How practical are nuclear cars?

Self contained heavily armored and locked down nuclear reactors with GPS tracking and tamper detection. Sad state of the world because sandniggers.

Get a single car and use it as a dirty bomb.
Not as spectacular as a proper nuke, but terrorists will be happy nonetheless when blowing it up in a city center near you

Nuclear scientist here
You need over 1 meter of lead in all directions surrounding the core
Maybe a big truck can fit one but it would weigh maybe more than a tank

Peak aesthetics.
And who wouldn't want to go with a nice mushroom cloud in the case of a catastrophic crash?

Attached: Ford_Nucleon.jpg (387x258, 13K)

But wouldn't that only be for a full sized reactor that powers something huge like whole cities or buildings rather than just a car?

To be fair though, we wouldn't ban all over the counter drugs to prevent abuse/drug dealing/cooking up harder stuff

Imagine if dropping a bottle of aspirin caused you to get cancer

Well, aspirin is made by the same company that makes the cancer weed killer, so I wouldn't be too sure.

I don't think you'd survive a crash so severe it cracks open a nuclear reactor desu.

based

>get into fender bender
>vaporize the entire continent

okay, so you can save up on fuel
great
do you have -any- idea how many car crashes happen daily?
a SINGLE day would be like a nuclear carpet bombing over your country

How many of them are so severe they crack the engine open though?

holy shit, you genuinely have no clue what you're talking about
all it takes is a single car ramming into something at 80 mph to cause a nuclear disaster

>80 MPH car crashes are normal
>you're allowed to drive 80 MPH
> people are rich enough to afford experimental tech super cars despite being irresponsible drunks

I don't want to live where you live

Mandatory IQ tests should also be a requirement for owning one of these vehicles. That way amerimutts would be banned from owning and driving a vehicle such as this.

>you're allowed to drive 80 MPH
>80mph
>fast
Ok grandpa

>IQ tests

You just want to prevent black people from voting, nice try hitler!

i can't tell whether you're pretending to be retarded or you're genuinely retarded
80mph is absolutely normal on roads outside of cities, no matter where you live

and you have zero grasp on how safety laws work. If car getting totalled equals a nuclear leak there's no way in hell it'd be allowed. EVER.

>So it still costs countless millions of dollars and thus only the government could afford it?
Yeah which is worrying since they're the number one funder of terrorist organizations

>80mph
>Fast
Pick one

>people are rich enough to afford experimental tech super cars despite being irresponsible drunks
You know who can afford cars like this? Rich kids. People like Paris Hilton, Jayden Smith and the likes; i.e. retards whose parents happen to millionaires/billionaires. Also influencers with big tits who get these cars to shill them on Instagram and then let their nigger boyfriends drive.

Not them, but it doesn't work like that.
Having a smaller reactor doesn't mean the radiation is easier to block, but rather there is just less radiation. Any reasonable amount of radiation needs the same amount of shielding to block it as another.

>So it still costs countless millions of dollars and thus only the government could afford it?
It is almost impossible to get:
1. Nuclear material
2. Reactor designs
3. Technical expertise
Without a state actor supporting you, such as is the end result of international anti-nuclear proliferation efforts.

os x seems unthrottled in your pic

These would actually directly cause cancer and make everything in close proximity radioactive. Adding around of ton of lead shielding on the radioactive substance would make production prices skyrocket and make maintenance on them nearly impossible or insanely expensive.

It's better to focus on developing EV's with ultracapacitor tech instead as they would last longer and be safer than lithium-ion batteries.

interestingengineering.com/could-ultracapacitors-replace-batteries-in-future-electric-vehicles

Attached: 5299d5e013728c4d34c2a4363324ef01-1024x520.png (1024x520, 47K)

completely impractical. You need a HUGE amount of shielding in order to not kill the driver. Not only do you have shield gamma rays, you have to shield neutrons. Neutrons are penetrating as fuck. Maybe if we get aneutronic fusion to work we could have nuclear powered cars that don't need ridiculous amounts of shielding
that's a concept, meaning it was designed by artists, not engineers.
In order for a nuclear fission reaction to be self sustaining, it must be critical. Meaning every car would have enough fissile material to make a nuke.

ur a faggot. Capacitors can't achieve high energy density like batteries can.

The soviets thought about a nuclear train,

But they abandoned the idea when they figured out it wound be 10 meters by 10 meters in profile.

I know what youre thinking, dude nuclear has alot of power, but dude, nuclear has ALOT of power, we have to literally contain it or it would melt into a nuclear lava hellscape

We're a few decades behind to having such a small scale operation if that's even possible. Electric cars are great, just have the grid be powered by nuclear power and we have a nice set up

What retards cant understand is that reactor doesn't magically make electricity from uranium lol.

Reactors just gets real hot and that's it.
And then you use the heat to power a steam engine.

that and the lead shielding, also
Curious Droid did a video on nuclear powered vehicle

youtube.com/watch?v=kR5gefU87TY

Attached: eTwU6pV.jpg (1314x837, 265K)

NOT YET, which is why we HAVE to haul ass in R&D of better ultracapacitors given how exponentially more reliable and safer they are than "don't look at me wrong or I'll violently detonate" lithuim-ion battery tech. There are already minor advancements in ultracapacitor materials underway already.

phys.org/news/2019-02-supercapacitor-material-energy-density-higher.html

Attached: komisan1.jpg (655x650, 77K)

Just use electric cars powered by nuclear reactors.

There are fast neutron reactors, the device itself is roughly the size of a bucket containing a critical mass of fissile material.
They use cesium doors to regulate the neutrons escaping the core to make sure it remains in a state of unstable equilibrium and neither blows up nor goes out.
The whole thing can be rather small if you disregard the shielding completely.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
Unfortunately the burgers shat bricks and promptly banned nuclear reactors in space.

Fucking Nigger I hate people like who just thinks
>Oh lets just discover a magical material like vibranium or discover a new science like magic or something and get things nobody thought were possible because the future is cool and shit

There are no magical materials and shit won't just magically get 10 times better than it is. Mo magical batteries, no magical capacitors, bucause we are already using all the knowledge and all the materials there are.

The best energy density is and will be a fucking barrel of gasoline and if that ever runs out we're gonna be fucked.

I think it's not very appealing since better alternative already exists:
>use existing nuclear power plants to provide power to the electrical outlets
>some progressive tesla fag uses this outlet to charge his car's batteries

Upsides:
>you won't evaporate on crash
>no need for background checks
>it's already here, you can buy electric cars if you feel like it

Downsides:
>car weight (but if you want to have a fun car, you can still go with ordinary engines anyway)
>i guess it's bad to break batteries during the crash, but it's still better than risking radiation magic leaks in the middle of the city

>bucause we are already using all the knowledge and all the materials there are
bull fucking shit
going by that logic hard drives should have stopped being developed when they hit 40MB

Well given how dangerous nuclear reactors/beta-voltaics are in the hands of the average joe it's our best shot at avoiding a complete economic collapse when we run out of petrol.

i smarter than u reatard

Attached: 1554387833277.jpg (600x600, 41K)

Some hybrid racing cars already use capacitors

>going by that logic hard drives should have stopped being developed when they hit 40MB
They wont reach 40 Petabytes, not soon not ever.

AFAIK they only use them in combination with a chemical battery.
Trying to run hundreds of kilometers on capacitors alone is quite retarded: even if they managed to increase the capacity enough they would weight >9000 metric shittonnes.

Aren't there already like 50+Whr/kg ultracapacitors being made? That's pretty good compared to say lead acid batteries that top out at 40Whr/kg.

Attached: 1526871308951.png (1024x1078, 1.44M)

>none of the cars in fallout 4 still run

/o/ petrol fag here it's never ever gonna happen
Hell ev is still a niche after 110 years

Attached: 55480163_2363803697004230_4366070007138877440_n.jpg (539x561, 47K)

Petrol was still a niche after 110 years of steam.

The instance EV's become better value for money than petrol cars there will be a massive switch.

Ev dominance won't happen for hundreds of years
Battery tech is so infantile it can barely hold and density energy wise and fast charging kills batteries so you'll have to replace it every 5-10 years anyway and range starts dropping off after the first year and 2-4 years it's basically cut in half so suddenly you 500 mile Ev only goes 100-200miles
Also in most countries it's just not practical and power grids CANNOT handle it so you have a double edge sword problem of either forcing the cost of that infrastructure on the consumer (Tesla home battery cells and fast chargers + solar) or end up with fuck all charging infrastructure.
You still can't freely drive around in a Ev car good luck trickle charging at some beat to fuck gas station for hours-days on a real road trip.
And unlike a gas car you can't just go get more fuel when you run out no no your basically fucked and need a tow.
Nobody has portable self contained emergency chargers for Tesla's

You are so wrong on pretty much everything you wrote.

Current EV's have plenty range for 99% of people's normal driving day. (yeah, yeah, you're a sales rep who drives 20000 km every day I get it it's not for you, but you're the 1%)

So people can charge them at night when electricity is cheap and abundant.
Fast charging is only needed when people make an unusually long trip (again, you drive 6000000km every day but you are the exception!), it's not a big deal and it won't impact the battery life much.

Batteries will have to get recycled after 10 years or so, but that's just part of the cost same as buying petrol every couple of days is part of the cost of driving a fossil car.

electrical eng. that works in a nuclear power plant here.
just wanted to let everyone know because none of the posts seemed to mention, you can't just "turn off" a nuclear reactor, the decay heat will persist with immense power for a long time. It is also desirable for a nuclear reactor to have very small changes in criticality (so that you don't accelerate the nuclear reaction process such that it is uncontrollable and you nuke yourself) which means that they would be slow to start as well.
nuclear reactors also operate with all moderator water and dry steam under great pressure meaning a crash would almost certainly mean death, even minor crashes, as other anons pointed out. of course constant radiation exposure is a hazard also as other anons pointed out. maintenance would be extremely expensive and the regulating bodies would make everything progress incredibly slowly, resulting in your car requiring constant inspections and refurbishment that would leave you without a vehicle for months of time. any leak at all from the car would have to be treated as a tritium source and at the very least require a report to the governing bodies and subsequent loss of your reactor operating license.
of course with significant engineering solutions these issues could be overcome with unappealing trade-offs, but in every practical way it seems very annoying and not cost effective or in any way feasible solution for the working man's driving car.
the insurmountable halt to this development however is the public's lack of trust in nuclear energy though.

Attached: 1479145750258.jpg (369x387, 35K)

This, I'll take an ultracapacitor EV with 60 miles of range that charges in 5 minutes over driving around a fucking nuke.

Attached: 65B021DCFDCA49D190F689B17655F1BC.jpg (640x1136, 85K)

You can't create a nuclear bomb just from a runaway nuclear reaction.
Immediately after the chain reaction gets started all the nuclear fuel will immediately evaporate and disperse until it's sub-critical again.
To make a nuclear bomb you need some purposely build device that generates an cleverly shaped explosion which keeps the fuel from instantly dispersing.

So there is 0% chance of anyone "nuking themselves".
That said, a nuclear meltdown would also be pretty nasty.

Seeing how many absolute shitty drivers that exist that blatantly ignore traffic and safety laws all the god damn fucking time, that would be a horrible idea. There would be a guarantee of a mini nuclear meltdown every other block from some retard running lights, and another retard looking at his phone to not realize another retard is also breaking laws. People are plain and simply too retarded to be able to safely handle a freaking nuclear car without putting significant amounts of other people at risk for radiation poisoning or death.

Electric car powered by batteries
Charged with an electrical grid powered by a nuclear or in 5-15 years a fusion reactor

There's your nuclear car dude

Attached: 1551627173000.png (422x454, 166K)

>all the nuclear fuel will immediately evaporate and disperse until it's sub-critical again.
this post doesn't really make sense, is just semantics and shows a great lack of understanding. if the pressure boundary is compromised, there is an explosion that would 100% "nuke" the nearby driver, in the sense that the explosion would be from heat from a nuclear source and highly irradiated expanding gas. i agree that this is not strictly a nuclear bomb, but I did not use that word anyway.
i think you mean to say "all of the moderator water and coolant" is evaporating, because if the fuel is evaporating that would have much greater consequences to worry about than the preceding explosion. if you cannot cool the fuel due to all moderator water evaporating and still having a positive criticality (likely very large at this point) after injecting your neutron poison and emergency coolant there will be an explosion. and it will be fast.
nuclear reactors have great regulatory systems to keep criticality down, but to claim that such a failsafe as having your "fuel evaporate and disperse" in the context of keeping your assets protected and your people not exploded to death doesn't make sense

lol, no. Just no.
ON THIS HERE EPISODE OF YOUTUBE BACKYARD MECHANIC, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD RADIATION POISONING.....

To my knowledge no nuclear accident has ever lead to an explosion caused by the fissile material itself.
The nuclear fuel can expand very rapidly, but that's not necessarily an explosion, especially when you only had a tiny amount to power a single car.
I imagine it would be more like boiling water, except instead of water vapor you'd have very hot, very toxic radioactive gas.

Not sure which one is more retarded, OP or the tripfaggot.
Also
>Ctrl-F Hydrogen
>Phrase not found

Good because hydrogen is an utter meme only pushed by (((big oil))): All the disadvantaged of electric combined with all the disadvantages of petrol plus some unique disadvantages of its own sprinkled on top.

With exception of PR all the downsides are just wrong. First technology naturally gets cheaper over time and given that fuel is a major contributor to cost of running a car, not having to top it up would most likely offset the cost of a minutarized reactor. Provided the design is decent an accident should not damage the internal reactor (as a comparison the kursk nuclear submarine had an explosion on board and the reactor survived perfectly intact) The enrichment level for power is much much lower than what is needed for nuclear weapons. By far the biggest problem is the radiation - you're gonna get a lot of cancer deaths on your hands if you intend to have people drive with a small reactor next to them. And good shielding (concrete or lead) is heavy so your car would be hard to drive and use a lot of power. Also nuclear reactors aren't really suited to being constantly switched on&off. They are much better as constant power sources with slight tweaks. Starting a reactor from cold is a huge pain.

Attached: 1485116348852.gif (480x287, 1.21M)

Except it can be produced by anyone, anywhere at anytime making long range possible with only a couple of minutes to refill.

>minutes to refill.
Lol no

>So people can charge them at night when electricity is cheap and abundant.
It's cheap and abundant at night because no one has EVs. What happens when half the US is suddenly using 10-24kW/h more a night?

It's also dangerous as all fucking hell and has an absolutely terrible energy density.

>terrible energy density
i mean, i dont agree with the hydrogen poster but you are clearly very silly
hydrogen has the highest energy density until E=mc^2 equation becomes relevant

Attached: 1477879541385.png (657x527, 51K)

It is very expensive to produce locally, far more expensive per km than petrol.
Only way to produce hydrogen economically is from oil, and even then it's about as expensive per km as petrol.

And it's not something you'd want to do at home (unlike charging an EV), so you will need to visit the hydrogen station nearly every day.
Takes about 15 minutes to refuel (slower than the latest fast chargers), but even if it were only 5 minutes that's still annoying as hell to do after every hew hundred km.

In short hydrogen is:
- expensive to buy.
- expensive to maintain.
- expensive to operate.
- time consuming to refuel.
- barely better for the environment than petrol.

Electric is also expensive to buy, but has none of those other drawbacks.

What happened when half the US got air conditioning?
What happened when half the US got a refrigerator?

Just build a few more power stations, preferably nuclear.

>hydrogen has the highest energy density until E=mc^2 equation becomes relevant
not when its stored at 500bar like the typical hydrogen vehicle. Even when it's cooled to liquid, it falls far short of gasoline.

Attached: what.png (819x458, 36K)

Not when you factor in how heavy the containers are and how little hydrogen they can hold. 4 pounds of hydrogen requires a 130 pound containment vessel. That same weight gets you 21 gallons of gasoline. The gas tank itself will weigh about 30 pounds so we'll take off 5 gallons. In a normal, modern sedan, that 16 gallons will get you nearly 550 miles. 4 pounds of hydrogen at the same efficiency will only drive ~75 miles.

Neither of those things use 240v/100amp and "half the US" back when those became popular was a drastically different number.

Air conditioning uses more electricity than charging an EV.

Over the course of a day, yes. Your A/C is rarely running at 100% load and is 3-7kW. The wiring recommendation from Tesla directly for two vehicles is 240v/100A or 24kW. 4kW on and off over the course of a day is a lot different than everyone suddenly needing an extra 20kW when they get home for an hour straight.

Guys, it depends on how you define energy density.

Are we talking volume or weight?
And if weight, shouldn't we include the weight of the containers? - hydrogen for vehicles is stored under very high pressure in bulky and heavy cylinders.

You really have to ask? Even after giving legit reasons to answer your own question?

Attached: CONTAINMENT BREACH!!!.png (1871x886, 2.69M)

Air conditioning is generally running all day long.
If you could charge at 20kW you'd be done in a couple of hours.

Sure Americans are utterly retarded and will charge during rush hours so they can pay top rate and be good goys, but normal people would choose to charge when the grid has the lowest load and thus electricity is cheapest ie at night.

My point is total immediate load on the grid, not what your bill is at the end of the month. And your AC should not be running for hours on end unless something is fucked.

there's no reason to try
space is at a premium in cars, which means that a bulky reactor and cooling system and turbine system will take up too much space
reactors produce a huge amount of energy for the space, which is part of what makes them dangerous
it makes far more sense to use nuclear power plants to power electric cars

The Soviets had a nuclear sub that was just over 7m wide. But, it ruptured some cooling thing and sank. The next one was a little over 9m wide. The American NR-1 is 3.8m(not counting the stabilizers) and wide 4.6m tall. Looks like train widths are 3.15 to the new 3.6m (future European standard.) So, a nuclear train seems like it'd be doable, shielding be damned.

>ultracapacitors

Unfortunately, they have extremely shit energy density (see bottom of this pic) even if they are 2.7x denser or even 50 times denser. Their best applications are not for something like powering a soccer mom's van. Imagine the difference between an all lithium-powered car vs an ultracapacitor powered car. The ultracapacitor car would be like 100+ times larger just to hold enough ultracapacitors. Then it runs into problems like the extra weight of the ultracapacitors and the support structure all requiring even more power and more ultracapacitors (ad infinitum.)

Ultracapacitors have their place, running cars really isn't one of them. Unless you want to get like 5 feet or just want to use them to start a standard car to replace the standard car battery.

Attached: Energy Density.png (1027x871, 61K)

Your point is moot because there are about 14 hours between when people come home and when they have to leave again.
And about 22 hours a day when cars are parked.
So the is no "immediate load".

Even Moore's law is breaking down now due to physical constraints. The end of new tech is nigh!

>ah yes, 3 AM. Time to plug my car in.
90% of people are going to plug it in as soon as they get home which for 90% of the US is sometime between 4:30 and 6:30.

Moore's law has been dead for years.

>what is a timer

>What are your thoughts Jow Forums?
You're obviously pretty stupid, but that's the norm on here.

It's not good anytime soon because you would have to make everyone self drive to stop accidents and with accidents you have nuclear meltdowns.
We are going to get solar cars before nuclear just because of this. A japanese company is making a solar car that needs no gas and is only 20,000. This shit will take off.

People have been making single atom transistors around 7 years now. It is only a short matter of time now to see the max number of transistors in x amount of space on a working IC.

>looks like it's cloudy and/or the sun isnt at it's peak of the day, guess I can't go get groceries

It's not about how SMALL you can make transistors, it's about how CHEAP you can make them.

Unless those chargers have a built in on, please, show me a timer rated for even just 240/60 let alone 240/100.

>giving everyone a mobile nuclear bomb

A few major ups:
>not spending 2min at the gas station once a week

Some minor downs:
>exorbitant price
>exorbitant weight
>nuclear contamination all around from crashes/fires

Were you dropped on your head or?

that just means you need to make nuclear power plants in your own country instead of buying from france