GarryB wrote:But that is what I am saying... Russias expertise in nuclear technology should be expanded to render fuel cell technology redundant... they have made the necessary breakthroughs to effectively make uranium a recyclable fuel that they will have the working reactors to do the recycling with... now they need to expand into compact nuclear battery technology.... imagine a 1 square metre by 2 metre long nuclear battery that produces 5 MW for 20 years... for a large carrier like a CVN you might have 40 of these located around the ship providing local power to the network, but also to ensure any power cuts are gradual and not power or not power... Much of the time many will be turned off, but when running at top speed and with the radars on and all the electronics working you have 90% of them on with the remaining 10% in reserve just in case. Your EMALS will have its own two or three, which should give plenty of reserve power, but all the power sources will be linked to a grid to share power throughout the ship... it means propulsion for the ship can be azipods and it will free up an enormous amount of space inside the vessel for other things because you wont need the three shafts minimum you would normally need taking up most of the bottom of the ship, and of course no huge nuclear reactors or gas turbines or large diesel engines... it would be revolutionary... an every five years or so you could replace half your batteries with new batteries that are smaller and lighter and 50% more powerful...
Diesel technology AIPs would be useful if they can make it work, but the future is probably not fossil fuels if we can help it.
If someone had such technology they would be trying it out by now. Currently nuclear batteries have a millionth of the energy output and density that you've pegged them to have.
Nuclear batteries are known for powering satellites on low output levels over long periods of time.
They are not known for powering aircraft carriers.
A 1 x 2 metre long nuclear battery would have an output of about 20 watts, not 5 megawatts; based on the figures given in this article - https://phys.org/news/2018-06-prototype-nuclear-battery-power.html
10 microwatts per cubic centimetre = 10,000,000 microwatts per cubic metre = 10 watts per cubic metre
And this is with a whole new type of nuclear battery, that's reportedly x10 as efficient as previous ones. Probably horribly heavy and horribly expensive too. We have a long way to go with this tech.
But what I'm thinking is that with talk of new minaturized nuclear reactors, which is a thing; we can have smaller and cheaper classes of nuclear submarines.
Would be good to find out more about the Burestvennik's power source too - but we can bet it's reliant on heating the air for propulsion; which isn't viable of course with subs.