I saw a clip of the Badger, a ferry on the great lakes (got the idea from this thread a couple pages back) the black gang is cleaning grates or something, mabey shoveling coal? but hard to believe, especially with no masks etc. anyway, I read 1 ton of uranium = 80KBBL oil but it says ‘‘natural uranium’’.
Now we have to look up efficiency // oil to BTU via method or something …ok, i’ll go try it
No idea, some kind of automation though.
Read extensive works on diesel vs steam. The difference apparently is so great it wasn’t worth discussing. lots of talk about tooling up expenses, maintenance expenses, reduction gear expenses etc. I think it was ‘‘ship nostalgia’’ website or some such (and others) but there was little conjecture, lots of quoted stats etc., after a lot of reading I figured steam wasn’t going to be a contender unless you were ‘burning’ plutonium or something!
It always comes down to this: a unit of something will produce a theoretical unit(s) of energy. Science by now knows exactly how much a unit of fir, oil, uranium, tamarack,gasoline etc. will produce measured in KW, BTU, HP etc. Our issue is the most efficient means of converting that to our uses… heat, horsepower, light, etc. // most all the heat in a engine room not used to make water or warm my ass is wasted energy!
you are certainly correct and I stand corrected unless those were surplus engines Sunship happened to be sitting on? I do know that Nordberg built rock and ore crushers up until the 90’s and the 1700hp 6cyl Nordberg diesels in the Knotships (otherwise US Maritime Commission C1-M-AV1 class) I’ve served aboard were always fondly referred to as being one of those.
I must ask tho if those were slow or medium speed engines in the EXPLORER?
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
a barrel and a half a mile in a 21kt ship would equal 32256 gallons of fuel per day or 768bbl.
THAT’S A PRETTY DAMNED THIRSTY SHIP FOR SUCH MINISCULE (13500grt) TONNAGE!
[QUOTE=c.captain;129935]a barrel and a half a mile in a 21kt ship would equal 32256 gallons of fuel per day or 768bbl.
THAT’S A PRETTY DAMNED THIRSTY SHIP FOR SUCH MINISCULE (13500grt) TONNAGE![/QUOTE]
Ain’t she mighty purdy though?
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;129941]Ain’t she mighty purdy though?[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry but I like homely ladies that are fuel efficient and cheap to operate
maybe she only made 11kts and but only burned 48bbl a day carrying up to 5000tons of cargo…pretty damned hard to beat that!
[QUOTE=c.captain;129943]I’m sorry but I like homely ladies that are fuel efficient and cheap to operate
maybe she only made 11kts and but only burned 48bbl a day carrying up to 5000tons of cargo…pretty damned hard to beat that![/QUOTE]
Oh yeah old man!? And just who the hell says “Helena” ain’t purdy too!? That’s a right fine lady you’re talking about and I won’t stand for such insults to be slung her way! She’s pretty AND fuel efficient, by gumption!
[QUOTE=c.captain;129935]you are certainly correct and I stand corrected unless those were surplus engines Sunship happened to be sitting on? I do know that Nordberg built rock and ore crushers up until the 90’s and the 1700hp 6cyl Nordberg diesels in the Knotships (otherwise US Maritime Commission C1-M-AV1 class) I’ve served aboard were always fondly referred to as being one of those.
I must ask tho if those were slow or medium speed engines in the EXPLORER? [/QUOTE]
Thru the magic of the internet I found an announcement in a Milwaukee newspaper of Nordberg discontinuing production of engines in July 1973. I asked someone who used to work at GSF and he said the Explorer had 14 cyl medium speed Nordbergs he thought. He didn’t have much good to say about them. He recalled the main bearings being of primarily aluminum and needed replacing every 10000 hours or so.
When you talk about nuclear propulsion, remember that the total efficienty of the nuclear-turbo(-electric) plant is somewhere below 30%. Sure, they don’t burn that much fuel by weight but most of the energy is still wasted as heat…
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;129902]I’d be interested in seeing some of those 80’s built bulkers that were still done up in steam. As recently as 1984 the last all-steam passenger vessel (the M/V Fairsky) was built. Her career was plagued with incidents but it’s still pretty cool that there was a pretty modern looking cruise ship going around for the last 30 years on nothing but some big old rip-roarin’ steam turbines.[/QUOTE]
Here’s a blog post about the last coal-fired bulk carriers in the high seas:
As for Fairsky, the owner was so desperate to get rid of her that she was handed over to STX France as part of the deal to order new Oasis-class cruise ships. She was later re-sold to Aliaga became probably the first mid-80s cruise ship to be broken up, largely due to her inefficient steam turbine propulsion plant. Talk about a good decision…
[QUOTE=Tups;129947]Here’s a blog post about the last coal-fired bulk carriers in the high seas:
http://antipodeanmariner.blogspot.fi/2012/05/river-embley-marks-end-of-era.html[/QUOTE]
The write-up was good so I thought I’d quote it here:
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2012
River Embley marks the end of an eraThe withdrawal from service of River Embley this week marks the closing of a unique chapter in bulk shipping.
River Embley, and her sister ship River Boyne, are the only commercially-trading coal-fired bulk carriers in the world and have spent their 30-odd years as floating bauxite conveyors between Weipa and Gladstone, Queensland.
[QUOTE]
River Boyne inbound at Weipa
The pair was half of an innovative quartet of built for the Australian coastal bauxite trade in the early 1980’s. The other two vessels, Endeavour River and Fitzroy River (ex TNT Carpentaria and TNT Capricornia) were built in Italy for TNT Bulkships while River Embley and River Boyne were built at Mitsubishi’s Nagasaki shipyard for ANL.
At the time of their design, fuel oil bunkers were at historicaly high levels and Queensland had plentiful, cheap steaming coal. Though built at different Yards and to different designs, the principles are the same. Coal is loaded into gravity-fed hoppers adjacent to the accommodation. Automatic coal handling systems deliver the coal on to moving conveyor grates running through the boilers driving steam turbines and a single propeller.
River Boyne alongside at Weipa
Despite running on a solid fuel, the vessels were classed UMS (Unmanned Machinery Space) meaning they would run automated with day-working Engineers. At normal sea speed, the ships consumed between 180 and 240 tonnes of coal a day. Increasing maintenance costs, and their replacement by more standard Post-Panamax bulk carriers, means their time has come and River Embley will sail from Gladstone next week to Singapore and new Owners.
The Antipodean Mariner[/QUOTE]
Not half bad lookin’ boats if I do say so myself. I would have been honored to serve on either one of them.
Work it out as pounds per horsepower hour and see what you get.
I am interested in comparing an actual petroleum-powered steam plant with a slow-speed diesel plant.
In many ways it is apples to oranges unless you find a steamboat that shuts down the boilers in port. It will be a good exercise for you to get a heat balance diagram ( old SNAME Proceedings are good sources) for a steamboat and a motorboat of the same power and see where the energy actually goes and why a steam plant in a ship is hard pressed to compete with diesel.
There is no question about the lower cost of a diesel plant. The only reason that LNG tankers were steam powered was because of the availability of the cargo leak off for “free fuel”. My understanding of the large steam powered tankers built in the 70s was that the available diesel technology could not provide the necessary horsepower needed by the large ships.
[QUOTE=c.captain;129801]I
Today there is NO large slow speed diesel engine builder in the USA!
[/QUOTE]
Fairbanks Morse is still in business, the OP engines and ALCO’s are not low speed but FM does build Colt Pielstiks and MAN’s under a license agreement here in the states. If that counts?
[QUOTE=cmakin;129959] My understanding of the large steam powered tankers built in the 70s was that the available diesel technology could not provide the necessary horsepower needed by the large ships.[/QUOTE]
The propulsion power requirement could easily have been met with a slow speed diesel. Even a 300,000 DWT VLCC with a 15 knot design speed was typically powered by a 35,000 hp MCR engine that cruised at around 30,000 hp.
One important factor in favor of steam in the tanker trade is that the power required to offload can be nearly as high as the power required at sea speed. If you had to install enough generator power to drive electrical cargo pumps then the savings of a diesel go away pretty quick. That 300K ton tanker still needs around 100,000 pounds per hour of steam to drive the cargo pumps. That was what one of the two boilers on a 125,000 DWT TAPS tanker produced for propulsion.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=ChiefRob;130022] If that counts?[/QUOTE]
Those are medium speed engines.
Indeed, the ability of the US to build slow speed marine diesels engines went away very quickly after WWII. I would have to research at www.shipbuildinghistory.com (Tim Colton’s fabulous site that lists all US built ships and shipyards going back to before when wood was used to built ships!) to find out when the last US built vessel was delivered with a US built slow speed engine but gravely feel is was something like 1945! Blame the US government for that one for not allowing CDS ships to be constructed with diesels for propulsion.
the Nordberg Engine Works in Milwaukee during WWII
ALL THAT WE ONCE HAD IN THE USA AND ALL THAT WE HAVE LOST! SO SAD! SO UNNECESSARY! SUCH A WASTE!
.
MY GOD! Nordberg sometime in their history built a 12cylinder engine!
official Nordberg Factory Photograph: Nordberg 12-Cyl 29" Bore X 40" Stroke, 9600hp @ 171rpm.
don’t think this one went into a ship but was likely a stationary engine…WHAT A BRUTE!
.
[QUOTE=c.captain;130074]Nordberg 12-Cyl 29" Bore X 40" Stroke, 9600hp @ 171rpm.[/QUOTE]
29"… that’s about 73 cm, right? The closest I could find from the Wärtsilä lineup in terms of cylinder diameter is 8X72 which produces about 38,000 hp at 89 rpm (R1/R1+). If it was produced as a 12-cylinder version (12X72), it would have an output of 58,000 hp…
I guess there has been some development in engine technology over the years… 
Good lord, that’s practically a triple expansion steam engine!
I have attached a link to some video I shot aboard BADGER back in 2012. Capt. Jeff Curtis invited me to watch as he docked her from the aft docking station. Twin 3500 horsepower Skinner Uniflows swinging two 14’ cast iron wheels. Lots of power and Capt. Curtis is a fine ship handler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHU34rPs_HY
I’ve mentioned it before and I will again. If you haven’t made the round trip on her, do so asap. It is a real treat.
[QUOTE=ChiefRob;130022] MAN’s under a license agreement here in the states. If that counts?
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/marine/[/QUOTE]
I dont think they are building them here though. Even the ships being built at Aker have either Dalian (China) or Busan (Korea) licensed MAN engines.