Chinese Marine Propulsion

antiterror13 · Jan 29, 2026

Tomboy said:
View attachment 168841
CGT-30 costs approximately 39.2 million yuan per package for the generator configuration. That's ~5.6 million USD, comparing that to a comparable LM2500+G4 set which is estimated to costs 11-12 million in 2010 USD or more than 16 million adjusted for inflation.

so roughly 1/3 of the cost of LM2500+G4 with slightly less performance (10%) and comparable efficiency ~39% .. thats normal price differences between Chinese and USA products.

Wondering whether maintenance cost and life are comparable?

tphuang · Feb 6, 2026

Tomboy said:
View attachment 168841
CGT-30 costs approximately 39.2 million yuan per package for the generator configuration. That's ~5.6 million USD, comparing that to a comparable LM2500+G4 set which is estimated to costs 11-12 million in 2010 USD or more than 16 million adjusted for inflation.

Interesting enough, I posted here News on China's scientific and technological development.

But a 50MW G50 cost 100m RMB and if you want to add combined cycle, it's another 100m RMB. I guess there has been some inflation since 2024. Since G50 is approximately 67% more power but 2.5x as expensive.

tphuang · Feb 16, 2026

so this has already been discussed, but I wonder if super supercritical carbon dioxide technology already made its way into 095?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The vessel will be capable of breaking 2.5-meter-thick ice at a speed of 3.7 kilometers per hour, he said.

In terms of its propulsion system, the new model will adopt molten salt reactor and supercritical carbon dioxide technology to enhance thermoelectric conversion efficiency and improve reactor safety

I'm not sure about dimension of MSR or Supercritical CO2 tech, but if you can fit this into 095, it just kills steam turbine in efficiency and probably noise level.

Here is an AI generated summary from that video from a while back.

Key Differences and Advantages of
sCO2
vs. Steam Turbines

Efficiency & Performance:
sCO2
systems can exceed 50% thermal efficiency, roughly 10 percentage points higher than modern steam plants, due to higher operating temperatures and higher fluid density.

Size & Density: Because
sCO2
is dense (nearly twice as dense as steam), turbines are significantly smaller—potentially 10 times smaller—than steam equivalents, reducing capital costs.

Operating Principle: Steam turbines rely on water boiling and condensing, which involves energy losses.
sCO2
remains in a single, supercritical phase throughout the closed-loop Brayton cycle, eliminating the losses from phase changes.

Startup Time & Flexibility:
sCO2
turbines can start in as little as 2 minutes, compared to 30+ minutes for steam, making them better for balancing intermittent renewable energy sources.

Waste Heat Recovery:
sCO2
cycles are exceptionally efficient at capturing waste heat, making them ideal for high-efficiency, small-scale power generation.

There is much we don't know, but if they actually managed to get this to work in a nuclear icebreaker, I see no reason why it cannot be put into 095 or 096.

Tomboy · Feb 16, 2026

ACuriousPLAFan said:
A steam turbine and its associated equipment from a tender document, which is alleged (if not purported) to be for the 095 SSN. Posted by SOYO on Weibo.

View attachment 162282

Per the naming convention, this steam turbine generator has an output of 38 MW.

View attachment 162283

tphuang said:
so this has already been discussed, but I wonder if super supercritical carbon dioxide technology already made its way into 095?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm not sure about dimension of MSR or Supercritical CO2 tech, but if you can fit this into 095, it just kills steam turbine in efficiency and probably noise level.

Here is an AI generated summary from that video from a while back.

There is much we don't know, but if they actually managed to get this to work in a nuclear icebreaker, I see no reason why it cannot be put into 095 or 096.

Not possible as 09V uses conventional steam turbines from tender info. Maybe for generator turbines but it's bery unlikely.

sunnymaxi · Feb 16, 2026

Tomboy said:
Not possible as 09V uses conventional steam turbines from tender info.

maybe for future variants.

tphuang · Feb 16, 2026

Tomboy said:
Not possible as 09V uses conventional steam turbines from tender info. Maybe for generator turbines but it's bery unlikely.

what gets used in the initial boat and what gets used on future variant are entirely different issues.

The difference between initial 093 and 09IIIB is Oberon class to late LA class.

Even more, 09VI has no information yet.

tphuang · Feb 16, 2026

tphuang said:
what gets used in the initial boat and what gets used on future variant are entirely different issues.

The difference between initial 093 and 09IIIB is Oberon class to late LA class.

Even more, 09VI has no information yet.

now, I did as @BoraTas about this and he says sodium Fast neutron reactors have higher power density and are better for submarine applications than molten salt reactor. Assuming that is true, we could still have supercritical CO2 turbine instead of steam turbine for naval applications in the future.

PLAN normally doesn't like to try too many risky things on 1 new class of ship. So, I could see it as something they can try as a next variant once the 09V is established to meet their expectations.

mister unknown · Feb 16, 2026

tphuang said:
so this has already been discussed, but I wonder if super supercritical carbon dioxide technology already made its way into 095?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm not sure about dimension of MSR or Supercritical CO2 tech, but if you can fit this into 095, it just kills steam turbine in efficiency and probably noise level.

Here is an AI generated summary from that video from a while back.

There is much we don't know, but if they actually managed to get this to work in a nuclear icebreaker, I see no reason why it cannot be put into 095 or 096.

That certainly sounds exciting, but seems to me that installing on a nuclear ice breaker would have a lot fewer constraints (e.g. space availability, lack of acoustic requirements, etc.) relative to an SSN? It would make sense to test on a relatively lower risk & lower stakes platform than our next gen SSN, but that doesn't mean it's mature enough for prime time right?

Also, I understand the energy efficiency value add of super critical CO2, but how does that tech contribute to noise reduction?

enroger · Feb 16, 2026

mister unknown said:
That certainly sounds exciting, but seems to me that installing on a nuclear ice breaker would have a lot fewer constraints (e.g. space availability, lack of acoustic requirements, etc.) relative to an SSN? It would make sense to test on a relatively lower risk & lower stakes platform than our next gen SSN, but that doesn't mean it's mature enough for prime time right?

Also, I understand the energy efficiency value add of super critical CO2, but how does that tech contribute to noise reduction?

Higher power density too if I'm not mistaken, so more space for rafting at least. I think they'll observe the civilian super critical CO2 system run for a few years before they apply it to such critical equipment as SSN

BoraTas · Feb 16, 2026

mister unknown said:
Also, I understand the energy efficiency value add of super critical CO2, but how does that tech contribute to noise reduction?

It might lead to a smaller turbine design for the same power output if more of the flow's energy could be extracted. I am not sure though. Also, the removal of the phase change of a water based system could reduce the noise too. I am not sure about these though. I think little to no public info would exist about this. I just heard once that flow characteristics were studied to make the submarines quieter.

Chinese Marine Propulsion

antiterror13

Brigadier

tphuang

General

tphuang

General

Tomboy

Captain

sunnymaxi

Colonel

tphuang

General

tphuang

General

mister unknown

New Member

enroger

Senior Member

BoraTas

Major