Jump to content

Nuclear HDT...... the real answer to diesel fumes.........


Dollytrolley

Recommended Posts

Folks........so you think we are living in a hi-tech world .............try the .............."latest 1957 concept from Ford....... feast your eyes on the "beast" in the link below..........

 

http://www.tested.com/tech/520047-strangest-concept-car-ideas-failed/item/ford-nucleon/

 

And I thought Grumps had strange ideas...........

 

Drive on...........(keep your lead undies on..........)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self service wouldn't have been an option, but I suppose that if you didn't mind the attendant being dressed in a lead body suit refueling wouldn't have been too terribly traumatic.

 

Good point Phil about the service attire....... do you suppose that some of the "Dark-Sde-Creatures" in Star Wars looked like they do.......failed to keep the lead-suits properly zipped up.............

 

Drive on...........(Get the lead-out..........)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Being a car guy and nuclear engineer, I have to chime in on this. The Nucleon never really had a powertrain built/designed, but it was expected that it would be a Pu-238 source coupled with a steam engine. Back then, 238 was readily available--today we're spending $1B over ten years trying to get back above 1kg/year production.

 

NASA has cancelled a long list of missions at least in part because of uncertainties surrounding power. It's really a pretty sad state of affairs.

 

Maybe I'll have to run the numbers and see how mucg it would take to cruise at 65mph in an HDT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On our T2000 we use about 305 KWh or something like the output of 10 residential gas furnaces when running highway speeds.

I would guess about 3 times that output from the plant would be needed for long grades and "from a stop" opperation.

Like with almost all power generation, the amount of waste heat is beyond obsene. You want to become the richest

person in the world, design one with a COE that does even 70%. On the fueling issue, the nuclear engine might only

need to be fueled when it was built and could last the life of the vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500hp is around 375KW.

 

I'm guessing straight and level might be 200KW.

 

Makes you think that an 85KW/hr battery pack won't get you far, but thats a huge pack for an electric car!! Think Tesla model S.

 

Geo

 

On our T2000 we use about 305 KWh or something like the output of 10 residential gas furnaces when running highway speeds.

I would guess about 3 times that output from the plant would be needed for long grades and "from a stop" opperation.

Like with almost all power generation, the amount of waste heat is beyond obsene. You want to become the richest

person in the world, design one with a COE that does even 70%. On the fueling issue, the nuclear engine might only

need to be fueled when it was built and could last the life of the vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500hp is around 375KW.

 

I'm guessing straight and level might be 200KW.

 

Makes you think that an 85KW/hr battery pack won't get you far, but thats a huge pack for an electric car!! Think Tesla model S.

 

Geo

 

 

Geo.......Just spit-balling here..........how about buying a "old" Navy-Surplus-Nuke-Sub then just a "simple-engine-swap.........

 

Drive on...........(Glow-in-the dark.......)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would require an 'interesting' gear train.

 

Geo

 

Geo.........so ya don't think "direct-drive" from the sub prop shaft would work.......

 

My old Navy-sub buddy tells me that my idea has some merit because he thinks I might have enough electricity surplus to run the blender for some 'adult-beverages' while on the road ........I said what about a drunk-driving-ticket..........he smiled and said when the cops see the nuke sign on the truck, he will NEVER even think about getting close enough to give you a ticket...........

 

Drive on...........(Plenty of blender time......)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few quick numbers. Assuming a flat ground running rate of 200 Kw @60mph(to make the numbers easier). Thats 200 KW per mile. traveling say 15,000 miles a year averaging 60 mph that's 3,000,000 Kwh or energy.

 

1 uranium fuel rod produces 1,683,000 Kwh's of electricity. The average fuel pellet is about the size of a finger nail.

 

to put it another way, that one finger nail. will offset 150 gallons of diesel.

 

A nuke sub refuels every 15-20 years. But they have much more room for a LWB than a truck. the hardest part would be actually getting the energy. Since almost all nuclear systems are used to boil water and push the steam thru turbines to spin a generator.

Now a fusion reactor, that would be a home run. Fusion reactors require no water to be boiled.

 

The Tesla S battery pack is a good platform to start. I would say you need 500kw of battery capacity and 300-400kw of energy production. This allows a smaller scale generator to cover normal usage and overhead for charging. and a battery pack to make up the extra for pulling hills.

 

The current battery technology would have done wonders for the automotive world when they tried using turbine engines in cars. They do 1 thing really well.... Run at a constant speed. If they could have put a battery pack in those rigs and undersized the turbine. this would have made them more efficient overall.

 

A chevy volt uses ~230Wh's per mile Imagine what a small 500 watt turbine generator would do under the hood burning 1/10th of a gallon an hour. with a 20kwh battery pack to hold the gaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Checking the calculations in my head for my Cat C13, and I am using the burn rate in gallons per hour I actually have, I come up with closer to 5 KWh/ mile.

If we find a way to get the COE to more than .5, might get some of that 50% waste heat to go to better use. The thing is, 170 deg water won't drive a turbine.

I know some of the power and heat co-gen equipment does real well in this regard. What about a large hot tub in the garage, hummm, thinking. Nope, would take an Olympic swimming pool to suck up that much waste heat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...