What reaction?
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WITH REFERENCE to both Mr A. G. McHarg's and Mr John W. B. Clark's comments in Commercial Motor, on the 26th May and 23rd June respectively, re: the possibilities of fitting a nuclear reactor as a propulsion system for commercial vehicles.
Whilst I would agree, that we are now in to the age where our current fuel stocks will be in short supply in the early part of the 21st century, we must look for a further form of fuel/power reserves for future designs.
As a professional Mechanical Engineer with a background in the Nuclear field, I would like to point out that the actual Reactor is only the heating sources for the water to be generated into steam, in order to drive steam turbines.
With this in mind and basing it on current manufacturers and operating methods i.e. gross vehicle weight, I cannot see how you can justify a nuclear propelled commercial vehicle. The amount of ancillary equipment required for the control and operation of a nuclear reactor system will need at least two people to operate the vehicle, i.e. a driver to drive and a watch keeper (second man) to control the Reactor at a given parameter.
With regard to choosing an estimate for a nuclear reactor, you will need to justify as to how much water you will need to carry, given that you will lose a percentage of feed water when the steam condenses and is returned to your tank.
I too agree with both Mr McHarg's and Mr Clark's letter with regard to revolutionising our transport fuel economy and exhaust fumes, but given that certain areas are Nuclear Free Zones will this mean a new type of commercial vehicle ban?
I fail to see how one can justify both Mr Clark's comments of hauliers reduced maintenance and downtime, as the training and also maintenance costs for the Nuclear Reactor can only be judged upon the Royal Navy, nuclear reactor user costs.
I sincerely agree that our backroom boys will have to come up with new designs for future commercial vehicle propulsion systems, but I feel that it will not be Nuclear Power.
I also look forward to futher developments.
I. D. LLOYD-OWEN Edgware Middlesex