Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
Anonymous
Atomic Trains - Better than Hyperloop 2017-08-07 12:20:39 Post No. 9090214
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Atomic Trains - Better than Hyperloop 2017-08-07 12:20:39 Post No. 9090214
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: atomic_by_600v-d6lk0t9.png (810KB, 600x872px) Image search:
[Google]
810KB, 600x872px
Okay, I know this sounds like a terrible idea, but hear me out.
Modern locomotives are basically just large diesel generators on wheels. We've already built nuclear reactors small enough, so it's technically feasible. Real R&D will have to be done to see if its economically practical.
The real issue is obviously safety. All of the radioactive fuel spilling into the environment during a crash is an unacceptable risk.
However, I think that risk can be minimized.
A miniaturized Pebble Bed reactor design would be very useful, as the pebble shells would still contain all fission products even if the reactor itself was ruptured. Pebbles ejected upon a collision could easily be tracked down and would not emit immediately harmful levels of radiation by themselves.
Advanced computer modeling and decades of crash testing experience would allow the locomotive itself to be designed such that the reactor vessel would remain intact even in the worst conceivable accident.
Yeah, there's still the problem of convincing the public that this is a good idea, but I'm sure Elon Musk could do it.
>>
>>9090214
Just use an electric/mag train and power the system nuclear power plants.
>>
>>9090214
Wait. What if we electrify the tracks and then make the reactor stationary.
Now the whole reason behind the hyperloop is going FAST!
>>
>>9090214
For what purpose?
>>
>>9090214
>>9090219
>>9090423
Yup, no point in carrying nuclear reactors everywhere that people go. Diesel-electric is however extremely efficient for this application, so it's quite nice that you basically only need shitty, poorly maintained tracks, rather than some electric stuff that must brave the elements. A lot of passenger trains will use dual mode, so the can run on pure electric if its available in the area, or switch on the diesel everywhere else.
>>
>>9090214
>better than hyperloop
Not a very high bar set there
You just have to make the thing work and it's already better than the shit ((hyperloop))
>>
>>9090214
Let me guess, you'd use the air as a heat sink, just like that one reactor at...
>>
File: vlcsnap-error721.png (391KB, 960x540px) Image search:
[Google]
391KB, 960x540px
>>9090214
Look up "drag" literally anywhere
>>
>>9090214
1. radiation shielding
You can´t shield off the radiation properly on a reasonable samll train
2. efficiency
small reactors are less efficient, even if you ignore the crazy mass of the shielding
3. speed
Due to beeing extremely heavy and needing to be safe as fuck, the train won´t go any fast.
A electric locomotive does a far better job at being efficient and fast than a hypothetical nuclear powered one.
>>
>>9090214
>locomotive
>diesel
unless you live in a 3rd world country, trains are powered by electricity.
Since there are atomic power plants energizing the grid the trains are already atomic powered.
>>
File: nuclear powered jet engine.jpg (38KB, 500x355px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 500x355px
>>9090214
Why not use nuclear powered airplanes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
You'd never need to land. Need coolant? Just fly through a storm.
>>
File: NB-36H_with_B-50,_1955_-_DF-SC-83-09332.jpg (3MB, 3000x2400px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 3000x2400px
>>9092124
>>
>>9090214
almost anything is better than the hyperloop, even this retarded idea.
>>
>>9092124
>You'd never need to land.
More likely: you will never get a landing permit. Unshielded reactors are uncommon for very good reasons.
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4