when will we get cars that roll uranium?
>all that torque
>0-60 in who cares you're rolling motherfucking uranium
2 heavy
>pigfat amerilard landbarge devastation inbound
>>13988061
why would it be heavy? the only heavy component is the fuel itself, which isn't any different from EVs yet here they are.
>>13988054
You realize that it's basically just a fancier steam powered car right? Like, the uranium is used to make steam. Just buy a Doble or whatever they were called
>>13988054
When we can guarantee the fuel will not be an easy target for [insert crazed nation state] to steal and convert into dirty bombs/fissionable weapons.
> TL;DR, Never.
>>13988079
are you seriously telling me that there are governments that would give up the opportunity to have a nuclear powered car simply because there's a small chance that extremists might use it to make weapons of mass destruction?
>>13988083
No, but if you can't see how thousands and thousands of nuclear sources sitting parked on streets, garages and carparks might be a problem (never mind spent fuel disposal and the potential for leaks in accidents and fires) then you need to reevaluate your ability to discuss the topic. US regulations around nuclear power sources require both a containment system (capable of holding in any runaway nuclear fission, generally thick as fuck steel) and a shielding system separate to the containment vessel. The weight of both of these would negate any performance boots seen from the power source, unless you're happy to be rendered sterile by going to the shops, or have DD the size of a bus.
So yeah, it's not going to happen.
>>13988083
Are you seriously telling us a government that struggles to regulate the automotive industry as it stands would be happy to regulate an entire ecosystem of nuclear systems across dozens of manufacturers, including supply, safety, and disposal of spent nuclear fuels? They can't even work out what to do with spent reactor fuel here and now, and you think they will suddenly have a solution to millions of vehicles that need their fuels regulated?
Don't think so kid.
>>13988054
>when will we get cars that roll uranium?
never
I want to say micro scale nuclear doesn't really work because you don't have anywhere remotely near a critical mass.
>>13988191
Curiosity rover seems to be doing just fine
>>13988193
RTG is quite a bit different, way lower output for one.
>>13988193
thats not a nuclear reactor thats something different. you cant just add more fuel to a nuclear battery and keep going. the whole battery needs to be replaced. also the voyager satellites used the same basic nuclear battery technology.
>>13988193
> doesn't know the difference between an RTG and an nuclear reactor.
> thinking an RTG would ever be able to provide enough power to drive a conventional vehicle
stahp OP, you're killing me.
>>13988193
>>13988203
Also lemme reword this, its completely different in every way.
RTG is just decay radiation not fission...
>>13988203
>>13988209
this is the kind of shit that kills innovation
>>13988204
>>13988209
>>13988213
fucking scientists on my /o/ more likely than you thik.
>>13988215
You obliviously don't know what an RTG is or anything about them.
>>13988215
No kid, the laws of physics is what kills innovation. Fuck off and learn about what you're trying to discuss before you keep shooting your mouth off, you're just coming off as a retard.
>>13988209
OP here. that wasn't me.
anywho, what if we used lasers to make uranium hit critical ass, and then use the heat on a vat of lithium and a heat exchanger?
>>13988223
>>13988225
it uses heat from the natural decay of a nuclear isotope and the thermoelectric effect to generate electricity. MAKE A HUGE ONE AND STICK IT IN A VOLT.
>>13988227
You still have the problem of containment and shielding. It's not practical for anything smaller than an aircraft carrier or it would have been done.
>>13988230
You have no idea how little energy they actually provide...
>>13988193
peak power output of the rovers nuclear battery is 125 watt. thats 0.16 bhp
>>13988230
okay so lets say 15kg per 0.16bhp
now this isnt correct because the curiosity doesnt have as much radiation shielding as a car would, but lets continue.
the volt makes around 63kw of power so lets go a little slower say 50 for a nice round number.
that means you need at the minimum 4,687kg of battery to power the thing.
Also include the fact that NASA could only get their hands on 15kg of the required plutonium because its difficult to manufacture in the required quality.
your 4,687kg battery requires 1,582kg of plutonium that decays at a high enough temperature to glow red hot in normal conditions and you want to put 1.5tons of red hot radioactive metal in a car?
>>13988067
>why would it be heavy
Because it would also have to be clean, which means the actual water that will be heated will be in a separate piping system, which also means much of the heat generated will be lost and output will not be as high. this also means that the entire second half will be HEAVY as fuck.
it's the same reason we don't see aircraft like that, because to be light enough to fly it would be spewing radio active pollution everywhere.
>>13988054
>Mobile WMD
>Chernobyl on Wheels
>Nuclear Waste
>literally giving niggers and muslims nuclear weapons
>>13988269
ah turns out i was wrong, the 15kg is just the power assembly the total unit weight of curiositys power supply is 45kg
that means your 50kw volt needs a 14,062kg battery.
>>13988067
fuel, water, shielding, water pump, control rods, turbines, coolers.
the smallest reactor (isnt actually built yet) is built by Toshiba its 22 meters long by 11 meters wide.
though the american audience would love it, since it makes around 13,000bhp
