People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.

Poisoning? The nuclear fuel can easily be placed in containers which
are bullet-proof even explosive-proof. These materials do exist. As
for terrorism, how are you going to extract the nuclear material?

The nuclear material for a power plant on a car would not be of the
grade or type to build any bomb worth worrying about.

You mention the fear of terrorism but yet we have gasoline everywhere.
I could build a very deadly bomb with gasoline.

You can also produce gunpowder, you don't even need to buy it and be
worried about "questions" from the dealer.
C-4 can be made very easily. Many types of chemical agents can be made
easily.

I'm more worried about the terrorist going into a mall with a tractor
trailer of gasoline or hydrogen, aren't you?

You could also regulate the nuclear powered cars to the point that no
matter where you were the car would be monitored via gps.

Even nuclear power plants are required to sustain a certain amount of
explosive yield. Simply dropping a 500 pound bomb on one wouldn't
endanger anyone except the nuclear power plant workers.

We have radioactive material in things like smoke detectors and other
items, even some paint. With enough time someone could build a small
nuke, but are you worried about it?

If we went 100% Nuclear powered for cars we would reduce the
production of gasoline by 90% and thus reduce the need to import oil.

As far as power, you could easily govern the cars to only have a
maximum speed.

Go ask a truck driver. Many tractor trailer companies govern their
trucks to only do 70 mph. The engine would easily allow them to do
well over 100 mph but it's a governed system. Same could be done with
a nuclear powered car.

How about this: Couldn't we just test the idea? Maybe produce 100 cars
and let certain people test them for a few weeks and see how things
go? Why must we dismiss an idea without even a test run?

thanks for your time.

 

Do tell, just *how* are you going to build a power plant of sufficient
size and weight to power a personal passenger vehicle?

How do you propose to extract the energy from the nuclear material?

Do you know how much fissionable material it takes to sustain a nuclear
reaction?

Do you know how big and heavy your "nuclear fuel container" will have to
be? How much shielding will be required to protect people from the
radiation?

How do you propose to cool this power plant?

How will you protect against coolant leaks?

How complex will the control systems have to be? Safety systems? How much
weight and size will they add to the vehicle?

Using a nuclear power plant in a huge tonnage vehicle such as a submarine
or aircraft carrier is one thing, a personal passenger is something else
entirely.

If it were even remotely feasible to power a relatively small land vehicle
in that manner the military would be all over it. Maintaining supply lines
for fuel to power tanks and other vehicles is a huge
consideration in engaging in military campaigns.

 

And, as I said, the energy used in that process is negligible compared
to the amount of energy which can be derived from the nuclear fuel
produced.

 

I am talking about a nuclear power plant which generates electricity
to be stored in the batteries of an electric car. There is no nuclear
fuel on board the car. That would be stupid.

 

The BTU content in high-octane fuel is the same as in regualar octane fuel.
Higher octane fuel allows some engines to run more efficiently, but if one
is thinking in terms from extracting the crude out of the ground to getting
burned inthe engine, high octane probably does not provide a net benefit to
the environment.

Oil change every 5k miles, yes, getting as tune-up every 5 K miles would be
a waste of parts and resources. It would take more energy to produce the
spark plugs, wires, etc. than the efficieny gained in the engine.

 

All you need to do to get started is get people to pay for 300 or so nuclear
power plants to replace the plants that use fossil fuel.

Jeff

 

I'm curious how such an animal would work, if it existed. I imagine
it would have the same flaw as a Steam Engine or a Hydrogen Fuel Cell:

- long warmup time.

If you hop into a hydrogen fuel cell car, you have to wait 20-30
minutes for the cell to "warm up" and develop enough power to move the
car. I imagine a nuclear-powered car, being essentially a steam
engine, would have the exact same flaw.

 

Then they'd probably build horse-drawn carriages like the Amish-
americans. (Who do NOT need a license to use the roads.) You take
away a person's car, they'll find another way to get around. Like
wagons.

As for the previous poster who said, "We are not any better than the
1960's": That's not technically true. Cars have improved, not in
efficiency but in cleanliness. A modern car outputs only 0.01% as
many poisons as a car of the 60's.

 

They have these neat things called "batteries" that are able to store
electrical energy. My computer has one. And even my old 386sx computer from
about 20 years ago had one. You can use batteries to store electricity from
the fuel cell while it is warming as well as to meet high-demands, like
passing or going over hills. The batteries also can be used to store
electricity converted from kinetic energy when the car is slowing down, as
hybrids do today. This is problematic, because there is no infrastructure in
place to support hydrogen fueling of the cars and there are not yet
efficient fuel cells that burn hydrocarbons, like gasolines, yet.

Nuclear generators don't have to use steam. They can use thermoelectric
generators like they do in spacecraft, especially spacecraft that travel to
the outer planets, where the amount of sunlight reaching them is much less
than the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. The ones in space can
produce around 300 W each. You would have to use batteries store this
energy, becaues using even ten of these units (3 kW) is nowhere near enough
to power a car (3 kW is about 4 HP). This leads to several problems, like
getting enough of the right source of energy (plutonium 210), safety issues
with having radioactivity on board, issues related to terrorists (like
terrorists crush the plutonium and putting the dust into a convential bomb
to contaminate a wide area), as well as radiactivty disposal issues. In
addition, if the unit is a steam unit, you will run into a radiation problem
whenever there is a steam leak. And that's not something most mechanics want
to take. Quite frankly, it make more sense to me to use more commonly used
ways to convert radient energy to electricity (i.e., solar panels) in the
electrical grid, and use the electrical grid to charge cars. Optionally, you
can develop solar panels that bend, so you can cover your car with them.

Jeff

 

I was going to suggest something about 200 times smaller, or maybe a
(small) pumpkin pulled by white mice who could probably go just about
400 miles on a gallon of Nutrisystems before dropping dead, but not
before California gave them clearance to use the carpool lanes!

J.

 

I wondered how they could tell which end was which, or which side
was up, on those unmarked blocks. Maybe it didn't matter -- the
read/write receptacle could handle the things in any orientation.

 

I remember watching reruns in the mid 70s. Scottie said he would like to get
a look at the tranisters on a spaceship from earth the 1990s. I had every
little understanding of computers, but I remember thinking to myself that
transiters are already being replaced with chips. Of course, i didn't
understand that chips had transisters on them, though.

Jeff

 

Yes I know, but the early fuel-celled cars didn't have that. It's
only been a few years that companies thought to create Hydrogen-
Electric hybrids.

Yeah that would probably work. Except as you point out:

So it's not a useful source of energy for a mobile car.

Agreed. Or solar-powered liquid fuel like Ethanol or Biodiesel, and
just continue using the already-available engines.

 

The problem with using aluminum is that it requires a higher

Aluminum has a rather low melting point (~1200 degrees F). It can't
possibly be the reason aluminum parts are more costly to produce then
steel (?). There are complications in getting castings done right I'm
told. It's also a rarer element I guess, and that contributes to the
cost.

 

1. LOTS of electricity is required to refine bauxite. This is why
it's so cost-effective to recycle.

2. It oxidizes if you look at it. You can't just forge it in open air.
--scott

 

1. LOTS of electricity is required to refine bauxite. This is why

Then the cost has more to do with refining the material from it's raw
state then casting ingot or what have you. Lots of electricity is
required to melt anything, but the least of these is aluminum. Copper
melts at about 2000 degrees, and steel is up around 2800. Loads more
would be required to refine/melt those elements/alloys.

 

Refining aluminum is a process of electrolysis, hence the requirement
for large amounts of
electricity. The process was invented/discovered in Oberlin, Ohio by a
Mr. Hall who was,
I believe, a recent graduate of Oberlin College at the time of the
invention.