Register Register

Author Topic: ICE vs. Fusion Engine Costs  (Read 11102 times)

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22108
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: ICE vs. Fusion Engine Costs
« Reply #30 on: 26 November 2019, 18:06:15 »
Using the Campaign Operations rules (page 24, plus page 179 in Strat Ops), I get a little under six years to pay back $400K.  And that doesn't speak to the survivability differences between a Gauss Rifle armed tank over one with an LB-10X.

And as I've said elsewhere, fusion pays for itself faster the lighter the vehicle is.  This goes to the point about civilian fuel infrastructure.  Civilian weight vehicles with fusion engines will pay the difference in a matter of months.  Since colonies are going to start with exclusively fusion powered vehicles (save for exceptional circumstances), you have to ask when it would become economical to set up a parallel petrochemical infrastructure.

kaliban

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Re: ICE vs. Fusion Engine Costs
« Reply #31 on: 27 November 2019, 09:05:03 »
the attrition rates needs to be considered also. For a combat vehicle most probably the payback for a fusion engine is not there because, anyway, it will last for only a few encounters.


Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22108
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: ICE vs. Fusion Engine Costs
« Reply #32 on: 27 November 2019, 16:30:20 »
Unless SAW is lying to me, a 30 ton 4/6 tank with a PPC, 2 MGs, and an SRM-2 can be had for under 800K.  And it would have more armor than a Bulldog.  I think that might win a war of attrition with a 45-ton LB-10X force...

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8074
Re: ICE vs. Fusion Engine Costs
« Reply #33 on: 16 March 2020, 19:50:30 »
I think one factor you haven't realized yet is that a planet might not have oil reserves, or might not use them for fuel if it does have them. BT is the future of the 80's after all, so looking at Blade Runner, probably one of the most popular 80's movies that clearly shows the future, we see that we're all living in hyper-dense cities, so it isn't unreasonable to use this as the model for cities in BT, and this model probably doesn't have privately owned vehicles.

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2187
Re: ICE vs. Fusion Engine Costs
« Reply #34 on: 16 March 2020, 20:44:58 »
I think one factor you haven't realized yet is that a planet might not have oil reserves, or might not use them for fuel if it does have them. BT is the future of the 80's after all, so looking at Blade Runner, probably one of the most popular 80's movies that clearly shows the future, we see that we're all living in hyper-dense cities, so it isn't unreasonable to use this as the model for cities in BT, and this model probably doesn't have privately owned vehicles.
  It depends on what scientific theories you adhere to...Some scientists believe that hydrocarbons exist universally, and are not necessarily fossil fuels, as oil exists far below fossil levels on Earth, leading some to conclude that the actual oil supply is virtually inexhaustible and studies have shown that under some conditions, the time for algae deposits to convert to oil could take months, not eons.
  After viewing some of the brilliant YouTube vids by Isaac Arthur on space travel and technology (including some that mention the BTU) the more I find the technology scope of the BTU limited, and the constant warfare between factions meaningless.