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.

[jshel101]

the terroists would love this. now they have an easy available dirty bomb at their disposal.

As for running out of oil, that won't happen in our lifetime

[Cyclism]

Originally Posted by jshel101
As for running out of oil, that won't happen in our lifetime

Yeah, so why worry about it and why waste time looking for alternative energy means?

[jvincent]

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.

it is a fact that oil will run out and jets will have to use hydrogen or something more advanced.

Addressing a couple of points at once.

Unfortunately planes do crash. The key to any nuclear powerplant would be containment in a crash scenario and I'm sure this is one of the key things that they are working on.

But compared to hydrogen, nuclear fuel is much more stable. Liquid or gaseous hydrogen (and the accompanying oxygen that would be required) are tremendously volatile and because of the volume required they tend to create very large fireballs.

Since any nuclear solution will need to be small, it could presumably be wrapped in enough protective layers to contain the damage from any crash. Remember, there's no more fuel to burn in the crash so it only needs to worry about mechanical damage that causes a breach in containment.

Personally I'd be more worried about the high speed turbine blades busting loose.

[99gecko]

The key to any nuclear powerplant would be containment

Actually I think security would be the biggest concern, not containment as jshel101 mentioned. Think of the amount of money currently spent on airline security and add a big bunch of zeros. Homeland Security would love this.

But compared to hydrogen, nuclear fuel is much more stable. Liquid or gaseous hydrogen (and the accompanying oxygen that would be required) are tremendously volatile and because of the volume required they tend to create very large fireballs.

Yes, but when they do explode in an urban environment, it is inhabitable the next week.

cheers.

[jvincent]

Security and containment go hand in hand. If a plan crashes and the nuclear reactor is simply a large metal cylinder that sits there waiting for removal, whats the problem?

If a nuclear powered plane had crashed into the WTC there would have been no fireball from the jet fuel and the buildings would probably not have collapsed. It took more than a few weeks for NYC to recover.

[Felgar]

Biofuels will ensure that we never completely "run out" of fuels - they just become more expensive. But not nearly as expensive as developing and maintaining thousands (millions?) of nuclear reactors... I agree that the shipping (and maybe the cruise line) industry would be far better suited by a shift to nuclear because at least the size constraints aren't there, and the technology already exists.

[jvincent]

But you're talking about today's nuclear reactors.

Without serious research the problems won't get solved and none of us will be able to stuff some garbage into our "Mr. Fusion" and power our flying Deloreans.

The first part of the above was serious BTW.