As I see it, there are a few major ups and a lot of minor downs
Upsides: >greatly diminished need for refueling regardless of how much power you use. Whether your tank lasts for weeks, months or years.
Downsides: >might cost a ton > a major enough crash would be extremely dangerous for civilians > background checks required to prevent terrorists and black market arms dealers from making use of the fuel > public fear/fearmongering making it hard to market and likely to get banned/regulated > if the cars aren't designed to last for a decade civilians will need to handle nuclear material to refuel their cars.
Well seeing as the argument for not bothering with electric cars is that the electricity bought from France (I'm from Ireland) is made with nuclear power, it cuts out the middleman power-wise and would be of benefit as long as the power was somehow ejectible in an accident.
Jack Davis
Good luck fitting a nuclear reactor with enough shielding to not give the driver radiation poisoning in a car
Owen Phillips
>few minor ups and a lot of colossal downs ftfy
Julian Green
This is such a popsci meme. Please read a book op.
Zachary Phillips
Not feasable at all Would work as a nuclear / electric hybrid though
Lucas Morgan
I have played over 100 hours of fallout 4, i am an expert.
get a few hundred cars and now you have enough critical matter to make a small nuke
Adam Baker
I dunno man, a car that has long lasting power would completely change design and how you use it.
You could use as many features as you want 24/7 and plug in any number of appliances or chargers or whatever and the makers could throw in all sorts of extra bells and whistles
They could also focus on optimizing for speed, horsepower or any other facet of a car with no more worry about MPG being a concern.
How does that make it go from completely unfeasible to possible?
So it still costs countless millions of dollars and thus only the government could afford it?
