Is it possible to have a nuclear-powered car?

Technically, yes in principle—but with today’s technology, safety requirements, and laws, a roadgoing nuclear car is not practical or legal. While nuclear reactors power submarines and carriers, and radioisotope generators power Mars rovers, the mass of shielding, crash risks, regulatory hurdles, fuel logistics, and costs make a civilian automobile sized around a nuclear source unworkable for the foreseeable future. The more realistic role for nuclear is to decarbonize the grid that charges electric cars or to make low-carbon fuels.

What “nuclear-powered” would actually mean in a car

In everyday terms, a nuclear-powered car would carry an onboard energy source that derives its power from nuclear reactions rather than from gasoline, diesel, or batteries. That source would then drive electric motors (most plausible) or turbines to propel the vehicle. Several nuclear options are often discussed, but each has very different characteristics and challenges.

Candidate technologies often cited

Here are the main approaches people imagine when they talk about “nuclear cars,” along with what they would entail at vehicle scale.

• Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs): Use the decay heat of isotopes like plutonium-238 to generate electricity via thermoelectrics. They are reliable and have no moving parts but provide very low power. NASA’s MMRTG produces roughly 110 W electric at the start of a mission and weighs about 45 kg. Scaling to even 50–100 kW for a car would require tens of thousands of kilograms of RTGs or several tonnes of scarce plutonium-238—completely impractical on Earth and unacceptable from a safety standpoint.
• Compact fission microreactors: True reactors that split atoms to produce megawatts of heat, which could be converted to electricity for motors. Defense and commercial efforts (for stationary or transportable use) are advancing, but these systems still require substantial shielding, control systems, and heat rejection. Even the “mobile” designs under development are meant to be transported to a site and operated stationary—far too heavy and complex for a car.
• Fusion devices: If ever made compact and practical, fusion could offer high energy density with potentially less long-lived waste than fission. Today, however, fusion remains precommercial. Even promising “compact” concepts still produce significant radiation (notably neutrons in deuterium-tritium cycles), demanding shielding and auxiliary systems incompatible with passenger-car constraints.

All three lines share the same Achilles’ heel for cars: the combination of power density, shielding, thermal management, and safety systems pushes mass and complexity far beyond what a road vehicle can carry while meeting modern crash and emissions regulations.

How much power a car really needs

A typical family EV draws 15–25 kWh per 100 km and may require 100–200 kW of peak power for acceleration and highway merges. That’s orders of magnitude above what an RTG can deliver. For context, NASA’s MMRTG generates about 110 W electric; to reach just 100 kW you would need roughly 900 MMRTGs—around 40 metric tons of generators, not including any shielding or vehicle structure. A fission reactor can supply the power, but the shielding and safety systems to make that safe for occupants and bystanders would weigh many tons, dwarfing any normal car.

The engineering and regulatory roadblocks

Turning a nuclear heat source into safe, on-demand automotive propulsion runs into a series of hard constraints that go beyond a single breakthrough.

• Radiation shielding mass: To keep crew and nearby road users within public dose limits, you need thick, multi-layer shielding (to attenuate neutrons and gamma rays). Even “small” reactors demand shielding measured in tons. That alone exceeds the mass budget for a passenger car.
• Crashworthiness and security: Any severe collision, fire, or theft scenario involving nuclear material is unacceptable to regulators. Designing a reactor or isotope source that remains intact through worst-case crashes and post-crash fires—and then securing it against diversion—adds further mass and complexity.
• Thermal management: Reactors produce large amounts of heat continuously. Unlike an internal combustion engine, a reactor cannot be simply “turned off” instantly to match throttle. You’d need substantial energy buffers (batteries), turbines or heat engines, and large cooling systems, complicating the vehicle architecture.
• Power control and load-following: Rapidly changing power demand in traffic is ill-suited to reactor dynamics. Sophisticated control and buffering could help but would add more components, weight, and failure modes.
• Fuel availability and handling: RTG isotopes like Pu‑238 are scarce and tightly controlled; reactor fuels require licensed handling, transport, and security. Civilian distribution at car scale is a nonstarter under current regimes.
• Cost, maintenance, and decommissioning: Even microreactors are multi-million-dollar assets requiring specialized oversight, periodic inspections, and end-of-life disposal infrastructure—not something that scales to consumer vehicles.
• Legal and public acceptance: Nuclear material on public roads would face stringent domestic and international regulations (e.g., IAEA transport rules and national nuclear regulatory frameworks) and public opposition. Insurability would also be a major barrier.

Taken together, these challenges are not merely incremental; they reflect structural conflicts between nuclear system requirements and the constraints of mass-produced, crashworthy, consumer vehicles.

What has been tried before

Designers and militaries have explored nuclear mobility for decades. These efforts reveal why the idea hasn’t translated to cars.

• Ford Nucleon (1958, concept): A styling exercise envisioning a swap-in “reactor cartridge.” No practical reactor design ever existed; the concept highlighted optimism rather than feasibility.
• Arbel Symétric “Atomic” (1950s, concept): A French proposal to use a small onboard reactor—never progressed beyond showpiece stages.
• U.S. Army ML-1 (early 1960s): A transportable 300 kWe-class gas-cycle reactor mounted in a semi-trailer and intended for stationary use at remote sites. It faced reliability issues and was retired, underscoring the complexity even for non-roadgoing operation.
• NB-36H nuclear testbed (1950s): A U.S. Air Force bomber carried a reactor to study shielding for potential nuclear aircraft; the reactor did not power the plane. The program was abandoned as impractical and risky.
• Mars rovers (2012–present): Curiosity and Perseverance use RTGs to produce a bit over 100 W electric—perfect for planetary science, orders of magnitude too small for a car.
• Modern transportable microreactors (2020s): Programs like the U.S. Department of Defense’s Project Pele and commercial efforts such as Westinghouse’s eVinci and Oklo’s designs aim to deliver factory-built, truck-transportable reactors for remote, stationary power. They are not intended to move while operating, and their mass and shielding preclude automobile use.

These projects demonstrate that mobile or transportable nuclear power is possible in specialized contexts—but none offers a path to a safe, affordable, street-legal passenger car.

Could fusion change the answer?

Even if fusion reaches commercial viability, a car-ready fusion unit remains unlikely in the medium term. Near-term fusion concepts (such as deuterium-tritium) produce high-energy neutrons requiring substantial shielding; power conversion, control, and heat rejection challenges remain similar to fission. Aneutronic concepts that produce fewer neutrons are far from practical power operation. Notably, headline-grabbing agreements—like private firms targeting the late 2020s for first demonstration plants—are about grid-scale electricity, not vehicle-sized reactors. Fusion advances would be consequential for the energy system, but still not a fit for a passenger car.

The realistic role for nuclear in cleaner mobility

Nuclear energy can still play a pivotal role in decarbonizing transportation—just not by riding inside the car.

• Clean electricity for EVs: Expanding nuclear generation helps deliver reliable, low-carbon power to charge electric vehicles day and night, easing strain on grids with growing fast-charging demand.
• Hydrogen and e-fuels: Nuclear plants can provide steady electricity and heat for hydrogen production (electrolysis or high-temperature routes) and for synthesizing low-carbon fuels for aviation, maritime, and legacy engines.
• Maritime and rail niches: Nuclear propulsion already works at large scale for naval vessels and icebreakers, where ample space and weight allow proper shielding and heat management. Future commercial ships or specialized rail applications may adopt nuclear under stringent regimes.
• Remote charging hubs: Transportable microreactors could power remote communities or off-grid charging depots—operating stationary with robust safety and security—indirectly enabling EV adoption in hard-to-serve regions.

In short, nuclear’s best contribution to mobility is upstream: supplying dependable, low-carbon energy to the infrastructure that vehicles rely on.

Bottom line

A true nuclear-powered car is not feasible with current or near-term technology. The obstacles—especially shielding mass, crash safety, regulatory compliance, and costs—are fundamental, not just engineering details awaiting a single breakthrough. Nuclear energy will matter in transport by cleaning the grid and producing fuels, not by sitting under your hood.

Summary

It is theoretically possible to propel a car with nuclear energy, but practical, safe, and lawful roadgoing nuclear cars are out of reach. RTGs are far too weak; microreactors are far too heavy and complex; fusion is not ready and would still need shielding. Past concepts and modern microreactor programs reinforce that nuclear belongs in stationary or large-vessel applications. The realistic path is to let nuclear decarbonize electricity and fuel production while vehicles themselves use batteries or other end-use technologies suited to the scale, safety, and economics of road transport.

Is the self-powered car real?

No, the “self-powered” or “chargeless” car is not real. Claims about a Zimbabwean inventor, Maxwell Chikumbutso, creating such a car using radio waves for unlimited power have been debunked by fact-checking organizations and scientists, as the energy density required is scientifically impossible with current technology. The car presented was an electric vehicle using a commercially available portable power station, and the claims violate known physical laws, with no independent verification. 
This video discusses the claims and debunking of the Zimbabwean inventor’s self-powered car: 1mBlack Culture DiaryYouTube · Feb 16, 2025
The Claim 

• A Zimbabwean inventor named Maxwell Chikumbutso claimed to have invented a self-powered car called the “Saith Fully Electric Vehicle”.
• The car was said to run on radio frequencies and electromagnetic waves, eliminating the need for charging or traditional fuel.

The Debunking

• Lack of Evidence: Opens in new tabDespite claims and public events, there is no independent, verifiable proof that the car works as described. 
• Physical Impossibility: Opens in new tabScientists confirm that the amount of energy present in radio waves is insufficient to power a vehicle. It violates the laws of physics. 
• False Energy Source: Opens in new tabInvestigations showed the car was a conventional electric vehicle. The “hypersonic device” claimed to provide power was actually a portable power station, a readily available product. 
• Scientific Consensus: Opens in new tabExperts and organizations like USA Today and AP News have debunked these claims as false. 

This video from the inventor’s side presents the claims and showcases the car: 50sZim Tech GuyYouTube · Jan 29, 2025
What is Real?
While the “self-powered” car is a hoax, some real-world concepts approach the idea of “self-charging” vehicles: 

• Solar-Integrated Vehicles: Opens in new tabCompanies like Aptera are developing solar-powered cars that can generate some of their own energy from the sun, reducing the need for plugging in for daily commutes. 
• Regenerative Braking: Opens in new tabMany hybrid and electric vehicles are “self-charging” in the sense that they capture energy from braking to recharge their batteries, improving efficiency but not creating energy from nothing. 

Is a nuclear engine possible?

Yes, nuclear propulsion is possible and currently under active development, particularly for space exploration. It offers significant advantages over chemical rockets, such as greater efficiency, faster transit times to destinations like Mars, and the ability to carry larger payloads. NASA and other agencies are actively developing nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) systems, which use a nuclear reactor to heat a propellant and produce thrust, with planned demonstration flights for 2027.
 
How it Works 

• Nuclear Fission Reactor: A nuclear fission reactor generates heat from a nuclear reaction.
• Heat Transfer: This heat is transferred to a liquid propellant, such as hydrogen.
• Propellant Expansion: The liquid propellant is heated and rapidly expands into a gas.
• Thrust Generation: The superheated gas is expelled through a nozzle at high pressure, creating thrust that propels the spacecraft.

Benefits of Nuclear Propulsion

• Increased Efficiency: Nuclear thermal rockets can be more than twice as efficient as chemical rockets, as they can reach much higher propellant temperatures. 
• Reduced Travel Times: This increased efficiency can drastically cut travel times to places like Mars, potentially reducing the journey to just a few months. 
• Higher Thrust: Nuclear thermal systems can achieve high thrust levels, which are beneficial for rapid acceleration and missions. 
• Solar Independence: Nuclear reactors provide a consistent power source, independent of solar conditions, enabling continuous operation. 

Current Status and Challenges

• Active Development: Space agencies like NASA are investing in “tall pole” technologies for human missions to Mars, with nuclear thermal propulsion being a key focus. 
• Draco Project: NASA and DARPA are collaborating on the Draco project, with plans to test a nuclear thermal engine in 2027. 
• Cost and Complexity: While technologically feasible, the high cost and complexity of developing and deploying nuclear propulsion systems are significant challenges. 
• Materials and Safety: The extremely high temperatures in the reactor core require advanced materials, and the shielding needed to contain radiation is substantial. 

How long would uranium power a car?

So if you burn 1 gallon of Petroleum liquid (gasoline) to make electricity you make 12.5kWh. My electric car gets 4 miles/kWh. So you can go 50 miles or 50 MPG. So 1 KG of uranium would take you about 1.3 million miles in an electric car.

Is the Ford Nucleon possible?

Fast forward 67 years, and the Ford Nucleon is still an impossibility. At the time of its conception, nuclear power was in its infancy, but Ford believed that nuclear fission would become more compact and affordable with time.