Nuclear powered car

[5936]

Anyone out there with the WHO, HOW, WHAT, WHEN , WHERE of nuclear power car?

 

Sounds crazy, maybe.

 

No need refuel, engine( reactor) very small is enough. maybe size of 1.5L petbottle.

 

But....... when CRASH....... NUDE...Leak...

 

[Lotz]

Anyone out there with the WHO, HOW, WHAT, WHEN , WHERE of nuclear power car?

 

Sounds crazy, maybe.

 

No need refuel, engine( reactor) very small is enough. maybe size of 1.5L petbottle.

 

But....... when CRASH....... NUDE...Leak...

 

 

Should be a very good option with our current needs but because of terrorism concern , this is a no, no, no.

[5936]

Thanks for the first reply.

 

let's see how far this topic can bring us.

[Mini-itx]

Anyone out there with the WHO, HOW, WHAT, WHEN , WHERE of nuclear power car?

 

Sounds crazy, maybe.

 

No need refuel, engine( reactor) very small is enough. maybe size of 1.5L petbottle.

 

But....... when CRASH....... NUDE...Leak...

 

Hmm..... Not anytime soon. The only reactor that could have the size of a 1.5L bottle is perhaps old fusion. But then, the amt of energy produced is so tiny.

 

One possibility is thermocople (same as thsoe nuclear powered satellites). But then, don't know if it could produce neough power for cars.

 

As for vessel rupture during accident, its not really an issue. Cause the vessel (if built properly) is literally bullet proof. Even if your own car goes, the reactor will be left intact. Of course, lugging such a big piece of dead weight around is.... not exaclty great.....

 

IF you want to talk about safety... its CNG thats really unsafe. Have seen photos of CNG tanks exploded and fly 20-30m away.

[Rainman]

Anyone out there with the WHO, HOW, WHAT, WHEN , WHERE of nuclear power car?

 

Sounds crazy, maybe.

 

No need refuel, engine( reactor) very small is enough. maybe size of 1.5L petbottle.

 

But....... when CRASH....... NUDE...Leak...

 

Watch too much of ironman movies?

 

It's not impossible, but to make it safe and cheap for everyone else, maybe it will take decades....

 

I say bring us the hydrocell technology first lah~

 

 

[Happily1986]

Hmm..... Not anytime soon. The only reactor that could have the size of a 1.5L bottle is perhaps old fusion. But then, the amt of energy produced is so tiny.

 

One possibility is thermocople (same as thsoe nuclear powered satellites). But then, don't know if it could produce neough power for cars.

 

As for vessel rupture during accident, its not really an issue. Cause the vessel (if built properly) is literally bullet proof. Even if your own car goes, the reactor will be left intact. Of course, lugging such a big piece of dead weight around is.... not exaclty great.....

 

IF you want to talk about safety... its CNG thats really unsafe. Have seen photos of CNG tanks exploded and fly 20-30m away.

 

Since when is nuclear fusion old? Old school as far as the sun is concerned yesss. But current technology focus more on nuclear fission because nuclear fusion is still unstable and no mature enough for a scale capable of producing MWs let alone GWs.

 

Anyway, the nuclear fallout associated with nuclear incidents is essentially a disadvantage of nuclear fission NOT fusion.

 

A little lesson on nuclear physics here:

 

Arranging the elements in the periodic table in increasing order of nucleon number, you have Hydrogen running through Iron right till the mega size elements such as Plutonium etc.

 

The atomic stability(ies) of the lightweight elements and the heavy elements are low on either side of this series. The most stable elements lie smack in the middle somewhere around the nucleon number 58 around Iron.

 

This stability series is thus sort of a classic bellshape curve wrt nucleon number.

 

What this means is that lightweight elements such as H and He tends to want to get clump together to obtain a congregate nucleon mass number near 58.

 

This tendency is the basis for nuclear fusion

 

On the other hand, the biggies such as Plutonium and Uranium would tend to break up to form more stable elements. Sometimes they break up spontaneously i.e. decay but in the nuclear reactor, this is stimulated by smashing them with accelerated protons and whats not. This tendency to break up is thus the basis for nuclear fission.

 

Nuclear fission IS dangerous because you need the biggies and the biggies almost certainly decay on a constant basis and when they break up, emission of dangerous ionising invisible EM light occurs e.g. gamma rays.

 

Nuclear fusion IS NOT dangerous. Since when you heard of Hydrogen gas undergoing spontaneous decay? The starting feedstock and products for nuclear fusion is safe. Hack if we do it on a massive scale, there might even be a viability to produce Iron etc out of thin air literally. But this is not viable now because nuclear fusion is not really that stable on a massive scale yet.

 

Thus if one bugger ever manage to put a tiny nuclear fusion reactor in the car, maybe we can rejoice.

 

[Mini-itx]

Since when is nuclear fusion old? Old school as far as the sun is concerned yesss. But current technology focus more on nuclear fission because nuclear fusion is still unstable and no mature enough for a scale capable of producing MWs let alone GWs.

 

Anyway, the nuclear fallout associated with nuclear incidents is essentially a disadvantage of nuclear fission NOT fusion.

 

A little lesson on nuclear physics here:

 

Arranging the elements in the periodic table in increasing order of nucleon number, you have Hydrogen running through Iron right till the mega size elements such as Plutonium etc.

 

The atomic stability(ies) of the lightweight elements and the heavy elements are low on either side of this series. The most stable elements lie smack in the middle somewhere around the nucleon number 58 around Iron.

 

This stability series is thus sort of a classic bellshape curve wrt nucleon number.

 

What this means is that lightweight elements such as H and He tends to want to get clump together to obtain a congregate nucleon mass number near 58.

 

This tendency is the basis for nuclear fusion

 

On the other hand, the biggies such as Plutonium and Uranium would tend to break up to form more stable elements. Sometimes they break up spontaneously i.e. decay but in the nuclear reactor, this is stimulated by smashing them with accelerated protons and whats not. This tendency to break up is thus the basis for nuclear fission.

 

Nuclear fission IS dangerous because you need the biggies and the biggies almost certainly decay on a constant basis and when they break up, emission of dangerous ionising invisible EM light occurs e.g. gamma rays.

 

Nuclear fusion IS NOT dangerous. Since when you heard of Hydrogen gas undergoing spontaneous decay? The starting feedstock and products for nuclear fusion is safe. Hack if we do it on a massive scale, there might even be a viability to produce Iron etc out of thin air literally. But this is not viable now because nuclear fusion is not really that stable on a massive scale yet.

 

Thus if one bugger ever manage to put a tiny nuclear fusion reactor in the car, maybe we can rejoice.

 

Lo... Sorry, I meant to say cold fusion.... missed out the c....lol

[Jawsbiteu]

try not to get melt down when u are driving

[Ken4555]

wah... many scientists here....

[Eyke]

any car can be nuclear powered,

just pour in "ATOM POWER"

[Vroomtattat]

Anyone out there with the WHO, HOW, WHAT, WHEN , WHERE of nuclear power car?

 

Sounds crazy, maybe.

 

No need refuel, engine( reactor) very small is enough. maybe size of 1.5L petbottle.

 

But....... when CRASH....... NUDE...Leak...

 

You're referring to Ark II?

[Japan96]

If a nuclear car explode in singapore all die

[Requiemdk]

Wasn't it already invented in the 80s?

 

 

[5936]

COOL picture.

 

Back to the future...... fantastic..

[5936]

This is very encouraging. Fussil fuel will deplete one day and alternative fuel are all too slow to go really full scale to the mass mkt. Growth of Hybrids and CNG cars are too slow.

 

Cheers

[Friendstar]

This is very encouraging. Fussil fuel will deplete one day and alternative fuel are all too slow to go really full scale to the mass mkt. Growth of Hybrids and CNG cars are too slow.

 

Cheers

 

 

growth of hybrids/cng cars can be sensational overnight.

 

but u need govt to spearhead it.

 

 

[Genie47]

You can still remember Ark II?!

 

Damn old children series.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_II

 

At that time, I liked the cool design of the mobile Ark II.

[Limbat]

A futuristic fuel cell will solve our motoring problems .................