Kill oil -> Atompunk?

Thande

Donor
I was thinking about the whole "atompunk" scenario - you know the one I mean; the 1950s vision of the future, with nuclear powered cars and vacuum cleaners. While there are obvious issues with widespread nuclear power, I think the major reason that future didn't materialise is that petrochemical energy sources are just so much more convenient. After all, when those scenarios were confidently predicted, we didn't really know (a) how big the world's demand, with its population and prosperity rapidly growing, would be for cars, and (b) all the new oil reserves that would be discovered.

So what if we somehow cut at least the Western world off from oil - not wholly perhaps but enough to make it economically unviable? Would that deliver an atompunk setting (albeit probably in combination with hydroelectric and so on).

Of course the real question there is how. Something involving the Arab nations being in the Soviet sphere of influence somehow is probably needed, but you still need to consider things like West Africa, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and so on. Any ideas for how we could get around that without ASBs?
 
What if? We'd have a lot more meltdowns me thinks. Unless you figure out a way to have fusion replace fission. Considering the same rate of energy use, the fissile material in the crust would be depleated before the oil (well, maybe not that soon, but Uranium is rare).
 
What if? We'd have a lot more meltdowns me thinks. Unless you figure out a way to have fusion replace fission. Considering the same rate of energy use, the fissile material in the crust would be depleated before the oil (well, maybe not that soon, but Uranium is rare).

First, meltdowns are incredibly rare in a well designed and maintained reactor. Think of a meltdown as being analogous to an oil power plant exploding. Does it happen? Yes. Is it normal for a good plant to do so? No.

Also, there's a lot of uranium in the Earth. At current production rates, there's enough uranium in known mines to last a century, with estimates of at least twice as much more undiscovered. Plus, a plutonium economy lends itself well to recycling and reprocessing...nuclear power could last us millenia if done right.
 
First, meltdowns are incredibly rare in a well designed and maintained reactor. Think of a meltdown as being analogous to an oil power plant exploding. Does it happen? Yes. Is it normal for a good plant to do so? No.

Also, there's a lot of uranium in the Earth. At current production rates, there's enough uranium in known mines to last a century, with estimates of at least twice as much more undiscovered. Plus, a plutonium economy lends itself well to recycling and reprocessing...nuclear power could last us millenia if done right.


Uh huh, but if you have an atom-powered car, or airplanes. Well, airplanes have a habit of occasionally falling out of the sky. And would you trust the average driver with a nuclear reactor in their car?
 
Uh huh, but if you have an atom-powered car, or airplanes. Well, airplanes have a habit of occasionally falling out of the sky. And would you trust the average driver with a nuclear reactor in their car?

Frankly, I wouldn't. Which makes me think of a modified atom-punk. If rechargable battery tech progresses somewhat faster, people can plug in a battery car to a wall socket connected to a nuclear reactor many miles away.

Or maybe you can use nuclear power to make hydrogen for cars.

Petroleum would survive for a while, at least restricted for some reason to airplanes because electric planes are just starting up IOTL in 2009. Jets require burning fuel anyway.
 
I don't think that this would be feasible in real life. But It would be a kick ass setting for a story. But there really is no way to destroy all the oil or at least most of it without some sort of nuclear war. Which as we all know would kill everyone.
 
Ford did design a nuclear powered concept car, though I forget the name.

I believe it was intended to be powered by an interchangable micro reactor.
 

MrP

Banned
Ford did design a nuclear powered concept car, though I forget the name.

I believe it was intended to be powered by an interchangable micro reactor.

It's turned up in NPC - perhaps in a Gorgeous Cars thread.
 
To be honest when we greatly lack something we really out do ourselves ( humanity ) research into alternative power sources would sky rocket because of need and desperation. If this began in the 1950's then you would probably see fusion coming in around now. But for the casual home appliances Hydoelectric dams, Wind power and most likely very large amounts of geothermal power. But ofcourse Fusion is likely the greatest aim for western energy and would eventually take over ( except geothermal, would make a great back up and would have a constant flow of energy )... and ofcourse the greatest resource center for fusion materials happens to be the Gas Giants. There are already highly regarded designs for nuclear rocket powered space craft and because fission in this world would be a main source of power we can imagine that implementing it would be much safer because more modified and advanced meens of handling it and generating it would be in place. So its likely a primitive space economy would be in place by now.
 
This is one of the projects I had in mind when writing the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

Its a British design researched between 1973-78, now if that was being researched back then when Nuclear power wasn't a viable option then imagine the designs when Nuclear power was one of the only options. Now this design was for intersteller flight and was believed to be able to reach around 10% the speed of light, imagine that for just between the planets in our solar system.
 
This is one of the projects I had in mind when writing the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

Its a British design researched between 1973-78, now if that was being researched back then when Nuclear power wasn't a viable option then imagine the designs when Nuclear power was one of the only options. Now this design was for intersteller flight and was believed to be able to reach around 10% the speed of light, imagine that for just between the planets in our solar system.


Yeah, I've seen that one before. For some reason, it's design scares the shit out've me... It's just really awkward with those balls around it (yeah yeah they have their purpose, but still...)


Btw. Talking about nuclear vacuum-cleaners (lol)...
Would it even be possible to have a powerplant small enough for that?
I doubt it.
 
Yeah, I've seen that one before. For some reason, it's design scares the shit out've me... It's just really awkward with those balls around it (yeah yeah they have their purpose, but still...)


I know what you mean, somehow its the prime of human engineering but it looks like an atom so very fragile, ironic since thats also what drives it ( atoms ). And atoms can be broken, quite the opposite of what powers it. But I guess since its in space and theres no drag it isn't such a problem thankfully.
 
Uh huh, but if you have an atom-powered car, or airplanes. Well, airplanes have a habit of occasionally falling out of the sky. And would you trust the average driver with a nuclear reactor in their car?

Have short range battery powered cars and huge nuclear powered trains* (with car transport compartments) for intercity transport.
*Rather a lot less to go wrong with a rolling stock reactor than a automobile or flying one ;).
 

Archibald

Banned
Or maybe you can use nuclear power to make hydrogen for cars.

Ammonia (NH3). Takes the nitrogen from the air, hydrogen from water, combine the two into ammonia thanks to a nuclear reactor.
Liquid ammonia is denser and warmer (-34°C) than hydrogen, thus much more easier to store.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
Uh huh, but if you have an atom-powered car, or airplanes. Well, airplanes have a habit of occasionally falling out of the sky. And would you trust the average driver with a nuclear reactor in their car?

Well they could be electric, the power generated from Uranium based powerplants could be stored in them by way of batteries.
 
Have short range battery powered cars and huge nuclear powered trains* (with car transport compartments) for intercity transport.
*Rather a lot less to go wrong with a rolling stock reactor than a automobile or flying one ;).

Supertrain?
 
I was thinking about the whole "atompunk" scenario - you know the one I mean; the 1950s vision of the future, with nuclear powered cars and vacuum cleaners. While there are obvious issues with widespread nuclear power, I think the major reason that future didn't materialise is that petrochemical energy sources are just so much more convenient. After all, when those scenarios were confidently predicted, we didn't really know (a) how big the world's demand, with its population and prosperity rapidly growing, would be for cars, and (b) all the new oil reserves that would be discovered.

So what if we somehow cut at least the Western world off from oil - not wholly perhaps but enough to make it economically unviable? Would that deliver an atompunk setting (albeit probably in combination with hydroelectric and so on).

Although Atomic powered cars and aircrafts would be very nice indeed I think the result would be an Electriwank rather than Atompunk. After initial gee-whiz experiments I think it would be found that most convenient way to use atomic energy would be to have large nuclear power plants providing electricity, and in case of Northern European / Northern Colonial large cities also district heating. (For nuclear district heating, see following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ågesta_Nuclear_Plant

As I'm currently living in a city heated by coal-powered district heating I wonder how many lives would have been saved during past, say, 30 years if nuclear district heating had been used instead...) In case of Britain, however, district heating won't happen, there will be just those bizarre unefficient electric heaters as in OTL.

Electric cars as well as electric trolleybuses would be widespread and most probably a battery changing stations would be devised fairly quickly. These, combined with more rapid battery development, would suit land transport needs nowadays fulfilled by gasoline powered engines merrily. The impact upon city planning and population dispersion would be enormous.

As for aerial transport Fischer-Tropsch or biofuels would provide the solution. Where there would be undoubtely more atomic reactor usage would be sea transportation. With use of nuclear propulsion I'd expect ship speeds to rise more quickly.
 
Uh huh, but if you have an atom-powered car, or airplanes. Well, airplanes have a habit of occasionally falling out of the sky. And would you trust the average driver with a nuclear reactor in their car?

This is not a meltdown...it's a completely different thing. That said, it's a valid concern, though I think that small nuclear reactors could be designed to be strong enough to survive this sort of thing (just put the whole thing in a big metal case). Depending on your design, the most dangerous thing will almost certainly be the high pressure steam.
 
Top