Herald - RN ships to be fitted with Electricity meters

#2
Why don't we just go back to sail power then, if we want to fight climate change?


Actually, on a serious note, if Hydrogen is the way forwards for CAR fuels, why can we not use it to power ships? Anyone with MEO knowledge to advise please?
 
#3
You mean that ships don't have meters at sea to record their electricity usage? I wondered why my electricity bill was so high! I think someone should tell the National Grid people! :razz:

Blue Rinsed Disgruntled
of Utilitypayers Alliance
 
#4
Remember when tied up at SHEARWATER in Halifax NS, a Canuck turned up just before we sailed with a bill for the shore supply and demin water we'd used - let the Supply Officer deal with that one, as I didn't have X thousands of dollars on me at the time. Is this the way forward ?
 
#6
Coming next, the Trident D5 with a smaller carbon footprint.

FFS, we're in the blowing up the place business, not saving the frigging gay lesbian nuclear whales business.
 
#8
It's all those lights that are kept on all the time! If they cut some round holes in the ship's side it would let the sunlight in and save lots of energy. They could even stick a bent pipe out of them to catch the fresh air and thus save on air conditioning.

Herbert Lott, Institute of bright ideas.
 

snorko

Lantern Swinger
#10
The main reason is the utility bills. a study was undertaken in one of the two southern dockyards which identified different ships of the same class using vaslty different amounts of electricity. With continuing pressure on the DES budget, and with significant potential savings, at minimal effort, this appeared to be an opportunity to free up precious resources for things like maintenance periods, stores etc. There was a lot of discussion about this at the 4 ring level and 1* and about the message that it is giving (the focus at the time was cost - but the naval bases are also some of the UKs largest non industrial carbon users - Yeovilton is even bigger) - but it was felt that at the minimal cost of the meters we could actually save some money - and also force people to change the behaviour of just leaving everything powered up! This process, as I recall, took place over a number of months in the previous planning round. The environmental line was not a direct consideration at the time. Unfortunately I got appointed elsewhere before the PR process was completed, butit was just one of a number of interesting ideas to try and free up resources for where they arereally needed.
 
#11
Why not send everyone home or the local barracks when it gets dark, or give everyone a Pusser's right-angled torch.The consumption of P2 batteries would increase but we will have saved the planet.Hurrah.
 
#12
Snorko

Can you tell us more about the ship type comparisons as it would be interesting to see 1 ship was on main leave, another going through AMP and another coming out of refit doing basin trials etc. There are any number or reasons for a difference in power consumption. Turning off the lights really isn't a viable option on a pussers grey as the duty watch still need to carry out hourly rounds etc and with the amount of automated systems on a modern warship you can't just turn them on and off and expect everything to work.
 

snorko

Lantern Swinger
#15
Alacrity,

The study accounted for leave periods etc, but as you correctly surmise, did not take specific account of the different types of maintenance/systems trials/checks being undertaken. That being said the differences were apparently quite significant.

Lighting is believed to be a comparatively small part of the total, automated systems on the other hand I presume will be more.

If I recall correctly the intention was to force a change in behaviour. If it doesnt need to be on, turn it off, but not at the cost of health and safety and system operability.

It is a symptom of the financial pressures the DES is under. I believe the intent is fairly reasonable, but do not know how it was brought in, or explained to COs
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#16
WhizzbangDai asked
Actually, on a serious note, if Hydrogen is the way forwards for CAR fuels, why can we not use it to power ships? Anyone with MEO knowledge to advise please?
Not exactly hydrogen but LNG and LPG carriers burn the boil off gas from the cargo in the boilers and lately, dual fuel ICEs. As for a warship, storage of hydrogen would need to be at very high pressure (like cars) or very low temperatures (like cargo). With shells coming through the hull, I'd rather have a diesel leak.

The Germans have revisited hydrogen for fuel cells in submarines but have if I recall correctly, mounted the hydrogen tanks outside the hull and can bin them if the sh1t hits the fan (as you'd want to). Fuel cells capable of meeting a surface warship's power requirements are a way off.
 

witsend

MIA
Book Reviewer
#17
Seadog said:
WhizzbangDai asked
Actually, on a serious note, if Hydrogen is the way forwards for CAR fuels, why can we not use it to power ships? Anyone with MEO knowledge to advise please?
Not exactly hydrogen but LNG and LPG carriers burn the boil off gas from the cargo in the boilers and lately, dual fuel ICEs. As for a warship, storage of hydrogen would need to be at very high pressure (like cars) or very low temperatures (like cargo). With shells coming through the hull, I'd rather have a diesel leak.

The Germans have revisited hydrogen for fuel cells in submarines but have if I recall correctly, mounted the hydrogen tanks outside the hull and can bin them if the sh1t hits the fan (as you'd want to). Fuel cells capable of meeting a surface warship's power requirements are a way off.
It does appear that we are lagging behind.
 
#18
witsend said:
Seadog said:
WhizzbangDai asked
Actually, on a serious note, if Hydrogen is the way forwards for CAR fuels, why can we not use it to power ships? Anyone with MEO knowledge to advise please?
Not exactly hydrogen but LNG and LPG carriers burn the boil off gas from the cargo in the boilers and lately, dual fuel ICEs. As for a warship, storage of hydrogen would need to be at very high pressure (like cars) or very low temperatures (like cargo). With shells coming through the hull, I'd rather have a diesel leak.

The Germans have revisited hydrogen for fuel cells in submarines but have if I recall correctly, mounted the hydrogen tanks outside the hull and can bin them if the sh1t hits the fan (as you'd want to). Fuel cells capable of meeting a surface warship's power requirements are a way off.
It does appear that we are lagging behind.
I'm writing to the Admiralty to tell them it's Witsend and SPB using all the lectric posting on here, witsend especially with lalalalalala and trying to nick my gopher on the last post. :D :) :wink:
 

witsend

MIA
Book Reviewer
#19
Rumrat said:
witsend said:
Seadog said:
WhizzbangDai asked
Actually, on a serious note, if Hydrogen is the way forwards for CAR fuels, why can we not use it to power ships? Anyone with MEO knowledge to advise please?
Not exactly hydrogen but LNG and LPG carriers burn the boil off gas from the cargo in the boilers and lately, dual fuel ICEs. As for a warship, storage of hydrogen would need to be at very high pressure (like cars) or very low temperatures (like cargo). With shells coming through the hull, I'd rather have a diesel leak.

The Germans have revisited hydrogen for fuel cells in submarines but have if I recall correctly, mounted the hydrogen tanks outside the hull and can bin them if the sh1t hits the fan (as you'd want to). Fuel cells capable of meeting a surface warship's power requirements are a way off.
It does appear that we are lagging behind.
I'm writing to the Admiralty to tell them it's Witsend and SPB using all the lectric posting on here, witsend especially with lalalalalala and trying to nick my gopher on the last post. :D :) :wink:
SPB will agree with me, that thread is essential for the morale of the site.
 
#20
witsend said:
Rumrat said:
witsend said:
Seadog said:
WhizzbangDai asked
Actually, on a serious note, if Hydrogen is the way forwards for CAR fuels, why can we not use it to power ships? Anyone with MEO knowledge to advise please?
Not exactly hydrogen but LNG and LPG carriers burn the boil off gas from the cargo in the boilers and lately, dual fuel ICEs. As for a warship, storage of hydrogen would need to be at very high pressure (like cars) or very low temperatures (like cargo). With shells coming through the hull, I'd rather have a diesel leak.

The Germans have revisited hydrogen for fuel cells in submarines but have if I recall correctly, mounted the hydrogen tanks outside the hull and can bin them if the sh1t hits the fan (as you'd want to). Fuel cells capable of meeting a surface warship's power requirements are a way off.
It does appear that we are lagging behind.
I'm writing to the Admiralty to tell them it's Witsend and SPB using all the lectric posting on here, witsend especially with lalalalalala and trying to nick my gopher on the last post. :D :) :wink:
SPB will agree with me, that thread is essential for the morale of the site.
Morale? You may yet be charged with attempted murder, Wreckler's W*nked his self almost to death and Granny has dizzy fits just looking at the lalalalalalala bit in the post list. :D :) :wink:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top