Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy to Power Planes?

That's a possibility. Here's the TimesOnline:
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.

...

“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,” he said.
The article has really generated the comments. The first one is the best:
As soon as I started reading this, one picture immediately came to mind: Marty McFly standing next to the Delorean and asking Doctor Emmett Brown, "This thing is NUCLEAR!!??"
Yep, whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it will achieve...
Hat tip to Eric McErlain.

Picture of the DeLorean with Marty and Doc from Back to the Future 2.

Comments

jakob said…
We have a hard enough time putting anything nuclear in someones back yard.
robert merkel said…
You'd have to demonstrate that the working reactor could cope with an air-to-air missile, and then be dropped onto a steel plate from 40,000 feet and still maintain containment with very high reliability.

And the shielding would have to be such that customers sitting 10 feet from the reactor, and their luggage, get virtually no exposure.

Sure, you can undoubtedly build a reactor to do that, but whether you can build a reactor small, light, and powerful enough to provide a practical power source is pretty doubtful.

Shipping faces the same emissions issues as air travel, doesn't have the extreme power density requirements, and doesn't have nearly the same NIMBY factors. For those reasons, nuclear powered shipping is a much better bet. Furthermore, a couple of decades of safe, reliable nuclear-powered shipping might make more ambitious things like nuclear aircraft more politically plausible.
GRLCowan said…
a couple of decades of safe, reliable nuclear-powered shipping might make more ambitious things like nuclear aircraft more politically plausible.

If that is true, nuclear aircraft are politically more plausible now. Nuclear ships are acceptable, even to Greenpeace for their own workers' transportation.
Luke said…
Robert,

I don't think you have to "demonstrate that the working reactor could cope with an air-to-air missile". A passenger aircraft is in deep trouble if it's attacked with an anti-aircraft missile anyway, and in such an event, there's a high likelihood that all persons on board will be killed, and that's equally true with or without a nuclear power system.

What you need to evaluate, I think, is that if a nuclear powered aircraft were to be shot down, what would the health physics implications be for the people on the ground? The people on the aircraft are already dead, but how much dose would be picked up by those on the ground?
Victoria said…
Do you think it would lower the cost of plane tickets for consumers?
Anonymous said…
"a couple of decades of safe, reliable nuclear-powered shipping might make more ambitious things like nuclear aircraft more politically plausible."

Haven't we already had several decades of safe, reliable shipping both above and below water? I think cargo of 5,000+ people, a hundred fighter jets and nuclear warheads should count as "shipping."
Anonymous said…
"Haven't we already had several decades of safe, reliable shipping both above and below water?"

If a reactor on a ship fails, the ship drifts. If a reactor on an AIRPLANE fails, it falls out of the sky and everyone dies.
Anonymous said…
I'm not denying that aircraft and ships are very different, I was just commenting about an above comment that said we should try shipping first. We have and succeeded.

Now about the "everyone dies" part...which everyone are you talking about? Everyone on a sinking nuclear sub dies? Almost everyone on a conventional plane dies in a crash. If this hypothetical aircraft reactor is properly designed, the only ones that die are the ones it physically lands on, same as a conventional aircraft engine.

Personally I still don't think it's feasible.
robert merkel said…
luke: yes, that's what I meant - it'd have to be safe for those on the ground; obviously those on the plane are going to be in trouble.

And perhaps I needed to add the caveat "civilian" in front of shipping. A lot of people (particularly on the left of politics) seem to believe that while the US Navy can run reactors safely, private operators inherently can't.
GRLCowan said…
If this hypothetical aircraft reactor is properly designed, the only ones that die are the ones it physically lands on ...

I still don't think it's feasible.


Please elaborate. What might have to change to make it feasible?


--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Anonymous said…
I don't think it very feasible because of the issues of shielding and room for redundant equipment without making the plane HUGE. At least not feasible with current reactors and those future designs I have seen. Also, the number of personnel you would have to add to the flight crew would increase greatly.

In shipping you are looking at hauling more stuff, less people. In a plane we're usually talking about the other way around.

The upfront costs of such a plane would be astronomical (just look at what a submarine costs). I don't think a private company would be able to balance that level of financial risk with the long term return.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…