Much like “flying cars”, atomic powered cars were a campy futuristic meme of the 50’s, for example, there was the Ford Nucleon concept:
From Wikipedia: The Ford Nucleon was a scale model concept car developed by Ford Motor Company in 1958 as a design on how a nuclear-powered car might look. The design did not include an internal-combustion engine, rather, the vehicle was to be powered by a small nuclear reactor in the rear of the vehicle, based on the assumption that this would one day be possible based on shrinking sizes. The car was to use a steam engine powered by uranium fission.
It looks a little bit like the Bat mobile from the rear:
Now it looks like we might actually see a real one, using Thorium rather than Uranium, which not only is safer to manage, you don’t have to worry about some terrorist car-jacking your ride for fissile materials.
Here’s the new concept. Thorium could be used in conjunction with a laser and mini turbines to easily produce enough electricity to power a vehicle. When thorium is heated, it generates further heat surges, allowing it to be coupled with mini turbines to produce steam that can then be used to generate electricity. It is said that 1 gram of thorium produces the equivalent energy of 7,500 gallons of gasoline.
Here’s the headline from Ward’s Auto:
U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
By Keith Nuthall
A U.S. company says it is getting closer to putting prototype electric cars on the road that will be powered by the heavy-metal thorium.
Thorium is a naturally occurring, slightly radioactive rare-earth element discovered in 1828 by the Swedish chemist Jons Jakob Berzelius, who named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. It is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils, where it is about three times more abundant than uranium.
…
The key to the system developed by inventor Charles Stevens, CEO and chairman of Connecticut-based Laser Power Systems, is that when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat.
Small blocks of thorium generate heat surges that are configured as a thorium-based laser, Stevens tells Ward’s. These create steam from water within mini-turbines, generating electricity to drive a car.
A 250 MW (I think this is a typo, they probably mean KW – Anthony) unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.
Jim Hedrick, a specialist on industrial minerals – and until last year the U.S. Geological Survey’s senior advisor on rare earths – tells Ward’s the idea is “both plausible and sensible.”
…
Stevens says his company should be able to place a prototype on the road within two years. The firm has 40 employees and operates out of an in-house research workshop.
 View Chart Larger |
Hedrick, the industrial minerals expert, says 7,500 gallons is “way more gasoline than an average person uses in a year. Switching to thorium-driven cars would make the U.S. energy self-sufficient, and carbon emissions would plummet.
“It would eliminate the major need for oil,” he says. “The main (remaining) demand would be for asphalt for roadways, natural gas, plastics and lubricants.”
Full story here.
=============================================================
I want one. 8 grams of Thorium in a V shaped reactor block. The new atomic V-8. The only downside is that I won’t be able to overhaul the engine myself as I would imagine the Thorium would be in a sealed power module. I might add, that this endeavor sounds a little bit like a Tucker, long on promise, short on delivery.
=============================================================
ADDENDUM:
I published this story late Friday night at 1AM and then went on a trip the next day, I was surprised to learn that people missed my cues and thought I took the Ward’s article seriously. I thought the headline and first sentence set the tone with “flying cars” and “campy”.
Few seemed to understand the Tucker comment at the end either:
“I might add, that this endeavor sounds a little bit like a Tucker, long on promise, short on delivery.”
The Tucker was a car sold on futuristic promises in the mind of a man that hadn’t actually designed or built the car. Preston Tucker floated the concept in Science Illustrated magazine in December 1946 followed by a full page advertisement in March 1947 in many national newspapers claiming “How 15 years of testing produced the car of the year”. He was immediately overwhelmed with pre-orders for a car that didn’t even exist on paper. Hence my comment: “I want one”.
Tucker then got a bunch of investors together to try to fill orders, and got some government help with loan of a WWII supply factory that had been idled after the war. The factory eventually produced 50 cars, but it was too late, as many had lost confidence and he was embroiled in an SEC investigation and court trial over investor funds.
The cars finally produced didn’t have many of the futuristic features that had been promised early on. Some were there, and Tucker was credited with inspiring improved auto safety as a result.
I thought my reference to a Tucker automobile was about as strong a label as anyone could make as the promises of this thorium car being hyped. The parallel seemed obvious.
I guess next time I’ll have to be more explicit. with a /sarc tag – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A long time ago I had a dream where everyone had a reactor under their house. That might have been triggered by a vaguely remembered news item about some natural deposits of radioactive materials being so rich that they were, in effect, natural reactors. Of course, that could have been part of the dream also.
“Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline”
======
1,000,000,000 btu per gram? I think this makes the non-nuclear energy available from Thorium something like 1000 times as high as that from TNT. Just wait ’til “they” weaponize this. (I’m not always real good with big numbers so I might be off by a factor of 10 in either direction)
Needless to say, this sounds like a scam.
“when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat”
What you have there isn’t thorium, it is Unobtainium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
Could it be that the thorium is compressed via a shock wave induced when its surface ablates in response to the laser? Such phenomenon is being commercially exploited on other materials…
“The key to the system developed by inventor Charles Stevens, CEO and chairman of Connecticut-based Laser Power Systems, is that when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat.”
I have never heard of this effect before. Does it have a name? Surely if someone came up with such a prosess there would be a nobel prize in physics for it.
I dont believe in this. Nope, sorry.
My question is the cost. This thing can presumably be made practical, but at what price? The problem with having a submarine in every seaside back yard right now isn’t just the size and the staffing, but the astronomical cost to produce it in the first place. Otherwise, wouldn’t all your rich friends have one already?
Dr Charles Stevens also happens to be president of ‘The Galactic Government’.
http://galacticgovernment.us/index.php?option=com_contact&view=category&catid=12&Itemid=58
There is nothing wrong with having ‘Big Dreams’, sometimes they actually do come true.
kwik says:
–“I have never heard of this effect before. Does it have a name? Surely if someone came up with such a prosess there would be a nobel prize in physics for it.”
I’m familiar with a similar effect. When investors are heated up, they become more dense and give off money.
I’m a nuclear engineer analyzing different nuclear fuel cycle options. The article is nonsense. Nuclear reactors require fissile isotopes to get started. There is one fissile isotope in nature, U-235, which is only 0.7% of natural uranium. There are two fertile isotopes in nature, U-238 (99.3% of uranium) and thorium-232 (100% of thorium). So, virtually all nuclear fuel cycles make some U-238 into fissile Pu-239 or Th-232 into fissile U-233 – some of which fissions in situ and some is in used fuel, ready to be recycled. If you make Pu-239 or U-233 and stupidly throw it away, you increase the hazard relative to natural ores, and waste natural resources. High purity Pu-239 or U-233 or U-235 can make a weapon. Th/U-233 fuel cycles aren’t fundamentally better or worse than U/Pu-239 fuel cycles. Hold your wallet around anyone who tells you otherwise.
Let me know when you find an unarmored tank.
Spector says: August 13, 2011 at 7:01 am
A long time ago I had a dream where everyone had a reactor under their house. That might have been triggered by a vaguely remembered news item about some natural deposits of radioactive materials being so rich that they were, in effect, natural reactors. Of course, that could have been part of the dream also.
******************************
Actually, it wasn’t a dream. The French developed a Uranium mine in Gabon. To make reactor fuel, the naturally occurring Uranium is “enriched” by separating the U-235 and U-238. (A difficult task!) so that the ratio of U-235 to U-238 can be increased from 0.7% : 99.3% to around 4.0% : 96% to be used in a large, light water moderated, power reactor. (U-235 is “useful”; U-238, not so much. It’s a long story.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium
Much to their chagrin, the French found that the percentage of U-235 was LESS than 0.7%. And, analysis found fission products that are NOT naturally occurring. Their estimation is that conditions were just right for a low-level chain reaction. It was self-regulating in that as the ground water warmed up, it would expand/boil. Since the moderator was now less dense, the reaction would “turn” i.e.slow down. Neat. Well at least to an engineer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Spector, it wasn’t a dream. Check out the Oklo natural reactor. But it was 2 billion years ago and only about 100 kW.
Just one phrase:
“. . when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat.”
establishes the fact that the whole idea is fraudulent.
Hey, lighten up everybody, it is a fun diversion, thinking about a 250 MWh car even if it is a rediculus notion. We’ll be hashing climate sensitivity for years to come so why not a fun post now and then?
As for me, I’d have my own parking space in town and the local elders would say, “doing some shopping today eh, Mr. Grant? Well take your time. How bout a long lunch and show today? It’s on us.” And as I walk away from my thorium mobile, two guys in overalls with giant jumper cables are hooking it up to the grid. As I walk through the town square I notice the fountain is really running great today!
Kevin says-
“Is this accurate? I’ve never known heat to increase density.”
Apply heat to the solid form of the greenhouse chemical, respiratory hazard, poison (in sufficient dose), main component of acid rain and environmental toxin dihydrogen monoxide. As one applies heat and it transitions from the hazardous solid phase to the toxic liquid phase, the density increases, reaching a maximum at +4C.
Th-232 has a half-life of 14 billion years, so there’s no danger of it decaying away before the car isn’t fit to drive….:)
Better to post this under Scams, Frauds, Fantasy.
One very striking fact is coming from this article and the resulting comments.
Over at RealClimate, you’re squelched for expressing an opposing view. Here, quite to the contrary, opposing views, even mocking views, are being moderated and ALLOWED.
That’s what makes this such a great blog.
I know, I know, but in my fantasy I’m the only guy that has one.
Remember Moller’s flying car? Still at it btw, http://www.moller.com. Got to admit the idea of it was fun to think about. It’s why we all loved Popular Science as kids.
These posts and comments are really quite educational. Got to admit I was a little taken aback by the whole native American post, definitely for another blog, but this is my favorite blog, Anthony. So just keep on doing what your doing cause the proof is in the pudding. Giving you advice is Kind of like people who tell Rush Limbaugh he’s doing it all wrong.
@Bomber
“Surely this is nonsense”
Not necessarily (though probably).
If the Thorium is undergoing fission, then conservation of energy is OK as matter is converted to energy.
That said, it is certainly a long shot that anything usable will be available any time soon.
Typhoon says:
August 13, 2011 at 5:34 am
Alfa-beta emitter? Perhaps the reactor fits in an Alfa-Romeo. I wonder what acceleration 250 MW would give an Alfa. Bet it’s more than 1 g. 🙂 Perhaps Ward’s Auto shouldn’t write about nuclear physics and anything more than 50 kW. Stick to Alfas, not alphas!
I hadn’t seen laserturbinepower.com, but I see at the bottom “created by Charles Stevens.” That inspired me to check out http://laserpowersystems.com (which says at the bottom “created by CHS”). Neither seem to have anything about laser driven thorium energy powering cars, but there is quite a bit about thorium nuclear energy.
_____
Ah yes, heat surges. Perhaps the 250 MW is power output during a surge. If 25 kW is reasonable average power for an accelerating car (I forget a realistic number, but this is close enough), then if a surge lasts 100 usec with recovery for the rest of a second, then that averages out to 25 kW. So, all that’s left is to deal with those pesky laws of thermodynamics and everything else.
Claims appear to be spurious; not even in the same class as the Rossi device.
Wish the man well with his ‘invention’ and move on. If/when he ‘straightens’ things out perhaps it would be worth the time revisiting …
Meanwhile many ppl may castigate Anthony for running this type of article (and we all know that RC would never DARE approach such material) this actually provides an opportunity to share a few common sense ‘tools’ or methodologies that the layman can begin to use to debunk any new, seemingly off-the-mark device or theory, to wit, Don Lancaster’s common sense and practical publication and prescription on:
“How to Bash Pseudoscience”
Just a few excerpts – He starts out by stating “I personally am proud to have what many would call a classic engineering background with real degrees from real schools and a breadth of hard earned real experiences including Industrial, aerospace, self-directed, and educational” and as a result he very strongly believes that:
• The scientific method works, a method in which you propose a falsifiable theory, test that theory, then invite others to independently attack it.
• Those [the] laws of thermodynamics reverify themselves on countless occasions each and every day. These laws are (1) you can’t win; (2) you can’t break even, and (3) if you play the game, you are sure to lose.
• Each field has its secret insider gotchas. These are certain to cause major grief to the casual inquirer. Accurately measuring RMS power or doing low Dt calorimetry are two obvious examples.
• Most labwork ends up dead wrong. Either by not measuring what you think it does. Or easily getting misinterpreted, leading to wrong conclusions.
• An hour in the library is worth a month in the lab. Science and engineering progress by building upon the collective results of what has gone before.
• A single source for any theory or claim will always be highly suspect. Always seek major backup.
• “Too good to be true” results always are. Should they occur, you must spend monumental time and effort in conclusively proving yourself wrong.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Such evidence is always an obligation upon those making the claims, not on those challenging. And most especially that…
• Finding a source of ” Unlimited free energy” would be the most unimaginably heinous crime possible against humanity. For it would inevitably turn the planet into a cinder. Hastening an isoentropic heat death. If you find a free energy source, you damn well better find a new free energy sink as well. Even then, the relative flux rates will still nail you.
[Most of] The usual causes of pseudoscience fantasies (Note the plethora of YouTube vids for instance about self-running Bedeni Motors or other ‘over unity’ energy claims) include:
• labwork so mesmerizingly awful that it is not even wrong. This one gets them nearly every time.
• Not having even the faintest clue as to what a true scientific experiment, correct measurement, decent documentation, and realistic interpretation is.
• A failure to think cyclically or to look at whole systems. The “power stroke” from repelling magnets is obvious, but the extra energy it took to get the magnets there in the first place might not be.
• A lack of appreciation for engineering economics. Economics that must take into account efficiencies, alternatives, infrastructure, and total costs.
• Dragging along unreleated excess baggage. In the way of paranoia, odd religions, conspiracies, obtuse verbosity, suppression fears, or nonstandard terms.
• Giving vastly more credibility to a Keelynet file or an anonymous newsgroup post than a mainstream textbook or a properly peer reviewed article in a respected scientific journal.
• The failure to thoroughly research what has gone before and then to carefully build upon it.
• Extreme hubris that fails to recognize the lifetime commitments that untold thousands of scientists and engineers have made. Like it or not, at least some of these people are rocket scientists. They are a lot smarter than you are. And, of course…
• Sleeping through all those Physics 101 lectures. Or skipping the course entirely.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Much more at the link posted above …
.
Who Needs Thorium when good old H2O wil do.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E&w=500&h=405%5D
Basic question here (the Thorium car is a futuristic idea – nuf said). Is there any information about potential hazards? Mercury is one of those metals that only historically recently came under scrutiny as a human hazard. Absorbed through the skin or ingested, Mercury does a number of bad things. Thorium, being a rare metal, may not be hazardous until it is concentrated, like Mercury. What is known about it when humans are exposed to more concentrated forms (and I am not talking about radiation sickness here)? Birth defects? Brain toxicities? Tumors? Other organ damage?
And how about : -TdS? JimB