Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lets go Nuclear!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

    There would definatly be no hiding it out in Amarillo. Put it out in the Desert Northeast of the City and Let her pump away. They already deactivate most of the Nuc Missles right down the road East of town (Pantex). They already have Bell Helicopter, Oil, Natural Gas, and one of the only places with Natural Helium. The only drawback is that it is far away from everywhere.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

      Originally posted by vaporloc
      It was tryed in aircraft and worked.. A B-36 made 47 successful flights using a one-megawatt reactor before the nuclear test ban treaty, that was in the works put an end to any further development.. This aircraft could be airborne longer then most air crews could withstand...And this was in the late 50's and early 60's before computers could help with design of a smaller reactor..
      http://www.nuclear.com/history/Nuclear_airplanes.html
      doesn't Feynman have the patent on the nuclear airplane? it was supposed to be a joke....

      I like this quote from the link: "The downside to divided shielding is that it allows for high radiation rates everywhere else in the airframe and into the environment."

      Seriously, nuclear reactors are not something we want all over the place. It makes sense to have a relativly small number of big reactors, and a whole bunch of electric or hydrogen powered cars using the power that the nukes make, stored either in batteries, as compressed gas, or as a hydride.

      My fabulous web page

      "If it don't go, chrome it!" --Stroker McGurk

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

        The nuclear batteries on satelites are just thermocouples sorrounding an Alpha and Beta decay source that generates heat which is converted to electricities by the semiconductors. Really low power outputs due to the effeciency of the thermocouples and the low heat generated by the decaying isotope (usually Plutonium 238 I think). I wouldn't want one of those in a car because your delta-T would be horrible in the atmosphere and that's what's driving the thermocouples to a higher efficiency level and even then you only get like 100W at peak decay.
        Central TEXAS Sleeper
        USAF Physicist

        ROA# 9790

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

          Originally posted by dagenesta
          Its simple: we need reactors.

          As far as them not being safe in cars-- people used to think all kinds of things (and some still do). For example, people used to have the perception that travelling at the rate of one mile per minute (60 mph) would tear your skin off. People also believed that gasoline was extremely explosive, and too dangerous to carry around in the tank of a car going as fast as 30 mph. You know of any others? I for one think that reactors in cars could be made safe enough, even in the event of a crash.
          The US Navy has a perfect safety record, but they have two reactors sitting at the bottom of the ocean. In the late 1950's-early 1960's (Farrenshell probably remebers the years or dates) two submarines, the USS Scorpion and the USS Thresher both sank at sea with all hands. The sites of the reactors are monitored to this day and there has been no leakage.

          Granted Naval reactors are extremely heavy duty and over engineered, but I am betting if 50's technology can last at the bottom of the ocean for 50+ years we could engineer a car that would last during a crash. The problem I see more so than safety is the cost.

          What makes a reactor a cost efficient solution for electrical power is economy of scale. They build nuclear power plants for naval vessels in the 50 Mega watt size range (and bigger). Nuclear power plants dwarf naval reactors in size. The maintenance of a small reactor like in a car would be VERY expensive compared to the actual energy produced so I doubt it would be cost effective.

          Just think, you still need all the parts of a reactor and the maintenance that goes with them. Condensers, feed pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, steam valves, etc. Not to mention the chemistry of the primary and secondary coolant loops. NOT cheap stuff to maintain.

          I like NUC power though, definitely need to build more plants in the US. Did you guys know that France gets over 75% of its electric power from NUC plants?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

            The metals required to ensure adequate shielding from the radiation would cost a small fortune....Most of them (Metals used are classified) cost in excess of $500-$1000 a pound....And these are not lightweight materials....

            I am a huge advocate for Nuclear power, but the technology to make it efficient for Automobiles is not yet available....

            Fortunately the Scorpion and the Thresher...The two nuclear submarines sank because of reasons other than the power plant...One suffered a torpedo failure in the tube and the other had the emergency blow lines freeze due to lack of a high pressure air dryer...

            It would be cool....but....These cars would be HEAVY....Think Tank heavy

            Seth
            200 mph or bust.......

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

              Originally posted by fahrenschnell
              The metals required to ensure adequate shielding from the radiation would cost a small fortune....Most of them (Metals used are classified) cost in excess of $500-$1000 a pound....And these are not lightweight materials....

              A.K.A. unobtanium.
              It's really no different than trying to glue them back on after she has her way.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

                Shielding efficiency is a function of electron density in the material. Believe it or not, water is a really good radio absorber due to the hydrogen, however its not very dense so you'd need a lot of it. The economy of scale on these things would be horrible. Somethings just don't work well in small sizes.
                Central TEXAS Sleeper
                USAF Physicist

                ROA# 9790

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

                  Thresher was 1963. It sank due to flooding from failure of a brazed seawater connection (as best as a board of inquiry can determine.) The emergency blow (initiated after the flooding) was ineffective due to the reasons above.

                  Scorpion was 1965. Cause is still controversial (board of inquiry wouldn't commit to a clear cause) and subject of many a conspiracy theory. The one I believe (read Blind Man's Bluff for the best stuff) is that it was heat from a poorly designed battery in a torpedo slowly built up and caused a fire that cooked off the torpedo fuel and eventually explosives.

                  I have a hard time believing anyone is monitoring the sites for radioactivity. What better place to store an old reactor than a few miles under the water? No better shielding than that.
                  1967 Chevelle 300 2 Door Post. No factory options. 250 ci inline six with lump-ported head, big valves, Offy intake and 500cfm Edelbrock carb.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Lets go Nuclear!!!

                    Originally posted by CTX-SLPR
                    Shielding efficiency is a function of electron density in the material. Believe it or not, water is a really good radio absorber due to the hydrogen, however its not very dense so you'd need a lot of it. The economy of scale on these things would be horrible. Somethings just don't work well in small sizes.
                    Water- 36" needed to reduce radioactivity by 1/2
                    Lead- 2" needed for same result

                    Heavy either way...

                    Seth
                    200 mph or bust.......

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X