PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

delft

Brigadier
Fitting a molten salt reactor to a ship is quite unlikely. The problem here is NOT the heat transport ability of the molten salt, which is indeed very high, but the very high amounts of moderator required tor this reactor to operate.

The limitations lie in the volume of the moderator i.e. the graphite (C) to fuel ratio. This is typically 10-12 times the volume of the fuel. In light water (H2O) moderated and cooled reactors, the fuel elements are typically tenth's of an inch apart. but in graphite moderated reactors, they are in the order of several inches apart, resulting in an enormous reactor core.

This is a characteristic also shared by heavy water (D2O) moderated reactors. Another is the ability to achieve criticality using natural uranium fuels without requiring enrichment (resulting in substantially cheaper fuel). Indeed the large volume and relatively low power density of these reactors allows refueling during full-power operation. This is not possible in light-water moderated reactors which must be dismantled for refueling.

It was for these reasons, 1) operation on natural uranium-based fuels and 2) the ability to add, remove, replace fuel at power that these reactors (graphite and heavy water) became the basis of designs of the poorer nuclear powers - Britain, France and India allowing them to make power and plutonium at the same time. Subsequent advances in centrifuge enrichment technology reduced this economic advantage.

Seen from the perspective of pure moderation (reduction of neutron energy by collision) graphite (C) is a relatively poor moderator vs light water (H2O). It requires many more collisions to reduce the neutron's energy to thermal levels. Fortunately, it also has much lower tendency to absorb neutrons, (typically capture via the (n, y) reaction). So it has a superior moderating ratio (number of neutrons moderated over number captured).

But it is a bulky moderator. No graphite moderated reactor has ever been used on a ship to my knowledge.

Soviet reactors designs using a molten metal lead-bismuth coolant are an entirely different type of reactor, which has NO moderator and are in fact FAST reactors.
China is developing Molten Salt Thorium Reactors which are very different beasts than natural Uranium molten salt reactors.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Is ski-jump and catapult launch mutually exclusive?

Theoretically no -- a ship could definitely have a bow ski jump with waist catapults (which is what the Soviet Ulyanovsk would have had).

But practically, in the case of 001A, it probably won't have catapults.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
And what seems to be planned for Chinese carrier called "002", the third at all.

I think the current consensus for 002 is that it will be a pure CATOBAR carrier (no ski jump), with anywhere from 2-4 catapults thrown around, conventional propulsion, 80k+ tons full displacement.

Unknown what type of catapult will be used, but supposedly there's a competition going on between EM cat and steam cat that is related to 002.

Also unknown how many 002 hulls are actually planned -- i.e.: whether they'll proceed directly to a CVN after a single 002 hull or if they build two or more hulls before developing a CVN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top