I wonder with the SMR, when the fuel runs out, the shipyard will simply replace the entire unit instead of changing the fuel
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
My hunch is that the next Chinese carrier is more likely to be nuclear-powered than conventional.
I say "hunch" because there are many signs that suggest the next carrier would be nuclear-powered, yet none of them is strong enough to constitute as clear evidence.
I say this as someone who had strongly believed China should build multiple Type 003 carriers, on the grounds that 003 is sufficiently large and adequately advanced for China's needs in the near and medium term and that China needs them urgently and that the suitable nuclear reactor is still some time off. The longer that we don't see yet another 003 emerging, the less likely the next carrier would be another conventional one.
I say "hunch" because there are many signs that suggest the next carrier would be nuclear-powered, yet none of them is strong enough to constitute as clear evidence.
I say this as someone who had strongly believed China should build multiple Type 003 carriers, on the grounds that 003 is sufficiently large and adequately advanced for China's needs in the near and medium term and that China needs them urgently and that the suitable nuclear reactor is still some time off. The longer that we don't see yet another 003 emerging, the less likely the next carrier would be another conventional one.
It would indeed be more beneficial if Chinese naval shipyards could just swap out entire ship reactor with a new one in, then sending the old one for recycling and/or disposal. Would be more time and effort-efficient.
A typical refueling process on nuclear-powered US supercarriers takes around 3-4 years. However, US supercarriers only need to refuel once in their entire lifetimes, that is, during their Refueling and Overhaul (ROH), typically done 25 years into their service lives out of the expected total of 50 years.
I do wonder about the power output and nuclear fuel lifes of marine reactors for China's nuclear-powered supercarriers in the future. Would it be similar to that of the US, i.e. large reactors that only require one lengthy refueling? Or would it be smaller reactors that can be swapped faster, but require 2 or 3 ROHs in their entire lifetimes?
Last edited:
It is possible for SMR due to the fact that its fuel is less enriched.
What signs do you see that 004 will be nuclear-powered?
In this approach, one wants to reduce the time of refueling, so one uses highly enriched fuel.
The reason of SMR being possible to do the quick swap is IMO due to the fact of less enriched fuel. Here is a paper of ACP100. The primary loop has high capability to run on natural circulation, meaning it does not need the main pump to cool the core when at shutdown. The conventional reactor would need to run that pump all the time even after shutdown. Besides other reasons contributing to the natural circulation capability, less enriched fuel makes the thermal power density in the core much lower.
However, CAP100 requires 24 months refueling. That is more than 3 ROH in the entire lifetime of the CV. To increase that means higher enrichment which will reduce or remove the natural circulation capability. So if PLAN is going to this path, they need to make swapping reactor as quick as changing battery for a mobile phone or a EV, sort of.
"However, ACP100 requires refueling once every 24 months." Is this what you mean instead?
But if that's truly the case, wouldn't that be highly inefficient? That would require the carrier to go into dry dock maintenance and refueling once every 2 years instead of the 25 years for US supercarriers.
Reducing that refueling frequency to once every 10 years would be more ideal IMHO.
What if the Chinese design aircraft carriers with "Fast Swap" capability? Imagine removing the entire nuclear reactor from a ship and installing a fresh one in only 2 months. With such a fast turn around time, the PLA-navy could easily afford to do this every 2 years. I'm not an engineer so I have no idea what this would involve.
However...
If this was possible then it would open the door to using: civilian grade, 120 MW, Low enrichment uranium nuclear reactors. China is hungry for electricity, there is arguably a market demand for 1,000 of these reactors. I mean, for example, build 50 reactors per year for 20 years. With this type of economies of scale imagine how *cheap* these reactors would be. This may sound like a very unconventional idea but we must factor in the possibility that the Chinese will follow a radically different technological path compared to the Americans.
is this a...
Good idea / Bad idea ???
Assuming fastswap was feasible from an engineering perspective, the issue is that it'll probably come at the expense of the carrier's space and stability. You'd probably want to lift the reactor core, maybe the entire reactor, as well as the entire shroud out from within the carrier (probably multiple, since IIRC carriers do have multiple reactors) which would probably mean either a dedicated elevator or crane shaft. Installing this capability will likely mean eating into hangar space, maybe also deck space, and in general complicate the power layout of an already incredibly complicated vessel.