Yeah, the rest of the fleet. The carrier still ought to be able to supply jet fuel for the jets. The rest of the fleet would still require logistics ships, either in the form of transports or dedicated fuel production ships.
It would be rather silly to use fossil fuels to create electricity to create fossil fuels.
Its interesting how so many here are scientifically illiterate. I would go on a stretch to say that the battle group still needs logistic support to refuel the ships in it. Jet fuel would pale in comparison to the amount needed by the ships so I doubt this would change a lot.
Unless they start floating carriers just by itself.
If we start using seawater for fuel, what does this mean for all of the petroleum stores and pipelines? Will they just tank?
And.... :
Maybe she was just trying to refuel.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ly-assaulted-week-murder-suicide-attempt.html
Thirdly, why is Dr. Pizza so frustrated and butt hurt today? had a fight with his old lady :biggrin:
It's amazing how posts like Dr. Pizza's are so misunderstood or ignored.There's no shortage of people on tall white stallions, that's for sure.
Putting the conversion equipment on every destroyer may be feasible soon-ish, but the power requirements are still immense, to the point that it makes no sense to do that unless a nuclear reactor can be put on board as well.
It's amazing how posts like Dr. Pizza's are so misunderstood or ignored.
There's 0 point in putting this in any given ship that doesn't fuel something else. It's being looked at on carriers because they are nuclear and fuel planes. It's energy STORAGE. The reactor converts the seawater into a usable fuel, that something without a reactor would use.
If you have a reactor in a destroyer powerful enough to produce the fuel needed for diesel engines you would have enough power on the reactor to simply run the ship off of that (and have power to spare). Strip the diesel engines out at that point and just run nuclear, but that's not what they are talking about.
It takes a shitton of energy to convert the water; it's not an energy source, it's a method of energy transport, and it is only useful because you can't fly a jet on nuclear/electric power. That has already been covered a few times in this thread.
It's also interesting that you completely lack the vision of thinking ahead to when the technology can be compacted to be used on every ships that's seaworthy which would not require the logistical support structure of today's ships, even when the very idea has been discussed before you posted. Illiterate you say?
You're not thinking, again. They may not be able to fit a nuclear reactor on a plane, but they may get it down to fit on a slightly larger platform, like a seaworthy Navy boat... Oh wait, they're already doing that.Yea ok... If you can miniaturize nuclear reactors that produce enough energy to convert enough sea water to power diesel engines, why not just power it directly from the nuclear reactor. Not to mention I doubt the nuclear reactors would be cheap to build, maintain, and whether there is the political willpower to do so. Nuclear is still a big no-no for a lot of people in the world.
Yea ok... If you can miniaturize nuclear reactors that produce enough energy to convert enough sea water to power diesel engines, why not just power it directly from the nuclear reactor. Not to mention I doubt the nuclear reactors would be cheap to build, maintain, and whether there is the political willpower to do so. Nuclear is still a big no-no for a lot of people in the world.
Agreed 100%.Yes, but using nuclear power to do it could make a lot of sense. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels have desirable characteristics that electric power does not have, namely energy density, ease and efficiency of transportation and storage, and the flexibility to be transported to any location and converted to work without requiring additional fixed infrastructure. I've always maintained that electricity is not a replacement for liquid fuels at our current level of production and storage technology. It may well be some day, but for now if you had a cycle that began with nuclear-generated electricity and ended with artificial liquid hydrocarbon fuel, that could very well be worthwhile, imo.
This is purely hypothetical, but if they needed a destroyer sized ship that could operate with minimal logistical support and that wouldn't be constantly steaming they could equip it with a reactor and fuel converter. The reactor would have to be small, so it wouldn't be able to power the engines directly at a level acceptable for a military ship. But if the reactor and converter could operate continuously it might be able to supply a quarter of their fuel needs while underway, and then make up the difference while the ship is at rest.
Realistically, that will never happen because such a ship would only be ideal in a very narrow set of circumstances, but it isn't technically impossible. Nuclear power has come a very long way in the last few decades, and political willpower is really only an issue when it runs into NIMBY, and nobody's back yard is in the ocean.
You're not thinking, again. They may not be able to fit a nuclear reactor on a plane, but they may get it down to fit on a slightly larger platform, like a seaworthy Navy boat... Oh wait, they're already doing that.
All other points are superfluous to the discussion, they don't even warrant a response given the ridiculous argument.
This is purely hypothetical, but if they needed a destroyer sized ship that could operate with minimal logistical support and that wouldn't be constantly steaming they could equip it with a reactor and fuel converter. The reactor would have to be small, so it wouldn't be able to power the engines directly at a level acceptable for a military ship. But if the reactor and converter could operate continuously it might be able to supply a quarter of their fuel needs while underway, and then make up the difference while the ship is at rest.
Realistically, that will never happen because such a ship would only be ideal in a very narrow set of circumstances, but it isn't technically impossible. Nuclear power has come a very long way in the last few decades, and political willpower is really only an issue when it runs into NIMBY, and nobody's back yard is in the ocean.