You know that you're free to leave, right? Or you could display your genius for all to see in your pit thread...

Good to see you around.  Life is much easier here when you just click the ignore button on that particular guy.

He's doing it on purpose.  It's best to just hit ignore and be done with him.

It's been done a number of times.  We do quite a bit of disaster relief in the Navy, it's actually a fairly significant part of our mission.  

Here's an interesting (if very superficial and not quite historically correct or complete) MIT paper on the issue...  http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-691-seminar-in-electric-power-systems-spring-2006/projects/ship_to_shore.pdf

You have bad info.

Navy ships, in the US and otherwise, have provided power ashore, have made water in port, and have docked in disaster ports like New Orleans as well, as shown in this thread already.

shoe's a troll.  He googles, but he doesn't have any basis to look for the information, so he doesn't really get the whole story, and doesn't process or really comprehend what he does see.  

BTW, in researching a little bit as I read through this thread, I discovered that the DDG-1000 will be using the same power distribution as CVNs(4160).  I also ran across this article...

http://www.navyhistory.org/2014/03/going-ashore-naval-ship-to-shore-power-for-humanitarian-services/

Where has it been done other than with ships dedicated to providing power?
The paper you linked talks about the theoretical capability.
We talk about using Locomotives the same way during domestic response.  But while talked about, we never used it personally.

Very good article that should put to rest any questions about the feasibility of naval vessels providing power to
Cities in a pinch.  It has been done a number of times as documented in the article.

We've done it in the PI within the last year that I know of.  Storm6436 just posted above that Iwo did it in New Orleans.  

Yes, the paper, as I mentioned, is not complete.  Any LHA, LHD, CVN, or sub is capable of providing power to the shore if necessary, as long as we can get in close enough.  NO was obviously an easy one -- they already have facilities that allowed LHD-7 to do it.

I used to do a fair bit of work for the Union Pacific Railroad.   They have a yard in Yermo, CA that several times I visited were stacked deep with locomotives.  They stored the old, out of date or too expensive to pass inspection at this yard.

When I asked about it, they were all for sale.  $30k ea. at the time.   I was told they sold  quite a few over the years to small, off the grid towns in Mexico to be used as generating stations.   With the switch from DC locos to AC, they were even more popular for this role.  

They also stored them until scrap prices reached a level where they could maximize the return.  When scrap prices reached a point where they could get $30k in scrap, they towed them all away.

Great article.   Thanks for digging it up.

Also good for the laugh at the , uh, [violet]gentleman [/violet] who now finds himself standing eyes deep in the bullshit he was spouting.  

So, it's been a long time, like almost 15 years, since I was a CDO inport, but I have a question.  Does the ship's shore power circuitry allow power to flow from ship to shore?  Seems like potentially a bad thing.  Trying to dredge up old memories from the late 90s -

ETA - Sorry Diesel Engineer.  You posted so here, at least for your ship.  I seem to remember something similar from my CDO time on an Amphib-gone-Fleet flagship.

Using a generator to power your own off-grid system is relatively simple.

Connecting a generator into the power grid, synchronizing with any generators already in the system, adjusted for load and power factor, etc, is another matter entirely.  


If I am reading correctly you are talking about the first, while Sylvan is referencing the second.

Needs moar nuclear power... but still cool.  

Yes, I was referencing off grid systems.   I understood Sylvan to be asking about situations when the grid was down/de-energized.  

If he meant feeding additional power into an energized system, then I'm gonna stand back a long distance!  

Why are people told not to touch down power lines?  Why are people told to get out of the water during lightning storms?



Why are power lines high up and isolated from other conductive materials?  What happens when the path of least resistance to ground goes through you?



 

Sigh.

H46driver to the best of my knowledge you are correct. At least on the ships I have been on, the shore power breakers do not allow for reverse current/power. Basically, when the shore-side senses no power the breakers open automatically to prevent the ship from trying to feed the grid. The grid is big and the generators on the ship are relatively small. Trying to feed the grid will damage your generators.

As an Ensign, standing watch in CCS I asked the Engineer about this very scenario. He outlined what I did here. As far as I know, all Navy ships are built with these protections for the same reasons.

DDG-1000 has a 4160 bus. As I recall, in order to take the 440V shore power, it also has a "hotel services" bus that is 440V. Underway, the 4160 is stepped down to 440. In port, the 440 is fed through shore power. The upshot is you can't take DDG-1000's massive generators and feed even a small electrical grid, because the 440 bus can't provide that much power.

That leaves you with stringing lights/cords from the ships itself. Not really providing power to an area affected by a disaster, more like providing power to enable a operations center or distribution point.

I will only speak to the relief efforts for Sandy. We did not put 'phibs into NYC because we did not want to burden the port. The ship would have to dispose of CHT, which would require a shore connection, available but probably OOC, or a barge. Quite frankly, the tugs had more important work to do getting the port back up and running. Making water is possible in shallow water, I've done it when there was no other choice. However, with the debris in the water, it is inadvisable, especially with reverse osmosis plants. There was some discussion on the MOC watch floor about what we did for Katrina and how it was a bad idea to do it again. In an exercise, we planned for a large scale relief effort resulting from an earthquake, and the decision was basically the same. Don't pull the ships into port, have them do their "sea base" thing to enable forces ashore.

As for Josh's experience in the Philippines, I don't know. If ships pulled into port, made water and distributed that water, OK. I wouldn't be surprised. I would wonder how much work had to be done on their ROs/VCDs afterwards.  As for making power ashore, I am 99% certain it was from portable generators or strings of light from the ship's lighting bus.

Why is making water in port an issue?  Just because of the sediment content?

To clarify, I wasn't on the ship that did it (as I understand it was an L-series), so I can't speak to the details of how it was done.  We stood off the coast a couple of miles and flew water and other relief supplies in.  I would imagine that would be the most common way to do water and other supplies (certainly has been in my experience), it obviously makes more sense to make water not tied up to the pier where possible.  Also, in an undeveloped area you're not going to have a 4160 tie you could use even if you could hook up, and as you point out a 400v connection isn't worth much in moving power ashore.

As far as shore power, CVN-68 class has a 4160 connection to the pier along with a 450v connection (http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy99_01.pdf, https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=5b51f9d0265127b0629ad81f4397cf2f&tab=core&_cview=0), and CVN-78 class will have a 13.8KV shore power connection in addition to the standard 4160  (https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file/N4008513R7701_13-R-7701_Pre-Solicitation_Synopsis.pdf.

DDG-1000, LHD-8, and LHA-6 class all have 4160 shore power connections.  http://www.portengineerprogram.org/Conference_Presentations/2011/DDG1000_Program_Overview.pdf, http://posts.same.org/jetc2009/Track%203/Session%204/Navy%20MILCON%20Perspective%20-%20SAME%20May09%20r5%2011May09.pdf,

As to burdening the port by pulling an L series in, I was surprised to see that we did that in NO for exactly the reasons you suggest.  Evidently someone made the risk/reward calculations and there must have been some significant benefit to doing it.

I did a bit of nosing around C7F's website. It would appear there was a survey ship nearby, USNS BOWDITCH, great name for a survey ship. Looks like in the time it took for the 'phibs to get to Okinawa, load, then transit to the Philippines, BOWDITCH cleared a port or two for the 'phibs to go offload. She must have been pretty close, because at 16 knots max speed she's not going anywhere fast. And offloading is a bit different than staying and providing power.


I stand corrected. I was on a 4160 ship with a rather large radar not too terribly long ago. It had the dual bus I spoke of earlier. I was told at the time it was how DDG-1000 was to be set up. I should have verified.

Still, there is the issue of protective circuits. For reference, 78MW sounds like a lot but Dominion Power's Chesapeake Energy Center produces 717MW. Like I said, the grid is big, and shipboard generators are small. The generators need protection.


I think the benefit was mostly political. That and New Orleans is quite a ways up the river. But mostly political. A carrier and an ARG's worth of ships stayed offshore.

Bowditch was there, I remember seeing them.  Germantown, Ashland, and Denver were the L-series ships that came down, they went to the inland side as I recall.  Bowditch was probably already underway and nearby, I don't remember all the details off the top of my head.  

I had to spend some time looking to find anything on the DDG-1000's 4160 shore power -- I knew they had a 4160 bus similar to the setup with which I am most familiar (we do have the ability to hook into 450 from the pier as well, given the fact that most piers around the world do not support 4160 it's a necessity), so I thought it was probably similar in shore power as well, but the info wasn't terribly easy to find.  LHD-8, LHA-6, and the new requirement for CVN-78 were things I stumbled on while I was looking.

BTW, your statement about DDG-1000's shore power bus wasn't wrong -- it just wasn't complete.  They almost certainly have a 400-480 bus to bring on shore power in addition to the 4160 bus -- otherwise they would not be able to take shore power from most ports.  It's an issue that has mostly been a CVN issue up to this point (it's one of the reasons there is no CVN homeported at Mayport, for instance), but will now become better known as more of the L series ships and the new DDGs have to deal with it as well.

Yea but they cost 34 million bucks and takes 5 days to build, and there's only one on the shelf...



 

And yet the Navy has been providing all of that for decades with the MEU...
What was it that cause you to hate the military anyways?  You come across as one of the most outspoken haters on the site, yet never have an alternative to provide to counter criticism.



 

Never mind...

Bullshit...


ETA: Nevermind again. He isn't worth a time out

I guess he has never heard of HA/DR or DSCA from the Sea

I think the argument is directly, "Can a ship more up, cable up, and power a city?"

I don't know.

but I don't think we have done it.

Referring to this; DSCA from the Sea would indicate this is incorrect

I have only read MCWP 3-36.2 approved for public release and distribution unlimited. I will refer you to Chapter III, Paragraphs f(3), f(5), and f(7).

Not at all a new concept , submarines were doing it during WWI .
The real high performance subs in WWII used diesel locomotive engins and had the choice of charging batteries or feeding the juice directly to the drive motors . The new concept here is using gas turbines instesd of diesels . With a surface ship it has become somewhat less desiriable to dive the ship so the battery part has been cut back some. The WWII subs could run up to 9 knots or so for fairly short periods off the battery but would do about 21 knots on the surface with all the juice going directly to the drive . I recall them busting out about 5 million wats

For some who always talks about incompetence; you sure show quite a bit off it in your readying comprehension

What you cite; does not say the USN will not or (has never)  enter ports to provide HA/DR or DSCA; additionally sea basing is an alternative to traditional need to enter established ports  

There is some irony that you want to talk DSCA with me based on a previous job I did; Sylvan probably got a chuckle out of it

Hey, I am just learning about this electricity thing.

Seems exciting.

 

I did not say the USN will not or has never entered ports.

Here is my post on the subject:
"The possibilities are endless, if you are ignorant of ship operations. Where does the ship discharge sewage? It is illegal to discharge in port. Is the disaster-stricken area going to provide sewage services? What about clean water for the ship? It is inadvisable to for the ship's water generation systems to make water in port. Is the disaster-stricken area going to provide clean water for the ship's crew? How about security requirements as the ship is close to many desperate people? How many lights for tent cities run on Zumwalt's 4,160 volt power? If there was a disaster is there even a clear channel for the ship to navigate in? "

Go back to page 1 and read again.

That sounds an awful lot like:
"(3) Seaports must be surveyed to determine if they are safe and capable to
conduct emergency operations"
"Seabasing is especially valuable for disasters in lowlying areas where
road, rail and airports may be underwater, or inaccessible due to damage."
Most important, naval forces are not reliant
on shore infrastructure, much of which may be damaged or destroyed in the
response area.

The closest I said about never entering port was for DDG-1000. Specifically, I said.
"I have provided reasons why the claims this ship will power the shore in disater relief scenarios will never occur and why it cannot occur. "

For all the talk about entering port, I have yet to see someone provide an example of a destroyer entering port to provide humanitarian assistance.

Reading comprehension is elusive indeed.

Diesel-Electric ......... except that now gas turbines replace the Diesel.


Why in the ^%@* it took this long to go with electric motors/propulsion is beyond me


Why aren't they already Breeder Reactor - Electric is also beyond me.

RON is getting RON'd

I love it when that happens.

U.S.S. Lexington (CV-2) and U.S.S. Saratoga (CV-3) had Turbo-electric propulsion.  in 1929 or 1930 the Lexington provided electricity to the city of Tacoma, WA for 5 days.  The report is online.

much truth here

let me toss in an edit before shoe comes back and says he knows best because R0N is part of the establishment problem... and it's time for new thinkers outside the community

Who is R0Ning R0N?

Al I see is some valid points sprinkled with an occasional (click to read ignored post).



Nick

Mr.(?) Nick, I thought we were developing a nice rapport.

shoeh8ter lecturing RON on DSCA is funny.

If only there was proof earlier of this happening.

I am sorry you did not read closely enough the first time around.

LOL Shoe.....  can you fuck up any more?  Please, it's entertaining!





"I didn't read much, but what I read supported what I think, because it's all that I read so it formed my opinion".





Didn't you say you were prior service too?  Thought that came out in the last big thread of you showing how much you don't know.  (IIRC deck dpt going of the intelligence you are showing)

The Marine Corps Warfare Publication confirms what I had posted on page one of this thread.