Nuclear Fusion Powered Cars…it will happen.
Discussion
Nuclear powered car ?.cant see it as a alternative far to dangerous in manufacturing servicing and end of life costs and safety. When they've got 13 subs sitting in Devonport dockyard waiting for decommissioning what is going to happen with cars trucks coaches when they come to end of life.
The answer to highly efficient power probably already exists but has been bought up and silenced due to being to too efficient thus reducing the on going costs to manufacturers and servicing cost etc etc.Also what's the insurance costs going to be,who's going to insure a 17yr old belting around with a mini reactor powered car.
Colleague at works relative designed a coil for cars many years ago that was fair superior than ones fitted at the time. It would have meant that coils wouldn't need replacing for life of the car. This idea was bought by coil manufacturer and never released.....
The answer to highly efficient power probably already exists but has been bought up and silenced due to being to too efficient thus reducing the on going costs to manufacturers and servicing cost etc etc.Also what's the insurance costs going to be,who's going to insure a 17yr old belting around with a mini reactor powered car.
Colleague at works relative designed a coil for cars many years ago that was fair superior than ones fitted at the time. It would have meant that coils wouldn't need replacing for life of the car. This idea was bought by coil manufacturer and never released.....
It "could" already be possible to use a nuclear battery to charge a car, so the car self charges, but why would you.
I think you'd need a conventional battery to provide high current capacity and then the nuclear battery to charge the main battery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery
It's always been claimed that manufacturers have "silenced" all manner of exotic engine development to improve efficiency.
But when you read the real technical details of the claim, it's either sham, or it hasn't been backed it up with the infrastructure to make it properly viable.
(Hydrogen for example - broadly compatible with existing engine designs, but does really need a turbo to make the same power - but super clean exhaust!)
Electric is the first thing really proposed that is viable.
One of the "wins" of electric is that the duty cycle on a car is actually very low, plus you can use regenerative braking - both great.
You'll still see diesels in lots of other industries for some time yet though where the duty cycle remains high - big ships for example, will stay diesel for the foreseeable (although they could theoretically go nuclear fission since they are big enough!). The biggest marine diesel engines are 100,000hp and then run basically flat out at 100,000hp for a few weeks at a time. This is the industry I was trained in and I would love to get back involved in again. Lots of opportunities to reduce fuel consumption there - modified hull forms, bigger ships (the bigger the ship the more efficient it is, generally), reducing speed and using wind augmentation (kites, sails etc) to supplement power. You'll still need the diesel engine, but less of it.
I think you'd need a conventional battery to provide high current capacity and then the nuclear battery to charge the main battery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery
It's always been claimed that manufacturers have "silenced" all manner of exotic engine development to improve efficiency.
But when you read the real technical details of the claim, it's either sham, or it hasn't been backed it up with the infrastructure to make it properly viable.
(Hydrogen for example - broadly compatible with existing engine designs, but does really need a turbo to make the same power - but super clean exhaust!)
Electric is the first thing really proposed that is viable.
One of the "wins" of electric is that the duty cycle on a car is actually very low, plus you can use regenerative braking - both great.
You'll still see diesels in lots of other industries for some time yet though where the duty cycle remains high - big ships for example, will stay diesel for the foreseeable (although they could theoretically go nuclear fission since they are big enough!). The biggest marine diesel engines are 100,000hp and then run basically flat out at 100,000hp for a few weeks at a time. This is the industry I was trained in and I would love to get back involved in again. Lots of opportunities to reduce fuel consumption there - modified hull forms, bigger ships (the bigger the ship the more efficient it is, generally), reducing speed and using wind augmentation (kites, sails etc) to supplement power. You'll still need the diesel engine, but less of it.
That's always the joke isn't it. I think "this time", if I were to bet, I would say it's possible, although not definite. This issue they've just surpassed at the JET (earlier this week) has been a massive hurdle, IMVHO, for such a long time. They've known since the beginning that no material existed that they could use as the lining of the reactor, so it's been a blocker. But a great milestone now at JET.
We're in a kind of "no to everything" world at the moment. No to coal, oil & gas. But no to wind farms too. And no to nuclear fission. And no to ocean current power generation (but I'm not sure why, say, the straits of dover don't gave a massive power generation facility there..there must be a reason I'm missing)
And no to hydroelectric & dams too. But we all still want power to run all our stuff.
Personally, I'd happily go and live in the fastnet lighthouse, but then I am a grumpy bugger.
We're in a kind of "no to everything" world at the moment. No to coal, oil & gas. But no to wind farms too. And no to nuclear fission. And no to ocean current power generation (but I'm not sure why, say, the straits of dover don't gave a massive power generation facility there..there must be a reason I'm missing)
And no to hydroelectric & dams too. But we all still want power to run all our stuff.
Personally, I'd happily go and live in the fastnet lighthouse, but then I am a grumpy bugger.
It won't happen because it won't be necessary. Fusion should generate grid energy and it will charge whatever the latest and greatest battery technology there is.
by the time we have fusion power on the grid I would expect batteries would be the size of a briefcase with a typical range of 300 miles and a 10 minute fast charge time.
by the time we have fusion power on the grid I would expect batteries would be the size of a briefcase with a typical range of 300 miles and a 10 minute fast charge time.
Arnold Cunningham said:
It "could" already be possible to use a nuclear battery to charge a car, so the car self charges, but why would you.
I think you'd need a conventional battery to provide high current capacity and then the nuclear battery to charge the main battery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery
It's always been claimed that manufacturers have "silenced" all manner of exotic engine development to improve efficiency.
But when you read the real technical details of the claim, it's either sham, or it hasn't been backed it up with the infrastructure to make it properly viable.
(Hydrogen for example - broadly compatible with existing engine designs, but does really need a turbo to make the same power - but super clean exhaust!)
Electric is the first thing really proposed that is viable.
One of the "wins" of electric is that the duty cycle on a car is actually very low, plus you can use regenerative braking - both great.
You'll still see diesels in lots of other industries for some time yet though where the duty cycle remains high - big ships for example, will stay diesel for the foreseeable (although they could theoretically go nuclear fission since they are big enough!). The biggest marine diesel engines are 100,000hp and then run basically flat out at 100,000hp for a few weeks at a time. This is the industry I was trained in and I would love to get back involved in again. Lots of opportunities to reduce fuel consumption there - modified hull forms, bigger ships (the bigger the ship the more efficient it is, generally), reducing speed and using wind augmentation (kites, sails etc) to supplement power. You'll still need the diesel engine, but less of it.
I think it is likely to be both solutions, nuclear where the travel time is more critical and cost can be justified and the hybrid diesel/sail where cost is the key parameter. I have seen suggestions that nuclear over the lifetime of the vessel is significantly cheaper than diesel.I think you'd need a conventional battery to provide high current capacity and then the nuclear battery to charge the main battery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery
It's always been claimed that manufacturers have "silenced" all manner of exotic engine development to improve efficiency.
But when you read the real technical details of the claim, it's either sham, or it hasn't been backed it up with the infrastructure to make it properly viable.
(Hydrogen for example - broadly compatible with existing engine designs, but does really need a turbo to make the same power - but super clean exhaust!)
Electric is the first thing really proposed that is viable.
One of the "wins" of electric is that the duty cycle on a car is actually very low, plus you can use regenerative braking - both great.
You'll still see diesels in lots of other industries for some time yet though where the duty cycle remains high - big ships for example, will stay diesel for the foreseeable (although they could theoretically go nuclear fission since they are big enough!). The biggest marine diesel engines are 100,000hp and then run basically flat out at 100,000hp for a few weeks at a time. This is the industry I was trained in and I would love to get back involved in again. Lots of opportunities to reduce fuel consumption there - modified hull forms, bigger ships (the bigger the ship the more efficient it is, generally), reducing speed and using wind augmentation (kites, sails etc) to supplement power. You'll still need the diesel engine, but less of it.
Toltec said:
I think it is likely to be both solutions, nuclear where the travel time is more critical and cost can be justified and the hybrid diesel/sail where cost is the key parameter. I have seen suggestions that nuclear over the lifetime of the vessel is significantly cheaper than diesel.
Interesting. I assumed this was not the case, but I’ll research a bit. I guess there’s then the security and higher maintenance issues of nuclear reactors.take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
Alias218 said:
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
thewarlock said:
Not an idea I've really seen before. How will these cars be propelled? Electric motors? Steam turbines? Something new?
JET powered 
Er, Fission and Fusion are practically (if that is the right word) single direction processes. Split or combine atoms and you get energy released. That means a fusion powered car will still have both an electric motor and a battery, because a car needs to be bidirectional to minimise consumption, even if the energy is "Free" (and it's never actually free of course)
Max_Torque said:
Er, Fission and Fusion are practically (if that is the right word) single direction processes. Split or combine atoms and you get energy released. That means a fusion powered car will still have both an electric motor and a battery, because a car needs to be bidirectional to minimise consumption, even if the energy is "Free" (and it's never actually free of course)
Why would we necessarily want to minimise consumption? If the energy is cheap, and you have long range there must come a point where minimising consumption is an unnecessary complication.Anyway since fusion is proving a bit tricky, let's go straight to antimatter drives.
Dr Jekyll said:
Why would we necessarily want to minimise consumption? If the energy is cheap, and you have long range there must come a point where minimising consumption is an unnecessary complication.
Anyway since fusion is proving a bit tricky, let's go straight to antimatter drives.
Inefficiency gives rise to waste heat and also means you need to carry around more stored energy.Anyway since fusion is proving a bit tricky, let's go straight to antimatter drives.
Is there a point at which pumping lots of waste heat in the atmosphere might become a problem in itself?
Waste heat also means bigger cooling systems, higher brake wear and more brake dust pollution.
Carrying around excessive stored energy because of inefficiency can lead to a much bigger problem in the event of an accident or failure.
This may not be so relevant to fusion power, but it is, for example, significant for things like ruptured hydrogen tanks.
GT9 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Why would we necessarily want to minimise consumption? If the energy is cheap, and you have long range there must come a point where minimising consumption is an unnecessary complication.
Anyway since fusion is proving a bit tricky, let's go straight to antimatter drives.
Inefficiency gives rise to waste heat and also means you need to carry around more stored energy.Anyway since fusion is proving a bit tricky, let's go straight to antimatter drives.
Is there a point at which pumping lots of waste heat in the atmosphere might become a problem in itself?
Waste heat also means bigger cooling systems, higher brake wear and more brake dust pollution.
Carrying around excessive stored energy because of inefficiency can lead to a much bigger problem in the event of an accident or failure.
This may not be so relevant to fusion power, but it is, for example, significant for things like ruptured hydrogen tanks.
Practicalities of even the smallest of nuclear (fission) reactors mean they're not going to fit in cars.
They also require a significantly higher enrichment of the nuclear fuel to account for the lower mass of fuel.
I thought the nuclear battery idea was "good" (in quotes because this is all just a bit of fun) .....with a conventional battery for regenerative charging and peak loads and actual driving, with the nuclear battery providing a steady charge into the motive battery.
They also require a significantly higher enrichment of the nuclear fuel to account for the lower mass of fuel.
I thought the nuclear battery idea was "good" (in quotes because this is all just a bit of fun) .....with a conventional battery for regenerative charging and peak loads and actual driving, with the nuclear battery providing a steady charge into the motive battery.
McAndy said:
Sorry, but nope. Even if the technology exists, Joe Public will not accept it, IMO.
Batteries: "Oh my word, one caught fire once! I'm scared!"
Hydrogen: "But what about that big balloon thingy? No thank you!"
Nuclear reactor within a few feet of their children: "What the actual...?!"
Petrol? Not exactly lemonade itself.Batteries: "Oh my word, one caught fire once! I'm scared!"
Hydrogen: "But what about that big balloon thingy? No thank you!"
Nuclear reactor within a few feet of their children: "What the actual...?!"
Max_Torque said:
Er, Fission and Fusion are practically (if that is the right word) single direction processes.
So is (internal) combustion, hence I fear that you may not get very far with that argument, on here.Max_Torque said:
...a car needs to be bidirectional...
That's what reverse gear is for, surely? 
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff