Slashdot Mirror
Navy Spends $33 Million For Hybrid of the High Sea
coondoggie writes "Some might call it an enormous floating Prius, but others will call it a step in the right direction: A new hybrid electric engine for US Navy ships that promises to save up to 12,000 barrels of oil a year per ship.
The folks who brought you the Predator unmanned flying aircraft, General Atomics, this week got $32.7 million to develop a proof-of-concept Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) system for a full-scale demonstration on board the Navy's DDG 51 Class destroyers.
DDG 51 destroyers are powered by General Electric gas turbines capable of moving the ships along at over 30 knots or about 35 mph. The General Atomics system would meld into this system and let the ship use electric power for slow-speed maneuvers. The engines would provide more power as the ship needed to go faster."
Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.
If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas? After,say, a torpedo strike?
I bet it would be spectacular.
Ships have had multiple methods of propulsion for a long time; early ocean going steamships also had masts and rigging for sail in emergencies, German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines. Frankly, I'm surprised that this research hadn't already been started, albeit to reduce dependence of foreign oil rather than out of any concern for the environment given the stance of the Bush Presidency on such matters. Still, it'll be interesting to see what they can come up with. Maybe something like the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) that was used in some Formula One cars this year; use the motion of water past the hull and in the wake to generate electricity while the vessel is underway.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
You would have to subtract the money they were going to spend on a conventional drive line anyway. Better fuel economy may deliver operational benefits as well. More range requiring less infrastructure for refueling.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I would have thought that the Navy would have led hybrid engine research with everything that was done in WWI and WWII for submarines. Essentially those were hybrid engines, with the diesel's powering the boat on the surface and recharging the batteries, and then using the batteries when the ship was submerged.
That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines, but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
You forgot per ship.
You mad
You just did. The life expectancy of a Navy ship is along the lines of 30-40 YEARS. As long as the engine doesn't eat it's self and can just be maintained then you will come close to if not completely pay for it's self. Also oil costs dont factor into the cost of physically refueling the ship. Plus if this engine works as planned, it will likely be significantly cheaper to build more since that 33 million rolls in development costs.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
could someone put that into perspective, how many barrels would a ship normally expect to get through.
Installation of hybrid drivetrain is a onetime cost. The fuel savings go on for the entire time it is in service.
Other benefits are: Less logistics required to supply a fleet group with fuel during operations. And the logistics in itself uses a fair amount of fuel too. So you've been looking at this with a rather narrow perspective, and very short-term.
Only $33 million? For a military contract? Really? Not to be a smartass, but that seems insanely cheap for what they're asking for.
$100 per barrel= costs at the refinery.
The ships are generally in nasty, remote locations. Factor in the cost of building a supply ship and fueling that ship to get the fuel to the destroyer, PLUS escort, PLUS lost mission time and extra miles to go to refueling, and you will probably break even in the first year.
And then the ship has 30 more years to go.
I guess your tax dollars didn't go to elementary math & common sense education, aka high school :-)
Is there anything being built in America these days,that does not destroy something??
Can it pull up next to a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier and recharge? 33 million... how much does a small reactor cost in comparison?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-electric
Turbo-electric drives are common and the USN has a few according to the above linked wiki article.
What appears to be new here (according to tfa) is that the turbines can be mechanically coupled thru a gearbox to the propellers for high speed maneuvers. That isn't so common, usually the only thing connected to the propellers (for ships) or wheels (for locomotives) is the electric motor. I guess that is what makes the ship similar to a Prius although I don't suppose the ship has batteries.
> Also oil costs dont factor into the
> cost of physically refueling the ship.
Well said. That includes the time it takes to complete the evolution. Especially underway it's a major pain; running those hoses over and keeping station is no joke. If you could cut the number of UNREPs in half you'd be saving resources all over.
The Army reading list
Penis. That's what I get for skimming the summaries. I figured they'd found another one of these:
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Giant_ice_penis_-_is_climate_change_to_blame?&in_article_id=304450&in_page_id=2
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Well, the primary benefit is that we can call this a Class 1 Naval Drive, thus affirming our fantasies about one day living like Commander Jameson.
I would suspect that, while the "hybrid of the seas" shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagon, the major interest is in the side benefits: electric engines should almost certainly be quieter and have a lower thermal signature than fossil fuel ones. Having the option to move around purely under electric power, when the situation calls for it and without excessive performance reduction, is probably pretty attractive.
Lower fuel consumption would (slightly) increase the ability to operate at the end of a long, inadequate, intermittent, or otherwise problematic supply chain, which could also be nice.
It is also an important strategic advantage to have a ship that is more fuel efficient as it can stay in the arena for longer before it needs to be refuelled.
This is likely a main driver for this research.
Dude, if you saw what the Navy dumps off the side of the boats when they're a sufficient distance off shore you'd crap yourself.
If it doesn't float it goes. hybrid motors is laughable given that they'll stil be dumping anything and everything over the side of the boat regardless of how clean the engine runs.
...I used to play this submarine game. It presented dials and knobs and switches and levers. There were notifications and warnings and other messages. There was a periscope. But one thing that I recall in the game was running electric when submerged and diesel when surfaced and the diesel charged the batteries. Makes me wonder a bit how "new" this naval technology is.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/07/good-reason-for-flight-iii-burkes.html and the reasons for this work.
A defence Industry view
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/327M-to-General-Atomics-for-DDG-51-Propulsion-System-Prototype-05598/#more-5598
A general Atomics view
http://www.ga.com/news.php?read=1&id=262
Oh, wait. We do. Why are we even talking about building hybrids when the Navy already has more than 80 electrics in the form of nuclear powered vessels? With more than 5500 reactor years without an accident, haven't we proved that it is safe?
How is this system any different than the diesel-electric systems that have been used on locomotives for decades?
I understand that batteries will be used- The old diesel-electric submarines used that system before WWII.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Why don't they just use the energy from the waves to generate electricity? it would be just like a bycicle with a dynamo and an electric motor!
How does regenerative braking work in the high seas?
You forgot to mention that the Navy has a stated interest in rail guns and energy based weapons. They're already building excess generating capacity into their designs to eventually accomodate those if/when they're ready for deployment, so they might as well take advantage of it while waiting.
What the Navy means by 'hybrid' is not exactly what you'd expect. TFA is light on details, but I suspect the idea is to use the electrical generators on the ship for low-speed propulsion, instead of having to run the main gas turbine engines at 10% load, at which they're very inefficient. There'll be no batteries involved, and no regenerative braking.
Many warships already have two plants capable of driving the propellers. Not so much the USN, but European navies often use gas turbines to provide high speeds (30+ knots), plus a set of diesels for lower speeds (up to 20 kt).
For new ships, electrical propulsion is being looked into for the same reason: you can switch generators on and off so you always have them running at their most efficient power setting.
The cruise ship industry has been doing this for years!!!! What proof of concept is necessary? This is an industry best practice and this $33M is wasted money.
And to further expand on your point, any military should be concerned with fuel efficiency, because a machine that can stay on-station or can hang in a firefight longer has a distinct tactical advantage. Granted, that is but one variable that must be balanced against many others, but it's really just as important as offensive and defensive capabilities.
(Posted as AC because at work)
I was on a DDG. A full fuel load is somewhere between 400,000 and 450,000 of DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) I believe the Nato term is F-76 of F-45 for this type of fuel but don't quote me on that, the memory is slipping. On a full power run, all 4 gas turbines engines online and the throttles set to full forward, we burn about 100,000 gallons an hour. This is extremely rare as it is wasteful. Only done for periodic testing of the ships systems, and when the ship really has to haul ass (imminent combat or other special circumstance require full speed with full reliabilty.) Normally the ship "steams" on one or two engines, and consumption if I remember can go down to something like 500 gallons per hour. Steaming across the sea at 20 knots with two engines running we burned something like 6k an hour but again I dont remember exactly. Saving 12,000 barrels in one year, which is 500,000 gallons according to Wikianswers, does not seem significant to me. But I guess it is something. Oh, but then the costs have to be counterbalanced with the cost of retrofitting the propulsion systems with an electrive drive, and the maintenance and repair costs on the said electric drive, and the additional training of ships crew to work with the new equipment. And also I would say the additional people onboard because of the extra equipment but, haha, im laughing inside, the Navy wouldn't do something like that, they would just pile more work onto already overworked engineers.
Also on a side note the generators providing electricity for the ship run on the same fuel. I guess the savings is allowed to happen because the generators are more efficient at generating electricity, sending it through the ships electrical distribution system, and powering an electric drive at certain shaft speeds, than the engines themselves are at those same speeds.
Honest, its for a new propulsion system we are trying not to meet the power requirements for the super rail gun we are putting on our ships in case we need to shoot Decepticons from the top of a pyramid.
While I do joke, I do think this could be used as a test bed of some sort. Rail guns have been talked about before, and certainly laser technology has advanced. Just a thought.
I read some years ago about self-contained nuclear batteries that could be set up in communities without direct connections to the broader electrical grid. Don't we have the ability to leverage similar technologies on our ships? I'm talking about preconfigured reactors with constant power output and finite life (based on fuel rods encapsulated inside the power generation unit). Why not nuclear?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Can you say "Rail Gun" or "LASER"?
These new weapons technologies (needed for interception of ballistic or hypersonic projectiles) will require a colossal amount of electric power. If the ship is already geared up to be capable of storing a lot of power in its batteries, a major hurdle in the deployment of these weapons are overcome.
Maybe they could even use the tremendous kinetic energy of the ship moving at high speed to generate electricity from the motors. Probably only useful in an emergency because it makes your ship a sitting duck!
arrrrr me blundering fuck-buckets, behold ye "hybrid of the high sea" arrr ye pirates be unstoppable see, 33 million arrr
Well played, sir. (Doffs hat)
Some might call it an enormous floating Prius
That read that as "enormous floating Penis" ?
And survivability of the ship increases for anti-submarine warfare. Plus the development cost of 17.1 million is spread of all future deployments. Not to mention, reduction of oil consumption during war increases operation independence of fuel supply lines while at the same time taking pressure of off oil consumption.
I'm not sure how anyone can see this as a negative.
...can it fire torpedoes while cloaked?
I can say [REDACTED] anytime I want!
What? You mean that NYC isn't already the most hostile place for top earners?
The cost of living versus tax disparity alone already should mean that NYC is in the top 3.
The only way anyone would get excited about this is if they don't know anything about living in a major US City.
Haven't been there. Didn't do that. I did the math first and decided not to bother.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
When you slow down, you let the friction of the water turn the blades and capture that energy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ok, w/o the guns and missiles. Rats.
Seriously, Detroit could have mass-produced an automotive turbine-electric 40 years ago. Dr. Porsche was designing them at least by the '20s.
Next, while there are still tertiary wastewater treatment plants which just burn off the methane they produce, we will read about some 15 yo whiz kid getting kudos, grants and carbon credits for his "why has no one thought of that?" biomass digester for producing fuel gasses Oh, wait...
Now get off my lawn.
... a direct drive gas turbine propulsion system with a motor-generator on the shaft. In one mode, the ship's auxiliary power can be diverted to assist the turbines. Or, at slow speeds, the turbines can be shut down and the ship driven by the auxiliary power system. Although I didn't see it mentioned in the article (but others have speculated about it), if the electrical system is bi-directional, one could tap the turbine power for a short time to power large electrical loads like a rail gun or laser.
Its about time our navy catches up with the sharks.
Have gnu, will travel.
First, the savings is PER SHIP. Second, you also have to count the costs of getting those 12000 barrels of fuel to the ship that needs it. It's not like they can just get off at the next exit to refuel. Next you have to consider the increased 'operational availability' of a ship with increased range. More availability means you don't have to have as many deployed for the same effect. Finally, in a war, supply lines can get less reliable or more costly (including lives). Needing less supplies is worth while even if it costs MORE that way. Since this reduces costs, all the better.
would suspect that, while the "hybrid of the seas" shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagon
The navy just heard it can get $4,500 per warship in the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
warriors/ship-driver-wannabes here:
http://blog.marport.com/2009/06/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/64b7-205.html
(read the Bleed Air section and the Prairie Air section beneath it...)
good views are in:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/prairie.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/index.html
To add to the good comments that prop is the noise introducer from other components in the shaftline, readers (who read, that is) might be interested to see this:
http://www.gibbscox.com/nsv.htm
Shock mounting in the hull helps absorb certain frequencies of noise that otherwise would be emitted.
This one has nice pretty colors for those who are visually-oriented.
http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/KBay/backgroundnoise.htm
Now, for those wanting to know what a ship looks like under the stresses of the sea, and you think it's a huge honkin' piece of unbending steel, look at page 13 in:
http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/wuc94/p01994.pdf
But, for all of you having wet dreams about the 16% fuel savings, keep in mind it is "UP TO", it's by NO means guaranteed. Considering volatility in fuel prices and potentially unstable regimes providing oil, some circles see smaller lightweight nuc plants as a viable alternative.
(From above: http://blog.marport.com/2009/06/ )
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This might also be informative to those interested in ship energy transformation:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7801101/High-All-Electric-Ship-Concept
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Sail technology is being re-adapted with complex technology to reduce fuel consumption on very high inertia vessels. Look up 'sky sail'.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sky+sail&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10
Cheers.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
Factor in the cost of building a supply ship and fueling that ship to get the fuel to the destroyer, PLUS escort, PLUS lost mission time and extra miles to go to refueling
PLUS the casualties you'll inevitably get in some amounts when the enemy will start attacking those supply ships and their convoys.
Average fuel oil price today is $2.35 per gallon at retail (heating oil, delivered). That's with $65 crude.
Government price will be cheaper for obvious reasons but fuel oil will still cost substantially more then crude.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
... wind powered ships. Maybe we could plant a huge wind turbine on the ship's deck and use the electricity thus generated to power the motors. I mean... there's lots of wind over the oceans. Somebody should definitely look at using wind to propel the ships.
go fuck yourself and die dickwad.
Does it shoot organic missiles while sipping wine and complaining about SUV drivers?
One of the real reasons behind this is that the gear train to connect a gas turbine to a propeller is a huge pain. Turbine shaft speeds are around 20,000 RPM, and this has to be stepped down to 200 RPM or so for the propeller. There's a clutch and reversing gear, too. Often the gearbox is bigger than the engine.
Reverse with a turbine is a headache. Some marine diesels are built so they can run in either direction, but that's not an option with a turbine. So there's either a really big gearshift, or a second powerplant for reverse operation.
Thus, there's ongoing interest in going to electric transmission, like a locomotive. It's not a new idea; an electric transmission was tried on a ship before WWII. But it works much better with modern power semiconductors. Locomotives do this now. Modern locomotives use AC to DC to variable frequency polyphase AC conversion to drive the motors. This takes large switching power supplies, using very large semiconductors. It's a solved problem; GE locomotives have been doing this for ten years now, and their competitors now have comparable technology. Moving the technology to ships is an obvious move at this point.
There's also a Navy effort to develop a permanent magnet motor (!) big enough for shipboard propulsion. This gets rid of the field coils and increases efficiency. I'm not sure how that's coming along.
This is routine progress being made in heavy machinery. The combination of electronics and really big gears and motors can do things neither can do alone.