00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Cloud_Nine_]

The leaked Pentagon documents previously had some information on new PLAN carriers iirc. I didn't save any so take this with a grain of salt. It said something about CV-18 being the only Type 003 and CV-19 and 20 will both be new types. Construction of one will start in early 2024 in Dalian first and then in Jiangnan after it's done with CV-18.

That being said, it might still have just been photoshopped content by Chinese bloggers and now quoted by reasonably credible english sources...

 

[charles18]

so how easy to produce 20% EU ? or how much China has 20% EU ?

I do not know.
However 20% enriched uranium can be purchased from the civilian market so it is much more readily available.
This is one of the key reasons why the French navy chose 20% enrichment for their nuclear propulsion program.

What is the main disadvantage of using 20% EY for CVN ? more often refuelling ?

More frequent refueling.
With 20% enrichment a ship will have to refuel once every 10 years.
With 90% enrichment a ship can be designed to "never" have to refuel. There is enough uranium onboard to last the entire life of the ship. The Virginia class submarine and the Ford class carrier are examples of such ships that "never" refuel. Just buy yourself a new ship when the old one wears out!

Another reason why I think a 20% enrichment CVN is a possibility is because a lower enrichment does Not necessarily mean lower performance. The amount of power a nuclear reactor can produce is dependent on the type cooling fluid and the operating temperature. Regardless of the uranium enrichment level, we're still talking about PWR's pressurized water reactors which use the same coolant: water and the same operating temperature: about 330 celsius, therefore the power level should be the same. In conclusion, there is no reason why a 20% enrichment CVN cannot perform just as well as a 90% enrichment CVN other than it needs to be refueled more often.

 

[dingyibvs]

I do not know.
However 20% enriched uranium can be purchased from the civilian market so it is much more readily available.
This is one of the key reasons why the French navy chose 20% enrichment for their nuclear propulsion program.


More frequent refueling.
With 20% enrichment a ship will have to refuel once every 10 years.
With 90% enrichment a ship can be designed to "never" have to refuel. There is enough uranium onboard to last the entire life of the ship. The Virginia class submarine and the Ford class carrier are examples of such ships that "never" refuel. Just buy yourself a new ship when the old one wears out!

Another reason why I think a 20% enrichment CVN is a possibility is because a lower enrichment does Not necessarily mean lower performance. The amount of power a nuclear reactor can produce is dependent on the type cooling fluid and the operating temperature. Regardless of the uranium enrichment level, we're still talking about PWR's pressurized water reactors which use the same coolant: water and the same operating temperature: about 330 celsius, therefore the power level should be the same. In conclusion, there is no reason why a 20% enrichment CVN cannot perform just as well as a 90% enrichment CVN other than it needs to be refueled more often.

Traditionally at least refueling a CVN is no trivial matter, have to cut into the hull.and the reactor. Is the French system built to be more easily refueled?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

if you are 90% certain that there is going to be a nuclear powered ship is the reactor going to be fueled with:
20% enriched uranium ?
or
90% enriched uranium ?
This is an important question that must be answered before construction can begin. Furthermore, whatever decision is made it will most likely be permanent. For example back in the 1950's the US navy made a choice. It went with 90% enriched uranium to power its ships. Fast forward 70 years later to the present and things are still the same.

I think China has *already made* its decision. I'm going to take a wild guess and say they went with 20% enriched uranium. From my understanding relative to China's economic capacity it actually has a pretty small stockpile of HEU - 90% enriched uranium, about 15 tons. As a comparison, Russia has 680 tons of HEU. I don't think 15 tons of HEU is enough to power an aircraft carrier using 90% enriched uranium reactors. Maybe that's good enough for 1 carrier, but certainly not enough to power China's future ambitions which will include multiple aircraft carriers and a greatly enlarged submarine force.

Enrichment is defined by separation work units. Different degrees of enrichment require just different amounts of SWU, not fundamentally different processes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[charles18]

Traditionally at least refueling a CVN is no trivial matter, have to cut into the hull.and the reactor. Is the French system built to be more easily refueled?

short answer: yes
long answer:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Enrichment is defined by separation work units. Different degrees of enrichment require just different amounts of SWU, not fundamentally different processes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I agree.
I am not saying China cannot build a naval nuclear reactor with 90% enrichment uranium.
I am saying I do not think they are, big difference.
Actually I believe today China has the *engineering capacity* to do anything the USA can do. If there is something out there within the domain of engineering that the Chinese haven't done yet, for example, (put a man on the moon, build a long range stealth bomber, a really quiet nuclear submarine) just give them 10 more years and they'll get there. Give them 15 years and they'll probably be better at it than the West.
However...
I believe China is going to make its own decisions. Some of this of course will mean copying the West.
Some of it will mean taking a different technological path.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

short answer: yes
long answer:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I agree.
I am not saying China cannot build a naval nuclear reactor with 90% enrichment uranium.
I am saying I do not think they are, big difference.
Actually I believe today China has the *engineering capacity* to do anything the USA can do. If there is something out there within the domain of engineering that the Chinese haven't done yet, for example, (put a man on the moon, build a long range stealth bomber, a really quiet nuclear submarine) just give them 10 more years and they'll get there. Give them 15 years and they'll probably be better at it than the West.
However...
I believe China is going to make its own decisions. Some of this of course will mean copying the West.
Some of it will mean taking a different technological path.

I personally agree that a LEU reactor is more likely to leverage the larger civil supply to lower costs associated with fuel fabrication, handling, and new reactor design.

 

[charles18]

I'm guessing that someone on the Chinese internet probably just attached the "Pentagon leaked documents" label to snatch clicks and likes.

There was a website years ago, I forgot the address, that claimed China was working on a Molten salt Thorium nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I knew it "smelled" funny.
I agree you have to be careful what you read on the in internet.

Maybe we should spread rumors that China is working on a space elevator, maybe it will go viral?

 

[antiterror13]

I do not know.
However 20% enriched uranium can be purchased from the civilian market so it is much more readily available.
This is one of the key reasons why the French navy chose 20% enrichment for their nuclear propulsion program.


More frequent refueling.
With 20% enrichment a ship will have to refuel once every 10 years.
With 90% enrichment a ship can be designed to "never" have to refuel. There is enough uranium onboard to last the entire life of the ship. The Virginia class submarine and the Ford class carrier are examples of such ships that "never" refuel. Just buy yourself a new ship when the old one wears out!

Another reason why I think a 20% enrichment CVN is a possibility is because a lower enrichment does Not necessarily mean lower performance. The amount of power a nuclear reactor can produce is dependent on the type cooling fluid and the operating temperature. Regardless of the uranium enrichment level, we're still talking about PWR's pressurized water reactors which use the same coolant: water and the same operating temperature: about 330 celsius, therefore the power level should be the same. In conclusion, there is no reason why a 20% enrichment CVN cannot perform just as well as a 90% enrichment CVN other than it needs to be refueled more often.

Wondering whether with 20% EU, the design of reactor would be easier/simpler? as the "fuel" is significantly less radioactive .. thats actually very beneficial to China .. simpler, cheaper and safer

 

[Kalec]

Some wild rumors emerge on Chinese interest, suggesting some China-related content in the new batch of leaked document. (which I can't find them)

Given the very poor choice of word in Chinese, I would say at least it was from English sources, directly translated into Chinese and now I translate it back.

Update:

The original rumor spreader deleted his post. Claims are very likely to be fake, confirmed?

 

[H2O]

Update:

The original rumor spreader deleted his post. Claims are very likely to be fake, confirmed?

Or, was the guy's post deleted by moderators?