Why haven't they explored Nuclear powered cars?

[Pixelpeep 135]

If warships can be powered for 20 years by a reactor, why don't we have mini reactors in cars ?

I suspect the answer will be;

safety
terrorism
cost
practicality

But, apart from that... why not? is the idea THAT crazy?

[DanL]

Apart from those four very good reasons, you mean?

Sorry, can’t add much - I’d think that cooling would be an issue? Cost would be HUGE too.

[SteveStrange]

Size, surely. Plus the need to carry a lot of water for cooling, with availability for much much extra water in case of emergencies.

[Muzzer79]

As I understand it, it's the problem of converting the nuclear energy into energy that can drive a car.

Nuclear reactors in power stations work by driving a steam turbine. Simply; creating heat and using that to create steam, driving a turbine.

Using this in a small package in a car isn't practical for a variety of reasons, not least heat management and shielding of the occupants from radiation.

[Pixelpeep 135]

SteveStrange said:

Size, surely. Plus the need to carry a lot of water for cooling, with availability for much much extra water in case of emergencies.

scaled down though - cars are used to having coolant anyway

how big would it need to be to give, say 200hp for 20 years ?

[rampageturke]

Pixelpeep 135 said:

If warships can be powered for 20 years by a reactor, why don't we have mini reactors in cars ?

I suspect the answer will be;

safety
terrorism
cost
practicality

But, apart from that... why not? is the idea THAT crazy?

Apart from the reasons why nobody has developed them, why has nobody developed them? I cant think of a reason!

[Evanivitch]

It's a terrible option for most cars. Whilst the car is going nowhere, you're just dumping excess energy.

An aircraft carrier/submarine benefits from (ideally) a high level of usage.

But once CCS V2G is standard on electric cars I really can't see the issue!

[Knock_knock]

You'd be better off just building one into every home and running your house and charging an EV from it. At least then the 90% of the time when the car isn't being driven the power isn't going to waste.

Still completely impractically impossible tho!

Although there's always... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoe... if you want to live dangerously

[TheDeuce]

Even the safest, smallest nuclear reactors all require round the clock staffing.. How's that going to work in a car?

And as said, they create continuous power - power which has to go somewhere. So every time the car stops and/or storage batteries full, you would have to shut down the reactor core, and they restart from cold when the lights change back to green

Nuclear power to generate electricity instead of fossil fuels... that could work

Then put that electricity in your EV, everyone's a winner.

[rxe]

They also have a very slow response time. Gas turbine cars were problematic for this reason, but reactors have response times measured in hours/days. There are all sorts of reasons, such as xenon poisoning, why its a really bad idea to try and make a reactor respond in the same way as a car accelerator.

Shielding would be an issue. However small, a power reactor is emitting a st tonne of gamma radiation. We contain this in pressure vessels and biological shields, which is possible in a car but rather heavy.

[off_again]

Ever played the Fallout games? Alternate universe stuff where everyone embraced the nuclear age, including cars. Now they are a constantly exploding death threat littered across a hellscape of a post apocalyptic world.

Car crushers might be fun though.

[essayer]

A 7kW RTG would "only" need 14kg of Plutonium-238 and continually top up an EV's battery. When not being used 7KW shouldn't be too hard to lose to outside air

Assume you can buy Pu-238 easily, haven't checked

[Scrump]

Nuclear fusion powered car thread here:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[2gins]

You do realise how warships use nuclear power, and how nuclear power plants produce electricity?

The heat of reaction is used to raise steam, which is expanded in a turbine.

You'd need a huge tank of water just to make it move.

[Zetec-S]

Well it worked (sort of) in a bus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bus

[kambites]

Pixelpeep 135 said:

SteveStrange said:

Size, surely. Plus the need to carry a lot of water for cooling, with availability for much much extra water in case of emergencies.

scaled down though - cars are used to having coolant anyway

how big would it need to be to give, say 200hp for 20 years ?

Not sure about size, but once you've put all the shielding around the reactor core I think you'd be measuring the weight in tens, if not hundreds, of tonnes.

I think there have been working prototypes of nuclear trains and planes, but I don't think you could scale a fission reactor down to fit in a car.

Edited by kambites on Monday 14th February 17:40

[Flooble]

essayer said:

A 7kW RTG would "only" need 14kg of Plutonium-238 and continually top up an EV's battery. When not being used 7KW shouldn't be too hard to lose to outside air

Assume you can buy Pu-238 easily, haven't checked

Easily available in every corner drugstore

[carte blanche]

There was a fair bit of interest in this in the 50s/60s over in the USA. There were some concepts previewed such as the appropriately named Ford Nucleon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

[dundarach]

Wouldn't it's major weakness be that it's effectively just a steam car?

I ain't very bright, however I thought nuclear power generated heat, then steam, then spins a generator and off we go...

Where would all the water come from?

Beep beep...

[dudleybloke]

Zetec-S said:

Well it worked (sort of) in a bus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bus

A superb documentary.