Talk:Nuclear marine propulsion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Antarctic reactor

The reactor operated at the U.S. Antarctic base in the 1960s and 1970s was not a marine propulsion design and was developed totally outside the Naval Reactors (Rickover) oversight umbrella. I've removed the reference here, but it makes for an interesting story probably deserving of its own article. See:

• Army Nuclear Power Program
• Atomic Energy Insights, Oct-Nov 1996 issue

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

November 2006

The naval nuclear power program section could be expanded to include the contributions from Admiral Rickover and Bob Panoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.109.93 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

POV in Naval nuclear accidents and their ramifications on politics

The second paragraph starts to read unprofessionally, including some bolding that probably shouldn't be there. The third and final paragraph is almost a soap-box travesty.Autocracy 16:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the section in question; personally, I think it's beyond rewriting to conform with NPOV, smacks of much OR (not a single cite) and entirely unencyclopaedic. I include it below should anyone want to try to hammer it into shape. Good luck with that, though. - Falk Macara 11:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC) /*I made this edit prior to creating an account.*/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.40.194 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Naval nuclear accidents and their ramifications on politics

Two US nuclear submarines, the USS Thresher (SSN-593) (sank) and USS Scorpion (SSN-589) (sank) had issues unrelated to their reactor plants and still lie on the Atlantic sea floor. The Russian or Soviet Komsomolets K-278 (sank), Kursk K-141 (sank), K-8 (sank), K-11 (refueling criticality), K-19 (loss of coolant), K-27 (scuttled), K-116 (reactor accident), K-122 (reactor accident), K-123 (loss of coolant), K-140 (power excursion), K-159 (sank recently), K-192 (loss of coolant), K-219 (sank after collision), K-222 (uncontrolled startup), K-314 (refueling criticality), K-320 (uncontrolled startup), K-429 (sank twice), and K-431 (reactor accident) submarines have all had problems of some kind. The Soviet icebreaker Lenin is also rumored to have had a nuclear accident.

While not all of those were nuclear-related accidents, since they happened to nuclear vessels, they have a major impact on nuclear marine propulsion and the global politics of our time. Combine nuclear fuel on an already complex, modern vessel, and the results are not always ideal. See List of military nuclear accidents. In the case of warships, there are such major longevity and station-keeping advantages to using nuclear power that the Navy is willing to risk the consequences. This decision has received a lot of criticism over the years, especially by those who wish that all nuclear weapons, reactors, and medical devices could be regulated out of existence. Their point is primarily that nuclear reactors are intrinsically linked to nuclear weapon proliferation, warmongering, military oppression, and a number of other ails. The nuclear reactor plant is seen as a key which unlocks all of these warlike ambitions. From the point of view of the those in the nuclear power industry (civilian and military), there are many peaceful and practical reasons to continue operating nuclear reactor plants. The reactor plant is seen as just another technological aspect of some vessels. Not too many people want diesel fuel banned, although it is capable of being an environmental and chemical hazard to human life. Diesel submarines have sunk with their nuclear weapons on board. Such a senseless debate is not going to be extremely effective for either side.

Sensible people do understand the difference in a reactor plant and an atomic bomb. It just so happens that many nuclear-powered ships tend to carry nuclear weapons. So the connection is very real. Nuclear safety is paramount for the people operating, maintaining, repairing, and refueling nuclear warships. For the men and women caught in the middle of this issue, the crews of these ships, there is a great need to be trained, ready, and to be a member of a team. Set aside the designs of the vessels, and you end up with a crew made up of human thinkers capable of acting and reacting as true citizens of the world. An error by one or many of them could spell disaster for themselves, their crewmates, their nation, and entire regions of the planet. It is these issues which made the elite nuclear-trained cadres of the first world become the cornerstone of nuclear deterrence and reactor safety. The nuclear maritime forces are known for their secrecy, intelligence, integrity, and attention to detail. In the West, they receive extensive screening, training, and performance evaluation. They also are paid higher than their non-nuke counterparts. See Naval Reactors and Admiral Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.40.194 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit War over "classified material"

An anonymous editor from ip 131.122.41.165 (reverse maps to usna.edu -- US Naval Academy) has consistently removed references of the percentage content of U-235 in US submarines. I've replaced it and cited a source. Editorializing, I consider it quite stupid of somebody to take it upon themselves to make statements and attempt to enforce what is classified from an unoffical position; exponentially more so on a system that tracks changes.Autocracy 16:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure foreign governments have long since read any openly published speculation on enrichment levels and drawn their own conclusions as to such material's reliability. All a Naval Academy student's attempts at censorship can do is lend the material some credibility. The U.S. Navy has long used a phrase in response to any outside commentary on its nuclear technology and capabilities: "We can neither confirm nor deny ..." I suggest our censor just leave it at that and drop this battle. Count on the successors to Admirals Sergey Gorshkov, Siméon Bourgeois, Zheng He, the Marquis of Tamandaré and Kanhoji Angre to have plenty of their own skilled nuclear engineers sorting this out without recourse to Wikipedia.
--A. B. ^(talk) 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Naval nuclear accidents

This heading is incorrect, or at least quite misleading because the accidents listed are not all nuclear accidents (e.g., Thresher and Scorpion). I strongly suggest changing the heading to read; "Nuclear ship accidents."Tvbanfield 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus on this issue. Why are the Scorpion and Thresher sinkings listed among the nuclear accidents? Neither sank due to a problem with the reactor plant, and there is no evidence of leakage or any other reactor-based problem post-sinking. This was highlighted again just this week when Petri Krohn reverted an edit by 59.184.1.86 removing these two non-nuclear accidents from the list. Rem01 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't think these two belong on the list. In fact, there are probably Soviet submarines listed that also shouldn't be there. It might be useful to split this in order to distinguish naval nuclear accidents on the one hand from something like "non-nuclear accidents involving nuclear-powered ships" and/or "nuclear-powered ship accidents resulting in release of radioactivity." I know those two categorizations are fairly cumbersome and poorly worded, but from cursory review it seems that on this list we've lumped together every nuclear-powered ship that's ever sank for any reason along with legitimate reactor accidents. Rem01 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if an eartquake destroys a nuclear power plant, releasing its nuclear material into the biosphere, it would be called a nucler accident. The same goes for subs. From the point-of-view of nuclear safety it makes no difference what caused the accident. If it is not the reactor itself or its protective systems that fail, then it is called "common mode failure". -- Petri Krohn 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. That said, there's no evidence of any kind of nuclear accident or release of radioactive material connected with the sinkings of the Scorpion or the Thresher. So in what way can they be classified as "naval nuclear accidents"? If they remain on this list, shouldn't ever nuclear-powered vessel ever to sink be included? Or more appropriately, shouldn't every vessel that has sunk for a reason unrelated to its nuclear reactor be moved to some other list? Rem01 07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My two cents:

1. As others have pointed out, the section heading is incorrect as relates to Scorpion and Thresher.
2. We should list somewhere non-nuclear accidents such as the Scorpion and Thresher losses.
3. We need consensus here, not just reversions and edit warring.
4. I like the idea of a separate list, as suggested by Rem01. If radioactive material has not been released by a particular accident, that should be so noted.
5. The Soviet losses should be reexamined for proper categorization when these lists are reworked.

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is so simple, just change the title to : "Nuclear Naval Ship Accidents" and leave the list as is.Tvbanfield 20:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really that simple, as a list titled "Nuclear Naval Ship Accidents" doesn't belong embedded in an article about "Nuclear marine propulsion." I still believe this list should be changed IAW my 2 Aug and A.B.'s 6 Aug comments - I just haven't had the time and energy to sort it out yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem01 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) - Wow, that thing's really on the ball, huh? Tried to fix it myself and it beat me to the punch. Rem01 10:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

History

"Enterprise remains in service." Don't you think a date would be nice? E.g., "To date (Oct. 2007), Enterprise remains in service." (Or are readers assumed to have utmost confidence in Wikipedia that if the vessel were to go out of service, that fact would be reflected very, very soon thereafter on the page? And if so, is that confidence justified?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.246.141 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe they want you to go ahead and make the change you discussed. I think it's a good one. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Deployment of Nuclear Submarines in article

This one line:

Harold Wilson, the then British Prime Minister, considered, but did not deploy, nuclear submarines to power Belfast during the Ulster Workers' Council Strike.

This line appears under the header Power Plants and is seemingly disconnected from the rest of the section, or indeed the article itself. It has no relevance to describing Nuclear propulsion at sea. Even in the context of the incident, the propulsion method of the submarines is irrelevant, since any submarine deployed by the UK would have been nuclear powered. It's relevance is lowered even more by a lack of citation. Finally, the fact that the subs were just considered, but never deployed, makes this line about as irrelevant as it can get. This is better discussed in the article on the Strike itself. Deleting.

--Bridgecross 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Micro nuclear reactors

Perhaps it can be mentioned in the article that Micro nuclear reactors can be used to convert existing cargo ships to nuclear propulsion. An example is the Cargo coaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.165.164 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Power units

Could someone clarify what the subscript "t" on the units of power means in the first bullet of section 1? Perhaps this could be linked to a relevant article. And, towards the end of the section, units of MWe are used -- presumably the "e" stands for "equivalent" but I'm not sure what this would mean in this context. Thanks! 152.78.249.169 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a wikilink for the first MW_t instance in the article. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Marine Nuclear Propulsion??

Why doesn't this article explain how nuclear propulsion units actually propel a ship?

That's what I came here to find out, and it's not even mentioned... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.19.68 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I threw in a paragraph that says these plants work just like land-based reactors. More seriously, this article doesn't mention a darn thing about the reason these were thought to be desirable in the first place, the dismal experience with the prototypes ( I've run cars for more than the 8 years "Savannah" operated!), the high operating expense, the Soviet icebreaker wackiness, and how it all fizzled out by 1970 or so. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Twenty minutes with Google Books tells you more about these floating turkeys than this Wikipedia article does. The Japanese built one that would poison its crew (It only had an amortized capital cost of $23,500 dollars per mile...I could travel in a sedan chair carried by supermodels for less). The Americans built one that cost the taxpayer $100 million (in pre Viet Nam War dollars!) and that never made any money in the 8 years it operated. And the Germans gave up on theirs and turned it into a diesel boat. No-one knows what happend to the Chinese one. I'm sure the Soviet-built ones work as well as anything else in the Soviet economy. Civil nuclear ships are an idea only exceeded by nuclear aircraft in their preternatural obliviousness to reality. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Project tags

When adding an article to a project, it would be very helpful to have a point by point evaluation of the article against the classification guide of that project. Otherwise the project tag gives no specific guidance on improvements to the article. Especially when the project is large and all-inclusive, it's unlikely editors associated with that project will put a very peripheral topic on their priority list, so the project notice doesn't really help anything. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with ratings, please change them to appropriate ones. As for the latter your concerns, the same problem exists for 90% of articles in large WikiProjects, but it doesn't mean that all those 90% should be removed from the scope of those WikiProjects. Besides, there are such things as bot instruments for WikiProjects, such as PP lists, bot alerts etc., which all raise the level of attention to the page. GreyHood ^Talk 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever rates the article, should say what is being rated. I can't even agree or disagree with the ratings, because I don't know what's being rated. I've never noticed that adding an article to a project, especially one as massive as "United States", has made any detectable difference to a project. I wish projects worked better than they seem to, it sounds like it should have been a good idea to have projects, but the execution lacks any effects. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake fix

I fixed a tiny spelling mistake with the word "environmental" in the third (second?) section down. -24.2.1.193 (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary comment is sufficient. If you follow me around the Wikipedia correcting my spelling mistakes, you'll be making a lot of very boring talk page notes. Preview is our friend. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cites

I'm not seeing too many citations on this page. I would like to see a good deal more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.97.164 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

First

From what I've gathered from several Wikipedia articles it seems to me that nuclear marine propulsion was the first practical use of nuclear energy for anything other than a bomb. Land based power stations other than experimental and of any useful size seem to have come only several years later. Also the ORNL->Bettis->Westinghouse marine PWR lineage seems to hold the direct ancestors of the overwhelming majority of modern nuclear power station designs. If I'm correct in my assessment it might be noteworthy enough to mention those facts in the article. --BjKa (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Differences from land power plants

It' still true that the article doesn't tell too many details on the actual technical workings.
If the lede is correct, I guess one main difference is, that the steam turbines in power plants drive generators for electricity, while here they (mainly) drive the propeller shafts.
Also I would imagine that a marine reactor should be designed to vary its output more flexibly than a power station reactor which is usually meant to run at one optimal setting for as long as possible.
--BjKa (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The link to "steam drier" goes to the wrong page

Not sure how to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicromoft (talk • contribs) 08:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sicromoft: Where is it supposed to go? - BilCat (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph on Land Based Nuclear Power Propulsion off Topic

I think the last paragraph in the section, "Differences From Land Power Plants" should be removed. Before I remove the paragraph I would like someone to second my observation or provide changes that address the following issues. It cites a source that speculates the UK government has plans to develop land based nuclear propulsion. It lacks a neutral tone and fails to mention the correct division (Rolls Royce Marine Power Operations) of Rolls Royce that deals specifically in nuclear marine transportation. The paragraph also feels out of place. It is about development of land based propulsion, not marine propulsion. Here is the paragraph:

In December 2017 the UK government is expected to announce up to £100m funding to support the development of small land based nuclear power plants in effort to make the UK a leader in this technology. Rolls Royce is a leading developer of nuclear power plants for submarines with power outputs in the order of 100MWe and above which would make such plants highly effective for decentralised power generation. Since the operational environment of such land based plants would be much simpler and less restricted than in a submarine, it is expected that these units could be constructed and built much cheaper than their marine based equivalent.[6] Ruined bog (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)