Why there's no tanks that runs on nuclear or alternative energy?

Why there's no tanks(and other similar armored military vehicles) that runs on nuclear or alternative energy sources in real life? (I'm often encounters fictional tanks that runs on anything other than Petroleum like some fictional tanks in Command and Conquer series)

Originally posted by masonicon
Why there's no tanks(and other similar armored military vehicles) that runs on nuclear or alternative energy sources in real life?

Because that essentially turns the tank into a potential dirty bomb.

IRM

a) it's much too expensive
b) running a nuclear reactor is beyond the capability of a tank driver
c) it's much too expensive
d) it would be much too big and irradiate the crew
e) it's much too expensive
f) the logistics of dealing with the fuel and waste is too difficult for small dispersed vehicles.

The smallest craft with nuclear reactors are icebreaker ships. The USSR had some large orbital satellites with fission reactors too.

I'm not just talking about Nuclear energy, I'm talking about any energy sources other than oil for Tanks and other armored vehicles in this thread(including free energy)

[edit on 27/5/2010 by masonicon]

Reactors no, now I think that it may be possible to use the type of radioactive battery that NASA used on one of their probes a few years ago that went to Saturn I think.

But it just isn't practical. Battlefield mechanics would have to be nuclear trained, which is difficult enough for a smart person, let alone the people currently working as mechanics (not meant as a hit against them, just saying that even the military has a different set of criteria for nuclear engineering work, I know since they tried to get me to do that).

The closest you'll see us ever getting to an "alternative" energy source may be wireless energy with a local backup. Then battles will basically turn into a battle of "Destroy the Power Station".

Interesting question though and it's good to ask. Need to keep us all on our toes eh?

Bad idea if not impossible

Think how hard it was to fit reactors into subs and boats and all the shielding involved with them it was no easy task and those are considerable larger not to mention the cost would mean we had only maybe 3 or 4 tanks.
Also no tank in invulnerable in fact their quite easy targets from the air and as someone mentioned with a reactor on board they might as well be a dirty bomb.

As for other types of power I suppose hydrogen might be possible but I doubt you would run across many hydrogen stations in the desert so refuelling them would be a logistical nightmare. I can't think of anything else that might work solar wouldn't create enough power and make them visible to the enemy for miles.

Just my thoughts.

How about Water fuel cell, Solar energy, Cold Fusion, and other alternative energy sources for running tanks and other armored vehicles? (forgot about Nuclear fission energy)

[edit on 27/5/2010 by masonicon]

What a silly question! A Tank in a War - With a reactor - BOOOOOOM!
A Tank is how havy? Need how many PS/KW to move the damn war machine?. Solar Cells on a War Machine? Instable Gases on a war machine?

WTF?


[edit on 27-5-2010 by cushycrux]

reply to post by masonicon


There is nothing else that generates the amount of energy required to move a tank and has the logistical availability of fossil fuels. You cannot forget that logistics are one of the most important aspects of running a war, how many times in the past have blitzes had to stop because they outran their supply sources?

Originally posted by masonicon
I'm not just talking about Nuclear energy, I'm talking about any energy sources other than oil for Tanks and other armored vehicles in this thread(including free energy)

If it helps the American Abrams can also run on Jack Daniels! - Vodka maybe? Channel No.5, petrol aviation fuel, BBQ lighter fluid... The list goes on, so long as it's liquid and burns well enough the Abrams gas turbine engine (jet engine) can run on it.

Whether that is a good idea is another matter - You won't get the power needed to move probably and you will need a flipping tank to prevent me choking the person who filled the thing up on whiskey...

Space is at a very high premium inside a tank.
Very limited room for both engine and fuel.
Gas turbines are powerful, but too fuel inefficient.
Only gasoline or diesel engines are practical.
You could never make a reactor and steam turbine small enough, and powerful enough to do the job.
Plus the cost, radiation danger to the crew, and problem with contamination when your tank is taken out.
Just not at all practical I am afraid.

Most diesel engines will run on veg oil,so I guess any diesel based tank could run on such fuel.
When I started running my van on veg oil,there was a noticable increase in performance too.
Mind you,its not exactally a "green" fuel,as it literally takes the food out of peoples mouths who could be using veg oil to cook with.
Also takes vast amounts of farmland to produce any decent amount,thereby stealing space which could otherwse be used as food production.

Guess we have to wait until cold fusion is on the table,or even better CF and anti gravity combined-imagine a totally frictionless engine,running in an anti grav environment..

Originally posted by masonicon
How about Water fuel cell, Solar energy, Cold Fusion, and other alternative energy sources for running tanks and other armored vehicles? (forgot about Nuclear fission energy)

[edit on 27/5/2010 by masonicon]

Water Fuel cells and cold fusion don't exist, and even if they do they're so secret that governments would never put them in tanks where thousands of enlisted men would work with them, maintain them, and have full access to the technical diagrams.

Solar doesn't work for obvious reasons. Take an Abrams tank. It's about 9.7 meters long by 8 meters wide. The top is thus about 77.6 square meters. At the equator, the sun shines down at about 600-1000 watts per square meter at noon on a bright sunny day. that's 77600 watts for the whole top of the tank during the optimal period. Solar panels get up to about 20% efficient. That's about 15 520 watts of usable electricity.

To drive about in a useful fashion, the tank needs a 1,120 kW engine. Solar power from a tank sized panel under optimal conditions provides about 1.4 percent of that. You also can't camouflage solar panels because painting them is moronic.

Wind and hydroelectric are right out, and it should be obvious why.

Nuclear fission requires heavy shielding and probably can't be safely done at tank size. Submarines and ships have the advantage of being much larger and having an ocean of cool water to dump heat into, as well as not having to worry about weight as much. Nuclear fusion hasn't been achieved in a form that would be useful for powering a tank yet. There are also problems with radiation shielding and cooling and weight.

Ethanol is out because it doesn't fit with the supply chain and is too flammable to make a good tank fuel. Gas turbine engines like in the abrams can burn it in a pinch, but it's not something that's likely to be supplied. It also has a much lower energy density than diesel, or even gasoline. Biodiesel is a good choice, and is probably being looked into.


EDIT:

Hydrogen fuel cells require storing and transporting hydrogen, which is difficult because it has to be pressurized, unlike liquid fuel. It also suffers from an absurdly low energy density compared to diesel, and tank designers would never sacrifice the range. Battery power is heavy, expensive, and has terrible energy density, and requires a charging time that's much longer than refueling with a liquid fuel. Ultracapacitors have barely 1/10th the energy density of batteries, making them completely unsuitable for powering a vehicle. Flywheel inertial electrical storage is only on par with batteries for energy density and has a risk of exploding when jostled.

External combustion engines like steam and stirling engines can't currently match internal combustion engines for performance per weight.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by mdiinican]

Rommel's Afrcia corps was running on synthetic fuel at the end of the war. project paper clip took care of that tidbit....
No nuclear power is obvious to me, solar technology is just not durable.

Rommel's Afrcia corps was running on synthetic fuel at the end of the war. project paper clip took care of that tidbit....
No nuclear power is obvious to me, solar technology is just not durable.

Originally posted by jbmitch
Rommel's Afrcia corps was running on synthetic fuel at the end of the war. project paper clip took care of that tidbit....
No nuclear power is obvious to me, solar technology is just not durable.

Rommel's Africa corps were running on a variety of gassified coal, turned into liquid hydrocarbons throught Fischer-Tropsch process. It's expensive and polluting compared to regular gas, but it's handy when you simply can't get access to enough oil. The Air Force is considering building a number of coal gassification plants so that it can be independent of foreign oil in a crisis. For everyone else, however, the price isn't competitive, and the pollution is daunting.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2-6-2010 by mdiinican]

the US military has run military vehicles on synthetic fuel and bio-fuels.
the US air-force has flown planes on synthetic jet fuel.
www.scientificamerican.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
spectrum.ieee.org...
www.technologyreview.com...
gas2.org...
www.mindfully.org...

Any "alternative" fuel sources that could power a tank would probably be highly classified, and they couldn't risk the enemy capturing a tank and aquiring the technology.

If tanks run on Water Fuel Cell, they can dries up world's oceans

[edit on 4/6/2010 by masonicon]

reply to post by masonicon


No. The "end product" of "water fuel cells" would be water again.