Why haven't they explored Nuclear powered cars?
Discussion
Plus Euro NCAP would need to add a similar test to the one they had in 1984 and the car would need to survive with reactor intact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo22l4wJdx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo22l4wJdx8
granada203028 said:
I think the Russians looked at a nuclear powered aircraft where the reactor heated a closed cycle gas turbine.
Shielding the crew was an issue.
The US did install a nuclear reactor in a B-36, but Shielding the crew was an issue.
https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/nb-36-crusader-americ...
Edited by AlexIT on Tuesday 15th February 08:10
Edited by AlexIT on Tuesday 15th February 11:18
Pixelpeep 135 said:
Thank you all for the replies - i see there are some minor bumps in an otherwise perfect plan.
Cruise ships should be nuclear then, right?!
Yes. It's literally only public perception which prevents it I think. And not just the passengers, the ship would only be allowed to dock at ports of countries that had no issue with a nuclear reactor operated by another country bobbing around outside..Cruise ships should be nuclear then, right?!
That's pretty much what killed off the last nuclear cruise liner.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
Thank you all for the replies - i see there are some minor bumps in an otherwise perfect plan.
Cruise ships should be nuclear then, right?!
Cargo ships definitely should be.Cruise ships should be nuclear then, right?!
But, as described above, there's plenty of issues with ports not accepting an operating nuclear reactor.
I'd also be concerned about commercial shipping lines, who work to cost, operating something that can decimate everything within a 10 mile radius.
We already do have nuclear powered cars, at least partially. Where do you think (a portion at least) of the power for a BEV comes from? In my particular case I have a 30% nuclear powered car. It could easily be 100% nuclear (or renewable, or fossil) powered though, depending on where I charge it.
dvs_dave said:
We already do have nuclear powered cars, at least partially. Where do you think (a portion at least) of the power for a BEV comes from? In my particular case I have a 30% nuclear powered car. It could easily be 100% nuclear (or renewable, or fossil) powered though, depending on where I charge it.
On that basis, I have a nuclear powered toothbrush and Ann Summers sells nuclear powered vibrators... TheDeuce said:
dvs_dave said:
We already do have nuclear powered cars, at least partially. Where do you think (a portion at least) of the power for a BEV comes from? In my particular case I have a 30% nuclear powered car. It could easily be 100% nuclear (or renewable, or fossil) powered though, depending on where I charge it.
On that basis, I have a nuclear powered toothbrush and Ann Summers sells nuclear powered vibrators... Pixelpeep 135 said:
TheDeuce said:
dvs_dave said:
We already do have nuclear powered cars, at least partially. Where do you think (a portion at least) of the power for a BEV comes from? In my particular case I have a 30% nuclear powered car. It could easily be 100% nuclear (or renewable, or fossil) powered though, depending on where I charge it.
On that basis, I have a nuclear powered toothbrush and Ann Summers sells nuclear powered vibrators... Pixelpeep 135 said:
Thank you all for the replies - i see there are some minor bumps in an otherwise perfect plan.
Cruise ships should be nuclear then, right?!
There's only been a handful of civilian nuclear ships, and only one operating today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SevmorputCruise ships should be nuclear then, right?!
It makes a lot of sense for shipping - the US one ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah ) apparently cost more to run at the time than a conventional ship due to staffing and shoreside facility costs but that was when oil was very cheap, and it wasn't well suited to either luxury travel or carrying cargo.
sjg said:
There's only been a handful of civilian nuclear ships, and only one operating today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
It makes a lot of sense for shipping - the US one ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah ) apparently cost more to run at the time than a conventional ship due to staffing and shoreside facility costs but that was when oil was very cheap, and it wasn't well suited to either luxury travel or carrying cargo.
Aren't there several nuclear powered icebreakers in service? It makes a lot of sense for shipping - the US one ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah ) apparently cost more to run at the time than a conventional ship due to staffing and shoreside facility costs but that was when oil was very cheap, and it wasn't well suited to either luxury travel or carrying cargo.
Are all these under military flag?
In addition to the obvious:
1. Tiny nuclear reactors are harder to control, the amount of energy released from a fission is mostly the same, you need to keep the reactor very close a gain of 1, But not all fissions are the equal, a high energy split is more likely to destabilise the reactor due to the lower core mass.
2. Enrichment, either thermal or fast, smaller reactor needs higher enrichment, a 250kw reactor core, would probably make a very good basis for a bomb and make the fuel very expensive.
3. Weight, the shielding will be heavy, some lead, mostly water and you would need a fair bit.
4. Power generation, steam is tricky for small vehicles, there are steam cars out there, but not very efficient, plasma based magentohydrodynamic generator may work, but radiation will still be an issue.
5. Startup/Shutdown, this process takes days generally.
6. Crash situation.
1. Tiny nuclear reactors are harder to control, the amount of energy released from a fission is mostly the same, you need to keep the reactor very close a gain of 1, But not all fissions are the equal, a high energy split is more likely to destabilise the reactor due to the lower core mass.
2. Enrichment, either thermal or fast, smaller reactor needs higher enrichment, a 250kw reactor core, would probably make a very good basis for a bomb and make the fuel very expensive.
3. Weight, the shielding will be heavy, some lead, mostly water and you would need a fair bit.
4. Power generation, steam is tricky for small vehicles, there are steam cars out there, but not very efficient, plasma based magentohydrodynamic generator may work, but radiation will still be an issue.
5. Startup/Shutdown, this process takes days generally.
6. Crash situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
Like a lot of things in modern science and engineering, the actual reason no one has a nuclear powered car is simply cost.
Today we can to a large degree engineer pretty much anything, thanks to modern materials science, modern CAE, and modern manufacturing processes. So that leaves us with one reason not too, namely the costs outweigh the benefits.......
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 15th February 19:36
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 15th February 19:37
Max_Torque said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
Like a lot of things in modern science and engineering, the actual reason no one has a nuclear powered car is simply cost.
Today we can to a large degree engineer pretty much anything, thanks to modern materials science, modern CAE, and modern manufacturing processes. So that leaves us with one reason not too, namely the costs outweigh the benefits.......
Also, even if money makes it safe, how do you dal with the fact it can't be shut down and re-started quickly? Once the reaction is underway, the best you can do is influence the rate of energy released a little, you can't turn it up and down like a throttle and turn it off when you want to park up. The energy has to go somewhere whenever it's running... If you're driving and the battery buffer in the car reaches full charge, what happens then?
Muzzer79 said:
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.
I find it pretty amazing that every power source is still basicly some for of steam engine.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.
TheDeuce said:
Pixelpeep 135 said:
TheDeuce said:
dvs_dave said:
We already do have nuclear powered cars, at least partially. Where do you think (a portion at least) of the power for a BEV comes from? In my particular case I have a 30% nuclear powered car. It could easily be 100% nuclear (or renewable, or fossil) powered though, depending on where I charge it.
On that basis, I have a nuclear powered toothbrush and Ann Summers sells nuclear powered vibrators... Pixelpeep 135 said:
scaled down though - cars are used to having coolant anyway
how big would it need to be to give, say 200hp for 20 years ?
The Nuclear Energy Institute uses an assumption that 17,000 litres of water is used for each MWh but it does concede that that calculation also accounts for evaporation from reservoirs. As a car would need to carry the water in a tank it'd probably be less how big would it need to be to give, say 200hp for 20 years ?
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff