Most Helpful Member
but you wouldn't want this on a battlefield, if it got blown up, the plutonium in it would contaminate the area and the people around it.a radioisotope thermoelectric generator is appropriate because it has no moving parts and requires no maintenance and is better than solar cells when it comes to space.
geothermal energy is only good for fixed installations such as an air force base or early warning radar station.
for military power sources, they need to be 1)portable, 2)durable (soldier proof durable), 3)reliable, 4)easy to operate 5) mass produced, 6)simple to maintain. exotic power sources and fuels are a no-go, because, when the chips are down, the soldiers might need to scavenge fuel from other sources (such as left-behind enemy equipment). radioactive elements are in most cases out of the question because of the same problem mentioned above. a lot of "green" sources such as solar panels and wind generators don't make sense because they have to be camouflaged... if you cover solar panels with camo netting they don't work well.... if you cover a wind generator with camouflage it won't turn (or it will rip the netting to shreds). if you can meet the 6 or so criteria, you may be able to get a project considered. look at items in the military supply system, and if you think you can do better, go for it, but remember logisticians will be looking at supplying fuel, parts, accessories for this. remember the criteria i listed are very important... great firearms with groundbreaking innovations have been rejected for not being easy to maintain, or something breaking because it was too fragile for battlefield use.