Nuclear-powered passenger aircraft

A

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,474
Reaction score
2,588
Nuclear-powered aircraft may sound like a concept from Thunderbirds, but they will be transporting millions of passengers around the world later this century, the leader of a Government-funded project to reduce environmental damage from aviation believes.

The consolation of sitting a few yards from a nuclear reactor will be non-stop flights from London to Australia or New Zealand, because the aircraft will no longer need to land to refuel. The flights will also produce no carbon emissions and therefore make no contribution to global warming.

Ian Poll, Professor of Aerospace Engineering at Cranfield university, and head of technology for the Government-funded Omega project, is calling for a big research programme to help the aviation industry convert from fossil fuels to nuclear energy.

In a lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society tonight, Professor Poll will say that experiments conducted during the Cold War have already demonstrated that there are no insurmountable obstacles to developing a nuclear-powered aircraft.
Click to expand...

In an interview with The Times, Professor Poll said: “We need to be looking for a solution to aviation emissions which will allow flying to continue in perpetuity with zero impact on the environment.

“We need a design which is not kerosene-powered, and I think nuclear-powered aeroplanes are the answer beyond 2050. The idea was proved 50 years ago, but I accept it would take about 30 years to persuade the public of the need to fly on them.”

Professor Poll said the big challenge would be to demonstrate that passengers and crew could be safely shielded from the reactors.

“It's done on nuclear submarines and could be achieved on aircraft by locating the reactors with the engines out on the wings,” he said.

“The risk of reactors cracking open in a crash could be reduced by jettisoning them before impact and bringing them down with parachutes.”

He said that, in the worst-case scenario, if the armour plating around the reactor was pierced there would be a risk of radioactive contamination over a few square miles.
Click to expand...

Even for military planes it's too extreme imagine commercial airlines :eek:

On the bright side they won't need any heating :D
 
Aiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.... dangerous idea this!

Will make terrorists want the planes more, just to get access to the "engine"
 
Glowing passengers! :D

Then what happens when the aeroplane collide with a mountaintop? Or when there's not enough time to safely eject the nuclear engines before a destructive impact?
 
gdiza said:
Aiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.... dangerous idea this!

Will make terrorists want the planes more, just to get access to the "engine"
Click to expand...

Lol, only if the terros are idiots :p

They use different types of uranium for nuclear reactors than for the nuclear bombs.... and im sure they will figure out a way to safely keep the "engine" from causing a lot of damage in the event of a crash :D
 
Last edited:
The_Librarian said:
Glowing passengers! :D

Then what happens when the aeroplane collide with a mountaintop? Or when there's not enough time to safely eject the nuclear engines before a destructive impact?
Click to expand...

Like fireflies in the night

:D
 
phenom said:
uranium is uranium, carrying one type around could still be harmful, and whose to say that it won't help you in producing the other.
nano batteries could beat ordianary ones 1000 fold, hydrogen is also a great fuel

New stronger and lighter plastics and steels would also help in making these more efficient.

technology evolves and new solutions would be found in due time. not sensible to spread one of the biggest threats to humanity around when we are supposed to find ways around it and to get rid of it.
Click to expand...

Uranium is not just uranium... You get 235, 237, etc etc the one is not the same as the other :)

And yes there are other solutions to look at.
 
phenom said:
Yes, but it is still uranium.

it takes one form of uranium to produce another right?

so your only making it easier for the terrorists
Click to expand...

Yes it does it also takes a foook load of machines that are not very common and some knowhow :)

But if the terros want it they wont take it from the planes because it will be noticed ;)

I am sure British airways don't regularly "misplace" a plane :D
 
phenom said:
yes they do, have you any idea of how many airport restrictions and invasions their are daily? ha!

Nigerians ring a bell? how about nuclear powered Nigerians? now you know what that glowy pendants really are when you buy them side of the street, you'll be da bomb at parties

jk, nigerians are nice people, but still an example of how many get past airport security
Click to expand...

LOL :D

Yeah yeah but technology will always come to the masses :)

Remember that this is only aimed for later this century thus 40-80 more years :) Think a lot can change in that time.

The_Librarian said:
Nevermind the aircrafts, I would love to have a car or motorcycle which won't need refuelling :D
Click to expand...

+1 and that can go 1 beeelion km/h :D
 
phenom said:
Yes, but is still uranium, only in another form.

it takes one form of uranium to produce another right?

so your only making it easier for the terrorists
Click to expand...
No, you don't make one form from another, that would be elemental transmutation, similar to turning lead into gold. You can purify one form out of a mixture, but the active isotope is 235, which constitutes less than 1% of natural uranium.

Most nuclear reactors need around 3-5% 235 to operate, at most 20% (that's the highest "enrichment" allowed by international treaties). To make a bomb, you need at the very least 90% 235. The technology to separate isotopes of uranium is very, very expensive, complicated and dangerous. Very few governments can afford it, and they control the technology very tightly.

What is a greater concern is how to store the spent fuel after it has been used, because some of it needs to stay buried and contained for 10 000 years. The US obsession with terrorism is completely obscuring the real issues.
 
Last edited:
EvilDarkElf said:
No, you don't make one form from another, that would be elemental transmutation, similar to turning lead into gold. You can purify one form out of a mixture, but the active isotope is 235, which constitutes less than 1% of natural uranium.

Most nuclear reactors need around 3-5% 235 to operate, at most 20% (that's the highest "enrichment" allowed by international treaties). To make a bomb, you need at the very least 90% 235. The technology to separate isotopes of uranium is very, very expensive, complicated and dangerous. Very few governments can afford it, and they control the technology very tightly.

What is a greater concern is how to store the spent fuel after it has been used, because some of it needs to stay buried and contained for 10 000 years. The US obsession with terrorism is completely obscuring the real issues.
Click to expand...

Lol, you do a science project at school or is this in your line of work or is google helping a bit? :p:D

phenom said:
well the iranians are getting it right to separate the isotopes. or so i'ver heard on iranian tv http://www.memri.org/
Click to expand...

Must be their Alchemists working overtime :D
 
phenom said:
uranium is uranium, carrying one type around could still be harmful, and whose to say that it won't help you in producing the other.
Click to expand...

Ever hear about a dirty bomb? Strap a few radioactive isotopes to explosives and set it off.... Google it. Pretty sure there will be a wiki article on it too
 
Tux said:
Ever hear about a dirty bomb? Strap a few radioactive isotopes to explosives and set it off.... Google it. Pretty sure there will be a wiki article on it too
Click to expand...

This is where the real problem with uranium lies, even the 235 isotope can be used in dirty bombs. You may not get a nuclear explosion but the results could be just as devestating.

But I am happy that they are putting this project far eneugh into the future before implementing it. We as humans need to make some cultural changes first before we can use this technology without the risk of terrorism. A generation ago lasers were viewed as weapons with potential great risk, but today they are commonly used in laser pointers and high powered lasers used daily for steel cutting.
The thought of Nuclear warfare need to be removed from the equation.

As for nuclear spilling in aircrashes etc. They don't need to carry huge ammounts of nuclear fuel with them... A few grams would be sufficient for a trip, and they could just refuel for the ammount they needed. Protecting such a small quantity is also a lot easier (Think how many black boxes are destroyed?).
 
fart-powered aeroplane?

Just ask all the passengers to eat copious amounts of onions, eggs and baked beans two days prior to departure :D
 
Devill said:
Lol, only if the terros are idiots :p

They use different types of uranium for nuclear reactors than for the nuclear bombs.... and im sure they will figure out a way to safely keep the "engine" from causing a lot of damage in the event of a crash :D
Click to expand...


THANKS!!! :D Just as I thought we're going to see a horde of Earthlife or Greenpeace earthchildren post their objections, someone talks sense!
 
Tux said:
Right. Laser-powered planes. That's going to solve the transport issue.
Click to expand...

You lost the track of argument ;) And Lasers were brought up as a technology comparison.
Maybe I should have used another technological example, of things that were percieved to be too dangerous in the past but are acceptable for daily use now...

I will maintain though, that with technological improvements and a possible culture change, nuclear power will be used in more aplications and will become a lot more safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X