Will there ever be nuclear powered cars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KCL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cars Nuclear
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the theoretical possibility of creating small fusion reactors for nuclear-powered cars in the future. Current fusion technology, including plasma and laser methods, is not capable of miniaturization to the size needed for automotive use. The potential for breakthroughs, such as cold fusion, remains speculative and may take centuries to realize. Concerns are raised about the implications of such technology, including the risk of creating small nuclear weapons and the challenges of detection and regulation. Ultimately, while the concept is intriguing, significant technological advancements and safety measures would be required before nuclear-powered cars could become a reality.
KCL
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Let's say 100 years from now... or 200. Whatever. Is it theoretically possible to make a fusion reactor the size of a small box... or a soda can?

And if this could be possible, will the tech be purposely hidden or outlawed because it'd mean easier access to small nuclear bombs for terrorists?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
KCL said:
Let's say 100 years from now... or 200. Whatever. Is it theoretically possible to make a fusion reactor the size of a small box... or a soda can?

And if this could be possible, will the tech be purposely hidden or outlawed because it'd mean easier access to small nuclear bombs for terrorists?


Present work on fusion power falls into 2 broad classes, plasma and laser. Neither of them could ever be made small enough to drive a car.

The only possibility would be for someone to discover a new physical principle, such as cold fusion - which to date has never been successfullly demonstated.
 
It is theoretically possible -- no laws of physics preclude it -- but the technology to achieve a fusion-powered car may well be hundreds or thousands of years away.

- Warren
 
I don't think you need all that much energy for a car, and even a semi is only an order of magnitude greater. Safe bet that storage will always be easier than generation, though the lines tend to blur, (e.g., fuel cells, with fusion being a deuterium fuel cell). Isomer energy storage would fill the bill nicely I would think. In any event, one of the necessary enabling inventions would likely be a perfect neutron shield.

Ed
 
Thanks for the replies!

Last question... if somebody figures out how to make a hydrogen bomb w/o a smaller fission bomb to start it off... are we screwed?

If there's no radioactive material to detect it and no restriction of limited uranium supplies... Wow, it's frightening to just think about it.
 
KCL said:
Thanks for the replies!

Last question... if somebody figures out how to make a hydrogen bomb w/o a smaller fission bomb to start it off... are we screwed?

If there's no radioactive material to detect it and no restriction of limited uranium supplies... Wow, it's frightening to just think about it.

It is more frightening to think of global warming, suicide bombers, or even the sun burning out. The kind of H bomb you are concerned about requires physics that has not yet been discovered and may not exist.
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Back
Top