Nuclear power pushed aside, but turbocharging advances
Image: Main components of the B&W turbocharger
In these times when we look at alternative fuel sources it is chastening to observe that much the same fears were being voiced 50 years back.
The Motor Ship, in 1961, carried a leader about nuclear powered ships. It felt that development of such alternatives as nuclear power and the free piston engine (gas turbine in present-day speak) should not necessarily be driven by economics alone. Advanced propulsion would be a non-starter on such a basis. It reported how waiting 10, 20 or 30 years for a more economic project would be foolhardy, a sentiment echoed by a number of shipbuilders, marine engineers and shipowners who wanted to see government money ploughed into nuclear merchant ships, in the same way that the government funded defence, and the road, rail and air transport infrastructures.
Then, as now, Lloyd’s Register provided a strong pro-nuclear voice, urging the Ministry of Transport to forget economics and look to the future of the industry. With hindsight, nuclear wasn’t the answer - at least not then – but LR surely had a point when it felt government investment in merchant shipping would prove “too little, too late” and British commercial shipping, shipbuilding and marine engineering would suffer irreversible damage.
Back down to earth, and Burmeister & Wain had released details of a Danish-built exhaust gas turbocharger, developed by the engine builder after successful results with a Brown Boveri (now ABB) turbocharger on one of its engines in a Maersk vessel. The B&W unit, which of course is the predecessor of today’s MAN turbochargers, was regarded as advanced and highly efficient, with a pressure ratio of 1.75:1.
Images for this article - click to enlarge
Unless otherwise stated, all images copyright © Mercator Media 2012. This does not exclude the owner's assertion of copyright over the material.
