Nuclear Powered Buses
Discussion
GoodDoc said:
The americans converted a B-36 bomber (that had been damaged in a tornado) to house a nuclear reactor. The theory was the heat from the reactor could power a conventional jet engine. In the late 50s they got as far as actually flying it with the reactor running, but never with the reactor powering the engines.
They eventually gave up on the idea given the large number of drawbacks. For example, the engines had to be run all the time, even on the ground, to keep the reactor cool. It needed over 10 tons of shielding to keep the crew safe, which cut into the bomb load, and then there was the fact that when the inevitable crashes occurred you had a significant clean up problem.
As crazy it now seems this was done in the wonderful post war period when Nuclear power was seen as a solution to almost any problem.
Even that is relatively sane when compared to Project Pluto:They eventually gave up on the idea given the large number of drawbacks. For example, the engines had to be run all the time, even on the ground, to keep the reactor cool. It needed over 10 tons of shielding to keep the crew safe, which cut into the bomb load, and then there was the fact that when the inevitable crashes occurred you had a significant clean up problem.
As crazy it now seems this was done in the wonderful post war period when Nuclear power was seen as a solution to almost any problem.
http://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane-...
http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
A missile with a nuclear powered ramjet, gleefully spitting out all sorts of radioactivity from it's exhaust as it flew. Someone even though that this drawback could be turned to an advantage:
"...a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto's designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto's nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by. (One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.)
"
Edited by youngsod on Friday 25th July 10:58
As others have said lots of nuclear aircraft were proposed and, later, nuclear cruise missiles where the disadvantage of fallout becomes an 'advantage'. The wacky soviets built a prototype portable electrical plant which was essentially a reactor you could drive around.
There was also the Ford Nucleon concept car;
It's not clear that anyone who knew anything about reactors ever had anything to do with the concept though.
There was also the Ford Nucleon concept car;
It's not clear that anyone who knew anything about reactors ever had anything to do with the concept though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Anyone remember this guy?
a reactor would but difficult and have obvious safety issues.
What may be feasible is a radioactive source to power an electrically driven car. Work has been done to separate americium from plutonium (americium is in most smoke detectors) to make batteries, I've no idea how much you'd need to get enough voltage to drive a car or bus but sounds more workable than an actual reactor.
Anyone remember this guy?
a reactor would but difficult and have obvious safety issues.
What may be feasible is a radioactive source to power an electrically driven car. Work has been done to separate americium from plutonium (americium is in most smoke detectors) to make batteries, I've no idea how much you'd need to get enough voltage to drive a car or bus but sounds more workable than an actual reactor.
Swordman said:
You know, this could totally be a thing. They don't travel particularly fast and they can be engineered in a way so that it would be impossible to break the reactor vessel in a collision.
The reactor would have to be quite small and properly shielded (which would add weight), but I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man.
One bus would be able to run for many years without releasing any of those noxious diesel emissions into the atmosphere.
Whadya think?
Electric buses re-charged by power generated in a nuclear powerstation may be a better bet... if only the UK government had invested in nuclear power generation at all The reactor would have to be quite small and properly shielded (which would add weight), but I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man.
One bus would be able to run for many years without releasing any of those noxious diesel emissions into the atmosphere.
Whadya think?
ewenm said:
Swordman said:
You know, this could totally be a thing. They don't travel particularly fast and they can be engineered in a way so that it would be impossible to break the reactor vessel in a collision.
The reactor would have to be quite small and properly shielded (which would add weight), but I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man.
One bus would be able to run for many years without releasing any of those noxious diesel emissions into the atmosphere.
Whadya think?
Electric buses re-charged by power generated in a nuclear powerstation may be a better bet... if only the UK government had invested in nuclear power generation at all The reactor would have to be quite small and properly shielded (which would add weight), but I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man.
One bus would be able to run for many years without releasing any of those noxious diesel emissions into the atmosphere.
Whadya think?
I work in the industry, its infuriating the way successive governments have handled our energy policy. We'll get new reactors, probably not in time to avoid rolling blackouts if you asked me, but they certainly won't be British designs or ran by British companies. The best of it all British Engineers/scientists were working on far more advanced designs than the PWR's we'll get 40+ years ago.
One of those things that needs a long term strategy i.e. beyond one or even multiple terms of government.
a311 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Anyone remember this guy?
a reactor would but difficult and have obvious safety issues.
What may be feasible is a radioactive source to power an electrically driven car. Work has been done to separate americium from plutonium (americium is in most smoke detectors) to make batteries, I've no idea how much you'd need to get enough voltage to drive a car or bus but sounds more workable than an actual reactor.
Sadly not very practical, although it's an appealing idea. Radioisotope generators have been used in lots of space probes and in various out of the way locations. The basic principle is that you get a lump of something that emits a lot of very easily shield radiation, typically alpha particles. Such a material tends to heat itself up, you then use this heat to drive a peltier style thermal-electric generation element. Anyone remember this guy?
a reactor would but difficult and have obvious safety issues.
What may be feasible is a radioactive source to power an electrically driven car. Work has been done to separate americium from plutonium (americium is in most smoke detectors) to make batteries, I've no idea how much you'd need to get enough voltage to drive a car or bus but sounds more workable than an actual reactor.
It would be brilliant to have an electric car with one of these, so it just charges itself up if left to it's own devices. Unfortunately the cost of the isotope is enormous, supply is very limited and some would deem it a safety hazard. For example, the one used on the Galileo used ~8kg of plutonium 238 to generate ~300W of electrical power. The whole assembly weighed ~60kg.
hairykrishna said:
Sadly not very practical, although it's an appealing idea. Radioisotope generators have been used in lots of space probes and in various out of the way locations. The basic principle is that you get a lump of something that emits a lot of very easily shield radiation, typically alpha particles. Such a material tends to heat itself up, you then use this heat to drive a peltier style thermal-electric generation element.
It would be brilliant to have an electric car with one of these, so it just charges itself up if left to it's own devices. Unfortunately the cost of the isotope is enormous, supply is very limited and some would deem it a safety hazard. For example, the one used on the Galileo used ~8kg of plutonium 238 to generate ~300W of electrical power. The whole assembly weighed ~60kg.
The organisation I work for is developing 'space batteries' for the ESA. Flowsheet for separating Am from Pu has been developed not that I've been involved at all in the process, but suspect very low voltage over a long time for the application. Will give us at least one application/something to do with all the plutonium we have lying around anyhow......It would be brilliant to have an electric car with one of these, so it just charges itself up if left to it's own devices. Unfortunately the cost of the isotope is enormous, supply is very limited and some would deem it a safety hazard. For example, the one used on the Galileo used ~8kg of plutonium 238 to generate ~300W of electrical power. The whole assembly weighed ~60kg.
You're preaching to the converted anyhow, Nuclear Engineer, although I do very little these days so class myself of more of a Chemical Engineer
hairykrishna said:
a311 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Anyone remember this guy?
a reactor would but difficult and have obvious safety issues.
What may be feasible is a radioactive source to power an electrically driven car. Work has been done to separate americium from plutonium (americium is in most smoke detectors) to make batteries, I've no idea how much you'd need to get enough voltage to drive a car or bus but sounds more workable than an actual reactor.
Sadly not very practical, although it's an appealing idea. Radioisotope generators have been used in lots of space probes and in various out of the way locations. The basic principle is that you get a lump of something that emits a lot of very easily shield radiation, typically alpha particles. Such a material tends to heat itself up, you then use this heat to drive a peltier style thermal-electric generation element. Anyone remember this guy?
a reactor would but difficult and have obvious safety issues.
What may be feasible is a radioactive source to power an electrically driven car. Work has been done to separate americium from plutonium (americium is in most smoke detectors) to make batteries, I've no idea how much you'd need to get enough voltage to drive a car or bus but sounds more workable than an actual reactor.
It would be brilliant to have an electric car with one of these, so it just charges itself up if left to it's own devices. Unfortunately the cost of the isotope is enormous, supply is very limited and some would deem it a safety hazard. For example, the one used on the Galileo used ~8kg of plutonium 238 to generate ~300W of electrical power. The whole assembly weighed ~60kg.
Dr Jekyll said:
robinessex said:
Various companies have proposed a nuclear powered aircraft. Saunders Roe on the IOW did a study.
I think a couple of aircraft have actually flown with a working reactor on board, not sure if they got as far as powering the aircraft with it though.The USSR looked at nuclear power with a reactor in a converted Tu95, but also cancelled the research when missiles became available.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff