Nuclear Naval Propulsion

Ragheb, Magdi

doi:10.5772/19007

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8. General information on submarine and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) is basically reliant on: AHMAD, 2011;BURCHER & RYDILL, 1994;CLARK, 2012;CHRISTLEY, 2007;CLANCY & GRESHAM, 2003;DEFENSE INDUSTRY DAILY, 2015;EWING, 2011;FONTENOY, 2007;FRIBOURG, ND;FRIEDMAN, 1984;GARDNER, 1996;GATES & LYNN, 1990;HERVEY, 1994;HUAN & MOULIN, 2010;HUBER, 2003;HUGHES & GIRRIER, 2018;IPPOLITO, 1990;KORMILITSIN & KHALIZEV, 2001;MILLER, 1987;MILLER & MILLER, 2001;POLMAR & MOORE, 2003;PSALLIDAS ET AL, 2010;RAGHEB, 2011;RAWSON & TUPPER, 2001;SPELLER, 2014;WAGNER ET AL, 1999;WHITMAN, 2010;ZIMMERMAN, 2000. just beginning by then) over nuclear propulsion. That is not what is at stake here.…”

Section: Submarinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Effectiveness of Nuclear and Air-independent propulsion Submarine Fleets

Costa

Júnior

2023

Estudos Internacionais

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a methodology that enables one who has actual cost figures to perform the calculations for benefit-to-cost, strictly from the tactical and logistical standpoints, on the performance equivalence not of nuclear vs. air-independent-propulsion (AIP) submarines, but of nuclear v. AIP submarine fleets. With that in hand, it becomes possible for whomever might have sounder figures than what we could find about the complete life-cycle cost of either alternative to figure out, given our results about the benefit assessment, what would be the result of a benefit-to- cost analysis. We didn't perform the latter, due to uncertainty about the methodology by which the public available cost estimates were calculated. By providing a method for benefit calculation of the military worth of alternatives to support an assessment of the SSN/SSP fleet alternatives, we hope to have provided a sounder point of departure for debate, both in general terms, a method, and for the Brazilian case in particular, an application.

show abstract

Section: Submarinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Effectiveness of Nuclear and Air-independent propulsion Submarine Fleets

Costa

Júnior

2023

Estudos Internacionais

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, naval reactors cannot allow the "reactor dead time" that happens after a reactor shutdown (e.g., due to some emergency), when the highly neutron-absorbing 135 Xe fission product accumulates, leading to a 24-hour interval for restarting operation, until the 135 Xe decays. Therefore, naval reactors need excess reactivity in order to overcome the 135 Xe buildup (Ippolito Jr 1990;Ragheb, 2011). Fourth, there are strong incentives for keeping submarine reactors as small and compact as possible: 6 (i) power plants usually account for 20-30% of the total weight of the submarine, so since shielding against radiation accounts for a large part of powerplants' total weight, the smaller the reactor core and the steam generator, the better (Ippolito Jr 1990), (ii) the smaller the submarine, the more maneuverable they are, and particularly in shallow waters.…”

Section: Uranium Enrichment and Submarines' Reactors Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assuming a submerged volume displacement of 2670 m 3 -like the French submarine Rubis (the smallest-volume nuclear attack submarine ever deployed) -, a reactor power output of about 50 MWth would be necessary to generate a forward velocity of 29.6-33.2 knots 7 . Considering, for purpose of comparison, 60 days of full power operation (or 240 days at 25%-power operation) each year, his conclusions are: (i) reactors with uranium enriched to 7% have a maximum time-between-refueling of 10 years, because it becomes impossible to maintain excess reactivity by the end of that period, (ii) reactors with 20%-235 U fuel can operate 20 years without refueling, but, in that case, its core will be larger than the 7%-235 U reactor's, (iii) reactors with 97.3%-235 U will attain a 20-year time-between-refueling, and its core will be significantly smaller than the others' -in fact, US submarines of the Virginia class (which use uranium enriched to 93%) are expected to operate without refueling for 33 years, which is longer than the typical 30 years life of US submarines (Ragheb, 2011).…”

Section: Uranium Enrichment and Submarines' Reactors Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brazil’s Nuclear Submarine: A Broader Approach to the Safeguards Issue

Costa

2017

Rev. bras. polít. int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

• Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto e distribuído sob os termos da Licença de Atribuição Creative Commons, que permite uso irrestrito, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, desde que o autor e a fonte originais sejam creditados. AbstractThe article discusses the issue of nuclear-propelled submarines as a nuclear non-proliferation question, addresses the issue of safeguards procedures and arrangements, and suggests a broader, political approach to allay international concerns. Such safeguards arrangement would set the precedent for future arrangements, and particularly if integrated into a more comprehensive approach, might strengthen Brazil's hand in nuclear negotiations, including on disarmament.Keywords: Nuclear submarines, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear safeguards, Brazil, International Atomic Energy Agency, Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials. Introduction N uclear propulsion for military use, more frequently in submarines, is considered a loophole in the nuclear non-proliferation regime (Ma & Von Hippel, 2001;Moltz 1998;2005;Thielmann and Hoffman 2012); for a different view, see Guimarães 2005). That is is because nuclear propulsion for military craft isa Non-Proscribed Military Activity (NPMA), and the nuclear material used in reactors for that specific purpose is not subject to safeguards. During the negotiations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty -NPT, -it became clear that some prospective members might not join it out of interest in nuclear propulsion for ships and concern about how NPT might impact that. Should safeguards be applied in that case, much of the discretion that is the raison d'être of a submarine in the first place would be compromised or forfeited. But even then, in the late 1960s, it was already considered "a serious loophole in the safeguards prescribed by the Treaty") (Fischer 1997, 272) because during the unsafeguarded periods of its life-cycle, the nuclear material in the reactor could be diverted for the production of nuclear weapons. The risk increases with the degree of enrichment of the nuclear material: if the uranium in the reactor is enriched to around 90% 235 U (usually called weapons-grade uranium 1 ), it could be directly used in nuclear weapons; if it is enriched to around 20% or more 235 U (usually referred to highly-enriched uranium or HEU), it could easily be enriched to weapon-grade uranium. Uranium enriched to less than 20% 235 U is usually called low-enriched uranium or LEU and, at a level below 10% 235 U, it becomes more difficult to substantially enrich to weapons-grade uranium 2 or close to it (Barroso 2009;Bernstein 2008;Bodansky 2004;Heriot 1988;Murray 2001) 3 . Uranium for land-based nuclear reactors is usually enriched to around 3.5%-5% 235 U. Therefore, from a nuclear nonproliferation standpoint, risks would be minimized if naval nuclear reactors had LEU, and particularly less than 10% 235 U content, as its nuclear fissile material. Eugenio Pacelli Lazzarotti Diniz CostaAs a practical matter, this w...

show abstract

“…Hence, in equation ( 4) the energy transferred to charged particles from the uncollided photons, not including energy converted to secondary photons, is calculated. However, the overall fluence rate of photons, generated by a point isotropic source at a given detector position, includes Compton scattered photons, photons from emission of Bremsstrahlung, fluorescence x-ray photons and annihilation gamma photons [1,26,33], generated by the medium surrounding the detector position. Since the photon fluence rate, calculated as described above, neglects these secondary photons, the calculated detector response will be underestimated.…”

Section: The Earlier Point Kernel Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this fortunate situation, the most common techniques applied are Monte Carlo (MC) radiation transport simulations (e.g. MCNP, GEANT, etc), and point kernel (also called kernel integration) approaches [24,26,40] (e.g. MicroShield [11], QAD [5]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-time 3D radiation risk assessment supporting simulation of work in nuclear environments

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the latest developments at the Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) in Norway, in the field of real-time 3D (three-dimensional) radiation risk assessment for the support of work simulation in nuclear environments. 3D computer simulation can greatly facilitate efficient work planning, briefing, and training of workers. It can also support communication within and between work teams, and with advisors, regulators, the media and public, at all the stages of a nuclear installation's lifecycle. Furthermore, it is also a beneficial tool for reviewing current work practices in order to identify possible gaps in procedures, as well as to support the updating of international recommendations, dissemination of experience, and education of the current and future generation of workers.IFE has been involved in research and development into the application of 3D computer simulation and virtual reality (VR) technology to support work in radiological environments in the nuclear sector since the mid 1990s. During this process, two significant software tools have been developed, the VRdose system and the Halden Planner, and a number of publications have been produced to contribute to improving the safety culture in the nuclear industry.This paper describes the radiation risk assessment techniques applied in earlier versions of the VRdose system and the Halden Planner, for visualising radiation fields and calculating dose, and presents new developments towards implementing a flexible and up-to-date dosimetric package in these 3D software tools, based on new developments in the field of radiation protection. The latest versions of these 3D tools are capable of more accurate risk estimation, permit more flexibility via a range of user choices, and are applicable to a wider range of irradiation situations than their predecessors.

show abstract

Nuclear Naval Propulsion

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Comparing the Effectiveness of Nuclear and Air-independent propulsion Submarine Fleets

Comparing the Effectiveness of Nuclear and Air-independent propulsion Submarine Fleets

Brazil’s Nuclear Submarine: A Broader Approach to the Safeguards Issue

Real-time 3D radiation risk assessment supporting simulation of work in nuclear environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About