Overall Scope of Proposed Marine Gas Turbine ST Program

1. Overall Scope of Proposed Marine Gas Turbine S&T Program David A. Shifler Office of Naval Research 875 N. Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-1995 shifled@onr.navy.mil 703-696-0285

2. Outline Status of current Navy S&T Program0 Why gas turbines? Alternatives to gas turbines Fuels cells, batteries Nuclear power Futures issues Future fuels Future needs, capabilities Electric ship Operating conditions Leveraging from aircraft Defining current capabilities Technology gaps Defining a program Pathway to transition paramount Capabilities-based improvements (define degree of improvement) Prioritize S&T needs and estimate costs, timeline for each step (6.1?6.2?6.3 (TRL=6) Consider alternative funding paths

3. Alternatives to Gas Turbine Engines Alternative energy sources debated LAWMAKERS, NAVY OFFICIALS VOICE CONCERNS ON NAVY ENERGY PRACTICES Date: April 17, 2006 Lawmakers and Navy officials are voicing concerns that the service is taking insufficient measures to limit its dependency on oil, which may be an unreliable source of energy in the future. During a House Armed Services projection forces subcommittee hearing on alternative propulsion for ships April 6, Chairman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) said the Navy must more actively seek alternative sources of energy. He cited President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address, during which Bush called on the nation to break its “addiction” to oil. Bartlett said the Navy should consider employing nuclear power on more vessels. “We must look for ways to break ourselves free from dependency on foreign oil, and I would like to know why we are not moving towards an all-nuclear Navy,” he said during his opening statement. Ranking Member Gene Taylor (D-MS) echoed Bartlett’s concerns that Navy must move away from oil as an energy source. 

4. Alternative to Gas Turbines – Fuel Cells Fuel Cells advantages for surface ships High efficiency vs. gas turbine and diesel powered naval vessels (40% vs. 16%-12%) Reduced emissions of all types Low vibration and sound levels Improved thermal efficiencies Reduced cost for fuel (30% less for Navy) Ship design flexibility (modular units) (Can be placed throughout ship) Permits the use of alternative fuels

5. Fuel cell advantages for submarines High efficiency vs. diesel powered submarines (40% vs. 16%-12%) Low thermal profile compared to SSNs Low vibration and sound levels Reduced radar cross section Does not require air breathing like diesel subs Only has to come up every several weeks

6. Developers and Researchers Germany – Working prototypes and service models of fuel cell submarines Canada – Prototype for fuel cell submarine United States – Prototypes and plans for both subs and surface ships United Kingdom – Prototypes and plans for subs and surface ships

7. Practical Applications Submarines Fuel Cells = Silence = Increased Stealth Fuel Cells = No air required = Longer dive times Surface Ships Fuel Cells = Increased efficiencies = Longer time out to sea Fuel Cells = Reduced emissions = Reduced Profile (Harder to detect) Operational Ships – Germany’s HDW U214 Submarine

8. Power Plan Efficiencies

9. Challenges to Fuel Cell Development Fuel Type (Logistics and Fuel Reforming) Cost and System Efficiency for Units Reliability and Maintainability Duty Cycle and Transient Response Fuel Cell Life and Contamination Fuel Cell Sensitivity to shocks and motion

10. Challenges fro Gas Turbines Need to acknowledge alternative power sources Need to accentuate its advantages over these power sources. Strategize for hybrid use?

11. Future Fuels for Gas Turbines The U.S. in general is becoming more dependent on foreign sources for petroleum. Costs for fuels is escalating > the surface fleet uses almost 1B gallons per year ? $2-3B/year now. Need to reduce costs; push for efficiencies increasing. Need to reduce petroleum dependency.

13. Energy Density of Fuels

17. The Marine Environment Air intake requires filtering.

18. The Marine Environment Naval Fuels JP-5 sulfur max. 0.4 wt.% (air and shipboard) F-76 sulfur max, 1.0 wt.% (shipboard only) Future low-sulfur fuels proposed by Navy fuels group Materials life dependent on contaminant levels Dyed or undyed fuel Residue carbon Vanadium Salt deposits are largely unique to shipboard gas turbines Other impurities from fuel, air, or other sources. Temperatures lead to corrosion by sulfidation/hot corrosion rather than oxidation.

20. Type I, HTHC Burner Rig Exposure @ 1650oF (899oC)

21. INCREASING CAPABILITIES LEADING TO MATERIALS CHALLENGES

23. Specific Power and Energy 10 400mW/cm2 at 400 degrees centigrade in a SOFC achieved by Fritz Prinz400mW/cm2 at 400 degrees centigrade in a SOFC achieved by Fritz Prinz

30. Hot Corrosion Temperature Ranges

32. Task for Improving Ship Turbine Capabilities

33. Shipboard Gas Turbines? Future Navy Needs Define baseline Capabilities Range, fuel efficiency, power capabilities, mean maintenance/readiness What can be achieved through materials in improving capabilities? Spiral development 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years? Improved capabilities/cost savings per spiral What type of research? Leveraging Transition path clearly defined 6.1 ?6.2 ? 6.3

34. Basic Research What is known? What can be leveraged from prior work? What are the S&T gaps? Mechanistic understanding Corrosion/oxidation and combination Thermomechanical Major and minor chemistries performance impact Materials Design

35. Basic Research Identify needs Prioritize needs and estimate cost on accomplishing research goals, establish timeline. Core funding Alternative funding lines MURIs SBIRs DARPA for transition?????? Capabilities possible from research (need industry input) Ex. Corrosion/oxidation resistant TBC that is resistant to spallation. Increased engines temperatures of xxxC could potentially improve YYY (range) capabilities by zz%. This could save ____$$$ per year.

36. 6.1 Basic Research Research areas Future fuels, lubricity, and fuel contaminants Hot corrosion Sulfate/vanadium or combination Creep, Fatigue Equiaxed, DS, and SX. Thermal cycling Corrosion-influenced interdiffusion Thermomechanical Spallation Coatings Overlay, diffusion, TBCs Alloys and CMCs, ceramics, and other materials Modeling, prediction, and prognostication Performance prediction of coating/alloys combinations Alternative TBCs Alloy/coating stabilities Long-term (10-30 years) materials

37. 6.2 Applied Research After benchtop research, steps and follow-up research needed to reach TRL=3. Depends on “product” University/laboratory research Fabrication/casting/processing/application techniques Chemistry control Microstructural control Rig testing Navy/Industry co-funding Cost and timelime, spirals

38. 6.3 Demonstration Testing and associated work need to achieve TRL=6. (requires industry/Navy interaction and agreement) Shipboard Engine Testing Land-based engine testing Simulated engine testing Component manufacturing Estimate cost and time needed to achieve TRL goal by coating/alloy or material

39. End of Day Overall outline of S&T pathway from 61 to 6.3 Preliminary prioritizations, costs, and timelines. Need final plan by NLT September, 30 2006