Nuclear-powered passenger aircraft

phenom said:
yes they do, have you any idea of how many airport restrictions and invasions there 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...

Yeah but what can a Nigerian do with Uranium? F*ckall.
 
Tux said:
I know. That was me just making fun of you :D
Click to expand...

werries2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Talk about losing track......:rolleyes:
 
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...

Thanks for telling the world how little you know about the subject.

One form of Uranium is not produced from another...

In nature, Uranium occurs in a mix of mostly the U-238 (most) and U-235 isotopes. U-238 could not easily be split, and U-235 is the isotope of interest as it is quite fissile (Splitable).

During the uranium enrichment process, the concentration of U-235 is increased.

For nuclear reactors, one would required uranium enriched to less than 5% U-235. For nuclear bombs, the requirement would be closer to 100% U-235.

It is not possible in a criminal setup to build a nuclear bomb from the material used in a nuclear reactor.

However, this material is excellent for building a dirty bomb - highly toxic and radioactive material mixed with commercial explosives. It will create an area which would be wiped of all mamalian life due to animals dying firstly due to radiation and secondly the toxic effects of the material.

And it would take a long time before such an area could be populated again.
 
DDV TECH said:
Talk about losing track......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now that did not even make part of the discussion at all :rolleyes:
Atleast we were discussing nuclear power and technological readynes of people, you were just trying to make up your post count...
 
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...

But you can still make 'dirty bombs', from any type of uranium
 
werries2 said:
Now that did not even make part of the discussion at all :rolleyes:
Atleast we were discussing nuclear power and technological readynes of people, you were just trying to make up your post count...
Click to expand...

Go and read to posts again then, don't insult me when you are the one who is too confused to follow a forum thread, I even quoted it for you. If you feel inferior because of your low post count or any other personal problems you might have, then do something about it, looking for **** with me will not solve your problems.
 
Devill said:
Lol, you do a science project at school or is this in your line of work or is google helping a bit? :p:D
Click to expand...
Not exactly my job, but some of the trivia you pick up in my line of work ;) You should see some of the other lectures I've given on MyBB :D I started out under the impression that sense and knowledge were requirements in every post :p
 
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...

If you crash into a moutain you're screwed anyway.
 
DDV TECH said:
Go and read to posts again then, don't insult me when you are the one who is too confused to follow a forum thread, I even quoted it for you. If you feel inferior because of your low post count or any other personal problems you might have, then do something about it, looking for **** with me will not solve your problems.
Click to expand...

And what was your contribution to the discussion again? And please ellaborate a bit on how those quotes you posted is out of line with the topic being discussed. The original post had to do with the safety and technological readiness of nuclear powered air planes, my opinion posted and quoted by you were exactly about that. We are technologicaly ready, but the mentality of mankind may not be right yet. Lasers were brought in as an example of another technological advancement of the previous Generation that were also thought to be of unthinkable risk to man kind, but the perspective have changed quite a lot. And lasers are being used safely today.

Regarding post count, I could not care less if you have more than me. I just could not find any other reason why you would post quotes stating the thread is being derailed, if that post you make is exactly that. Another derailing of the thread.
 
Picard said:
If you crash into a moutain you're screwed anyway.
Click to expand...

I think he was rather refering to the people on the ground on which the nuclear parts will fall.
And that is most likely the reason why nuclear airplains will nor realize anytime soon. Most people would not really give it two thoughts to fly on a nuclear airplain if the cost is only a 10th of other aircrafts, but you can imagine the people on the ground complaining about nuclear reactors flying over their heads each day.
 
I always find it interesting how people are anti-nuclear, meanwhile the same people are not willing to give up creature comforts when it comes to the energy crises.

All the energy on this planet comes from three sources: Solar (fossil, wind, hydroelectric, solar panel), geothermal and nuclear. Energy sources like hydrogen (chemical) normally come from processing another fuel source, which requires energy, since we do not have oceans of hydrogen naturally. Wind power requires vast areas of land, and incredible expense. Solar panels are not that effective, and again expensive. Hydroelectric requires the construction of massive dams, destroying acres of the local habitat anyway, and you need to have the right conditions for it to work. All of these wont be able to supply demand.

Geothermal energy is only really usefull in some parts of the world (like iceland).

Nuclear energy is abundant, and we have the means to use it now. It is the only viable energy source for our incredible energy hungry human race. We might figure out something better in the future to replace it with, but for now, it is king. Just like other technologies, nuclear power is improving all the time. Nuclear power can supply power to charge cars and busses, which means we can start getting rid of fossil fuels. It can also provide the power to produce chemical energy (splitting water for hydrogen). If a big object (like a plane or ship) can harnass the nuclear power directly so be it.

There are lots of ideas out there for power, but most are not practical (yet).
 
werries2 said:
And what was your contribution to the discussion again? And please ellaborate a bit on how those quotes you posted is out of line with the topic being discussed. The original post had to do with the safety and technological readiness of nuclear powered air planes, my opinion posted and quoted by you were exactly about that. We are technologicaly ready, but the mentality of mankind may not be right yet. Lasers were brought in as an example of another technological advancement of the previous Generation that were also thought to be of unthinkable risk to man kind, but the perspective have changed quite a lot. And lasers are being used safely today.

Regarding post count, I could not care less if you have more than me. I just could not find any other reason why you would post quotes stating the thread is being derailed, if that post you make is exactly that. Another derailing of the thread.
Click to expand...

Relax before you need to go put on some clean underwear, I made the comment because you did not follow that TUX was making a joke, he even said as much, but you felt personally violated because he made a joke about your idiotic comparison with lasers. Now relax, take a deep breath and continue posting, all is well, it's not the end of the world if someone makes a joke in a thread. Have a nice day. :)
 
Nuro said:
I always find it interesting how people are anti-nuclear, meanwhile the same people are not willing to give up creature comforts when it comes to the energy crises.

All the energy on this planet comes from three sources: Solar (fossil, wind, hydroelectric, solar panel), geothermal and nuclear. Energy sources like hydrogen (chemical) normally come from processing another fuel source, which requires energy, since we do not have oceans of hydrogen naturally. Wind power requires vast areas of land, and incredible expense. Solar panels are not that effective, and again expensive. Hydroelectric requires the construction of massive dams, destroying acres of the local habitat anyway, and you need to have the right conditions for it to work. All of these wont be able to supply demand.

Geothermal energy is only really usefull in some parts of the world (like iceland).

Nuclear energy is abundant, and we have the means to use it now. It is the only viable energy source for our incredible energy hungry human race. We might figure out something better in the future to replace it with, but for now, it is king. Just like other technologies, nuclear power is improving all the time. Nuclear power can supply power to charge cars and busses, which means we can start getting rid of fossil fuels. It can also provide the power to produce chemical energy (splitting water for hydrogen). If a big object (like a plane or ship) can harnass the nuclear power directly so be it.

There are lots of ideas out there for power, but most are not practical (yet).
Click to expand...
Hi Nuro, I agree. Just for interest sake I wonder how they will drive the plane, where will the trust come from? And how will they cool the reactor. As I understand it, and I am In no way an expert, is that it takes millions of liters of water to produce nuclear power, both for cooling and to drive the superheated steam turbines that generate the electricity, surely it will not be practical to use steam turbines on a plane?
 
DDV TECH said:
Hi Nuro, I agree. Just for interest sake I wonder how they will drive the plane, where will the trust come from? And how will they cool the reactor. As I understand it, and I am In no way an expert, is that it takes millions of liters of water to produce nuclear power, both for cooling and to drive the superheated steam turbines that generate the electricity, surely it will not be practical to use steam turbines on a plane?
Click to expand...

Funny, I was just thinking that. A design to convert thermal energy from the reactor to thrust should be interesting. As you said, water is not exactly space or weight friendly. All our nuclear designs are steam based are they not?
 
Last edited:
Nuro said:
Funny, I was just thinking that. A desing to convert thermal energy from the reactor to thrust should be interesting. As you said, water is not exactly space or weight friendly. All our nuclear designs are steam based are they not?
Click to expand...

Afaik yes, the technologies for generating electricity is the same as in a coal fire station, with the exception that you use nuclear power to superheat the steam for use in the turbine. I don't know enough about it to even hazard a guess as to how they will derive trust (and a lot of it) from a nuclear reactor. Even if they use electric motors they will still need to generate the electricity on board, and then they need to have a heated gas for the jet turbines to expel to create trust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X