Atom bomb on wheels

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

I've never read such male bovine excrement in all my life. It just goes to show that anyone can put anything on the internet.

Exactly. It's just more environmental extremest propaganda. And I agree 100%, it shows that anyone can post anything on the net.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by K. P. Harrier

QUOTE: Originally posted by petitnj

As oil prices rise, the advantage of rail over trucks continues to improve. Railroads spend about 12% of their income on diesel fuel, trucks about 30%. Bring on the $4/gallon, it will save the rails.

“It will save the rails”? They are drowning in business now! I say, in all due respect folks, America needs to be saved! Economists are already saying the high gas prices could send the economy downward.

There's no maybe about that. It will definately send the economy downward if gas prices keep going up as they are.

[K. P. Harrier]

QUOTE: Originally posted by petitnj

As oil prices rise, the advantage of rail over trucks continues to improve. Railroads spend about 12% of their income on diesel fuel, trucks about 30%. Bring on the $4/gallon, it will save the rails.

“It will save the rails”? They are drowning in business now! I say, in all due respect folks, America needs to be saved! Economists are already saying the high gas prices could send the economy downward.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

I've never read such male bovine excrement in all my life. It just goes to show that anyone can put anything on the internet.

[underworld]

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

If all factors were equal, that would be true. However, railroads much improve their services significantly to take advantage of the high oil prices. Poor/slow service has been killing the railroads for decades. They might get some more bulk shippers, but, unless they can improve their service and guarantee that their customers time sensitive shipments will be on time, we won't be seeing too many time sensitive shipments on the rails. Fuel cost is only part of the equation.

[petitnj]

As oil prices rise, the advantage of rail over trucks continues to improve. Railroads spend about 12% of their income on diesel fuel, trucks about 30%. Bring on the $4/gallon, it will save the rails.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Valleyline

Back in the late 50's/60's Pratt & Whitney was actively researching and developing aircraft propulsion that would use heat generated by an onboard nuclear reactor. They actually built a separate plant in Connecticut for the project, but it was ultimately shelved. I assume weight was the major factor in its demise.

The plant was part of the Middletown facility; the project was called CANEL; the reactor flew in a modified B-36 -- and the power to weight ratio was in the lead banana range. Project dropped.[:D]

[88gta350]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

88, what you said was even more than I was 'fishing' for. Well said. (And well run, too.)

If I may humbly suggest, however, there ARE cumulative nuclear effects on the structure of nuclear powerplants -- neutron embrittlement and dissociated-water hydrogen embrittlement of the metals in the primary loop of a PWR being one example. I would like to think that that's what Matt's thinking of, rather than some extrapolation of building shine. Point to remember here is that the original plant engineers understood this, staff has been monitoring it throughout the plants' operating lives, and the decisions to decommission (and yes, whether or not to extend operating licenses) take these factors into account. Never assume, even for a moment, that nuclear people are fools, crooks, or morons.

It was my understanding that decommissioning of most of the plants built in the '60s was already scheduled, with the forward-going effects on baseline supply being understood by the generating companies, and in fact some of the earlier plants have already been shut down and their materials either processed or safely stored. Can you tell me which types of plant (e.g., manufacturer or timeframe of construction) were engineered in ways which allow their extended operation -- including the indefinite extensions you mention? (In particular, has it been found that BWRs have greater structural effects than PWRs?)

I concur that most of the plant's equipment is not subject to radiation effects -- but the steam cycle in PWRs (and the BWRs I'm familiar with) involves such low levels of superheat/reheat that they are impractical to run with anything other than nuclear reactors. Meanwhile, I also understood that most of the modern nuclear technologies were essentially gas-cooled, and were not restricted to the high-volume-at-low-heat-rise cycle that the water-cooled reactors use. So in a sense Matt's argument about 'valueless' has some validity: not in the nuclear-waste sense, but in the salvage sense... certainly as applied to a hypothetical system that packages a NSSS of required power density within locomotive loading gauge.

I never meant to imply that radiation bombardment and the heat/cool cycles a plant goes through doesn't affect it. Obviously it does, as with any material. I merely was trying to point out that these affected systems can be replaced as needed. As Davis-Bessie recently showed, there can be severe effects from the radiation and chemicals used in the nuclear generation process. At TMI, we inspected our vessel head as a result of Davis-Bessie's incident and found our's to be corroded as well. It was replaced in '03 during our refueling shutdown. That was a sight to see! An 80 ton piece of alloy that was never meant to be replaced doing just that. Japan recently suffered an accident where a steam pipe corroded and burst, killing seven I believe. Obviously the conditions these materials operate in affect them. The goal is to identify and repair/replace them before problems arise. That is what the industry is getting better at.

I do not know specifics about plant manufactururers or operators, or even differences in PWRs vs BWRs when it comes to long term structural integrity. Some of the earliest plants that helped this country get nuclear power off the ground are being decommissioned and have already been so for many years. Exelon owns Oyster Creek in NJ, which is the oldest operating commercial reactor right now. Exelon is persuing a liscense extension for the plant. I believe it is a BWR. Peach Bottom has been givin an extension, I believe for both Units 2 and 3. Unit 1 has been decommssioned for a number of years. There are mnay other plants that have been issued extensions as well, and not indefinately, but for 20 years. You can find these plants at www.nrc.gov.

Modern nuclear technologies, or I should say those just coming into the mainstream, are indeed gas cooled rather than water-cooled. The most promising new technology, the Pebble Bed Reactor, uses Helium as it's cooling agent. It's said that the PBR will make nuclear much cheaper and safer.... making almost melt-down proof. Of course, that's what they said before TMI too.

[tatans]

I love the idea of a nuclear powered aircraft (NB-36H) hurtling from 39,000 feet into my neighbors back yard, this giant monster with very unreliable engines was often called the "aluminum overcast" it was so big, seems a derailed locomotive in the wilds of Utah doesn't seem so bad.

[CSXrules4eva]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979

Seeing as we are talking about exotic fuels, any opinions on using nitromethane for a fuel?

Hmmm....... Top Fuel Locomotive..... Interesting....

Randy

Hay I like your sprit. That would be something. Fire comming out the exhaust 24/7. However I think you would run into certain problems. Like engine overheating. Ya know Top Fuel dragsters can't run at full throttle under heavy load all day. If you did this you'd be lucky if the engine lasted a day or to, not even that long. Then you would have to come up with a darn good cooling system. This is the explanation I normaly give to people that ask me questions about nitro engines in locomotives. Many people think that because a top fuel has 8,000 hp why don't they put that under the hood of a locomotive. I also tell them that h.p. isn't everything.

[rvos1979]

Seeing as we are talking about exotic fuels, any opinions on using nitromethane for a fuel?

Hmmm....... Top Fuel Locomotive..... Interesting....

Randy

[Anonymous]

You can give all the information you like, and still the anti-nuclear people aren't going to listen. It's just a fact with some people; they are so set in their ways that no matter how many facts you give them they aren't going to listen. And that wouldn't be a problem if these people didn't have all the power in this country, but sadly they do. You're not gonna get them to listen to reason in a million years, guaranteed.


quote]Originally posted by up829

Overmod,

I've heard that solid rocket fuel is very hard to throttle or control. Maybe it could be fed into a land-based turbine as a powder somehow. I have no idea of the economics of making the stuff.

Regarding nuclear plants, the original Dresden Plants here in Illinois have been decommissioned for quite some time, but I'm not sure why. They were among the very first built and I don't think they generated anywhere near the power the newer plants do.

IMHO, the Nuclear Industry needs a massive PR campaign to get going again. Standardized designs and independent operation and oversight by engineers & scientists might help the public get past "The China Syndrome". An explanation of how new materials, technologies, and operating procedures since TMI make plants safer would help too. It seems we learned a lot as a result of TMI, but too few people know about it.

[Valleyline]

Back in the late 50's/60's Pratt & Whitney was actively researching and developing aircraft propulsion that would use heat generated by an onboard nuclear reactor. They actually built a separate plant in Connecticut for the project, but it was ultimately shelved. I assume weight was the major factor in its demise.

[Anonymous]

Overmod,

I've heard that solid rocket fuel is very hard to throttle or control. Maybe it could be fed into a land-based turbine as a powder somehow. I have no idea of the economics of making the stuff.

Regarding nuclear plants, the original Dresden Plants here in Illinois have been decommissioned for quite some time, but I'm not sure why. They were among the very first built and I don't think they generated anywhere near the power the newer plants do.

IMHO, the Nuclear Industry needs a massive PR campaign to get going again. Standardized designs and independent operation and oversight by engineers & scientists might help the public get past "The China Syndrome". An explanation of how new materials, technologies, and operating procedures since TMI make plants safer would help too. It seems we learned a lot as a result of TMI, but too few people know about it.

[Anonymous]

If they just had to, the railroads would probably adopt alternative fuel or gas type burning engines-unless a totally new and safe power source is discovered and perfected, like cold fusion. And can you imagine what the appearance of the engine itself might look like. Talk about sci fi...

trainluver1

[Overmod]

Toyo:

1) Of course you won't see your headlight -- it's mounted out of sight in front of you...
2) Don't blink -- at the speed of light you only have about 0.042 seconds, max, before you come out from behind the Earth's shadow and it isn't night any more...
3) You will be in violation of FRA regs if the light wasn't on, but you won't receive a violation -- no one can catch you to give it to you, and no information can be passed via radio or other EM.
4) Of course, your locomotive is quite short and pictures of it will probably not pass the railpictures.net (or whatever) editorial guidelines... see if you can find a copy of the film that was made at the Carnegie-Mellon Imaging Systems Lab that shows the effects of lightspeed travel on 'photographs' taken by lineside observers.

If you're going slower than lightspeed, you might 'see' illumination from your headlight -- suitably wavelength-shifted, of course...

[Anonymous]

So I'm in my nuclear powered loco at night going the speed of light... If I turn on my headlight will I see it?
Or will I just recieve a violation for not having it on already?

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, nuclear fission power probably doesn't have too much of a future for civillian applications in this country anymore. Not because of technological problems or stuff like that, but because of political problems. Getting a new nuclear plant built nowdays would take more than a miracle. We got 2 nuclear plants in wisconsin that have successfully gotten their operating licenses extended. And good thing too: during summer, the power grid here is stretched way too thin. Guy I know used to be chief propulsion officer on a nuclear submarine, and he confirms everything Overmod says about neutron embrittlement and stuff like that. He's told me many things about nuclear reactors, and about what happens if direct sea water was put in a reactor. Reactor vessel and coolant piping will corrode in a matter of hours, perhaps minutes, from chloride stress corrosion cracking, the time depending on the condition of the reactor. And I agree 100% about the embrittlement of the reactor vessel.

[Overmod]

88, what you said was even more than I was 'fishing' for. Well said. (And well run, too.)

If I may humbly suggest, however, there ARE cumulative nuclear effects on the structure of nuclear powerplants -- neutron embrittlement and dissociated-water hydrogen embrittlement of the metals in the primary loop of a PWR being one example. I would like to think that that's what Matt's thinking of, rather than some extrapolation of building shine. Point to remember here is that the original plant engineers understood this, staff has been monitoring it throughout the plants' operating lives, and the decisions to decommission (and yes, whether or not to extend operating licenses) take these factors into account. Never assume, even for a moment, that nuclear people are fools, crooks, or morons.

It was my understanding that decommissioning of most of the plants built in the '60s was already scheduled, with the forward-going effects on baseline supply being understood by the generating companies, and in fact some of the earlier plants have already been shut down and their materials either processed or safely stored. Can you tell me which types of plant (e.g., manufacturer or timeframe of construction) were engineered in ways which allow their extended operation -- including the indefinite extensions you mention? (In particular, has it been found that BWRs have greater structural effects than PWRs?)

I concur that most of the plant's equipment is not subject to radiation effects -- but the steam cycle in PWRs (and the BWRs I'm familiar with) involves such low levels of superheat/reheat that they are impractical to run with anything other than nuclear reactors. Meanwhile, I also understood that most of the modern nuclear technologies were essentially gas-cooled, and were not restricted to the high-volume-at-low-heat-rise cycle that the water-cooled reactors use. So in a sense Matt's argument about 'valueless' has some validity: not in the nuclear-waste sense, but in the salvage sense... certainly as applied to a hypothetical system that packages a NSSS of required power density within locomotive loading gauge.

[kevarc]

the cruiser was the Long Beach and the nuc destroyer was the Bainbridge

[Supermicha]

Krauss Maffei from Germany developed a nuclear locomotive in the 1950´s, but a prototype was never built...

To many risks as mentioned before...

[Anonymous]

First off, unless it can be proven that a locomotive powered by a nuclear reactor is completely, 100% failsafe, I think the chances of us seeing one are slim at best. As soon as the word nuclear gets mentioned, the anti-nuclear groups will start screaming, and unfortunately they have all the power in this country. Not only that, nothing is 100% failsafe. However, the main thing that will probably kill this concept will be politics.

[88gta350]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

Nuclear reactors tend to make everything in their presence have increased radioactivity that means the unit can't be used anymore after a certain period of time because of the radioactive hazard.

Unless an accident occurs that spreads contamination where it's not planned for or wanted, radioactivity doesn't shorten a plant's lifespan. Nuclear plants are made up of millions of parts: wires, tubes, valves, breakers, pumps, switches, etc. When those individual parts reach the end of their lifespans, they can be replaced, usually without even shutting down the reactor. There are so many redundant systems in these plants, they can run on an alternate system while the primary is being repaired/replaced. Some maitainance and repairs can only be done while the plant is shutdown, that's why they have refueling shutdowns every other year. Not only to refuel, but to perform maintainance. As I said, unless an accident were to occur that made some part of the plant uninhabitable, radioactivity would not shorten it's life.

Initial liscences for nuclear reactors were 40 years. That means many plants are reaching the end of that time frame in the next 1-10 years. They can apply for a 20 year extension if they can show they can reliably and safely operate the plant that long, without adverse environmental impact. So far every plant that has applied for an extension has received it. The extensions are good for 20 years.

[Sterling1]

From what I remember from reading pamphlet published by a power company who had a nuclear plant in the vicinity, the reactors used for making electricity use a low percentage of enriched uranium about 3 to 4 percent when compared to atomic bomb close to 100 percent enriched.

Nuclear reactors tend to make everything in their presence have increased radioactivity that means the unit can't be used anymore after a certain period of time because of the radioactive hazard.

The unit in this case a locomotive would have to be carefully disposed of and the parts i.e. that would have been sold for scrap value would be valueless.

In any case nuclear power plants for locomotives are needless.
Green Goats and Green Kids are better.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Additional reason not to try...

Reactors do not run by themselves, they need the constant attention of a highly trained, and very highly paid group of folks to keep them running...so your crew cost would so far exceed any savings in fuel as to make it useless.

Two, reactors require an on hand, dependable and constant supply of water...
if you have a worst case accident, a Loss Of Coolant Accident, (LOCA)you can draw upon that supply to keep the reactor cooled and stable.

In the case of land based reactors, you will note they all have either a man made lake or reservoir, or immediate access to a large, natural lake or body of water, for just that reason.

With a mobile reactor, such as those found in submarines, well, they do happen to be surrounded by water, so using sea water, although not a first choice, is always a option.

Last, can you name one single insurance company which would underwrite such a machine?

And before you decide we are condemming your idea out of hand...

Several major contractors did a few feasiblity studies on just such a concept, along with a nuc powered plane...and decided it was a no go idea.

We had a very interesting and detailed thread going about two years ago on just this very concept...several forum members, with many, many degrees in several different applications, also came to the conclusion that it just was not a good, workable idea...

Ed

I asked a friend about a US Navy experiment where they had one cruiser (I think) powered by nuclear reactor. Result: expensive in fuel and cleanup costs and no one really wanted it to be in other countries' ports.

Nuclear is expensive and yes there are problems with it, I just wonder why it's even suggested as a fuel source for locomotives.

[kevarc]

So far, everything discussed here for trains would give me a high pucker factor if I had to be around it.

[Overmod]

up829, interesting thought about rocket fuel. Did you know that the 'original' fuel for internal-combustion motors was... gunpowder?

Unfortunately, most if not all solid rocket fuels have drawbacks to their use as railroad fuels, either for internal or external-combustion power.

In order to achieve high specific impulse, most of these fuels have burn speeds that are up in the detonation range -- this is why RDX, for example, makes a good element in them. Unfortunately, this isn't a characteristic you can use to good effect to generate torque rather than thrust -- and even if you could control the resulting flow of gas into a turbine, the metering and control of ignition would be, in a word, difficult.

Some of these fuels have downright nasty combustion products -- take the perchlorate/aluminum fuel used in SRBs, for example. Not, perhaps, in the same league as nitrogen tet/asymmetrical hydrazine... but still, not something the EPA is likely to sanction, no matter how politically correct they may be about CO2 emissions... ;-}

High energy at light loads translates into a need for very precise metering of fuel feed. This is already unlikely to be mechanically simple with solid fuel, even if slurried in a carrier or dissolved (in acetone, perhaps!) -- remember that you need positive isolation of the burning fuel to prevent detonation through the feed lines (remember, this stuff contains its own "primary and secondary air"...)

There could be the usual drawn-out discussion about safety and stability of locomotive fuel in typical kinds of accident... or sabotage. Personally, I would not want high-energy propellants in the equivalent of Run 8, or even idling away, anywhere near me...

Something else, though, is that the cumulative tonnage of available propellant (high-energy though it may be) is probably inadequate to handle the amount of demand that would result from a major substitution of existing fuel requirement. You might convert the gallons of diesel currently consumed by railroads into a weight, and then compare this (on a fair delivered-horsepower basis) with the amount of available... or cost-effectively produceable... rocket fuel. My guess is that you'd use up any effective stockpile with remarkable speed, and then find that it's much too expensive to produce the high-energy fuel just for railroad purposes.

[Anonymous]

I wanted to thank everyone for their imput on this matter. I am humbled by all the knowledge that has come out of this inquiry. Thank again. Easter