Nuclear powered airplanes in the near future?

[jwt873]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5024190.ece

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. ...

[jvincent]

I wonder how big the nuclear pile would need to be to power a commercial airliner?

Nuclear generators create heat that run steam turbines so getting that process to be as efficient as a jet engine is likely the major stumbling block.

[99gecko]

I see nuclear coming to the shipping industry, before aviation. All of the technology already exists for military vessels, and access to emergency coolant is immediate.

The aviation industry has to establish a near perfect record of safety before this ever takes off (pun intended). Even if they build an indestructable reactor design, the public will never allow it otherwise.

[Arthur Dent]

Holy radioactive crap, how low some scientists would go just to milk more grants from the "Fight Global Warming" blunder!

[753951]

Thank God airplains don't crash so there's no danger of radioactive contamination that way. And once in blue moon when they do crash it is possible to target inhabitated place far from this planet. What can go wrong there, eh?

[whi_tan]

That could result in some spectacular, and very nasty, plane to ground crashes...

Actually, I know that no 'explosion' would result, and radioactive debris would just spread over a large area (which is still a major catastrophie), but tell me that an image of a mushroom cloud didn't flash through your mind for a second when you read that report.

Cheers.

[Jake]

how low some scientists would go just to milk more grants

Wow I actually see it quite differently. I am not so naive to think that oil will last forever. You have to separate your GW POV from this issue. Having scientists working on the problem today may mean in 25 years there is a working model. Just look how long it is taking battery technology to develop.

I am sure when lowly Rudolf Diesel made a similar proposal he was met with scoffs and suspicion. In fact his untimely death was considered suspicious by many.

[Arthur Dent]

Originally Posted by Jake

Having scientists working on the problem today may mean in 25 years there is a working model. Just look how long it is taking battery technology to develop.

The issue here is not whether there should be a replacement for organic jet fuel - it is a fact that oil will run out and jets will have to use hydrogen or something more advanced. The point is that this scientist knows very well that the public will never accept to fly radioactive dirty bombs - now or ever - but he obviously continues to conduct his funded by the government "research", and the only 2 things he can come up in support for it are the "Save the Planet" chant and "the plane may stay in the sky a few hours longer". Guess who would give him any money if he stuck only with the latter argument.