Nuclear cruise ships.

[wraithe]

RCCL will no longer use the gas turbine engines, they are going back to diesel electric motor to save fuel, I/O freedom class. Great board.

Alex.

 

Just to be sure, they're not taking the gas turbines off of Radiance class ships. They're adding a diesel generator for in port ops, a gas turbine uses nearly as much fuel at idle as it does at full power, so in port electric loads are very inefficient, whereas a diesel engine is still efficient at almost any power level. A low speed, long stroke diesel engine is about the most efficient internal combustion engine that we have available, almost all the energy in the fuel is converted to work. Efficiencies on some of the largest diesels are reaching 85 to 88% on BSFC, vs. 40-ish% for steam plants, like nukes. Too many conversions, fuel heats primary water, primary water heats secondary water to steam in a steam generator, steam drives a turbine, then gets cooled to liquid in a condensor (more heat lost to ocean), to start the process all over again. Now get this, to help increase efficiency, the exhaust from the gas turbine heats water in a steam generator that is used by a steam turbine to make electricity.

 

Hobie,

 

Congrats on the racing, I believe the upgrade to diesel is on Radiance class ships for now, and not for propulsion. They are putting in a generator for plant use (read hotel / ship use.)

 

It is not more fuel efficient, but the fuel is significantly less expensive on a volumetric basis.

 

See above vaccardi, a diesel really is more fuel efficient, but even more, you are absolutely correct about the cost of the fuel, too. Turbines run a much more refined fuel, kerosene or diesel #1 which is very costly compared to the heavy fuel oil that the diesels run. Heavy fuel oil is also known as diesel #5 or #6 or bunker fuel oil. It's not nearly as refined, doesn't cost nearly as much, and is practically tar, they actually have to heat the fuel to about 150F to get it thin enough to inject into the diesel cylinders. My understanding is that they aren't building any more turbine powered ships.

 

I didn't read all the comments but hubby said a HUGE con...

 

Everyone would need a TLD...(in my words)they read the amount of radiactive "stuff" you are taking in...

 

Like Joedog above said, you don't need a TLD unless rad levels are going to be high enough that you couldn't bunk in the area. The rules on a sub are a little different, but everyone wears a TLD on a sub, on surface ships, unless you're actually required to be in an area, the levels are so low that you don't need monitorring.

[hobie33]

Now that we got over the automatic NO responders, few more Q.

1: How big ( space) it will have to be compare to regular engines?

2: Can it be power up or down quickly ( entering and leaving Ports)?

3: the ports that not welcome you in , was it because the power plants or the type off weapons on board? , if it is classified don't answer please.

4: Will it eliminate the smoke stacks? some Carnival ships the stern is covered with black stuff all the time.

In Israel were I am originally from we use nuclear power to make sweet water out of sea water.

Alex.

[Macfans]

Not many countries allow nuke powered ships into port. Being stationed

on a nuke cruiser in the navy, we tendered every time we were in "port".

Not much fun.

[wraithe]

Now that we got over the automatic NO responders, few more Q.

1: How big ( space) it will have to be compare to regular engines?

2: Can it be power up or down quickly ( entering and leaving Ports)?

3: the ports that not welcome you in , was it because the power plants or the type off weapons on board? , if it is classified don't answer please.

4: Will it eliminate the smoke stacks? some Carnival ships the stern is covered with black stuff all the time.

In Israel were I am originally from we use nuclear power to make sweet water out of sea water.

Alex.

 

1) Since the power plants on a civilian ship would be low enriched fuel, the reactor would be much larger than a similar naval vessel, but may not occupy much more space than the fuel oil bunkers do now, the engine room would be a little bigger than what it is now. The turbines would need a condensor to exhaust steam to, pumps to send the condensed steam back to the steam generator and such. It would take up more room than what the current engine rooms do, but I wouldn't think it would be more than 150% of what it is now. It'd still be electric propulsion, so there wouldn't be any change to the azipods/fixipods.

 

2) Depends on the design of the power plant, rate of change of power would be part of the design. Civilian electric power plants don't change power a lot, the are pretty much either shut down, or full power, cause they don't make money unless they're at full power. A shipboard power plant is designed to rapidly change power as necessary, so yes, it can go from low power at the pier operating only hotel load, to full power as soon the bridge orders it.

 

3) Could be either, some ports didn't want us there due to weapons, there are definitely more ports that would allow nuke ships, fast attacks subs and carriers than boomers (ballistic missile subs).

 

4) There would be a small stack for the emergency diesel, you'd have to have power to run the pumps and critical loads if the reactor scrammed, but there'd be little soot since it would only run occasionally.

[Yeorwned]

If they used nuclear reactors to power a cruise ship, the reactor room would obviously be locked down to an aspect that a terrorist attack couldn't obtain any useful access or damage thereof.

 

I'd actually perfer that they use such power anyway because that's one less thing to smell/find on your balcony because of odd wind patterns.

[hobie33]

There is a big different in ports that are objecting to a sub or a cruiser to dock with some 300 fun loving American sailors, to ports that make big bucks from ships passengers. they will be stamping on their own foot if they say no.

Alex.

[rolloman]

Before anyone states they would not go on a nuclear powered ship due to fear of becoming a glow worm, I think you should probably check your own backyard first as there probably is a nuclear reactor nearby powering your city.

[hobie33]

Tell the lady's they will be glowing and they will line up to buy tickets.

I just finish 10 European tour, drove 3000 kilometers on two diesel rental cars. one was a Mercedes ML and we got close to 36 miles per gallon , the other was a small Renault 4 doors and we got 48 miles per gallon, all the fuel was biodiesel.

When we will see this kind of cars here?

Alex.

[madforcruising]

Before anyone states they would not go on a nuclear powered ship due to fear of becoming a glow worm, I think you should probably check your own backyard first as there probably is a nuclear reactor nearby powering your city.

 

 

Nope there is none anywhere nearby, however it doesn´t need to be nearby to effect if something happens.

 

But anyway my resistance against the idea is not only the potential risk of accidents. A major problem to me would still be the "waste storage" and I don´t see any safe solution for this yet. BTW the main reason why over here the nuke power plants are going to be switched off.

[Anton]

I'm am coming in late to this thread. I am a former Navy nuke ELT (Engineering Laboratory Technician - we did the radiation and contamination surveys on the ships, analyzed the reactor coolant, issued TLDs, monitored exposures). And I currently work for a "large public utility" in the southeast which is within days of restarting our long-idled Unit 1 reactor - with the nuclear world watching us and hoping we spark a nuclear renaissance.

 

I was a surface nuke, on a cruiser (Texas CGN-39) and then a carrier (Nimitz CVN-68). We always had to anchor in the Med, with the exception of Israel where we docked at a military base. And I also recall most ports making us anchor outside the breakwater. Loved those long rides to shore and back.

 

For clarification, in an earlier post someone said a TLD monitors "the radioactive stuff that get's in you". That is not correct. A TLD monitors a person's exposure to radiation - specifically gamma, beta, and neutron - none of which gets in your body or stays there. I can assure you that no passenger would need to be monitored on a nuclear-powered cruise ship.

 

But beyond all of this minutae, the labor would be the deal killer here. Our reactor operators all make well in excess of 100k per year, in fact this is true for the maintenance folks and we RP (radiation protection) people too. It would take a hefty premium above what I make now to get my interest in going to sea again and standing watch for weeks on end.

 

But I'd be quite happy to be a passenger on a nuclear-powered cruise ship! It is very clean and safe energy.

 

Oh, one more point - I believe the Navy is backing away from weapons-grade uranium for their fuel. I read somewhere that the Nimitz' new cores are enriched at a level 50% or so lower than the original cores.

[wraithe]

Tell the lady's they will be glowing and they will line up to buy tickets.

I just finish 10 European tour, drove 3000 kilometers on two diesel rental cars. one was a Mercedes ML and we got close to 36 miles per gallon , the other was a small Renault 4 doors and we got 48 miles per gallon, all the fuel was biodiesel.

When we will see this kind of cars here?

Alex.

 

Not soon, due to the Clean Air Act rules that went into effect in 2007, diesels require Utra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), new oils, and a soot filter in the exhaust to meet soot requirements for exhaust. Because of this, the Jeep Liberty CRD (VM Mottori 2.8 liter turbo-diesel engine) that I drive is no longer available, the VW TDI is not available in the Jetta, Golf or Beetle. There is a Mercede's diesel available in the Jeep Cherokee this year. Most people don't even know that my car is a diesel, little smoke, barely noticeable smell, and no significant engine noise. Like nuclear power though, American's never forget anything, they only remember the old smokey, noisy diesels, and won't even look at a modern diesel car. No demand, no supply, you know what I mean?

[TahoeBob]

I would, however, be very comfortable on a hydrogen powered cruise ship!!!

As a Star Trek fan I am wondering if a cruise ship could be powered by dilithium crystles. Streams of matter and antimatter could be directed into power plant.

 

I can see it now RCI has the first warp driven cruise ship!:D

[rolloman]

I'm am coming in late to this thread. I am a former Navy nuke ELT (Engineering Laboratory Technician - we did the radiation and contamination surveys on the ships, analyzed the reactor coolant, issued TLDs, monitored exposures). And I currently work for a "large public utility" in the southeast which is within days of restarting our long-idled Unit 1 reactor - with the nuclear world watching us and hoping we spark a nuclear renaissance.

 

I was a surface nuke, on a cruiser (Texas CGN-39) and then a carrier (Nimitz CVN-68). We always had to anchor in the Med, with the exception of Israel where we docked at a military base. And I also recall most ports making us anchor outside the breakwater. Loved those long rides to shore and back.

 

 

I was on a carrier as well and I am pretty sure we always tendered in for our own ships safety, plus not too many ports have piers which can accept a ship of that size. Also mentioned was the fact we were loaded with various weapons of which I can neither confirm or deny.

[Hypo]

There appears to be a lot of us "nukes" on Cruise Critic boards. I am a retired civilian nuke, Senior Reactor Operator/Control Room Supervisor. I worked at Arkansas Nuclear One for 23 years and have been doing consulting work for the past 4 years.

 

I think that the concept of a nuclear powered vessel is a proven concept, I don't think that it would be accepted by the general public.

 

Twenty + years ago, when the company that I worked for was in the process of building two very large coal-fueled plants, the local populace protested the construction since they knew that "They were really building nuclear plants, since they could see the two large natural draft cooling towers that were being constructed." During one public meeting, the company spokesperson pointed out the large yard full of coal that was being filled at that time, and one of the local yokels declared that it was all a lie and they were just hauling coal in to hide the truth.

 

Even in the community where I live, many locals believe that there is radioactive "steam" coming from the cooling tower, (it's not, just water vapor)

 

Until such time as the media learn to correctly portray nuclear power, and nuclear topics in general, the public is going to be apprehensive and not very acceptable of anything nuclear.

 

I too, would sail on a nuclear powered crusie ship, but would probably be booted off at the first port for being a nuisance, as I would probably get be trying to finagle a tour of engineering spaces.

 

Hypo

[hobie33]

No more room left on N/S Gonuclear, the next position is only open for cooks and bottle washers.

I have started this board because I was pissed off at the answer that I got at the captain meeting, I had no idea how many of you are around ( according to the big media you are a DYING breed) the level off expertise is phenomenal.

I think we should take this board to the general board so you guy's can run into old friends, I just don't know how to do that.

thanks

Alex (old F4 pilot).

[wraithe]

No more room left on N/S Gonuclear, the next position is only open for cooks and bottle washers.

I have started this board because I was pissed off at the answer that I got at the captain meeting, I had no idea how many of you are around ( according to the big media you are a DYING breed) the level off expertise is phenomenal.

I think we should take this board to the general board so you guy's can run into old friends, I just don't know how to do that.

thanks

Alex (old F4 pilot).

 

Holy crap, you should have said you were an F4 jock! What a kick *ss airplane. First time I ever saw the Thunderbirds, they were flying Phantom II's. There's something I never get tired of talking about, much to my lovely bride's chagrin. I am an airplane nut first, gearhead second. Finished my private in 1991, and eventually want to sell the Varieze project I've got and build a Dyke Delta or Titan T51. Sorry, little off topic everyone.

 

LOL, of course how many of you know anything about the GE HTRE-3 aircraft engine. Maybe some of the airplane nuts might know a little about it. Hint, some of the Navy nukes should remember reading about it. If no one chimes in after while, I'll fill in the blanks.

[jetskier]

I would also like to add my 2 cents to the guy who said you could walk off with fuel rods. Say you could get a spent fuel bundle out. (they are very heavy) The radiation being emitted is in excess of 10,000 Rem. That is an acute dose and you will not survive for very long.

 

Hypo,

I feel sorry for you having to deal with Howard Hutchens and Harold in Security. I believe Mike Higgins is now the Security Director at ANO. I worked for Howard for about 7 years at River Bend before he retired. I was able to go to ANO several times on security audits. I believe the geese up there polluted more than the plant did.

Dave

[Lightsluvr]

I have learned a lot on this thread from the nuke guys, civilian and ex-military. Fascinating stuff.

 

A lot of folks seem to think that labor costs would be the deal breaker for nuclear cruise ships. Do we really think the cruise lines are going to hire U.S. (read that $100K plus) engineers to read the guages on the reactor?

 

If a nuclear power plant was ever involved, you would probably see the same mixture of Scandinavian and Far Eastern crew and staff that we see on today's ships. After all, the cruise ships will still be foreign flagged. And, if as stated earlier, some European countries close down their nuclear reactors because of environmental/waste issues, there may be a lot of unemployed nuclear techs. A job on a cruise ship might not seem so bad.

 

Just a thought...:)

 

LL

[jetskier]

I am sure that before the USA lets in a civilian nuclear powered ship that is going to ply its waters, it would legislate a requirement for a US trained engineering staff or to have the NRC monitor its operation.

 

One of the major problems of the US nuclear power reactors is that every utility designed their plants differently. In Japan and France, they used the same design premise for all their plants. It made it easier to transfer material and personnel around and to fix problems when they arose.

 

Even the security programs are different in the US even though all are derived from 10CFR73.55.

Dave

[wraithe]

I am sure that before the USA lets in a civilian nuclear powered ship that is going to ply its waters, it would legislate a requirement for a US trained engineering staff or to have the NRC monitor its operation.

 

One of the major problems of the US nuclear power reactors is that every utility designed their plants differently. In Japan and France, they used the same design premise for all their plants. It made it easier to transfer material and personnel around and to fix problems when they arose.

 

Even the security programs are different in the US even though all are derived from 10CFR73.55.

Dave

 

Hmm, with NRC oversight, a license could probably be figured out with whatever nationality crew, but with the current state of Congress, writing the new laws would be a long, arduous process, now that you mention it, they can't even write a budget, not likely able to write laws allowing a nuclear powered vessel to operate in US waters with a foreign non-military crew.

 

That's one of the beauties of the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors, pretty much all just alike, from what I understand. Factory built, the only thing different is the location. Pull a pump off one plant in East Behemothville and truck it over to West Nukeville and install it in another plant, since they're all pretty much just alike. Imagine that, 50 years after building Navy nuke plants using the same concept, design a plant and build them all alike, the light clicks on and they realize the same process would work for land based plants.

[jetskier]

Hmm, with NRC oversight, a license could probably be figured out with whatever nationality crew, but with the current state of Congress, writing the new laws would be a long, arduous process, now that you mention it, they can't even write a budget, not likely able to write laws allowing a nuclear powered vessel to operate in US waters with a foreign non-military crew.

 

That's one of the beauties of the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors, pretty much all just alike, from what I understand. Factory built, the only thing different is the location. Pull a pump off one plant in East Behemothville and truck it over to West Nukeville and install it in another plant, since they're all pretty much just alike. Imagine that, 50 years after building Navy nuke plants using the same concept, design a plant and build them all alike, the light clicks on and they realize the same process would work for land based plants.

 

I used to write the Security plans, procedures and position instructions as one of my duties at the plant. Others duties I have performed were armed response, operation of the Central/Secondary Alarm stations, lock and key, testing/trending and analysis of the security system.

 

It can be a nightmare as a single change can affect multiple documents and impact other depts procedures. I also had to review all design changes to the plant for security vulnerabilities. I had to know some basic operation of the plant and the physical characteristics of the plant.

 

It took us many years to convince management that Security officers needed to know a basic overview of how the plant operated. How could you defend something if you do not know why. After the bombing in Oklahoma things started changing for the better. We started getting hardened positions, defense in depth and better weapons. I worked there for 17 years before moving here to MS.

 

One of my final acts was to call the NRC and report a vulnerability that I could not get management to fix. After investigating, they determined this vulnerability existed at 3/4s of the nuclear plants in the US. It would allow undetected/unauthorized access to the facility which is extremely serious.

 

Congress to write a rule change would involve all kinds of public hearings, incorporating comments, sending it back out for public review, more hearings and eventually getting to the point of publishing it in the Federal Register.

 

Dave

[hobie33]

Is that means I have to wear this funny underwear for life ? G suit will do , and I am getting to the age that Depends start looking good to me.

Flow Mirages and F4 from 66 to 74, came to the US to talk to pilots about SAM 2,6,and 3's, flown for EL-AL till 95 then retired to Florida (were else).

The thing that bother me is that our gov and privete capital is rushing to help "poor" Russia, wile they have money to develop a very good SAM missiles to sell to Iran and Syria.

[veryhotred]

Veryhotred,

 

I sailed as ship's company on two nuclear powered air craft carriers and the only crew members that needed to have tld's were those that actually worked in the propulsion plants.

 

General crew members, deck apes and the like, were not monitored for radiation exposure at all.

 

The ship was monitored and areas that had readings of radiation above normal were marked and had access limited. None of the crew sleeping, eating or office areas were in an area that had radiation readings.

 

Just to be sure, they're not taking the gas turbines off of Radiance class ships. They're adding a diesel generator for in port ops, a gas turbine uses nearly as much fuel at idle as it does at full power, so in port electric loads are very inefficient, whereas a diesel engine is still efficient at almost any power level. A low speed, long stroke diesel engine is about the most efficient internal combustion engine that we have available, almost all the energy in the fuel is converted to work. Efficiencies on some of the largest diesels are reaching 85 to 88% on BSFC, vs. 40-ish% for steam plants, like nukes. Too many conversions, fuel heats primary water, primary water heats secondary water to steam in a steam generator, steam drives a turbine, then gets cooled to liquid in a condensor (more heat lost to ocean), to start the process all over again. Now get this, to help increase efficiency, the exhaust from the gas turbine heats water in a steam generator that is used by a steam turbine to make electricity.

 

 

 

See above vaccardi, a diesel really is more fuel efficient, but even more, you are absolutely correct about the cost of the fuel, too. Turbines run a much more refined fuel, kerosene or diesel #1 which is very costly compared to the heavy fuel oil that the diesels run. Heavy fuel oil is also known as diesel #5 or #6 or bunker fuel oil. It's not nearly as refined, doesn't cost nearly as much, and is practically tar, they actually have to heat the fuel to about 150F to get it thin enough to inject into the diesel cylinders. My understanding is that they aren't building any more turbine powered ships.

 

Um, they would make EVERYONE wear a TLD..lol..you think they would render themselves into a possible lawsuit if someone came up with cancer of having not worn a TLD and ending up with cancer that could have come from the radiation?..lol..

 

 

 

Like Joedog above said, you don't need a TLD unless rad levels are going to be high enough that you couldn't bunk in the area. The rules on a sub are a little different, but everyone wears a TLD on a sub, on surface ships, unless you're actually required to be in an area, the levels are so low that you don't need monitorring.

 

same answer/question to you..read above..lol..this is a fun thread

[veryhotred]

For clarification, in an earlier post someone said a TLD monitors "the radioactive stuff that get's in you". That is not correct. A TLD monitors a person's exposure to radiation - specifically gamma, beta, and neutron - none of which gets in your body or stays there. I can assure you that no passenger would need to be monitored on a nuclear-powered cruise ship.

 

I am the one who said what a TLD measures..I know the basic concept ok? My husband was a MM in the Navy for 6 years and is now a Maint. Supv. at a Nuke plant and been in the Nuclear industry for over 14 years...sorry I didn't SPECIFICALLY lay it out to you the correct way okay? geesh, get over yourself!!!!

 

But beyond all of this minutae, the labor would be the deal killer here. Our reactor operators all make well in excess of 100k per year, in fact this is true for the maintenance folks and we RP (radiation protection) people too. It would take a hefty premium above what I make now to get my interest in going to sea again and standing watch for weeks on end.

 

But I'd be quite happy to be a passenger on a nuclear-powered cruise ship! It is very clean and safe energy.

 

It is safe, just people freak out about it..lol..they need to relax

[Anton]

I am the one who said what a TLD measures..I know the basic concept ok? My husband was a MM in the Navy for 6 years and is now a Maint. Supv. at a Nuke plant and been in the Nuclear industry for over 14 years...sorry I didn't SPECIFICALLY lay it out to you the correct way okay? geesh, get over yourself!!!!

 

 

I was not trying to be a wise guy, just trying to keep things factually correct. Trust me, I am not stuck on myself.