7 ms·

Former US Navy submarine officer here. The easy answer is no. The turbine generators are much smaller than the main engines and are designed to take much less

by jedc 16y ago

Former US Navy submarine officer here. The easy answer is no. The turbine generators are much smaller than the main engines and are designed to take much less load. Also, the cables, breakers, and connections can't handle that kind of electrical load. But the longer answer is that yes, it is possible. When subs and other ships tie up to the pier, we connect cables to connect the boat to "shore power." Reverse the flow, and the boat powers the shore facilities. It's just that the power that can get from the boat to the shore is nowhere near the amount of power that's needed.

jedc 16y ago
Specific data: S6G full power: ~165 MW (A fraction of that available for electrical power) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor Affected Japanese reactors: 785 MW each (All available for electrical power) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- bhousel 16y ago
  Cool, thanks for that! I wasn't thinking that a sub could completely replace all of the power lost by the nuclear power plant, just that one could provide enough for emergency services. It's really just a thought experiment. And this is the power plant in the USS Ronald Reagan nearby (I guess there are 2 which each provide 104MW): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor
  - uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
    It was proposed in Northern Ireland during a power workers strike. Although considering the limited electrical power you can pull from even a nuclear sub and the 'security implications' of parking one in Belfast during the euphemisms it never got very far
  - jedc 16y ago
    I'd say the real problem is that the power circuitry _within_ the boats/ships are designed to handle quite a bit of load. But the physical connections _on/off_ the boat are likely not designed to carry it. To do this properly would require some redesign of Navy ships/boats.
jarin 16y ago
Former (non-nuke, non-electrician) US Navy carrier sailor here. :) According to Wikipedia, the output for a Los Angeles-class attack sub is around 150-165 MW and the output for a Nimitz-class carrier is around 194 MW. The damaged Fukushima reactors have a total output of 2,812 MW, so even in a best case scenario it seems like you would only be able to use naval reactors to power emergency and critical services. Of course, there are probably a lot of emergency and critical services needed right now.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  100% of that 194 MW isn't used for electrical power generation. The total MW output is split between propulsion and the generators. If I had to guess, I'd say that bulk of the wattage is used for propulsion. Moving a carrier through the water at 30 knots is no small feat.

by jedc 16y ago

jedc 16y ago

Specific data: S6G full power: ~165 MW (A fraction of that available for electrical power) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor Affected Japanese reactors: 785 MW each (All available for electrical power) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant

bhousel 16y ago
Cool, thanks for that! I wasn't thinking that a sub could completely replace all of the power lost by the nuclear power plant, just that one could provide enough for emergency services. It's really just a thought experiment. And this is the power plant in the USS Ronald Reagan nearby (I guess there are 2 which each provide 104MW): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor
- uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
  It was proposed in Northern Ireland during a power workers strike. Although considering the limited electrical power you can pull from even a nuclear sub and the 'security implications' of parking one in Belfast during the euphemisms it never got very far
- jedc 16y ago
  I'd say the real problem is that the power circuitry _within_ the boats/ships are designed to handle quite a bit of load. But the physical connections _on/off_ the boat are likely not designed to carry it. To do this properly would require some redesign of Navy ships/boats.

jarin 16y ago

Former (non-nuke, non-electrician) US Navy carrier sailor here. :) According to Wikipedia, the output for a Los Angeles-class attack sub is around 150-165 MW and the output for a Nimitz-class carrier is around 194 MW. The damaged Fukushima reactors have a total output of 2,812 MW, so even in a best case scenario it seems like you would only be able to use naval reactors to power emergency and critical services. Of course, there are probably a lot of emergency and critical services needed right now.

bradleyland 16y ago
100% of that 194 MW isn't used for electrical power generation. The total MW output is split between propulsion and the generators. If I had to guess, I'd say that bulk of the wattage is used for propulsion. Moving a carrier through the water at 30 knots is no small feat.