| Author |
Message
|
| medlakeguy |
 Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: nuclear car |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
| as i understand it, you can generate a good amount of electricity with a device called an rtg... (look it up). they've been using them for deep space missions since the 70's and the technology's been around for longer. you can also use things like strontium that cant be weaponized and they last for decades. so what do you think, is the nuclear car a good idea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1675
Location: Pennsylvania
|
http://www.qmetrics.com/radioisotope_thermoelectric_generato.htm
| Quote: |
| A typical RTG produces about 230 watts of electricity and will operate unattended for years. It is ideal for interplanetary travel, not only because of its long power-generating life span, but also its compactness. A typical RTG measures 45 inches in height, 18 inches in diameter, and weighs only about 123 pounds. |
230 watts works out to about 1/3 horsepower and I don't think I'd want to drive around with radioactive material under the hood of my car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| medlakeguy |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
| Quote: |
| 230 watts works out to about 1/3 horsepower and I don't think I'd want to drive around with radioactive material under the hood of my car. |
maybe add a conventional battery that could be charged by the nuclear one? as far as the radioactivity, why not just shield it with some lead? it'd be heavy but its practically free energy after the initial cost of manufacturing it. you'd never need to pump gas, maybe just park for a few hours when the battery starts running low |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1675
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| medlakeguy wrote: |
maybe add a conventional battery that could be charged by the nuclear one? as far as the radioactivity, why not just shield it with some lead? it'd be heavy but its practically free energy after the initial cost of manufacturing it. you'd never need to pump gas, maybe just park for a few hours when the battery starts running low |
Spoken like someone who has never dealt with radioactivity or radioactive material. To get any useful amount of decay heat, that thing would have to be screaming hot, radiologically. After you have added a few tons of lead for the shielding and some more for the battery, it's not going to have the power to move itself around. And you will still have to deal with possible crashes, and disposal of the used fuel. I think after you added the manufacturing and disposal costs, a lifetime supply of gasoline would look pretty cheap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| medlakeguy |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
well, plutonium doesn't need much shielding. you could do away with the lead... and it decays almost completely into lead after a century or two right? so disposal shouldn't be a problem. just keep it buried it for a hundred years or so. as far as a crash goes you just have to keep its container sealed well enough and it could be removed pretty easily and recycled/disposed of...
not impossible, certainly more viable than hydrogen or ethanol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1675
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| medlakeguy wrote: |
well, plutonium doesn't need much shielding. you could do away with the lead... and it decays almost completely into lead after a century or two right? so disposal shouldn't be a problem. just keep it buried it for a hundred years or so. as far as a crash goes you just have to keep its container sealed well enough and it could be removed pretty easily and recycled/disposed of...
not impossible, certainly more viable than hydrogen or ethanol |
Okay, you're right about the shielding of plutonium, which is an alpha emitter. But it's also very dangerous stuff, and the only place to get it is from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. I'd be very surprised if it ever is used for automobiles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| medlakeguy |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
lookin at it again, it might be bad for the environment, all those alpha particles have to go somewhere.
i did hear somewhere that plutonium was used in some pacemakers, i guess if it's safe enough to be in your body its safe enough for a car. might be wrong...
on the good side, plutonium used for batteries is a different isotope than the kind used for weapons, so no crazy could take their car apart and make a bomb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
