Pete, Steam power is second only to nuclear power. And given MSR thorium and the passive safety of the design, much-much safer than current solid fueled reactors.

Given operating temps of 700 C+, more than able to get a head of steam, very rapidly, some of which would go directly to steam-powered venturis that would turn the craft into a virtual jet-propelled U boat able to outrun any surface vessel or current torpedo technology.

There'd be an inboard turbine making electricity for all the other functions including endless oxygen replenishment. Also, a deionisation dialysis desalination plant that would supply potable water for crew, steam turbine and venturi drive.

It would not carry torpedoes but a couple of dozen mini subs of modern design and stronger than steel acrylic. Also powered with an inboard steam venturi system and each mini-sub armed with around a dozen underwater capable armour piercing rockets.

And able to attack sub-hunting aircraft or other subs at will! And in that case, directed at torpedo tubes. Then drive system.

The main armament would be an (under watertight hatch) inboard electric rail gun, able to send laser guided target seeking delta winged smart bombs over the horizon.

And therefore, one of the most formidable weapons platform and delivery system ever devised. Able to go under any ice in straight line trajectory so as to attack from a most unexpected quarter. Emergency propulsion would come from a retractable forward leg. And powered by hydrogen consuming ceramic fuel cells.

This created during electrolysis oxygen replenishment, compressed to liquify it and store month's worth of emergency power/propulsion. CO2 removed via fractional distillation and ejected as dry ice.

Mini acrylic subs would enable operators to eyeball prospective targets as well a adjust flight of weapons to counter evasive action.

If the full range of weaponry deployed, single sub able to cripple 100 opponents. Imagine then what 12 might do. And without putting the entire crew in harm's way!
Alan B.

Dear Grahamy,

Sorry mate but you have lost me. I'm really struggle making the links you are. To tool up and build one of the latest generation of windturbines from scratch would literally be millions of dollars worth. The moulds alone for those enormous blades would be prohibitive.

However economies of scale has meant the cost of cradle to the grave of windfarms generation of electricity is now cheaper than coal fired generation and continuing to plummet.

That is were the efficiency calculations have to be made. Sure new coal fired generation efficiency is improving though the cost of the plants have not. But because the fuel has quite dramatic fluctuations in price often these gains are lost to increases in price.

On the other hand the fuel for wind turbines is indeed free. Gains in turbine design translate directly into reduce cost. These gains far outstrip those in coal technology and will do so well into the future.

If I were an investor I know which one I would be backing.

Anyway I don't think the Sydney to Hobart race is much of an example.

Given most of the blades of wind powered turbines are made in China and made of steel! The steel made using metalugical coal and smelted using mostly coal fired power supplemented with some nuclear power.

China has, I'm informed a 30% annual wages inflation? And the cost of recovering and transporting the iron ore and both thermal and metalugical coal never ever gets cheaper.

So the idea that either wind tuurbines which have to turn for around thirty years just to offset the carbon used in their creation, able to get cheaper and cheaper, is simply ludicrous and absurd postering by an idealogical driven cohort, for who no other energy source other than the least reliable and most expensive will ever fly.

Given their stated aim is to reduce our energy consumption! Their only solution!

Now,I've seen solar powered RC air conditioners that run on fuel supplied free by the sun and atronomically expensive.

If the priveleged well off green movement want the nation's grannies, the poor and downtrodden, to use less electricity thsan they do now?

The only ones their obtuse asinine energy objective actually effects, then they should man up and buy a couple each, for around 40% of Australia's households.

You know all those folk now living below the poverty line Including Grandma and Granddad.

Or an armful of Nembutal to get them gone and no longer a burden on the bottom line or the energy grid. And would have to include most single mums also a burden on our alleged social saftey net.

Alternatively, read a book, by Investigative, prize winning Journalist and science writer Richard Martin, namely, Thorium, Super Fuel, subtitled, green energy.
Alan B.

Dear Alan B,

What is with the diatribe? Look I get that you think your reactors are the bees knees and are the answer to all our problems but it doesn't mean you get to go on an ignorant rant without getting pulled up.

To blade construction;

“The majority of current commercialized wind turbine blades are made from fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs), which are composites consisting of a polymer matrix and fibers. The long fibers provide longitudinal stiffness and strength, and the matrix provides fracture toughness, delamination strength, out-of-plane strength, and stiffness. Material indices based on maximizing power efficiency, and having high fracture toughness, fatigue resistance, and thermal stability, have been shown to be highest for glass and carbon fiber reinforced plastics (GFRPs and CFRPs).
Wikipedia

So not steel as you asserted. I wager it would be the concrete footings with the highest carbon cost, far more than composite blades.

Now you might have different up to date information that you might want to share with the rest of us stating otherwise, if so I invite you to do so.

You wrote;

“So the idea that either wind tuurbines (sic) which have to turn for around thirty years just to offset the carbon used in their creation, able to get cheaper and cheaper, is simply ludicrous and absurd postering (sic) by an idealogical (sic) driven cohort, for who no other energy source other than the least reliable and most expensive will ever fly.”

Absolute rot.

Here is a link to a University of Texas study showing wind to be the second lowest behind nuclear for total carbon footprint for energy produced.
http://energy.utexas.edu/news/nuclear-and-wind-power-estimated-have-lowest-levelized-co2-emissions

Wind turbines are not without their issues but relative carbon footprint isn't one of them.

Garbage Steely, as usual.

If wind is now cheaper, there will be no complaint if all subsidies are removed, & preferential treatment is discontinued, as of this moment.

Of course the wind industry will be profitable enough without those subsidies to supply backup power plants to guarantee their supply of power when it's windy or calm.

You could try pulling the other one old boy, it yodels.

Hi Alan B [re your Saturday, 5 January 2019 3:59:06 PM comment]

Your constant Lithium then Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) suggestions enjoy all the elements of a delayed, overbudget, financial, then nuclear, disasters for Australia.

If Australia developed a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) for submarine this would oddly avoid the cheaper, more logical and vastly less dangerous option of using tried and tested French, UK or US submarine reactor technology.

Instead you advocate that Australia live dangerously and reinvent reactor technology long discarded by countries who know better.

Instead Australia should blow 200,000,000,000 dollars developing what the real experts (US and Russia) discarded decades ago due to MSW reactor's appalling safety and inefficiency records.

As Australia will need to massively increase its nuclear reactor experience base and need for coastal naval facilities, the, dangerous, renewed, Molten Salt Reactor type be developed, by the Lucas Heights workforce:

in and around SYDNEY HARBOUR.

Molten Salt Reactor were most notably developed in the 1960s-70s for the Russian Alpha/Alfa nuclear submarines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine#Propulsion the BM-40A MSR reactor:

The worlds most developed MSR reactos for submarines:

"...turned out to be much more demanding in maintenance than older [PWRs]. The issue was that the lead/bismuth eutectic solution solidifies at 125 °C. If it ever hardened, it would be impossible to restart the reactor, since the fuel assemblies would be frozen in the solidified coolant.

Thus, whenever the reactor shut down, the liquid coolant had to be heated externally with superheated steam."

While the Molten Salt Reactors were "able to work for many years without stopping, they were not specifically designed for such treatment and any serious reactor maintenance became impossible."

This led to a number of failures, including coolant leaks and one reactor broken down and frozen while at sea. However, constantly running the reactors proved better than relying on the coastal facilities. Four vessels were decommissioned due to freezing of the coolant."

Alan B. your suggestions enjoy all the elements of a 30 year financial, then nuclear disasters for Australia.

Cheers

Pete