Skip to content

Our Navy Should Go Nuclear, Not Green

August 29, 2014

Nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines have proven their strategic value and the safety of nuclear power.

For a few years, 9 nuclear powered cruisers (CGNs) supported the carrier task groups.

The last of the CGNs was commissioned in 1980. All were deactivated in the 1990s for economic reasons.

Today, we have been dismantling the Navy, so it is fast reaching the point where it will be unable to project power in multiple, distant waters.

The waters in question include, the strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, The straits of Malacca, the South China Sea, and with the emergence of a resurgent Russia, the Arctic, the Northern Pacific and the North Atlantic.

The trend toward Littoral Combat Ships, supposedly with the ability to perform multiple missions by using modules that can be loaded as needed onto the ship, cannot project power. It’s doubtful they will even be able to do the job they were intended to do.

They can show the flag, but, as a weapon system, may be as effective as was the Panay.

The so-called GreenNavy is undermining the capability of the remaining major ships.

The Rand report, Findings on Military Use of Alternative Fuels, castigated DOD for its efforts. See Military Funds Being Wasted.

Secretary of the Navy Mabus established the goal of having a nuclear carrier strike force with ships, other than the carriers, powered by biofuels.

The several reasons for using biofuels are senseless: Cutting greenhouse gasses rather than focusing on winning any future war: A supposed lack of reliable supplies of oil when we now have abundant supplies due to fracking: Saving money, rather than providing our men and women with the best equipment to win what ever dangers they face. See Dangerous and Fool Hardy.

Modern Underway Replenishment

Modern Underway Replenishment

Biofuels are limited in supply. Replacing diesel fuel or oil with biofuels increases the logistical problems of fueling the fleet at sea. Adding biofuels to the mix of fuels that must be carried by tankers for supplying the fleet using underway replenishment hurts the Navy’s ability to operate efficiently.

If the fleet must rely on tankers for fuel, they can be targeted by any future enemy, which could prevent the Navy from operating effectively.

What’s needed is a carrier task group powered by nuclear power … not biofuels.

Nuclear power allows forward deployment to project power where it’s needed for extended periods of time. Nuclear power allows ships to travel at maximum speed without concern for where their next refueling with oil or biofuels might take place.

In addition, the Navy of the future will require large amounts of electricity for electric magnetic rail guns (ERMG) that can hurl kinetic energy projectiles for 125 miles or more in support of any amphibious landings that might be required, or to interject power many miles inland while remaining far offshore. Nuclear power can supply the electricity while powering the ships at maximum speed.

The nuclear technology already exists for building cruisers that could operate with nuclear powered carriers. If nuclear power plants can be installed in submarines, why can’t they be installed in DDG-1000 class destroyers?

The concept of a Green Navy is misguided at best, and terribly dangerous at worst.

* * * * * *

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. September 2, 2014 4:21 pm

    Hi. I described this blog and indeed, this post, on my own blog, Yes Vermont Yankee. Here’s the link.

    http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2014/09/welcome-to-new-blogs.html#.VAYlVSiTRYA

    • September 3, 2014 9:07 am

      I read your blog and appreciate your comments regarding Power For USA.
      I try to stick to the facts, and sometimes they lead me to interesting conclusions, with which some people might disagree.

      • September 3, 2014 11:03 am

        Facts are funny that way! 😉

        Alas. I just realized that I linked to my post about your blog in 2 places on your blog. This was SHEER CARELESSNESS on my part. I deeply apologize.

  2. September 3, 2014 11:05 am

    Meredith:
    No problem. Perhaps more is better.

Trackbacks

  1. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #143 | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s