Navy Spends $33 Million For Hybrid of the High Sea 210
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."
Nice thing. (Score:2, Funny)
Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.
Re:Nice thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice thing. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice thing. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you hear propellers below cavitation speed. Thirty tons of brass doesn't move hundreds of tons of water "quietly". Another sonar operator can hear it from miles away. Standing in after steering, the propellers are quite loud all the time, and very loud any time they make a change in speed. I spent many an hour standing watch in that smelly little room. (and after all that time, I never figured out why it was always so freaking SMELLY!)
So far, I've not seen anyone mention one of the biggest benefits of electric power. Torque. When you flip the switch and/or turn the rheostat, you have power NOW! Gas and diesel are quite slow to build up torque, even in the turbine engines that the Navy uses. Boilers are somewhat better - depending on whether you've already built up a head of steam or not. If not, you're still dependent on turbines spinning up to bring oxygen to the fire. With electrons, there is no perceptible delay.
The result? Sonar hears a torpedo coming in, the port screw is put into full reverse, starboard screw is full forward, and the ship spins (not turns, but spins in place) in about a minute, instead of 4, 5, or 6 minutes.
Alright, today's enemies aren't likely to have torpedos, but the maneuverability can be just as valuable in many other situations - including entering and leaving port when some idiot on a ski boat ignores the rules of the road.
Re:Nice thing. (Score:5, Informative)
Except that a lot of the sound comes from the propellers alone.
Not in the way you think. The propellers are the point of contact with the sound transmission media - water. The propeller connects with the drive shaft and transmission. The transmission connects with either an electric motor or an engine. And in some cases, multiple engines and/or motors. The vibration and and engine noise is then transmitted through the transmission, the drive shaft, and then propeller, where it is then transmitted into the water for all to hear. This is the primary reason many military vehicles have been heading toward an electric drive system where the ICE is used to turn a generator rather than directly drive the propeller. This is also the reason modern diesel subs have been getting so quite.
In short, the propeller on modern military ships make the vast majority of their noise because they are a transmission point for everything mechanical attached to it, not because its spinning in the water. Which means, using electric motors to spin your propeller, especially at slow speeds can make you incredibly stealthy despite the fact a propeller is still spinning in the water.
Re:Nice thing. (Score:5, Informative)
in this particular case, the Daring class destroyers also use a combined gas and steam turbine to generate the electric power required for propulsion, thereby improving fuel efficiency.
the interest in electric propulsion is mostly due to other factors, tough: lower heat/sound signature, higher efficiency at slow speed etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Antisubmarine Warfare is, after all, an important mission area for Destroyers.
Whose submarines are we fighting, again?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Whose submarines are we fighting, again?
Right, I'm sure that the US will never get involved in another naval war.
Re:Nice thing. (Score:4, Funny)
My destroyer is like VRRRRRNNN.. VRRRNNNN... VRRRRRRNNNNNN! What does your destroyer sound like?
shhhhhhhhhh
That's cool.
Re: (Score:2)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=infidel
S: (n) heathen, pagan, gentile, infidel (a person who does not acknowledge your god)
People in sandy countries are infidels to us.
I agree with your definition of infidel....but I disagree with your "people in sandy countries are infidels..." The US:
1) A country of pluralism and multiple religions with no state religion. So this right there kills your argument
2) The heart of christianity is in a sandy city located in a sandy country (jeruselum, israel)
3) Judaism - a religion that spawned christianity - has it's heart rooted in jeruselum, israel
4) Depending on where you are in the US you would see a lot of sand (and i am not talkin
Re: (Score:2)
> Remember that USA hasn't had much wars with mainly Christian nations.
I think all of our Catholic friends to the south would disagree.
There's a lot of American meddling that you are obviously unaware of.
It's sad when a Jarhead is more likely to know about this stuff than some liberal weenie.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What would happen... (Score:4, Interesting)
If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas? After,say, a torpedo strike?
I bet it would be spectacular.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we ca ask the electrical/diesel submarines .... not new tech at all
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the ship use electric power for slow-speed maneuvers
But I think this may be a hybrid like a train.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They have to generate power continuously for ship operations, radar, sonar, etc. Sounds like this just uses the generators for slow speed manoeuvres rather than firing up the drive engines.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read through all the posts yet, but the Navy has nuclear subs and ships. These do not use oil at all to move. They are actually steam driven. The steam from the nuclear power plants create electricity and drives the steam turbines that move the ship/sub. Aircraft carriers use this. Last I checked those are the biggest ships the navy has.
I thought the new destroyers were also nuclear. Wasn't there a big show of the all nuclear carrier group that could go around the world with having to refuel? Aren
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought the new destroyers were also nuclear.
DDG-51 destroyers are Arleigh Burke class. There's 55 of them so far; none are nuclear powered.
Rep. Gene Taylor made some noise about canceling the Zumwalt/DDG-1000 class (gas turbine-powered) in favor of a nuclear Burke variant, but it hasn't happened.
Wasn't there a big show of the all nuclear carrier group that could go around the world with having to refuel?
What you are referring to is 1964's Operation Sea Orbit [wikipedia.org]. You need more than a carrier and two missile cruisers to make up a carrier strike group. Nuclear-powered destroyers and supply ships were not built, and the all-nuclear Navy never materialized.
Since the
Re:What would happen... (Score:4, Informative)
If you check out the Journal article [wiley.com], they describe this system as an electric motor mounted on the drive shaft, powered by existing auxiliary electrical generation capacity on the ship. The motor would only be used at speeds under 12kt at maybe 1/10th peak power output, when the efficiency drops off considerably and the turbines are basically idling. The system would be set up to run in reverse, providing power back to the ship, presumably for future electric artillery that the Navy is developing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not as cool looking as when the munitions storage goes boom ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably similar to what happens when one of the Soviet-era sodium-cooled nuclear submarine gets hit... really a torpedo hit that breaches the hull is going to be a Bad Day no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lithium batteries currently in production aren't rechargeable, so I doubt they would use them. Lithium-ion batteries don't contain metallic lithium (unless they are malfunctioning), so breaching them shouldn't be particularly interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear if you flip a Prius over it makes a good boat.
Re:What would happen... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, if it *is* to be the Prius of the high seas, let's hope they at least make it a decent looking ship. Not something fugly like the Prius on land is...
Also, it will need Obama '08 and "Coexist" bumper stickers.
Not exactly a new idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
use the motion of water past the hull and in the wake to generate electricity while the vessel is underway.
Ummm.....no I don't think so. Far better just to keep some of the power generated by the turbines.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly a new idea (Score:5, Funny)
(claps) (Score:2)
Sails are no laughing matter! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sky+sail&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10 [google.com]
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2)
"German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines. "
The germans didn't invent the submarine, John Holland (1840-1914) an Irish american did. I think the US navy already had some of his designs back before WWI.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I know the US Airforce is acutely aware [syntroleum.com] of the foreign oil problem.
They have been working with a company called Syntroleum [wikipedia.org] to use the old German process of converting coal and natural gas to fuel they can put in B52 bombers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines.
Essentially all submarines in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines, and basically any non-nuclear submarines today do, as well. Earlier than WWII, the electric side was standard on all but the earliest impractical prototypes, and the other propulsion was experimented with until everyone settled on using diesel train locomotive engines.
That wasn't for efficiency, but because they couldn't use the fuel-burning engines underwater.
Re: (Score:2)
surely using water motion to generate electricity would just create additional drag, so you'd end up with no net power gain?
I suppose the only place this would make sense is in a sail ship: Generate electricity while sailing, until the battery is charged, then remove the drag point (the turbine) from the water. When there is no wind or you are making your way into port you rely on an electrical propeller. Of course the battery could also be charged using a small wind turbine.
Before posting I decided to see
Submarines (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Um, the Navy sort of does. Every nuclear submarine out there has a big diesel engine and an array of batteries on it. They are for use when the big tea kettle is down for maintenance and/or emergency situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard (I.E. I could be wrong and invite correction), the USN still uses 1950's era lead-acid batteries (the GUPPY II/SARGO battery).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there is a huge difference in how one designs a battery for a ship versus a tiny, dinky little car.
Good point, they probably don't care nearly as much in a submarine about cost/weight/size of the batteries as they do in a production vehicle.
Only? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that money only covers R&D of the engine, not the ship or actual production of engines.
-b
Back when I was a kid... (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, just because the general principle has been in use somewhere else, doesn't mean you can't improve on it - and scaling something up is not necessarily a trivial matter.
Re: (Score:2)
technical and fiunancial details. (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Too bad we don't have this already (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
With more than 5500 reactor years without an accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Too bad we don't have this already (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Where are these nuclear wessels?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, hybrid technology is useful no matter what your fuel is. I don't know how adjustable PWMs are, but most reactors have a non-negligible up/down time. Excess power can be stored in batteries and used for over-power... It's only a matter of time before we have subs with blue-green lasers :)
Re: (Score:2)
Because all but two of those nuclear powered submarines (Tulibee and Glenard P. Lipscomb) are direct drive - the turbines are directly geared to the propeller shaft. In the balance, electric propulsion was an only used for limited duration emergency backup. Not really a hybrid system at all. (We could have used it as a hybrid system, but we didn't for a v
Re: (Score:2)
For now. The Navy is working on an all-electric drive for surface ships and subs.
Not coincidently, General Atomics is involved in that too.
Diesel electric? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but large nonmilitary ships already have had tech like this years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Mary_2#Power_plant_and_propulsion_system [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel-electric_and_gas [wikipedia.org]
duh! what a silly project! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regenerative Braking (Score:4, Funny)
How does regenerative braking work in the high seas?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think Prius or Formula 1, think City Bus or WW2 Submarine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you put a load on the propellers, it should act in the same way as a windmill and extract kinetic energy from the water by increasing drag...
Just requires *extremely* well planned stops!
different type of hybrid (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Nice cover (Score:2)
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.
What about nuclear batteries? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The USN has been using nuclear reactors for decades. They've pretty much concluded that nuclear power is too expensive for everything except aircraft carriers (submarines are another matter, nuclear affords them the ability to stay submerged for months, unlike all other forms of propulsion). Recent developments may change this: fossil fuels are getting more expensive, and current reactor designs don't require refueling (which is horrendously expensive, since you have to cut open the ship). Still, nuclear sh
The REAL reason for electric boats (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So that's where our tax dollars go. (Score:4, Interesting)
> 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:So that's where our tax dollars go. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:So that's where our tax dollars go. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, strategically (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course the reduced amount of oil needed to keep your sub fleet running, if the country you're fighting (e.g. Iran) just happens to be sitting on the last easily-accessible oil reserves.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I wonder if they add solar, wind and/or hydro power regeneration into the equation if a ship could get stranded without fuel, recharge their cells and then hobble back in.
I'm guessing these things use a shitton of energy to move, but I'm also guessing they have a shitton of surface area for something like solar (although I'm not too sure about the strategic impact of a highly reflective material on the surface of a military vessel).
This is cool stuff though.
Re:So that's where our tax dollars go. (Score:4, Insightful)
$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 :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lower fuel consumption would (slightly) increase the ability to oper
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Appropriate analogs to such a volume are difficult to convey. It is roughly five olympic-sized swimming pools [wikipedia.org]. Across the entire fleet of destroyers that would get this modification, the annual savings would be on the ord
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
I've had too many wines to be assed doing the maths.... but 16% should be perspective enough for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Waste of money? Really? At 12,000 barrels a year at $65, that's $8,000,000 saved each year. $33 million is four years worth of savings. That's a great investment, given that nautical engines have more than a four year lifespan.
Never mind that getting oil to the fueling point may require oil, troops, and other logistical expenses. Never mind that this allows the vessel to go longer without refueling, which may have it's own benefits.
If the $33M gets them the 12,000 barrels saved each year, then this wil
Re: (Score:2)
Umm how do you get that number?
12000*65 is under 800000 your off by a zero. For your math to work oil would have too cost $650 a barrel. So yes I would say it is a waste wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
heck turbo electric drive is nothing new. The US used it for Battleships in the 20s and 30s. But this seems to use batteries but I don't see the use on a DDG - 51. The power load for the sensors alone is huge. For an ASW frigate maybe but not a DDG!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it swims around looking for enemy nuclear subs, then latches on and cuts through the hull with lasers, sucking the precious life-energies from the nukular power sources within. Mainly the humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Valid question. I don't see how using electric power is going to save them any fuel. The batteries need to be charged somehow, and that somehow is by using a generator connected to a fuel burning engine.
Re: (Score:2)
The generators used on a ship are most efficient at about 80% of full power; if you run them at 20%, you waste a lot of fuel. So if you only need 20% most of the time, what you do is run the generators at 80%, 1/4 of the time (while charging batteries) and run off batteries the rest of the time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 t