That Geoff Hoon had a letter in the Times today in which he says he was advised at the time that, for the type-45s, the RR engines and the alternative Yank offering would cost the same (purchase and lifetime), and produce the same power. He says he therefore chose the British offering, and makes no apology for that.
The present difficulties must therefore have another cause.
Seems obvious to me. The problem isn't the engines themselves. The problem is that the engines/generators were underspecced in the first place.
Think about it a minute...
Gas turbine -> electric generation -> store/motor. No different to a diesel/electric logo or whatever. Two motor/generator sets "keep breaking down". Solution? Install a third.
There's just not enough headroom in the spec, so they're running too close to max output for too long.
Whether it's the turbines, the generators or what is almost irrelevant.
Might be better installing more storage for peak demand periods.
Tim
Yes - except some might use it as a chance to do some RR bashing.
no *might* about it! US companies and online shills are massively active dissing Airbus in favour of Boeing and RR in favour of GE and Pratt and Whitney...
It's just good marketing tactics, as they see it.
Are you really saying the electrical generation is provided by the main engines?
Seems a very stupid way to do it, given the electrical load is largely independant of whether the ship is under way or not, ignoring that used for traction.
If you are going for technology that will appeal to the Greens just fit the things with sails.
G.Harman
I wonder if supplemental sails will ever make a comeback. Not hard with modern technology to control them rapidly, automatically, intelligently, safely. Supplemental only also helps minimise their main issues.
NT
Yes, I have always likened our national grid to a nuclear submarine, with sails.
So as to 'save uranium' which is dirt cheap and not in short supply anyway.
Whilst there is no doubt that a fully computerised sailing ship coupled into satellites and with weather prediction and courses set for maximum favourable winds could do a good job - better perhaps than the clippers
- the problem is that even the best sailing technology will only
*average* a fairly poor figure.The great drive to Steam was more about predictable journey times, less crew, and later on, better speeds than sail.
Just as actually post Comet anyway, the move to jet commercial airliners was a little about speed, (more chargeable passenger miles per day) but also a LOT about maintenance. More miles per engine overhaul.
Which is, I suspect, why engines are in underwing pods, not buried in the wings. Easier to service..
There have been some trials on vessels since the oil price hikes of the 70's. No huge take up though there are some smallish cruise ships at the high end of the market where the intention is to provide a holiday on a "Sailing " ship.
Understandably really with marine diesels especially on very large ships being about the most efficient engines in terms of getting the most out of the fuel built. You also have the complications of what you with the masts or whatever supporting structure is used when in Port. Tall structures will get in the way of cargo handling equipment like container cranes and few places will wish to gear up for a special design. And it is something else to go wrong which at sea can be a right pain especially if your spare part is something almost unique and is on the other side of the globe.
G.Harman
however as oil prices have crashed, there's another idea not worth pursuing.
You're saying they will stay low for ever? Or is your head just firmly in the sand as usual?
You remind me of an old friend I had. He went into a very posh retirement home knowing he only had funds for a couple of years there. And lived for about 10. The last 8 in a very poor one. If he'd done some planning, he could have seen his days out in somewhere reasonable.
That was one of the major drawbacks of the Lockheed Tristar and MD11 - the tail engine was hard to get at.
AIUI the location of the engine smooths the flight too - in case of a bump the wing flexes.
Andy
Sail only power would be a massive backward step, hence no-one suggests it.
NT
the link given claims fuel costs 70-80% of total shipipng costs. I've little idea if that's accurate.
You'd need to be able to put it away when approaching port. That's a necessity to make it all work.
that would be a nonissue, it's purely a supplemental power source.
NT
they claim a saving of 2-3m per ship per annum.
NT
My mothers encyclopedias from the 1930's featured the Flettner Rotor ship of the 1920's featured in this link,
as the article shows the concept is still tried occasionally but after
90 years you would have thought that if it was going to catch on it would have by now though being a German development from that era may have tainted it a bit.In the Solent in the mid 80's I frequently saw a yacht which was operated by a company called Walker Windsails who hoped to fit their design to cargo ships. One was fitted but they were soon removed.
The concept of these assisting wind systems sound good but they require too much maintenance to make them worthwhile. The turn around of vessels now days is measured in hours not days,there mustn't isn't the time to look after such things and crews at sea are no longer numerous enough to take on extra workload.
This idea though is fairly simple ,not too complicated and simple to stow away so it doesn't obstruct unloading operations.
But for the moment oil has got too cheap again for the Ideas to be progressed.
G.harman
A temporary thing. The crash is deliberately engineered.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.