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

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…