Nuclear planes are "not good for anybody," says Theodore Rockwell, founder of Radiation, Science & Health, Inc., a non-profit organization in Chevy Chase, Md., that advocates for objective review of low-level radiation science policies. During World War II, Rockwell worked a program at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where he helped develop new materials and designs for radiation shielding. Although a supporter of nuclear power, he draws the line at using it to fuel aircraft.
In addition to the potential passenger dangers, he says that pilots could only fly a limited number of flights to prevent overexposure to nuclear radiation, noting that after a few flights, they would have been exposed to far more radiation than nuclear power plant workers. "Power has to be predicable to be useful," he says, "and nuclear is by far easiest to predict on Earth."
A more promising green fossil-fuel alternative is biofuel. Richard Altman, executive director of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), a consortium sponsored by the FAA that promotes the move away from petroleum-based jet fuel. CAAFI favors "drop-in" fuels that work within existing infrastructures—that is, they are interchangeable with fossil fuels and require no alterations to aircraft or airports. These alternatives include liquids from both renewable (plants) and nonrenewable (coal and natural gas) sources that are better than an oil refinery on a greenhouse gas (GHG) life-cycle basis. They have the same safety and density as fossil fuels, Altman says, and would not alter planes’ performance, range, or capacity to carry passengers.
*Note (12/5/08): The weight given for the B-36 was corrected after publication of this article.
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add Comment"...Convair B-36, a hybrid prop/jet-engine bomber weighing more than 400 pounds (180 kilograms) and with a wingspan of 230 feet (70 meters),..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! A B36 that weighed 400 pounds. ... Doesn't anybody proofread this stuff?
Hmmm.......What if.......we equalize the power source between solar ,wind and nuclear ,thus lowering the amount of reactionary radioactive power necessary and only shield the reactor part not the whole plane. The air/gas cooled reactor would primarily be used to boost take off power requirements and then once in the air the reactor would be on standby while the WGU (wind generator units) and the solar cells would power the plane in flight! Just a thought............
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI *think* that the entire area of the airplane, covered in high efficiency solar cells, may not provide enough power to keep it aloft. Have not seen any analysis on the power required for a passenger jet to stay aloft at 30Kfeet, and the solar irradiance gain do to that altitude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would also eliminate this plane from flying on the nightside of the world.
Not sure how we get wind generator units on a plane. Are we talking cross winds here?
What about a hydrogen fuel cell powered electric airplane? Could we build hydrogen tanks with similar energy density to jet fuel and thus use solar and wind on the ground to produce the hydrogen? Unlike the fueling troubles for electric cars where there are not enough fueling stations across the globe for distribution, fueling airplanes with hydrogen would only require retrofitting the airports for hydrogen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's exactly what Osama Bin Laden would love to hear. If they had only managed to have directly killed 4 thousand on 9/11 imagine the level of destruction a nuclear powered craft can create. No need to obtain materials for a dirty bomb just a ticket and the sheer will to get to the cockpit at all costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear powered airplanes. Hmmm. Just the thing to fly out of our ultra-secure airports!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo because a functioning reactor is on board the plane, means the plane can quickly be converted into a warhead in flight, without bringing any tools or materials aboard... Of course, I'm sure they would just have access wide open as well, no lockouts, no failsafes, etc...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I'm sure Osama can figure it out ...from his cave.
9-11! 9-11! Sure is fun living in fear, isn't it...
That reminds me of an idea I once had called <a href="http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/The_20Green_20Beast#1227561743">The Green Beast</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislol!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Marty, this is 1956, in your time I'm sure they have reactor grade uranium in every convenience store but it's nearly impossible to find it in 1956." Doc, from Back to the Future
I worked as a nuclear physicist at General Electric Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Dept. from 1956-59.Radiation shielding was my concern. We only talked about bombers not passenger planes. The reactor was always within the body because it is heavy and never on the wings. The 3MW reactor flown on the B36 had absolutely nothing to do with powering the plane and was water cooled not air cooled.It was used for shielding experiments.One to power an aircraft would have a power level of 300-400MW and would be air cooled in GE's Direct cycle, and liquid metal cooled in the Pratt Whitney system. Turbine temperatures would be 1800 degrees or more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a fairly useless and empty article. Obvious, obvious, obvious. Its a good waste of electrons. How about something along the lines of how an atomic airplane would work. What's the process for creating the thrust? What's the efficiencies? What's the thrust to lift ratio? Could it really ever get off the ground?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou got the click SciAm, but you really have no substance here.
Resuscitating nuclear power for airplanes would allow taking advantage of aircraft steam turbine research done by the germans and seized during WWII. Pray that a flying reactor does not fall on you!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll good points! Its wonderful to crunch ideas! it seems Nuclear isnt the best idea. combinational solar/ wind/hydrogen with polar gravitational assist? lets keep crunching! HAPPY HOLIDAYS to everyone!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEither a multilayer coating to the exterior of airplane that as air pressure is forced upon it react or possably the shell and frame flexation could also generate energy as it does flex at a specified frequency. fuel should be a combination for safety. as for nuclear it seems untill we can harness the reaction in a atmosphericaly controlled and radioactively contained unit that is feasable and safe i dont see it yet......(gravitational assist from arctic poles.......dont see it yet) though a combinational solar,hydrogen(produced in flight), electric and wind combination may suffice if we lower the required energy requirements for operation of aircraft.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure many of you realize how much energy it actually takes to keep a plane in the air, but it's substantial enough that there are already grumblings that eventually, the reintroduction of lighter-than-air craft is inevitable. They're kind of a different take on flying, but it turns out they have some admirable qualities after all, with regard to payload, stealth, range, etc... interesting direction. Europe already has a few in service, and there are several firms working on them here in the US as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first to successfully leave the ground, and the last one still up with a big period of nothing in between. Kinda like electric cars. Old tricks are the best tricks, I guess. Or, a case of "Keep it Simple, Stupid".
The current energy density of stored hydrogen is much less than jet fuel's (I think the ratio was ~25-30% or so). Thus, one would need larger planes to store all the fuel necessary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is ongoing work to be able to develop molecules/structures that will store hydrogen more densely, but nothing is coming close to hydrocarbons yet...
Nuclear powered planes would have to be twice the size of a jumbo jet? well why not? The bigger the plane, the more stable it is. Also theres even more energy efficiency with more passengers and less flights. Special docking areas/runways? by all means. Army personnel to guard the reactor is all that's needed for security concerns, and a large enough plane could carry sufficient shielding for radiation not to be an issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of which would be remotely as efficient, safe and pleasant as a dirigible by the way.
Nuclear (in some form) may indeed become not only an option but a requirement of sort. My take; Its not going to work on a traditional platform/vehicle. We are talking a novel type of craft with a novel type of propulsion, superconductors and magnets, 'anti-gravity'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink more in terms of flying saucers, people.
Uh, no thanks. Considering the number of aircraft that have crashed I have zero desire to to be under one when it contaminates several square miles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we want to find a way to use nuclear power for constructive purposes then do it in space where it's safe, possibly by bringing back the Orion Space Propulsion concept from the 50's. Now that would be something worth getting excited about.
Keep the reactor on the ground. Generate hydrogen. Use it to power the turbines. This is probably not the best solution but it is a lot more practical than trying to shield a reactor on board an airplane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Towers were nuclear powered, there would have been LESS destruction and fewer lives lost. No jet fuel, no fires. It was the fire weakened steel girders that brought the towers down.. Of course there might be some radioactive material spread about but even then it would be contained. I'm not saying that these aircraft are pratical but --- Get over the paranoia about nuclear power people!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAtomic flight in the mode that is currently being proposed is foolhardy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisconsider an accident that could cause the plane to crash or worse an explosion in mid air causing fall out in the upper jet stream would spread planet wide in a matter of weeks contaminating the air we breathe and would prove our ultimate demise