Nuclear Powered Car!

[jackwhitter]

i do not think atomic (or sub atomic) power is ever going to be used for daily use on earth. the idea of a cold fusion (or fission) reactor is mainly science fiction.. cold fusion meaning no radiation, not the temperature at which the reaction is occuring. it is expensive dispose of radioactive material, shield it, and regulate its ownership (not let terrorists get it.) space is very condusive to atomic power because it already contains radiation in every known form (and probably some unknown forms.)
the use of atomic material to produce heat for energy (not from the reaction, just their state of decay) is useful for small energy applications requiring long term power, but once again not realistic near humans/life. for use near people, decay power needs shielding, which negates most powered uses.. adds too much weight to a plane, and probably a vehicle as well, especially since the shielding would need to be crash worthy. ground stations work well, since they can stick the radioactive material underground and shield it. for use on submarines and ships, the design was as much to provide a good power source, and also to allow a ship/sub to function in oil scarce times. works well for war time, but not that many civilian ships use it. a few do, but it requires a very very large supercruiser to justify the cost.
the pellet itself would be hard to get.. most of the time, you don't find large amounts of radioactive material just laying around. you have to create the material (either intentionally or inadvertantly.)
oh, i just thought of something, if you want to make a steam powered car, that requires a water resevoir, which adds size and weight.
all in all, i do not think a nuclear car would be a realistic possibility. i think you could make one, and possibly, if u were at least suv sized, you might get a decent working one. the public, though, would have a hard time swallowing it.

 

[zephyrprime]

Is there enough material in a car to effectively shield the radiation?

 

[jackwhitter]

zephyr,
the amount of shielding would be dependent on the type of radioactive material, as different kinds of radiation would be emitted. ie, alpha, beta, or gamma...

 

[Cogman]

Here is something more Fesable. 1st, Nuclear Fision will never work as you cant provide enough protection the the driver from the heat, and in a crash Nuclearwaste would be spilled everywhere creating mass havoc. If you could get cold fusion to work that could be a possibility as it is much safer and can fit in a small box. So whats and Alternative? Hydrogen Powered Cars . yep, all you need is a glass of h20 and A spark and you can make Hydrogen power cars. Its not as hard as people might want you to think, Hydrogen burns better and is vastly more avalible to the general public (Duhh,,,,,). Where Im from they already have Hydrogen powered buses. Cars arnt far off. Only problem is oil companys buy off anyone who tryes to release the Idea to the general public as It could cost them their entire industry.

 

[dkozloski]

Cogman, let me get this straight, you claim that water burns? You better go tell the firefighters before they make a big mistake. If you are claiming that hydrogen can be separated from water and then used to power a car you are correct. The problem is that it takes energy from somewhere to perform this separation and as strange as it may seem, in the same amount that will be reclaimed when the hyrogen is recombined with oxygen. Also storage of hydrogen in liquid form is extremely difficult and dangerous.

 

[KenGr]

A lot of fun stuff here. A couple of corrections and additions:

You can have a "single pellet" reactor. A mass that is subcritical can be made critical by increasing the moderation (reflecting and slowing more neutrons in the region of the core) or removing poison (neutron capturing materials). In fact that is how reactors work. The fuel is fixed in place and the rods or boron content of the water (poisons) are removed to start the reaction.

In talking nuclear you have to distinguish between "critical" and "supercritical" and degrees thereof. A reactor operates at criticality at steady power, slightly supercritical when increasing power, slightly subcritical when decreasing power. A reactor does have to have critical mass and operate critically. Some of the heat comes from fission and some comes from decay of unstable decay products. In comparison a bomb is massively supercritical. Think of driving your car and slightly increasing or decreasing pressure on the accelerator. That's a reactor. Then think of sticking your foot through the floor, through the radiator and grill and about 20 miles down the road. That's a bomb.

It's correct that a nuclear powered car would be so heavy to be impractical. However nuclear is an excellent source for producing hydrogen, electricity, or enabling compressed air powered cars, all of which are under development. The problem with all viable alternative power systems for cars is that they need some type of energy system infrastructure to provide the new fuel.

Also, the Air Force did develop the concept for a nuclear powered airplane. It would work but was deemed too expensive and limited in capability before anything was actually built.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: dkozloski
Cogman, let me get this straight, you claim that water burns? You better go tell the firefighters before they make a big mistake. If you are claiming that hydrogen can be separated from water and then used to power a car you are correct. The problem is that it takes energy from somewhere to perform this separation and as strange as it may seem, in the same amount that will be reclaimed when the hyrogen is recombined with oxygen. Also storage of hydrogen in liquid form is extremely difficult and dangerous.

That's basic Conservation of Energy. Thing is, we need efficient storage methods. We already put a lot of energy into refining gasoline; that energy is stored in the gasoline and part of it is released when it burns.
As for storing hydrogen in liquid form, it may not be too difficult or dangerous. Hydrogen is stored in pressurized tanks that can withstand an intense fire and direct impacts without bursting. This keeps it in liquid form, and it keeps it safer than the fuel in a gasoline vehicle.
But yes, the oil companies do not want this to catch on, as it could easily take a chunk out of their pockets.

It might be interesting to research this further; I'm just thinking of some possible impacts: I don't know how hydrogen is obtained other than from water through electrolysis. That would mean increased demand for electricity - we'd need to produce clean power plants. I've long been a supporter of nuclear power, but we still don't know what to do with all the waste. It's still economically unfeasible to launch it into the sun, which I'd think to be the best option. It'll be completely vaporized there and cause no harm to anyone. Solar energy needs work in terms of efficiency and storage.
If we use electrolysis to get hydrogen, that could be yet another drain on the world's supply of fresh water. There's still plenty of hurdles though, regardless of using oil-based (pollution, limited supply) or hydrogen (finding and powering the sources).

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: Jeff7we still don't know what to do with all the waste. It's still economically unfeasible to launch it into the sun, which I'd think to be the best option. It'll be completely vaporized there and cause no harm to anyone.

... unless one single launch goes wrong. Don't tell me it doesn't happen.

That was the major concern with the Voyager launches ... right after that: what happens if an alien race did catch one of them, only to find that those faraway humans sent a deadly capsule? Oh look, there's a map about how to get to them ...

 

[ZYFER]

this iwll not happen cause its just not safe, it would turn every car into a minature nuclear warhead which would be messy even if only a fender bender, as well as they will be used for weapons to kill people my terrorists and insane peeps. but beyond that its possible to do

 

[kadajawi]

hmm, a supporter of nuclear energy? Well, what to do with the waste? Send into the sun... lol, naw. What if something goes wrong or the is some bad bad reaction in the sun due to this?
While I still prefer nuclear energy over many other techniques (mainly due to the price ) there are better alternatives out there IMHO. Solar energy, wind, water etc. I don't know where you live but Europe was quite a bit affected by Tscher... eh, you know, the nuclear power plant in(?) Russia.

 

[Peter]

Chernobyl. Sellafield. The lab in Japan that almost went boom. The Russian military shipwreck site that's just waiting to go boom (and almost did a few years ago because the authorities turned their power off because the bills were not paid). Apart from all the land spoiled forever in the nuclear "testing", we have enough radioactive waste floating around already - and still no idea on what to do with it.

 

[KenGr]

Nuclear makes sense only for stationary central power applications. If oil ever went sky high in price, it would be cost effective for commercial ocean going ships, but we've got a ways to go before those costs work out. Nuclear fits into the transportation sector because of the base load efficiency of nuclear plants which encourages use of electricity conversion to stored forms such as hydrogen, compressed air, flywheels, batteries, etc.

Nuclear waste is only a political issue, not a technical issue. The actual amount of high level waste is small when you consider commercial nuclear power is used to generate about 20% of the electricity in the world. It only seems large when you look at the absolute magnitude and don't compare it to the amount of waste products produced by fossil fuel processes. If you don't like long term storage there are a couple of transmutation options. This process places the high level long life radionuclides in a high neutron field (reactor or the target of a beam accelerator) so they either fission or are converted to a stable isotope. This approach takes the "thousands of years" storage target down to a hundred years or so - and produces energy in the process. Argonne National Lab was ready to build a reactor (inherently safe, fuel that can't melt) based on this waste cycle a number of years ago but the Congress stopped funding, apparently preferring to keep the issue as a political football.

I won't get into the Russians problems, but the US has had commercial nuclear power for 45 years and has never harmed a member of the public. Nuclear power is probably the safest large industry in the country.

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: dkozloski
Cogman, let me get this straight, you claim that water burns? You better go tell the firefighters before they make a big mistake. If you are claiming that hydrogen can be separated from water and then used to power a car you are correct. The problem is that it takes energy from somewhere to perform this separation and as strange as it may seem, in the same amount that will be reclaimed when the hyrogen is recombined with oxygen. Also storage of hydrogen in liquid form is extremely difficult and dangerous.

Water DOES burn- if you try to spray it on a hot enough fire.

Look into it some time.... basically, the heat from the fire separates the oxygen & hydrogen in the water before it even lands. What are oxygen & hydrogen? Damn good fire fuel!

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Peter
Chernobyl. Sellafield. The lab in Japan that almost went boom. The Russian military shipwreck site that's just waiting to go boom (and almost did a few years ago because the authorities turned their power off because the bills were not paid). Apart from all the land spoiled forever in the nuclear "testing", we have enough radioactive waste floating around already - and still no idea on what to do with it.

actually we know exactly what to do with it - bury it, launch it into space, drown it in the ocean, store it as we do now.... nuclear waste isnt a problem, despite what the hippies want you to believe

 

[Shalmanese]

Well, what to do with the waste? Send into the sun... lol, naw. What if something goes wrong or the is some bad bad reaction in the sun due to this?

Thats laughable. The sun has such a massive nuclear reaction going within it that a cuple of hudred kg of nuclear materials would do nothing. Its like ants in an ant colony wondering if them eating up a leaf will co ntribute to global warming.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: josphII exactly what to do with it - bury it, launch it into space, drown it in the ocean, store it as we do now.... nuclear waste isnt a problem, despite what the hippies want you to believe

You get 1st prize for the most laughable posting in this thread.

No matter where on Earth you put it, it's going to affect something and someone sometime. Launching the stuff into space involves launching it - how many launches go wrong, with the debris sprinkled all over the place?

You don't need to be a hippie to understand this, just a brain owner.

 

[dpopiz]

No matter where on Earth you put it, it's going to affect something and someone sometime

not if you use the subduction zone method. create a stable opening to a oceanic subduction zone, place barrels there and they're guaranteed not to be recycled to volcanoes for thousands of years (probably as another element). magma already has tons of high radioactive material in it anyway. this method is being researched extensively and is growing in popularity because, not only is it the ultimate solution, it's thought to be very safe.

 

[KenGr]

Water DOES burn- if you try to spray it on a hot enough fire.

Well, not exactly. Burning is an exothermic reaction where more heat energy is released than is used to ignite the substance. The energy required to dissociate the Hydrogen and Oxygen is equal to the energy yeild from the H/O reaction. Therefore, no net energy gain. We usually talk about two kinds of combustion, those that will support themselves (i.e., you get it up to ignition temperature and it will continue to burn) and those which are self extinguishing (they will burn and give off excess heat if adequate heat is supplied, but if heat is removed they won't (due to heat being given off) maintain temperature of combustion). Water doesn't qualify under either scenario since there is no net energy yield.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Originally posted by: dpopiz

No matter where on Earth you put it, it's going to affect something and someone sometime

not if you use the subduction zone method. create a stable opening to a oceanic subduction zone, place barrels there and they're guaranteed not to be recycled to volcanoes for thousands of years (probably as another element). magma already has tons of high radioactive material in it anyway. this method is being researched extensively and is growing in popularity because, not only is it the ultimate solution, it's thought to be very safe.

This is the best way IMO. Radioactive energy is what keeps the earth "hot" anyway, so if you think about it we're really doing the earth a favor by extending it's active life a bit.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: Peter
Anything generating waste that, apart from being insanely toxic, remains dangerous for some 10000 years is definitely not worth thinking about.

Hell, just toss the used pellets out your drivers window at the ricer following you to closely

LOL

 

[Peter]

nb, this above Peter isn't me. I don't have roommates, I own a flat

 

[IdahoB]

Ideally you want any kind of transport to be as light as possible for efficiency (if a vehicle weighs 20 times more than it's passengers, it's only 5% efficient, not even taking into account fuel efficiency, which is pretty low already for petrochemicals).

Personally I see either electric or hyrdogen powered cars to be the eventual solution - hydrogen can be stored perfectly safely under high pressure and it doesn't even have to be in liquid form (although this does mean you can store a lot more in the same space).

Both of these methods require the fuel to be produced elsewhere, but I also believe that we'll eventually crack sustainable fusion one day, and then all our power problems will disappear, since the amount of hydrogen needed to create huge amounts of energy from fusion is pretty minimal comparitively.

I'm not sure about the byproducts of a fusion reactor, but since sustainable fusion would mean vast amounts of cheap energy, I'm sure we could work something out to get rid of any waste.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Peter

Originally posted by: Jeff7we still don't know what to do with all the waste. It's still economically unfeasible to launch it into the sun, which I'd think to be the best option. It'll be completely vaporized there and cause no harm to anyone.

... unless one single launch goes wrong. Don't tell me it doesn't happen.

That was the major concern with the Voyager launches ... right after that: what happens if an alien race did catch one of them, only to find that those faraway humans sent a deadly capsule? Oh look, there's a map about how to get to them ...

Yes, it does happen. Doesn't mean that they can't make it safer. If I remember right, the probe Cassini had to make a pass by Earth to get to Saturn. The doomsday nuts were saying that it would crash into Earth and kill many with the radioactive power generator. The radioactive material was encased in ceramic, and likely would have survived re-entry and impact without releasing any dangerous radiation.

That was the major concern with the Voyager launches ... right after that: what happens if an alien race did catch one of them, only to find that those faraway humans sent a deadly capsule?

I'd hope that they'd be smart enough to figure out that it's just a probe.

What if something goes wrong or the is some bad bad reaction in the sun due to this?

The sun is unbelievably huge. We could probably plunge the planet into the sun and it wouldn't really care.
Here's some specs on the sun I got off Nasa's site:
Diameter: 1391000km (864327mi)
Mass: 1.989 × 10^30 kg (think that's 2.1925015515 x 10^27 tons)
Earth:
Diameter: 12756.28km (7926.385mi)
Mass: 5.9742 × 10^24 kg (6.58543 x 10^21 tons)
Sending a few million tons of waste into the sun probably wouldn't have any effect at all on it.
(Thank you's go to this site for the unit conversion, and to NASA:
Sun
Earth

actually we know exactly what to do with it - bury it, launch it into space, drown it in the ocean, store it as we do now.... nuclear waste isnt a problem, despite what the hippies want you to believe

Problem with keeping it on the planet is of how to warn the distant future of what may lie beneath certain areas of the planet. What kind of symbol will be recognized in thousands of years as meaning "DANGER" and not "hey, this is interesting stuff in here."

Look into it some time.... basically, the heat from the fire separates the oxygen & hydrogen in the water before it even lands. What are oxygen & hydrogen? Damn good fire fuel!

So, would that be burning water, or just burning hydrogen?

not if you use the subduction zone method. create a stable opening to a oceanic subduction zone, place barrels there and they're guaranteed not to be recycled to volcanoes for thousands of years (probably as another element). magma already has tons of high radioactive material in it anyway. this method is being researched extensively and is growing in popularity because, not only is it the ultimate solution, it's thought to be very safe.

Any links on this? It sounds interesting.

 

[Daovonnaex]

Ford actually designed a concept car which used atomic power (with a functional nuclear reactor!) in 1958. Not surprisingly, it never saw production (who would've ever guessed?).

 

[grant2]

Look into it some time.... basically, the heat from the fire separates the oxygen & hydrogen in the water before it even lands. What are oxygen & hydrogen? Damn good fire fuel!

So, would that be burning water, or just burning hydrogen?

Oxygen burns too