Tweet
Originally posted by surfgun
View Post
-
What a hot potato she has become. -
Hopefully, the comparison of dismantling the Enterprise to the dismantling of the Nimitz class carriers is similar to the comparison of dismantling the cruiser Long Beach to the dismantling of all follow up nuclear cruisers. The Enterprise and the Long Beach are both the first of their kind, and are both "one offs". And are both still waiting. All other nuclear cruisers have been dismantled with no delays, that I'm aware of.Comment
-
Oh my, it might sit for a decade with nothing being done to it. Now when has that ever happened to a Navy carrier, let me guess? Well, it has happened to every Navy carrier lately. Just tow her out here and store her at Suisun, government owned and the rent has to be cheaper than Newport News, and then I can look at her every time I cross the bridge.Comment
-
I believe the article is describing what must occur just to get the E in condition to move it to a location like Suisan so that it can sit there, or more likely to the breakers.Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
My understanding is that dismantling a nuclear powered vessel involves two steps: 1) Removing the spent nuclear fuel (the core), followed by 2) Removing the Reactor Compartment. When both of those items are completed the process of long term storage, or breaking up, follows that of other ships.
Currently, both the Enterprise and the Longbeach are at the point where the fuel has been removed, but all of their reactor compartments remain.Comment
-
This is more of a pause for 3-4 years while the navy works out how it is going to scrap the Enterprise. What has been dropped (for a whole bunch of reasons - I can elaborate if anyone asks) is the original 2012 plan of towing the whole carrier direct from Newport News to Puget Sound to be recycled. The alternatives now under consideration are:Originally posted by Cruiser View Post
1. Cut down the carrier in a commercial facility to what is termed a 'propulsion section' containing all the reactors. That would be put on a heavy lift ship and taken to Puget Sound for recycling.
2. Find a commercial contractor who would recycle the whole vessel, packing the reactors for transport to a burial site.
Both these concepts are new and carry substantial challenges. They also have implications for the eventual follow on recycling of the Nimitz class.Comment
-
T-Salt,
Your last statement re. the NIMITZ class is interesting and quite apropos - it could be that this whole argument between the two agencies/bureaus involved in the recycling of nuclear vessels is going on with the future NIMITZ retirements looming over all - how to accomplish this at an expense that is palatable to the taxpayer. However it's done, it WILL be expensive.Comment
-
Tyrosalt, I would like to hear the abbreviated version of why the 2012 plan was dropped, IF you don't mind.Originally posted by tyrosalt View Post
As far as the second alternative that you list is concerned, why is that considered a new concept? Is it because a commercial contractor versus a Navy Shipyard may be selected?
Also, do you know who has recycled nuclear powered vessels in the past, both submarines and cruisers? I have only recently become interested in this and have not yet located any info on this. I would be happy if you could provide direction on where to look.Comment
-
I believe ALL nuclear ship recycling (including subs) that have been accomplished to date has been performed at PSNSY. I think this isn't likely to change, but it could if cognizance for this activity is transferred to the NRC, which uses civilian resources to decommission stationary nuclear power plants. For now, the NRC says they don't have authority to do it, Naval Reactors thinks they do, and should. This is a strange deflection of responsibility as government agencies are usually not interested in giving away their work.Originally posted by Cruiser View PostComment
-
No, I don't mind at all.
It is correct that all SSNs and CGNs have been recycled at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) until now and originally that was the intention for Enterprise. The carrier was scheduled to be towed to PSNS in 2017 after defueling at Newport News.
That plan is dead for the following reasons:
1. PSNS cost estimate doubled from $500m - $750m to $1 - $1.5 billion and the time involved equally from 5 to 10 years.
2. When the original plan was drawn up it was assumed that the Long Beach (CGN 9) would have been recycled by 2017, so that Enterprise would occupy the berth on the west side of Mooring A the cruiser uses. That hasn't happened.
3. The only dry dock on the west coast which can accommodate a carrier is #6 at PSNS. It is needed for active carriers for regular and emergency maintenance.
4. PSNS has consistently been behind schedule with all its recycling and maintenance work by an average of over 30 percent in recent years. Apart from the Long Beach, it has 16 SSNs to recycle with more to come.
Hence, the two plans I outlined in my previous post. There is one point which needs to be added. The Naval Reactors vs NRC argument only comes into play if the navy goes for a full scrapping including the reactors at a commercial facility like ISL at Brownsville. If the Enterprise is cut down to a 'propulsion space section' for transport to PSNS Naval Reactors remains the responsible authority. The image below gives and outline idea of how this would be accomplished.
CVN_65_RFI.pdfComment
-
Thebard and Tyrosalt, Thank you both.
Thebard, I agree about both not wanting the work.
I imagine, with the age of the civilian nuclear power plants, that NRC is facing a heavy workload too.
As for having just one west coast dry dock that can handle a carrier, I'm reminded of what our friend Rusty Battleship had to say about that.Comment
-
TSalt,
Quite an interesting set of specs emerging as to the offered plans for 'denuclearization' of ENTERPRISE. No pun intended! I appreciate the ongoing dialog & discussion of this topic. One thing I can surmise is that the BRAC closings in the '90s may have been an initial fault resulting in the ensuing argument between to necessary agencies now at odds with each other. I think that it's past time for someone to take leadership on this and 'own the problem' rather than kicking the proverbial Nuclear Football down the road as is being currently done by both parties.
And thanks for the breakdown diagram of Big E's disassembly!Comment
-
Question in regards to the Nimitz class, since they will be retired next. Can they use the reactors to provide shore power? They have to still train sailors to operate the reactors for quite some time, why not just disperse the decommed ships in major Navy ports around the country and let them backfeed the grid?Comment
-
One of the primary reasons the Nimitz CVNs will be decommissioned is that they need to be refueled at the 50 year point. They also will need significant engineering renewal/upkeep let alone combat system upgrades. This is very expensive too even more than securing the plant. Plus much of the steam from the CVN plants went into Propulsion turbines not for the electrical load.Originally posted by 96Daksport View Post
As an interesting side note the USN has experience with powering the grid. In 1929 the USS Lexington filled the power gap in Tacoma WA when their hydro electric plants did not have enough water to drive the turbines. As Lexington was a "hybrid" herself with electric drive most of the her power generation would support the grid and did. No FEMA needed?Comment
-
Interesting comment re. use of shipboard steam plant for elec. generation ashore. This also occurred with one of the newer destroyers on the west coast (Portland, OR???/Tacoma, WA????) back in the 60s, I think. The ship was tied up pierside and provided her engineering plant for civilian elec. generation - exact time/place, etc. I can't recall.Comment
-
The decline of US civilian nuclear activity is negatively effecting the USN.
https://news.usni.org/2018/10/02/37045Comment
Comment