🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.005936.9684@reed.edu> (P. Douglas Reeder) writes:
> I doubt nuclear is a viable choice, for the same reasons we don't 
> have nuclear powered cars.

In article <73755@hydra.gatech.EDU> (Tom Collins) writes:
>And for those of you who don't know, the reason is that you either
>need a very LARGE vehicle (to isolate the reactor physically) or a
>great deal of shielding.

I don't believe this is true. Certainly some of the latest Russian
satellite reactors 1 - 10Kw, no refueling are efficent enough to power
a car and their radiation emissions are well below those considered
harmful. The reactors were designed to power the latest version of
of their spy satellites and had to be shielded to keep from contributing
to the already radiation "rich" environment of low earth orbit.

It is much more likely that we don't have nuclear powered cars because
it would be more efficient to have 1 nuclear power plant supply electricity
to the roads and have the cars pick up the power as they needed it.
(much more efficient use of nuclear fuel, easier to maintain, centralized
waste disposal) 

Fuel cells are an interesting alternative for robot power (and you
can get LNG powered ones as well.) but they are generally to large
at present to be easily portable. John Nagle's idea of the butane
powered main plant is (in all its engineering difficulty) the most
practical, long "range", fast refill, power source.


--
--Chuck McManis						    Sun Microsystems
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: <none>   Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM
NIS+ Architect
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.