Logging the Nuclear Debate Part I

We are going to start recording articles we think are interesting and valid for consideration towards the nuclear powered warships debate. This will be the first such article of what we expect will become a long series. Geoff Fein has an article today called Navy Sees 89 Percent Jump In Cost of A Barrel of Oil Since Start of FY '08, and uhm, whoa...

While the nation last week saw fuel prices hit the $143 per barrel mark, the Navy saw its price for oil rise to $170 per barrel, an 89 percent increase in the past nine months, a Navy official said.

At the beginning of FY '08, the Navy was paying $90 per barrel, Capt. Chip Cotton, branch head for fleet training and readiness reporting, told Defense Daily in a recent interview.

The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) adjusted the price to $127 before the July 1 spike to $170 a barrel.

"All our conservation efforts have really been outstripped by the pace of inflation...fuel costs," Cotton said. "We went from $90 a barrel to $170 a barrel in nine months. I can't do conservation efforts, I can't bring a new fuel online, I can't bring a new system on line to keep pace with that."

The jump in fuel costs that occurred from June 30 to July 1 is going to cost the Navy about $300 million, Cotton added.

But this is the golden nugget. How much of this is saved if the CG(X) and LHA(R) are both nuclear powered?

The jump in fuel cost, especially during a time of war, had gathered a lot of attention, Cotton noted. "A lot of different folks are looking at it."

"The price increase we saw on July 1 for FY '09 will mean about $1.2 billion that we currently don't have for fuel costs," he said.

In the fleet readiness accounts, the Navy spent roughly $2.6 billion in FY '07 for fuel. In FY '08 the price jumped to $3.08 billion, Cotton said. "[We are] looking at topping $5 billion a year next year...in FY '09."

Under the nuclear Navy plan being discussed in Congress, the ships deployed today, including those at RIMPAC 2008, that would be nuclear powered instead of conventional powered would be USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), USS Port Royal (CG 73), USS Lake Erie (CG 70), USS Philippine Sea (CG 58), USS Cape St. George (CG 71), USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), USS Nassau (LHA 4), and USS Peleliu (LHA 5).

Eight ships. Unless this idea adds nuclear power to the CG(X), DDG(X), and LSD(X), which it very well may, we still don't see how nuclear power will be as cost effective for the Navy as suggested. While it can be expensive for warships to remain globally deployed, the costs are considerable for the nuclear power alternative as well.