
with
two (2) each 100 MWe reactors. The Perry, Ohio BWR reactor was
planned to be about 350 MWE, if I recall correctly.

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

--

FF

wrote:
On Jul 27, 6:21 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:

...

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor,
such as one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

I _think_ that the Gerald R Ford Class carriers are to be equipped
with
two (2) each 100 MWe reactors. The Perry, Ohio BWR reactor was
planned to be about 350 MWE, if I recall correctly.

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

FF

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop designing
the damn things everytime one get's built they would be more affordable. I
have no problem with guarding the hell out of them. It would be cheaper than
the way we have done it in the pass.

On Jul 26, 5:23 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in ...



Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes were set up
and run at a continuous power how much electricity could the plant provide.

That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply. On a nuclear
submarine the turbines that drive the generators are small compared to the
turbines that drive the prop.


Are you sure the props aren't always driven by electric motors?

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
Are you sure the props aren't always driven by electric motors?

I am no expert on the current fleet, but I can only name two American
nuclear submarines with that setup. One is a midget research sub and the other
was scrapped decades ago.

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:

I am an ex-Navy nuclear power plant operator, so I have also slept a night
or two on a Navy nuke ship (submarine actually).

I am not nearly as down on the civilian plants as you are. In ways, their
operations are safer (or at least easier) than those the of the Navy because
they tend to operate at a constant power for months at a time.

It also seems that a lot of the executives and the operating personnel
at US nuclear facilities are ex Navy bubbleheads as well. I believe
the first Nuclear plant on the grid was a Navy sub that was connected to
the Philadelphia grid and run for some time, but I can't find a
reference for that now. Another factoid, the US Navy is the fifteenth
largest utility in the US, although they buy most of their power rather
than generate it themselves.

Charles