So what happens when the oil runs out?

[UP4014]

Eventually, it's going to happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes.

So what are the ideas kicking around? Obviously before anything happens the prices for air travel will skyrocket.

For the cruise industry it will be a no-brainer. Pull those oil burners out and stick a nuke reactor in. Easy for a big floating skyscraper.

But a nuke plane? I guess weight-wise it could be done. Maybe. The fuel load on a 747 is what, 150 tons? Assuming you could get a reactor/turbine within the weight (the engines would be lighter too if they were just big electric motors), then you might just lose some hold space.

How would you feel about flying in something powered by a controlled atom bomb?

Another thought is they could have major advances in battery technology - ergo - the Prius plane.

Ideas?

the nuke issue would be they use it to generate steam to turn a turbine or piston. So not just the issue of a reactor on board but also a boiler and steam driven engines or electric plant. :mrgreen:

 

[NM]

the nuke issue would be they use it to generate steam to turn a turbine or piston. So not just the issue of a reactor on board but also a boiler and steam driven engines or electric plant. :mrgreen:

You are limiting your view to current energy conversion processes ... time for the engineers/physicists to think outside the square

 

[UP4014]

Steam plane
Sean Linnane: THE BESLER STEAM PLANE

 

[anat0l]

You are limiting your view to current energy conversion processes ... time for the engineers/physicists to think outside the square

Good idea - but they aren't. Imperative for business and extraction essentially makes the pursuit of innovation and novel thinking (both in terms of technical and business processes) redundant, except in the academic circles, which is a real shame.

Most of the extractive market is being controlled through people in business suits. Technologies do exist for more effective conversion (as well as more effective extraction in the case of mining), but they are rarely given enough attention to be trialled, even if the preliminary business case is positive. It's a rather bigoted attitude, really, and you can further see that reflected when the said leaders open their mouths.

 

[medhead]

You are limiting your view to current energy conversion processes ... time for the engineers/physicists to think outside the square

The probably has already been mentioned that it is an energy source that is best at providing constant power not rapid changes. I was going to mention the nuke powered satellites that the Russians put up. But it would help as those were constant output batteries.

What will be much more effective is reducing use of oil for other power sources, by replacing with nuke, solar, wind or whatever. And then keep the oil to use for flying and whatever.

The market has to be the big driver to innovation. Take India, they have energy limitations, not much uranium but a heap of thorium so they are pushing ahead with research into thorium based nuclear power.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[horseman]

id like to see some sort of nuke reactor supplying electricity and hot water (and heating) to our homes, something that needs no energy input.
On a similar note there is current technology that uses natural gas or lpg to produce electricity and hot water, yet, though the industry is pushing hard, they arent exactly cheap to purchase or availible at your local bunnings, but using very little gas to do the job they will pay for themselves very fast, you can often sell unused power back into the grid also.
I want one of anything that will get me off the grid

 

[markis10]

It's all good, Caltex has the warp drive patents in the shed waiting, wonder what EDR discounts we will get .

 

[horseman]

It's all good, Caltex has the warp drive patents in the shed waiting, wonder what EDR discounts we will get .

and hollywood has shown us flux capacitors were invented years ago

 

[richie9x]

the nuke issue would be they use it to generate steam to turn a turbine or piston. So not just the issue of a reactor on board but also a boiler and steam driven engines or electric plant. :mrgreen:

Not necessarily. The Americans had two experimental two nuclear-powered gas turbine designs where the heat from the reactor was use to heat the air in the jet engine. The X-39 nuclear jet engine was based on a standard General Electric turbojet using a heat transfer reactor as the power source.

Of course there are lots of other very difficult issues to contend with. Such as shielding for all the passengers. And safety concerns in the event of a crash.

 

[medhead]

Not necessarily. The Americans had two experimental two nuclear-powered gas turbine designs where the heat from the reactor was use to heat the air in the jet engine. The X-39 nuclear jet engine was based on a standard General Electric turbojet using a heat transfer reactor as the power source.

Of course there are lots of other very difficult issues to contend with. Such as shielding for all the passengers. And safety concerns in the event of a crash.

Shielding is hardly a "very difficult" issue. So very many universities manage to shield reactors from the students. Weight is the main factor and really that boils down to an economic question in the end.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[richie9x]

Shielding is hardly a "very difficult" issue. So very many universities manage to shield reactors from the students. Weight is the main factor and really that boils down to an economic question in the end.

Sorry I was being economical with my words. Yes I agree shielding in itself is not difficult. What is difficult is fitting it in a plane. So many things to consider - keeping it light and maintaining the centre of gravity at the right spot. With today's fly-by-wire planes you would have to shield electronics and cables, some of which are outside of the main fuselage.

Both the Americans and Russian flew test planes with running reactors. All they really did was shield the coughpit, even still the Russians ended up irradiating their pilots quite badly.

 

[Deleted member]

Airships ?

 

[medhead]

Sorry I was being economical with my words. Yes I agree shielding in itself is not difficult. What is difficult is fitting it in a plane. So many things to consider - keeping it light and maintaining the centre of gravity at the right spot. With today's fly-by-wire planes you would have to shield electronics and cables, some of which are outside of the main fuselage.

Both the Americans and Russian flew test planes with running reactors. All they really did was shield the coughpit, even still the Russians ended up irradiating their pilots quite badly.

That's the thing really it's just going to come down to weight really, and economics. By way of comparison, some of the smallest nuclear subs are about 2500 tonnes displacement. Assuming a reactor can be shrunk small enough to fit in the ~570 tonne MTOW of an A380. What's going to be left, a heavily shielded cabin for about 6 passengers?


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[markis10]

That's the thing really it's just going to come down to weight really, and economics. By way of comparison, some of the smallest nuclear subs are about 2500 tonnes displacement. Assuming a reactor can be shrunk small enough to fit in the ~570 tonne MTOW of an A380. What's going to be left, a heavily shielded cabin for about 6 passengers?


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

Thats a poor comparison given the weight of a sub is mostly pressure protection from the double hulls etc, a S6G submarine nuclear power plant actually weighs 110 tons by comparison and is pretty old technology. If we look at a 30 MWe Hyperion nuclear reactor, which is has the some output, its weight is 20 tonne and does not require 80T of water coolant and fits on the back of a truck.

 

[medhead]

Thats a poor comparison given the weight of a sub is mostly pressure protection from the double hulls etc, a S6G submarine nuclear power plant actually weighs 110 tons by comparison and is pretty old technology. If we look at a 30 MWe Hyperion nuclear reactor, which is has the some output, its weight is 20 tonne and does not require 80T of water coolant and fits on the back of a truck.

It gives an idea of the smallest vehicle that they currently put a reactor into, something the size of a large conventional submarine.

Not sure about the output side of the reactors you mention. Usually they are rated in thermal capacity, wikipedia suggestions that the S6G was ~150MW. Ah I see the Hyperion is 25MW electric output, 70MW thermal - well at least according to wikipedia.

Hyperion looks pretty interesting. But really for use in an aircraft it is all a bit academic - never happen is my prediction.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[markis10]

It gives an idea of the smallest vehicle that they currently put a reactor into, something the size of a large conventional submarine.

Not sure about the output side of the reactors you mention. Usually they are rated in thermal capacity, wikipedia suggestions that the S6G was ~150MW. Ah I see the Hyperion is 25MW electric output, 70MW thermal - well at least according to wikipedia.

Hyperion looks pretty interesting. But really for use in an aircraft it is all a bit academic - never happen is my prediction.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

The S6G is rated at 26MW output power based on the fact its 35000 SHP where 1SHP = 745.6999 = 0.74569999 kW.

As for it never happening, its a poor prediction given it already has happened, and technically is possible:

http://www.megazone.org/ANP/tech.shtml

Now we just need to get over the politics, running out of oil may help!

Convair's successful flight program with the B-36 carrying a flight test reactor (July 1955 - March 1957)" showed that the "aircraft normally would pose no threat, even if flying low. The principal concerns would be: (a) accidents which cause the release of fission products from the reactors, and (b) the dosage from exposure to leakage radioactivity (in the direct cycle concept)

ref Connor jr., J.A., "Aerospace Nuclear Power Safety Considerations", Aerospace Engineering 20 (May 1960): 59.

 

[drewbles]

Airships ?

"Ahh Hello? Airplanes, yeah it's blimps. You win! Bye!"

(TV Show quote if anyone knows it )

 

[medhead]

The S6G is rated at 26MW output power based on the fact its 35000 SHP where 1SHP = 745.6999 = 0.74569999 kW.

That's what I said. Except reactors power output is discussed in terms of thermal capacity. To compare it is best to stick to industry standard.

As for it never happening, its a poor prediction given it already has happened, and technically is possible:

http://www.megazone.org/ANP/tech.shtml

Now we just need to get over the politics, running out of oil may help!

ref Connor jr., J.A., "Aerospace Nuclear Power Safety Considerations", Aerospace Engineering 20 (May 1960): 59.

A B36 is not a commercial passenger aircraft, doesn't count IMO. Happy to reassess my opinion when there are regular commercial flights.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[markis10]

A B36 is not a commercial passenger aircraft, doesn't count IMO. Happy to reassess my opinion when there are regular commercial flights.

Adding caveats to your predictions now - LOL, I will side with the experts such as Ian Poll, Professor of Aerospace Engineering at Cranfield university, who expect we will see them in 2050 or so, once the public get over their apprehensions and FUD.

"I think nuclear-powered airplanes are the answer beyond 2050," he said, concluding, "If we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of air travel without hindrance from environmental concerns, we need to explore nuclear power. If aviation remains wedded to fossil fuels, it will run into serious trouble."

Resuscitating the Atomic Airplane: Flying on a Wing and an Isotope: Scientific American

 

[medhead]

Adding caveats to your predictions now - LOL, I will side with the experts such as Ian Poll, Professor of Aerospace Engineering at Cranfield university, who expect we will see them in 2050 or so, once the public get over their apprehensions and FUD.



Resuscitating the Atomic Airplane: Flying on a Wing and an Isotope: Scientific American

Or just sticking to the context of the thread and AFF?

Hardly a good idea to hang your hat on what is technically possible. A professor telling the public to get over it, will not result in regulatory approval or public acceptance. In fact, referring to apprehensions and FUD is must likely to push people further off side.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app