One reason why gas turbines was favored is because kerosene is cheaper than diesel oil, even though a GT would suck kerosene at much faster rates than a diesel engine on fuel oil. Going nuclear has its cost of operation because uranium and plutonium are quite expensive. If you have a general energy crisis, there would be increased demand for the alternatives as well and that includes nuclear energy.
Long time ago, we did have the perfect power plant. It was renewable, green, no pollution, does not use any fuel, cheap and easy to operate and build. Maybe its time to return to the age of sail once again.
Nope. Kerosene is more expensive than diesel, quite a bit so in some places, and modern gas turbines like the LM2500 typically are run on high sulfur diesel. They have even been run on soybean oil with great success. Black oil is the cheapest of the bunch. The USN converted all her ships to run on "Navy distillate" with the advent of gas turbine propulsion to simplify logistics. All ships would burn the same fuel, both steam and gas turbine powered. This was true of all Nato navies, allowing the oilers to carry only one standard ship fuel.
Steam turbines are more fuel efficient than gas turbines, and can be very quiet power plants. Their drawback is their complexity and tempermental nature. 1300 psi steam is like sitting on a time bomb. Leaks are deadly. Water quality to the boilers is hyper critical. Even a little mineral content in the boiler feed quickly plates out on the boiler tubes and renders the plant useless. The boiler goes down unless the trend is caught and arrested in time. How many steam powered ships have I been on that suffered boiler casualties? Every single one. The boilers demand lots of fresh water. If an evap goes down the ship's speed will be limited, or you will starve the boiler of feed water ( this happens anyway even when no evaps are down ). Boilers are hard work. Then at overhaul time you have to place the ship in a drydock ( not cheap ) and cut big holes in the hull to remove and replace machinery. A maze of plumbing must come out to remove any big component, and this must all be replaced later before welding up the hull.
Gas turbines by comparison are simple and almost dead reliable. They go years needing almost no maintenance. Overhauls are accomplished in a nice clean shop ashore. Engines may be swapped at any pier with a large construction crane and a big flat bed truck to carry the engine. For something like a Ticonderoga the gas turbine is unbolted, tipped on end and lifted out the stack on rails built into the stack. The process takes about twelve hours. No holes are cut in anything to do this. Installing a new turbine likewise requires twelve hours and is the reverse of removing the old turbine. Most evolutions take 36 hours since there is almost always twelve hours of other work most engineering departments will choose to perform while the old engine is out. 36 hours of work at a pier vs weeks in a drydock and big holes in the hull. Gas turbines are the way to go for a combat ship.
Several years ago the USN did a rough and dirty calculation of what oil price would make it economical to use nuclear propulsion on certain classes of ship. At prices above $85 a barrel for oil it was determined it would be less costly over the ship's life to build amphibious ships using nuclear power. For destroyers to be more economical to own using nuclear power, oil would have to rise above $200 a barrel. Separately, the House Armed Services Committee is considering a Democratic proposal to make all combat ships nuclear powered for operational reasons, to allow ships to transit at high speeds anywhere in the world and then operate for extended periods of time without needing to refuel. The outcome of this proposal will determine the power used on the LHA Replacement and most likely the CG(X) and any follow on to the Zumwalt class. It would likely include LPD's and LSD's as their size alone would seem to justify nuclear power in today's expensive oil market. LHAN? Hmmmmm. DDGN? Oh my!
, what about wind power since surface combatants are mostly out in the open sea in terrible wind conditions. So no problems in not having enough wind, though you would have backup engines incase their is no wind etc...or when your near the cost.