Basic Nuclear Engine

[markwolfe Veteran]

What would be the nuclear fuel? And which type of nuclear power are you going with? Fusion or fission. One produces waste, and the other does not.

I'm pretty sure fusion produces waste, too. The matter doesn't just disappear. :ermm:

[Mr. Gibs]

What would be the nuclear fuel? And which type of nuclear power are you going with? Fusion or fission. One produces waste, and the other does not.

Hahahaha nuclear fusion through a car engine?

Fusion requires enormous pressure and temperatures, like those found in the core of the sun....using a car engine won't produce this pressure/temperature

So you kindoff have to assume that it is fission.

---

Nuclear fusion does produce a waste product, but I think he meant nuclear waste.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Ok, say you compressed it down and caused a chain reaction to start, then what?

It doesn't work like normal fuel does, it's going to generate radiation and heat, but not pressure, it's not going to make those pistons more any faster, but it will make them radioactive after a long enough period of time.

[Mouldy Punk]

For it to be a nuclear bomb and have the effects of one, it will have to be at least 90% enriched uranium.

The uranium used in nuclear power stations and nuclear subs etc is at max only 30% enriched. As a result, theres no way a nuclear power station explosion will be similar to a nuclear bomb explosion.

Chernobyl: Not quite a bomb, but devastating none the less.

As others said, simply putting some radioactive matter in pistons isn't going to do anything constructive without a lot of effort in controlling all the side effects. If an engine similar to a nuclear-submarine's was used, it could be more practical in the sense of getting motion out of it, but the cost of the engine as well as safety issues if something goes wrong with it just isn't worth it.

Even if your idea of sticking some uranium in the engine did work. You said about giving the waste to a gas station or whatever to dispose of it using 'approved methods'. What are these 'approved methods'? We don't know what to do with the waste that current nuclear power plants produce. Never mind about if every car on the planet was making the stuff. We can't just put it in a landfill because it'll kill everything around it...if it gets in a water supply, good-bye population. We can't shoot it off into space because current rocket technology isn't 100% reliable, eg, if a rocket containing a load of waste thows an Ariane 5 error and heads for a nearby city, a lot of people are going to die.

Long story short: There's too many risks involved.

[sweetsam]

Too many risks not to mention the amount of radiation exposure driving such a car. Stopping gamma radiation requires a lot of shielding and carrying that shielding around would mean more fuel. Long story short it would be hazardous and terribly inefficient.

[vincent]

Hahahaha nuclear fusion through a car engine?

Fusion requires enormous pressure and temperatures, like those found in the core of the sun....using a car engine won't produce this pressure/temperature

So you kindoff have to assume that it is fission.

---

Nuclear fusion does produce a waste product, but I think he meant nuclear waste.

I know how Fusion and Fission work, my question was addressing his primary inquiry, pointing out that proposing such an idea, only leads to more questions, ones that aren't easily solved.

[Mordkanin]

The heat energy produced by an internal combustion engine would not initiate a worthwhile nuclear reaction, especially in a very low concentration of fissile elements in a standard combustible fuel.

The key to any net-energy-producing reaction is in the ability to start a chain reaction. You give it a little nudge, and it eventually (That's the key!) builds itself up to an worthwhile energy output. Attempting to waste energy in fissioning a few sparsely distributed elements in a reaction that isn't self-sustaining is just silly.

And The_Decryptor is right. Even if it did work, generating excess heat would probably require that you use your engine as a heat-source for another engine.

Edited December 28, 2008 by MioTheGreat

[Mathiasdm]

I'm pretty sure fusion produces waste, too. The matter doesn't just disappear. :ermm:

Yup, it causes waste as well. However, while nuclear waste from fission reactions can last millions of years, the waste from deuterium-tritium fusion only has a halflife of 25 years or so. It'll be safe after only 200 years.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

I'm pretty sure fusion produces waste, too. The matter doesn't just disappear. :ermm:

¹H + ¹H => ²H + e⁺ + ν_e

²H + ¹H => ³H + γ

³H + ³H => 2(¹H) + ⁴He

Thus the waste consists of positrons (positive electrons), electron neutrinos and helium, not exactly the most harmful particles in the universe :p

Of course you'll have unfused deuterium and tritium... that might pose a problem.

[wellofsouls]

Irrespective of whether this works how do you plan to dispose off the waste ? Nuclear waste is not that easy to handle. With already a high incidence of cancer I don't think anybody would be interested.

well, nuclear waste is also far fewer. If the nuclear engine is as efficient as currently nuclear power plants, just a handful kilograms of nuclear fuel can last more than the lifetime of a car already. You need a better container, that's for sure.

Wouldn't nuclear fuel be a bit expensive?

Not really, considering they produce much more power than petrol. With conventional cars, you end up buying tons of petrol over the years, while with a nuclear powered car, some kilograms of nuclear fuels may be enough for the car's lifetime, and you may not even need to refuel it at all.

That would pose serious risk to health and danger to people. It may be feasible but i believe the risks out weigh the benefits. If anything would be close to being close to practicle and usable would be nuclear fuel rod system similar to US navy powered systems which obviously would pose a security and health risk.

well, conventional cars also pose serious risk to health and danger to people. Tens of thousands of people get killed in automobile accidents every year, and Earth's ecosystem have been seriously damaged and polluted by cars. Naturally, more powerful stuffs are more dangerous, but I don't think we should all revert back to primitive ways so we can be safe from automobile accidents and pollution.

Edited December 28, 2008 by wellofsouls

[Jonathans]

I said in the original post that you wouldnt want a chain reaction. A chain reaction wouldn't serve the purpose, what you would want is a simple once off reaction that fires, and is self extinguising. Like the spark from petrol inside the engine when it ignites. It ignites, pushing the piston up, then dying. Requiring more fuel to be put into the cylinder.

You wouldnt want to have a continuous reaction.

Nuclear fission works off of a chain reaction. You can't just add in an atom or two and expect improved results from a combustion engine. Combustion isn't fission. And you would need enough atoms so that their discharged particles from natural decay would hit other radioactive atoms and cause them to decay and release more particles. (that is the chain-reaction part).

This is where a regulation material (like the control rods of a power plant) come in to play, as they are inserted and positioned to regulate the reaction, so that is remains under control. Such facilities don't exist in any standard internal combustion engine I have ever seen. ;)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Yes, but what do you expect it to do?