Can someone explain the Gas Turbine Vessel engines ?

[ORANGEinINDY]

There's no reason that it couldn't be built other than cost and perception. Nuclear power is extremely expensive and corners tend to get cut when there is a profit motive involved. It's not as bad now that there are modular techniques of building nuke power plants. The current plants are good for the life of the ship, but that is highly enriched fuel used for Navy ships. Low enrichment fuel like used for the Savannah would most likely need a refueling capability which would have to be overseen by someone, and then who would trust another country to do that with a ship that's entering their harbors? There are many ports in the world that won't allow nuclear powered ships to enter their harbors. When my ship pulled in to Bermuda, we couldn't pull up to the pier, we had to anchor out in the harbor and steam. So that port call was holiday routine, holiday forward, routine aft. There are many other technologies that could be used instead of nuke power with much lower up front costs or regulatory issues, such as renewable fuels, biodiesel, for instance. Hmmm, that would be tough, the ships would travel around smelling like french fries for miles behind them :D , and if a fuel spill occurred, provided it was pure biodiesel, who cares, you can drink it, and it won't hurt you.

Some of the points you state are what would 'worry' me about nuclear powered cruise ships. They already flag ships in countries that have less regulations/taxes/whatever.. if these ships were built to the same standards as our (U.S.) Aircraft Carriers and Subs concerns would drop significantly.

 

Edit/PS... I DO like the idea of ships leaving a "French Fry" aroma [or is that "Freedom Fry"?:eek: :eek: ] behind them:D

Could stop some of the "Grandeur had sewage smell in my stateroom" threads!!:rolleyes:

[wraithe]

Some of the points you state are what would 'worry' me about nuclear powered cruise ships. They already flag ships in countries that have less regulations/taxes/whatever.. if these ships were built to the same standards as our (U.S.) Aircraft Carriers and Subs concerns would drop significantly.

 

It's possible that concerns would drop, but what are the chances? I doubt very seriously that most Caribbean ports would allow a nuke powered ship in their ports. I appreciate nuke power, I operated them for nearly 20 years, but don't see how in the present world (read that thought process) that nuclear power would be viable in a civilian ship.

 

Edit/PS... I DO like the idea of ships leaving a "French Fry" aroma [or is that "Freedom Fry"?:eek: ] behind them:D

 

Could stop some of the "Grandeur had sewage smell in my stateroom" threads!!:rolleyes:

 

Had a good laugh over that one, both counts, I think I prefer Freedom Fry now that you mention it, vice surrender, er French fry. I'm gonna get flamed now :D . It would be really cool, if RCL would build a fuel processing plant to make as much biodiesel as they could and mix it with their heavy fuel oil. What a positive environmental statement that would make. A little more cost, but the advertising effects would be very positive. Maybe they're listening.:cool:

[johnjen]

The NS Savannah was the first (and only) US built nuclear powered cruise and cargo ship, it was designed for both. A combination of problems with the engineering and ships unions, which idled the ship several times, as well as the paranoia of anti-nuclear hysteria which prevented the ship from entering some ports. It was designed in the mid '50s with the ship floating out in '59. It operated until 1971 before she was defueled and laid up. I toured her in 1989 while she was still at Patriot's Point in Charleston, SC as part of a museum consisting of several ships. She languishes now in the ghost fleet in the James River in Virginia. There was a civilian nuke power program in the UK, and the USSR, but I don't know if the UK program ever actually built a ship. The USSR program produced many of the same problems as their sub and surface warship fleet, radioactive spills, excessive radiation for the crew, and general poor designs. http://www.radiationworks.com/NSSavannah.htm is a link to an article about Savannah, and with links to an article about the German and Russian civilian cargo ships.

 

I visited the Savannah down in SC many years ago. It was a shame to see her wasting away. For a cargo vessel, she was laid out very nice. She had a main deck swimming pool and could accomodate passengers. According to the link provided by Wraithe, she's down in the James River Reserve Fleet - nothing more than a bunch of old, rustbuckets, wasting away in the wind.

 

One point of interest: if you've ever seen that 80's version of the movie "Philadelphia Experiment" that movie was filmed on location where the Savannah sits - as a matter of fact, a big mistake can be seen in the movie that was set in WWII. As they cross the Cooper River Bridge, there is a quick cameo shot of the Savannah in the distance!

 

As for the post about how conventional fuel is driving up cruise prices, right on, but sadly, there are those out there who would oppose nuclear powered cruise ships. I wonder if the cost of refueling a reactor onboard a cruise ship would be cheaper than using conventional fuel during the years it would take until another nuclear refueling? Personally, I feel that if maritime ships used the same nuclear engineering design as that of our naval reactor models, we would have a very safe cruise environment. Nuclear power at sea is VERY safe - as long as the cruise ships would follow the same strict guidelines as they do on our naval vessels.

[cruiseco]

Advantages: quieter, .

 

Are you sure about that? Although a diesel in an enclosed area will certainly be loud, with a gas turbine you are talking about a jet engine. One reason I ask is that when raiilroads were experimenting with turbine-powered locomotives some years ago some communities wouldn't even let them pass through town they were so doggone loud.

 

Here's some comparisons:

 

diesel train at 45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB)

 

Boeing 737 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB)

[ORANGEinINDY]

It would be really cool, if RCL would build a fuel processing plant to make as much biodiesel as they could and mix it with their heavy fuel oil. What a positive environmental statement that would make. A little more cost, but the advertising effects would be very positive. Maybe they're listening.:cool:

I believe they already make quite a bit bio-diesel here in Indiana. After all we do have a bit of soy and corn:D. Something like that could certainly make us more independent.

Now.. if we can only get the ships to port here to 'fill up', so I don't have to fly to a port to cruise.

[wraithe]

Are you sure about that? Although a diesel in an enclosed area will certainly be loud, with a gas turbine you are talking about a jet engine. One reason I ask is that when raiilroads were experimenting with turbine-powered locomotives some years ago some communities wouldn't even let them pass through town they were so doggone loud.

 

Here's some comparisons:

 

diesel train at 45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB)

 

Boeing 737 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB)

 

Nope, not sure about it at all, it was just one of the things mentioned when I was learning a little about marine gas turbines in the Navy. You make a good point though, I'll concede that diesel trains aren't nearly as loud as a jet aircraft.

 

Hey OrangeinIndy, I got a good laugh out of making them pull in to IN to refill, would make it a lot easier than flying all the way to P'Can, wouldn't it?

[above sea level cruiser]

Nope, not sure about it at all, it was just one of the things mentioned when I was learning a little about marine gas turbines in the Navy. You make a good point though, I'll concede that diesel trains aren't nearly as loud as a jet aircraft.

 

Hey OrangeinIndy, I got a good laugh out of making them pull in to IN to refill, would make it a lot easier than flying all the way to P'Can, wouldn't it?

Wraithe: I understand the entire ship propelled by electrical means. I guess the diesels turn the gen sets and then the power is transmitted to the engines and the bow thrusters. Do you know if these ships are heavily affected by wind and/or currents? I was thinking that they are so heavy, wind would not be that much of a factor. They always seem to be able to maneuver these ships with such precision it amazes me!

[wraithe]

Wraithe: I understand the entire ship propelled by electrical means. I guess the diesels turn the gen sets and then the power is transmitted to the engines and the bow thrusters. Do you know if these ships are heavily affected by wind and/or currents? I was thinking that they are so heavy, wind would not be that much of a factor. They always seem to be able to maneuver these ships with such precision it amazes me!

 

You're exactly right about the propulsion system. Each thruster, whether it's bow or azipod/fixipod is an electric motor. When I was on Mariner, I got to tour the control room, at about 20 knots, the propulsion plant was consuming almost 4 megawatts of electricity. The diesels (turbines on Radiance class) turn a generator that puts out 11,000 volts, used directly by the propulsion system, and transformed to either 440 VAC, or 110 VAC for the hotel loads.

 

They'd be affected the same as any other ship by wind/current. They'll crab into a current to get the heading that they want, and while you wouldn't notice much wind effect at speed, it would have a little "sail" effect at low speeds. Biggest place you'd have to worry about wind would be when anchoring, make sure you had enough room that as the ship weathervanes, it won't hit anything.

 

Hope that answers your questions.

[above sea level cruiser]

You're exactly right about the propulsion system. Each thruster, whether it's bow or azipod/fixipod is an electric motor. When I was on Mariner, I got to tour the control room, at about 20 knots, the propulsion plant was consuming almost 4 megawatts of electricity. The diesels (turbines on Radiance class) turn a generator that puts out 11,000 volts, used directly by the propulsion system, and transformed to either 440 VAC, or 110 VAC for the hotel loads.

 

They'd be affected the same as any other ship by wind/current. They'll crab into a current to get the heading that they want, and while you wouldn't notice much wind effect at speed, it would have a little "sail" effect at low speeds. Biggest place you'd have to worry about wind would be when anchoring, make sure you had enough room that as the ship weathervanes, it won't hit anything.

 

Hope that answers your questions.

 

Thank you, yes it does. I still wonder though, how they are able to pull in/out of port from their docks seemingly effortlessly and with such precision.

[gratefulguy]

Maybe just like "getting to Carnegie Hall" ---practice, practice, practice!!

[wraithe]

Thank you, yes it does. I still wonder though, how they are able to pull in/out of port from their docks seemingly effortlessly and with such precision.

 

Like gratefulguy said, experience makes it look effortless, it's like a pilot landing an airliner in a crosswind, after a while, he doesn't really even have to think about it that much. Just like you walking up a hill, you don't have to think about adjusting your feet, it just happens. Anyway, love your handle, maybe I could go by "below sea level cruiser", well, I used to be able to.