House and Senate negotiators on the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill are at odds over a provision in the House-passed measure that would require the Navy to make its future fleet of surface combatants nuclear powered.
The Navy is building nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, but the House language would establish that it is the "policy of the United States" to use nuclear power for all major vessels, including destroyers and cruisers.
House Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and ranking member Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., have long urged the Navy to use nuclear power on its large ships to save long-term fuel costs.
In a brief interview Tuesday, Taylor stressed that nuclear power would ultimately improve the Navy's effectiveness, safety and mobility by allowing ships to go long stretches at sea without having to refuel.
...
The first ships that would be affected by the provision would be the 19 CG(X) cruisers the Navy plans to buy between fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2023. The provision also would affect the DDG(X), which the Navy will not start buying until the mid-2020s to replace its current fleet of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
The Heritage Foundation produced a point by point memo today in support of this action. I'm not sure what I think of this yet, either Rep. Taylor is a visionary or he is trying to sink the fleet, but there really isn't a third way to look at this proposal.
My skepticism is a result of years of working with government. In particular, in regards to technology, it would be accurate to say it is damn near impossible to come up with too many examples where government actually takes into account cost of ownership, and is willing to spend money up front with a result of savings down the line with any intention of actually not taking money away down the line for some other new pet project.
My concern lies in the reality that the Navy isn't a pet project, and if Congress truly intends to capitalize on long term savings, then Congress needs to establish special budgets that protects the Navy from being raided later because of capital investments today. Taylor is backed by a study, available in summery by this CRS report.
Section 130 of the FY2006 defense authorization act (H.R. 1815, P.L. 109-163of January 6, 2024), which called for such a study (see Appendix). The study reached a number of conclusions, including the following:
In constant FY2007 dollars, building a Navy surface combatant or
amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power
would add roughly $600 million to $800 million to its procurement
cost.
— For a small surface combatant, the procurement-cost
increase was about $600 million.
— For a medium-size combatant (defined as a ship with
a displacement between 21,000 metric tons and
26,000 metric tons), the increase was about $600
million to about $700 million.
— For an amphibious ship, the increase was about $800
million.
Although nuclear-powered ships have higher procurement costs than
conventionally powered ships, they have lower operating and
support costs when fuel costs are taken into account.
A ship’s operational tempo and resulting level of energy use
significantly influences the life-cycle cost break-even analysis. The
higher the operational tempo and resulting level of energy use
assumed for the ship, lower the cost of crude oil needed to break
even on a life-cycle cost basis, and the more competitive nuclear
power becomes in terms of total life-cycle cost.
- The newly calculated life-cycle cost break-even cost-ranges, which
supercede the break-even cost figures from the 2005 NR quick look
analysis, are as follows:
— $210 per barrel to $670 per barrel for a small surface
combatant;
— $70 per barrel to $225 per barrel for a medium-size
surface combatant; and
— $210 per barrel to $290 per barrel for an amphibious
ship. In each case, the lower dollar figure is for a high
ship operating tempo, and the higher dollar figure is
for a low ship operating tempo.
Put into perspective, since June when this report was discussed in Congress, without doing a thing the price of oil has gone up from ~$65 to ~$95+. That is a net cost increase of around 4 billion dollars in oil costs annually for the DoD.
The problem is the study identifies the best savings for medium-size combatants defined as a ship with a displacement between 21,000 metric tons and 26,000 metric tons. Besides logistics ships, the only ships that fall into this category are LHAs and LPDs, not destroyers or cruisers as targeted by the resolution passed in the House. However, as the Heritage summery identifies, there are net savings for each nuclear reactor produced, somewhere around $35 million in savings per submarine for example.
I don't know, it is an interesting debate and there are certainly valid reasons to think the House has it right in promoting this idea. However, considering the cost issues the Navy is facing in shipbuilding, if Congress is serious about taking this type of action the only realistic approach I see is to create a special fund that is protected from being raided, and focuses only on funding nuclear propulsion for new ships and doesn't count as funds against the Navy shipbuilding budget.
No comments:
Post a Comment