Why cant we run our cars on nuclear fuel or energy?

Question

Wouldnt this be a good alternative fuel

Answer 1

Do you have any idea how dangerous nuclear fuel is to use as an energy source? I certainly wouldn't want to be within 100 miles of the scene of an accident.

Nuclear fuel theoretically would allow you to drive relatively indefinitely, but it would be prohibitively expensive to produce the mechanisms required for splitting the uranium atoms and harnessing the resulting thermal energy to produce electricity to run the motor. You also need to consider where/how to extract the enriched fuel and dispose of the waste.

One of the reasons that nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers cost billions of dollars is because of the manpower, technology, and equipment infrastructure to sustain a safe nuclear reaction. There are control rods, steam pipes, heat exchangers, cooling condensers, fan turbines, and generators to consider before you can get any useful power out of nuclear fission. If you can figure out a way to fit all that underneath the hood of a car, you're sitting on a gold mine.

In short, no, this would not be a good alternative fuel.

Answer 2

there are a few reasons. cost, accident danger and disposal of waste with radiation half lives approaching 1000s of years. Nuclear (or nucular as the nitwit at 1600 Pennsylvania ave calls it) is not the answer. bio fuels which are truly renewable and have a zero net carbon footprint are the way to go until we get better fuel cell technology to where we can go electric. I own a converted school bus which I use as a camper. It runs on waste veg oil, has 350 watts of solar electric on the roof backed up by batteries and a 1500 watt inverter and wood stove for heat. That's free lights and heat and minimal use of bio-diesel or dino-diesel for start up and shut down. I can get free sunshine for lights, free wood for heat and free waste veg oil for transport. that my friend beats nuclear by miles, s***w the big oil companies and most important it is true energy Independence. Not just from foreign countries, but also Independence from the government and the robber corporations who are destroying not only the environment but also our country.

Answer 3

Actually Ford made a nuclear concept car in the 50's. The ford nucleon. Able to go 5,000 miles between recharges. Not a bad idea.....exept for the fact there wouldn't be any more "minor" fender benders haha

Answer 4

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER FOR CARS, TERRORIST WOULD LOVE THAT

Answer 5

Alternative cars (and alternative car fuels) have to pass "the redneck test".

That's why we don't have flying cars.

A 15 year old truck that breaks down just goes to the side of the road.

A 15 year old flying car that breaks down crashes and kills everyone.

Could you imagine what Larry the Cable Guy would do if he had a chunk of uranium in his car?

Answer 6

Too expensive, too heavy (shielding), too complex (controlled fission reaction) and too heavily regulated (due to radiation AND proliferation concerns).

It currently takes about 7 years of training to be a Nuclear Operator.  Are you willing to go to school full time for 7 years just to learn to operate a car?

Answer 7

Don't you know- THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING!   BE AFRAID, VERY AFRAID!!!!!    

What would you consider nuclear fuel?   Does it have to be uranium or plutonium?    A few years ago someone found that if a certain element was bombarded with X-rays it would create a cascade of alpha particles- which can't even pass through a couple sheets of paper, but will heat up the air around it.    The hot air could be used to run a gas turbine like some large trucks have and Volvo I believe used to build.   The element produces ten times as much energy as is used to keep the reaction going.    The half life of the element is around 30 years.   The article was more focused on using the technology on aircraft  jet engines for long distance flights.

Answer 8

You couldn't directly because of risk of exposed radiation, but indirectly using Electric cars you could. Ask Senator Clinton why she let Bush give away fusion technology to France.

Answer 9

lol, if anyone took this seriously, they have no idea what a troll is. He's just posting this for lulz. I do c**p like this occasionally, just to see all the serious responses.

Really tho, nucular power, too obvious.

Answer 10

We are depleting natural resources at such a rapid rate that ultimately we have to turn to nuclear energy.  The main reason it hasn't found widespread traction yet is that people fear nuclear energy, some justified, some not.  Also, safe disposal of residual waste products from nuclear reactors is an issue that still needs to be sorted out.

Answer 11

It is too risky to use in the car, because of radiation disposal, and if you have the accident, it will post great threat to us and other people around us. Also, it it very difficult to manage the waste, and it is very expensive to manage the waste because you cannot just bury it underground.