Now let's imagine how roomy will be facilities allowing do all you want. If to recall in chemistry namely electro-processes give the lowest yield per working m3.
And I have already provided to you the link showing how 90 metric tons per day Ammonia production facilities look like.
Good luck, but I have very resonable doubts in possibility of placing those on any ship.
Joey...
How bout you try to read up a bit before you continue to stick your foot into your mouth.
Stick your foot or any other part of your body into your mouth yourself. As I've seen a lot of conference notifications.
For example pure hydrogen usage proposals or dimethylether, etc., etc. etc.
But by some reasons that may be described commonly as "set of consumer properties" we still use hydrocarbons and will use them for a long time. Even after end of oil era.
KitemanSA wrote:Why in the world would you conceive of making ammonia for an aircraft carrier. They are nuclear powered. Jeez, dude, PLEASE try to keep up!
I thought that you in NAVY call the set of warship where is one carrier, some number of destroyers, etc. as "order".
And as I know not all from that "aircraft carrier's order" are nuclear powered.
# 6 fuel oil?
They are called "Task Force". Since the retirement of the Long Beach and Bainbridge only the carrier in a task force is nuclear powered.
Currently all operational carriers in the US Fleet are nuclear.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
KitemanSA wrote: Let my TRY to make it as simple as possible. The idea is to use nuclear power aboard the AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) to make ammonia and then transfer it to the ship to be used as fuel in their turbines. Is THAT simple enough for you? Have you caught up YET?
This corresponds to make of 141.1 t/day of ammonia.
Is this quantity enough for aircraft carrier's order?
I doubt that no.
Why in the world would you conceive of making ammonia for an aircraft carrier. They are nuclear powered. Jeez, dude, PLEASE try to keep up!
By the way, Kiteman, what can you say, how much fuel oil and jet fuel are needed dayly for one "aircraft carrier's order"?
As I assume that a lot of suggested by you "nuclear powered oilers" will be required. For example one destroier - three oiler.
KitemanSA wrote:Why in the world would you conceive of making ammonia for an aircraft carrier. They are nuclear powered. Jeez, dude, PLEASE try to keep up!
I thought that you in NAVY call the set of warship where is one carrier, some number of destroyers, etc. as "order".
And as I know not all from that "aircraft carrier's order" are nuclear powered.
# 6 fuel oil?
They are called "Task Force". Since the retirement of the Long Beach and Bainbridge only the carrier in a task force is nuclear powered.
Currently all operational carriers in the US Fleet are nuclear.
Thanks. Russians call Task Force as "order". And because "order" is not originally Russian word, I thought that this is US NAVY's term. All the more Russians from themselves have not carriers if not consider "Admiral Kuzntsov" which is much smaller and they call that not "carrier" but "avia carrying cruiser".
KitemanSA wrote: ....
Why in the world would you conceive of making ammonia for an aircraft carrier. They are nuclear powered. Jeez, dude, PLEASE try to keep up!
I think I see your blind spot. A nuclear powered tanker is an option, assuming the ammonia production (or CO2 capture processes ) is viable for a ship. What you fail to see is that the nuclear carrier is also a large ship. If it has enough space, it could also incorperate a production facility. In this case it serves two possible functions. It could produce fuel for it's aircraft and thus have much smaller fuel tanks. It is a tradeoff. Of course the nuclear carrier does not need liquid fuel itself, that has never been implied and I have no idea how you became fixated on this point. The second reason a nuclear carrier might produce fuel is so that it can resupply other non nuclear ships in the group. This would eliminate the need for the separate nuclear tanker. I don't know if modern nuclear carriers carry fuel for escort ships, but in WWII it was common for the carrier with it's large fuel tanks to refuel escort ships. The advantage is that the fast carrier and fast destroyer do not have to wait for the slow tanker. This would provide tactical advantages as it increases the range of the relatively short range destroyers without the penalty of the limiting slow tankers. I believe modern destroyers have much greater range than their WWII counterparts (at least in the US Navy), so the advantage of the carrier also acting as a fast tanker is minimized.
Joseph Chikva wrote: .
Then you mentioned that injection of ammonia for the purpose of reduction of NOx will give more energy.
Actually I stated I BELIEVE the reaction is exothermic, i.e. will make the catalyst hotter. So far you have provided no info (I bothered to read) to make me change my mind. If in the heap o swine s#!t there was a pearl, I missed it.
Joseph Chikva wrote:By the way, Kiteman, what can you say, how much fuel oil and jet fuel are needed dayly for one "aircraft carrier's order"?
As I assume that a lot of suggested by you "nuclear powered oilers" will be required. For example one destroier - three oiler.
Jet fuel, lots, fuel oil, none (they are nuclear powered, get it?); though I believe they may carry some for their escorts.
Your "assume" has made an "ass" out of "u", but not "me".
As I suggested before, please read up a bit before making a bigger fool of yourself.
KitemanSA wrote: ....
Why in the world would you conceive of making ammonia for an aircraft carrier. They are nuclear powered. Jeez, dude, PLEASE try to keep up!
I think I see your blind spot. A nuclear powered tanker is an option, assuming the ammonia production (or CO2 capture processes ) is viable for a ship. What you fail to see is that the nuclear carrier is also a large ship. If it has enough space, it could also incorperate a production facility. In this case it serves two possible functions. It could produce fuel for it's aircraft and thus have much smaller fuel tanks. It is a tradeoff. Of course the nuclear carrier does not need liquid fuel itself, that has never been implied and I have no idea how you became fixated on this point. The second reason a nuclear carrier might produce fuel is so that it can resupply other non nuclear ships in the group. This would eliminate the need for the separate nuclear tanker. I don't know if modern nuclear carriers carry fuel for escort ships, but in WWII it was common for the carrier with it's large fuel tanks to refuel escort ships. The advantage is that the fast carrier and fast destroyer do not have to wait for the slow tanker. This would provide tactical advantages as it increases the range of the relatively short range destroyers without the penalty of the limiting slow tankers. I believe modern destroyers have much greater range than their WWII counterparts (at least in the US Navy), so the advantage of the carrier also acting as a fast tanker is minimized.
Dan Tibbets
They are VERY large ships, but they are not empty. If they had a bunch of spare volume, they would be made smaller (or filled with other combat important stuff). Also, a carrier has much stricter design and construction requirements than a tanker and are thus MUCH more expensive per ton to build and operate. Take my word, it would be much cheaper to build the capacity into a level I tanker than a level IV carrier.
Besides, with one or two separate AONs for each strike group, the escorts can detach from the group to leave the combat zone to pick up fuel and other supplies.
[quote="MSimon"They are called "Task Force". Since the retirement of the Long Beach and Bainbridge only the carrier in a task force is nuclear powered.
Currently all operational carriers in the US Fleet are nuclear.[/quote] Ummm, last I saw they were called "strike groups", or more specifically, carrier strike groups. Task forces are comprised of parts of a, all of a, or multiple carrier strike groups or expeditionary strike groups to carry out a specific "Task". A task force might be comprised of a carrier strike group, two expeditionary strike groups, and multiple specialty ships (MCs, MHCs, AHs, LCC, etc.) all in a temporary unified chain of command.
Not too long ago, strike groups were known as battle groups.
PS: Data is ~8 months old and subject to any recent changes.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Thanks. Russians call Task Force as "order". And because "order" is not originally Russian word, I thought that this is US NAVY's term. All the more Russians from themselves have not carriers if not consider "Admiral Kuzntsov" which is much smaller and they call that not "carrier" but "avia carrying cruiser".
Actually, the C in CVN also originated in Cruiser.
Joseph Chikva wrote: .
Then you mentioned that injection of ammonia for the purpose of reduction of NOx will give more energy.
Actually I stated I BELIEVE the reaction is exothermic, i.e. will make the catalyst hotter. So far you have provided no info (I bothered to read) to make me change my mind. If in the heap o swine s#!t there was a pearl, I missed it.
You can stay at your mind. But injection of fuel above stechiometric ratio does not give more energy.
All the more when you talk about injection into exhaust system, entire system can not give you more energy even reaction is exothermic. That’s very easy.
Joseph Chikva wrote: .
Then you mentioned that injection of ammonia for the purpose of reduction of NOx will give more energy.
Actually I stated I BELIEVE the reaction is exothermic, i.e. will make the catalyst hotter. So far you have provided no info (I bothered to read) to make me change my mind. If in the heap o swine s#!t there was a pearl, I missed it.
You can stay at your mind. But injection of fuel above stechiometric ratio does not give more energy.
All the more when you talk about injection into exhaust system, entire system can not give you more energy even reaction is exothermic. That’s very easy.
What are you babbling about? Seems you misread my statement (per usual) and started nattering about something totally immaterial. Please keep up!
KitemanSA wrote: ....
Why in the world would you conceive of making ammonia for an aircraft carrier. They are nuclear powered. Jeez, dude, PLEASE try to keep up!
I think I see your blind spot. A nuclear powered tanker is an option, assuming the ammonia production (or CO2 capture processes ) is viable for a ship. What you fail to see is that the nuclear carrier is also a large ship. If it has enough space, it could also incorperate a production facility. In this case it serves two possible functions. It could produce fuel for it's aircraft and thus have much smaller fuel tanks. It is a tradeoff. Of course the nuclear carrier does not need liquid fuel itself, that has never been implied and I have no idea how you became fixated on this point. The second reason a nuclear carrier might produce fuel is so that it can resupply other non nuclear ships in the group. This would eliminate the need for the separate nuclear tanker. I don't know if modern nuclear carriers carry fuel for escort ships, but in WWII it was common for the carrier with it's large fuel tanks to refuel escort ships. The advantage is that the fast carrier and fast destroyer do not have to wait for the slow tanker. This would provide tactical advantages as it increases the range of the relatively short range destroyers without the penalty of the limiting slow tankers. I believe modern destroyers have much greater range than their WWII counterparts (at least in the US Navy), so the advantage of the carrier also acting as a fast tanker is minimized.
Dan Tibbets
They are VERY large ships, ...
Electrolyzers also are very large machines, ammonia synthesis reactors, compressors also are very large
At about 30 km away from my home is fertilizer making plant occupying not less than 10 km^2
And main component there are two ammonia synthesis trains with capacity 600 t/day each.
KitemanSA wrote: Actually I stated I BELIEVE the reaction is exothermic, i.e. will make the catalyst hotter. So far you have provided no info (I bothered to read) to make me change my mind. If in the heap o swine s#!t there was a pearl, I missed it.
You can stay at your mind. But injection of fuel above stechiometric ratio does not give more energy.
All the more when you talk about injection into exhaust system, entire system can not give you more energy even reaction is exothermic. That’s very easy.
What are you babbling about? Seems you misread my statement (per usual) and started nattering about something totally immaterial. Please keep up!
I am babbling that you should not believe but should read something more than advertisements.
And better to be closer to Earth. Just advise.
Joseph Chikva wrote:You can stay at your mind. But injection of fuel above stechiometric ratio does not give more energy.
All the more when you talk about injection into exhaust system, entire system can not give you more energy even reaction is exothermic. That’s very easy.
What are you babbling about? Seems you misread my statement (per usual) and started nattering about something totally immaterial. Please keep up!
I am babbling that you should not believe but should read something more than advertisements.
And better to be closer to Earth. Just advise.
You keep babbling about injection above the stoichiometric ratios or about getting more energy with exhaust injection. Your two ideas are crazy. My idea has nothing to do with either. Please keep up, or at least have the courtesy to shut up.
