Why haven't they explored Nuclear powered cars?
Discussion
vulture1 said:
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.
sebdangerfield said:
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 ?
The whole idea is nonsense anyway. A nuclear reactor made tiny enough to produce only enough power for a car would be so small as to be impossible to control with current technologies. There are limits to miniaturisation before the effort to miniaturise exceeds the benefit of doing so.
This.
If you would make an SMR small enough for private use, it would make a lot more sense in a home before it would make sense in a car.
Even if you then have a surplus of energy, it might be used to create hydrogen for your car for example.
Anyway, looking at the scale of current reactors, it wouldn't make any sense in a car at this point in time.
If you would make an SMR small enough for private use, it would make a lot more sense in a home before it would make sense in a car.
Even if you then have a surplus of energy, it might be used to create hydrogen for your car for example.
Anyway, looking at the scale of current reactors, it wouldn't make any sense in a car at this point in time
.Pretty sure USSR used to have a load of Nuclear powered lighthouses across their northern coastline and islands off their north coast that were inaccessible for most of the year. They had modular nuclear power plants RTG's to run them and were left to go derelict. In recent times they had to start recovering them as group from the middle east were scavenging the nuclear material. I dont think any of these led to any environmental disasters but suppose the dataset is small/nonexistent/compromised etc
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclea...
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclea...
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... 
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 dont think you understand it then as its really, very simpleNuclear 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.
You just use a theromcouple and harness the seebeck effect whereby a temperature difference between two points can create a potential difference.
An RTG needs only three parts. Pretty sure you could easily power an electric vehicle with one but i wouldnt know about the economics and safety aspects of this.
TheDeuce said:
If you bankrolled the development of a safe nuclear car, you would still be subject to the governance of UKAEA. Naturally they're kind of setup to deal with static reactors.. but even if you could convince them to license a mobile one to travel on the road, you would fall foul of pretty much every basic failsafe and double check requirement of operating a reactor. Reactors have to be staffed - in short. No one will license the fuel to supply one unless it's fully staffed during operation. How do you fully staff a miniature reactor in a car?
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?
Agreed, however, those ^^ issues are all solvable in someway or other , with the application of time and money. And it's the money bit that's ultimately the problem :-)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?
Max_Torque said:
TheDeuce said:
If you bankrolled the development of a safe nuclear car, you would still be subject to the governance of UKAEA. Naturally they're kind of setup to deal with static reactors.. but even if you could convince them to license a mobile one to travel on the road, you would fall foul of pretty much every basic failsafe and double check requirement of operating a reactor. Reactors have to be staffed - in short. No one will license the fuel to supply one unless it's fully staffed during operation. How do you fully staff a miniature reactor in a car?
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?
Agreed, however, those ^^ issues are all solvable in someway or other , with the application of time and money. And it's the money bit that's ultimately the problem :-)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?
Reactors create continuous energy, in a power station that's no issue as it's fed in the grid continuously. A car however is isolated, once it's motor(s) are powered and whatever battery buffer is fully charged, where does the energy go? It has to go somewhere otherwise you end up with zero option but to shut down the reactor.
It's like saying that time and money can solve the problem that ICE power units aren't particularly energy efficient - there are fundamental limits that come with ICE that no level of investment will defeat. It's the same with nuclear - it relies upon continuity of operation, which a car fundamentally cannot cater for. That's the nature of nuclear power..
Anyway, time and money have been spent looking at several ways of powering personal transport moving forwards and the result is that it's generally accepted the most efficient solution is to not have the power generator itself in the car. This makes perfect sense, why should a car carry around fuel and it's own power plant to convert that fuel to useable energy, including all the auxiliary cooling etc, all that complexity, when you can have a single, central power station (nuclear is fine by me) and then put the energy generated in to all cars batteries on demand? That means you have just a single complex power generator to look after and the energy loss via the grid>charger>battery>motor is at most only about 6%. Far more efficient than an energy generator per vehicle, be it nuclear, ICE of hydrogen fuel cell.
TheDeuce said:
I think the 'problem' to be solved in this instance is the unsuitable nature of the chosen power supply
Reactors create continuous energy, in a power station that's no issue as it's fed in the grid continuously. A car however is isolated, once it's motor(s) are powered and whatever battery buffer is fully charged, where does the energy go? It has to go somewhere otherwise you end up with zero option but to shut down the reactor.
It's like saying that time and money can solve the problem that ICE power units aren't particularly energy efficient - there are fundamental limits that come with ICE that no level of investment will defeat. It's the same with nuclear - it relies upon continuity of operation, which a car fundamentally cannot cater for. That's the nature of nuclear power..
Anyway, time and money have been spent looking at several ways of powering personal transport moving forwards and the result is that it's generally accepted the most efficient solution is to not have the power generator itself in the car. This makes perfect sense, why should a car carry around fuel and it's own power plant to convert that fuel to useable energy, including all the auxiliary cooling etc, all that complexity, when you can have a single, central power station (nuclear is fine by me) and then put the energy generated in to all cars batteries on demand? That means you have just a single complex power generator to look after and the energy loss via the grid>charger>battery>motor is at most only about 6%. Far more efficient than an energy generator per vehicle, be it nuclear, ICE of hydrogen fuel cell.
Because tanks of fuel are in many ways better for storing energy than batteries.Reactors create continuous energy, in a power station that's no issue as it's fed in the grid continuously. A car however is isolated, once it's motor(s) are powered and whatever battery buffer is fully charged, where does the energy go? It has to go somewhere otherwise you end up with zero option but to shut down the reactor.
It's like saying that time and money can solve the problem that ICE power units aren't particularly energy efficient - there are fundamental limits that come with ICE that no level of investment will defeat. It's the same with nuclear - it relies upon continuity of operation, which a car fundamentally cannot cater for. That's the nature of nuclear power..
Anyway, time and money have been spent looking at several ways of powering personal transport moving forwards and the result is that it's generally accepted the most efficient solution is to not have the power generator itself in the car. This makes perfect sense, why should a car carry around fuel and it's own power plant to convert that fuel to useable energy, including all the auxiliary cooling etc, all that complexity, when you can have a single, central power station (nuclear is fine by me) and then put the energy generated in to all cars batteries on demand? That means you have just a single complex power generator to look after and the energy loss via the grid>charger>battery>motor is at most only about 6%. Far more efficient than an energy generator per vehicle, be it nuclear, ICE of hydrogen fuel cell.
There are all sorts of theoretical arguments why electric vehicles should be more efficient. But despite punitive taxation on ICE electric vehicles are still expensive.
If electric vehicles really are so much better. Why ban ICEs? Why not have equal tax treatment?
I'm not against electric cars, I'd have one IF I could afford one. But there should be a choice.
Dr Jekyll said:
TheDeuce said:
I think the 'problem' to be solved in this instance is the unsuitable nature of the chosen power supply
Reactors create continuous energy, in a power station that's no issue as it's fed in the grid continuously. A car however is isolated, once it's motor(s) are powered and whatever battery buffer is fully charged, where does the energy go? It has to go somewhere otherwise you end up with zero option but to shut down the reactor.
It's like saying that time and money can solve the problem that ICE power units aren't particularly energy efficient - there are fundamental limits that come with ICE that no level of investment will defeat. It's the same with nuclear - it relies upon continuity of operation, which a car fundamentally cannot cater for. That's the nature of nuclear power..
Anyway, time and money have been spent looking at several ways of powering personal transport moving forwards and the result is that it's generally accepted the most efficient solution is to not have the power generator itself in the car. This makes perfect sense, why should a car carry around fuel and it's own power plant to convert that fuel to useable energy, including all the auxiliary cooling etc, all that complexity, when you can have a single, central power station (nuclear is fine by me) and then put the energy generated in to all cars batteries on demand? That means you have just a single complex power generator to look after and the energy loss via the grid>charger>battery>motor is at most only about 6%. Far more efficient than an energy generator per vehicle, be it nuclear, ICE of hydrogen fuel cell.
Because tanks of fuel are in many ways better for storing energy than batteries.Reactors create continuous energy, in a power station that's no issue as it's fed in the grid continuously. A car however is isolated, once it's motor(s) are powered and whatever battery buffer is fully charged, where does the energy go? It has to go somewhere otherwise you end up with zero option but to shut down the reactor.
It's like saying that time and money can solve the problem that ICE power units aren't particularly energy efficient - there are fundamental limits that come with ICE that no level of investment will defeat. It's the same with nuclear - it relies upon continuity of operation, which a car fundamentally cannot cater for. That's the nature of nuclear power..
Anyway, time and money have been spent looking at several ways of powering personal transport moving forwards and the result is that it's generally accepted the most efficient solution is to not have the power generator itself in the car. This makes perfect sense, why should a car carry around fuel and it's own power plant to convert that fuel to useable energy, including all the auxiliary cooling etc, all that complexity, when you can have a single, central power station (nuclear is fine by me) and then put the energy generated in to all cars batteries on demand? That means you have just a single complex power generator to look after and the energy loss via the grid>charger>battery>motor is at most only about 6%. Far more efficient than an energy generator per vehicle, be it nuclear, ICE of hydrogen fuel cell.
There are all sorts of theoretical arguments why electric vehicles should be more efficient. But despite punitive taxation on ICE electric vehicles are still expensive.
If electric vehicles really are so much better. Why ban ICEs? Why not have equal tax treatment?
I'm not against electric cars, I'd have one IF I could afford one. But there should be a choice.
Liquid fuel stores more energy than current batteries, but I am talking about efficiency of conversion. It would, for example, be far more efficient to burn fossil fuel centrally to charge the batteries of an EV. It's because on a huge scale burning fossil fuels to create electricity is more efficient than smaller scale per vehicle. The subsequent transfer and usage of that energy via EV batteries is efficient enough to still maintain a net reduction.
Volvolover said:
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 dont think you understand it then as its really, very simpleNuclear 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.
You just use a theromcouple and harness the seebeck effect whereby a temperature difference between two points can create a potential difference.
An RTG needs only three parts. Pretty sure you could easily power an electric vehicle with one but i wouldnt know about the economics and safety aspects of this.
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
Volvolover said:
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 dont think you understand it then as its really, very simpleNuclear 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.
You just use a theromcouple and harness the seebeck effect whereby a temperature difference between two points can create a potential difference.
An RTG needs only three parts. Pretty sure you could easily power an electric vehicle with one but i wouldnt know about the economics and safety aspects of this.
Part of me still suspects a simple socket to charge once every several hundred miles might still be best overall though
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
They're ~ 50-300 Watt Electrical. Barely enough an ebike.
erm, theyd just be charging a battery so more than enough......or horror or horrors, have two. Bear in mind the RTG's in that video were pretty old, we could probably do something a little better nowjust to add i'm in no way advocating rtg powered cars i just posted because of the nonsense being spoken about reactors and steam power etc by all the nuclear experts .....
Volvolover said:
erm, theyd just be charging a battery so more than enough......or horror or horrors, have two. Bear in mind the RTG's in that video were pretty old, we could probably do something a little better now
just to add i'm in no way advocating rtg powered cars i just posted because of the nonsense being spoken about reactors and steam power etc by all the nuclear experts .....
After doing some digging it appears a model 3 is circa 300w/mile so AN RTG may indeed be sufficient on its own... Didn't realise they were so efficient. just to add i'm in no way advocating rtg powered cars i just posted because of the nonsense being spoken about reactors and steam power etc by all the nuclear experts .....
Dr Jekyll said:
The really frightening thing would be RTG powered nuclear speed cameras. Even in the middle of Scottish Mamba country with no power lines anywhere there could be a camera, waiting relentlessly for it's victims.
RTG powered traffic wardens... :PGod Noooooooooooooooooooooo
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
After doing some digging it appears a model 3 is circa 300w/mile so AN RTG may indeed be sufficient on its own... Didn't realise they were so efficient.
Yes... 300Wh/mile.That means a 300W power supply will take an hour to give you a mile.
Or is my math off?
Edit: No, my unit was. changed it to Wh/mi instead of W/mi.
Edited by ZesPak on Wednesday 16th February 14:08
ZesPak said:
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
After doing some digging it appears a model 3 is circa 300w/mile so AN RTG may indeed be sufficient on its own... Didn't realise they were so efficient.
Yes... 300w/mile.That means a 300w power supply will take an hour to give you a mile.
Or is my math off?
Flooble said:
ZesPak said:
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
After doing some digging it appears a model 3 is circa 300w/mile so AN RTG may indeed be sufficient on its own... Didn't realise they were so efficient.
Yes... 300w/mile.That means a 300w power supply will take an hour to give you a mile.
Or is my math off?
The issue is if the battery is really low and you need to accelerate up a steep hill there isn't enough power, hence why the few that were built used 100-200bhp engines, at which point a parallel hybrid is cheaper and more effective.
It's why they don't really work and weren't progressed.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff