Skip to main content

View Diary: House Republicans Attempt To Nix Military's Clean Energy Initiatives (7 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The main adavantage is not needing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice refuel both the carrier and the aircraft fuel. Today's carriers are 5 times the size of WW2 ones, but only have twice the crew, and probably can carry more JP5. It's the smaller ships in the task force that need to burn fuel, at least until the Navy develops a smaller reactor that can power a destroyer.

    Interesting thing is that, steam-wise, nukes are less efficient than Navy Special burners, as they can't produce superheated steam. I learned that from both my thermo instructor at IIT, Dr. Roland Budenholzer, and my father-in-law, who served on the USS Enterprise (CV-6) in WW2. The Lucky E had 9 boilers, 6 producing saturated steam, and three superheating that steam. The 65-boat (USS Enterprise, CV-65N) has 8 Westinghouse reactors that produce more power than those 9 Babcock & Wilcox boilers, but it's wet steam.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:22:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site