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."

Comments

What would happen...

[lxs]

If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas? After,say, a torpedo strike?

I bet it would be spectacular.

Not exactly a new idea

[Zocalo]

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.

Re:Not exactly a new idea

[Zocalo]

Yes, that's pretty obvious, as is stuff like putting solar panels at suitable points. I was thinking more of the innovative ideas that they might come up with or adapt from other waste energy reclaimation efforts that are underway. Another idea that occured is that since gas turbines and nuclear reactors also generate a considerable amount heat it might be practical to adapt geothermal generators to capture some of it and put it to productive use. There are obviously some limitations though; windmills are not going to be a good idea for instance since they will have a detrimental effect on the radar profile, which is not exactly a good thing for a vessel that might be targetted by a radar guided missile, similarly anything that generates noise is out of the question for a submarine.

Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.

[MichaelSmith]

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.

Submarines

[Skraut]

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.

Re:Submarines

[Shinobi]

While the US knowhow in that area, it hasn't disappeared in other parts of the world, for example Sweden and Germany. Sweden was also the first to use a Stirling engine, so it can recharge the batteries without having to go to snorkle depth.

Re:Submarines

[Anonymous Coward]

Navy Submarines are actually fill blown hybrids, just with two 'engines', and a bunch of different means of energy transfer in-between. The reactor generates steam which drives steam turbines for direct propulsion. When Canard's "tea kettle" is down, the sub operates on the battery (_not lithium_) until the diesel is started. The diesel generates AC, but the backup drive is DC, so it has to go through another conversion.
This seems more complicated than it needs to be, but there is a method to the madness. For example: if something catastrophic occurs and the sub must operate without AC power, it will still have limited propulsion from the DC battery to the backup drive (also DC).

Only?

[whisper_jeff]

Only $33 million? For a military contract? Really? Not to be a smartass, but that seems insanely cheap for what they're asking for.

Re:Nice thing.

[INT_QRK]

Electric drive for low speed is not such a bad thing, especially when conducting passive sonar search. It would make them kind of stealthy, from an acoustic point of view. Antisubmarine Warfare is, after all, an important mission area for Destroyers.

Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.

[tcopeland]

> 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.

Re:Nice thing.

[OneSmartFellow]

Except that a lot of the sound comes from the propellers alone.

technical and fiunancial details.

[auric_dude]

The general view of DDG-51s of this project

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

Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.

[curmudgeous]

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.

Re:Turbo-electric drives are widely used

[david_thornley]

Turbo-electric drives were standard for US battleships of the WWI period, because of fuel economy. The USN wanted to operate at very long ranges from its bases. This continued with the battlecruiser designs, of which two were converted to aircraft carriers. One of those carriers once powered a city (Tacoma, I think) during a power failure.

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 ended this, since it defined a new "standard displacement" (method of calculating a ship's weight) that didn't include fuel, so to build the biggest warship for the displacement it was much more important to reduce the weight of the engines than to reduce the amount of fuel needed.

In actual service, the turbo-electric drives didn't take shocks well, and so the engines were easy to disable with a torpedo hit.

Re:different type of hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric propulsion has some other advantages. Its inherently quiet, particularly on battery power. Second, it allows placing the propeller in a more optimal position, i.e. deeper in the water. Plus the motor and propeller can be swiveled for better maneuvering. Combined with an (elelectric) bow thruster and docking or holding a fixed position becomes easier. For an example, see the Queen Mary II. Diesel-turbine hybrids are also common on smaller craft, where the diesel is used for 'patrol; speeds for economy, and a tubine cuts in for higher speeds. I wouldn't count on much dynamic braking, as ships generally keep moving, but running the power plant at high efficiency allows for a lot of savings. Electric, Diesel, and turbine plants all also have the advantage of quick starts and quick changes in power -- unlike steam plants where you have to build up steam pressure. Someone said a Perry class frigate could go from 'dead' to pulling away from the dock in 30 seconds.