Slashdot Mirror
US Military Orders Less Dependence On Fossil Fuel
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that it can cost hundreds of dollars to get each gallon of traditional fuel to forward base camps in Afghanistan, so with enemy fighters increasingly attacking American fuel supply convoys crossing the Khyber Pass from Pakistan, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to decrease its need to transport fossil fuels. 'Fossil fuel is the No. 1 thing we import to Afghanistan,' says Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary, 'and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people.' The 150 Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, will be the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone, bringing portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers and communications equipment replacing diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would ordinarily generate power to run their encampment."
I've often wondered why we have compact portable atomic bombs, but no compact portable atomic generators. Perhaps now some will finally be developed! Besides, I can't imagine that solar panels would be a good idea at an FOB. I mean, big square shiny targets? Not good. And they really work poorly when disguised with that camo netting stuff.
No, I'm thinking that some portable nuke plants are in order here. Even something that has to be mounted on a semi flatbed is going to be more useful than a solar panel. At least the flatbed could be rolled into a large trench and covered with camo netting and guarded by dirt and sandbag berms.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Well, there are RTG designs out there that could be put onto a truck without much difficulty. A man-portable one doesn't seem very practical. The Soviets used some to power very remote lighthouses for years and years. Unfortunately, they are really heavy for the amount of power they can produce - much better suited for stationary operation. Even though the nuclear material in them cannot be weaponized, RTGs are still packed full of radioactive heavy metal, which would be a grave risk if it fell into enemy hands. It happens from time to time that a forward outpost needs to be abandoned, possibly leveled with demolition charges. You can't really abandon or demolish an RTG. I suspect a similar problem exists for just about any nuclear power option.
The panels were on display at Modern Day Marine. Basically two standard cell panel integrated into a box that is "Marine resistant". Up to eight plug into a HD box housing the charge controller.
The problem is that personnel need electricity for their gizmos. HMMWV's have 200A 24V alternators from the factory now (which are so big the original 6.5L alternator mounting holes need extensions). If you don't have a vehicle handy, charging items becomes more interesting since you already have 80+ lbs of gear on your back [adding extra / bigger batteries usually exceeds single person weight limits]. Solar is especially nice because you don't have to ship fuel and generator parts around--a base actually becomes more self sufficient. Simply using a green alternative for dino JP-8/5 doesn't do this.
Another solution solution being heavily looked at with larger vehicles is diesel-electric propulsion, coupled with a renewable carbon sourced fuel (WVO conversion, algae, Fischer Tropsch, etc.). The hybrid drive provides electrical generation without needing a dedicated generator (stationary use) or an oversize alternator (mobile use).
- Sig
Well, considering that TWR's and Breeder reactors can be made VERY small (think smart car sized) and can then be encased in hardened concrete or some other armor and cannot "go critical" even when severely damaged or destroyed AND use minimally radioactive depleted uranium as a fuel source, I would say that transporting THAT to an FOB is a heck of alot safer than transporting a thin-skinned tanker full of explosive fuel over the same area.
That and solar panels are a REALLY stupid idea for an FOB. Big... Shiny... Targets of high value. That'll work well. Yeah...
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
FOB's are not hidden locations. Pretty much everybody that cares knows where they are located... Follow the masses of troops & trucks. And military bases of any sort tend to stick out with all the fortifications.
It might be that less dependence on fossil fuels would mean less dependence on war.
I realize this is going to be a minority opinion in this all-male, all-tech geek environment, but still...
I wonder how quickly the taste for war would fade in this population if there was a draft? And if you couldn't get out of it by being too fat.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Over this summer I've refitted my old car with solar panels to charge the battery when its parked and replaced all low-energy incandescent bulbs with aftermarket LED replacements. on this one car its lead to a detectable reduction in liquid fuel use. I imagine the fuel savings from even minor adjustments like this, applied to the whole service fleet, could make a noticeable saving on fuel... even before they start retiring portable generators in favour of panels.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
If the US Army replaced their fuel guzzling M1 tank turbines with modern diesel engines like the MTU engine used in the Leopard they would spend a lot less fuel to begin with. The same applies to the HMMWV.
If they switched to diesel-electric, the vehicles would spend even less power.
For Afghanistan this is useless, but for campaigns near the shore it would be useful to recharge the vehicles using the nuclear reactor in US Navy carriers.
If the infantry switched to caseless or cased telescoped ammunition, it would take less volume to transport the same number of rifle ammo rounds.
The B-52 uses ancient engines from the late 1950s which guzzle fuel but the Air Force cannot get Congress to pay for the upgrade because it is deemed uneconomic.
Solar can have its uses. The military could especially use flexible solar cells which could be more easily transported. However the military also needs reliability, something that works 100% of the time, which is something solar cells cannot provide.
We have come a long time since Genghis Khan. The Mongols could feed their horses by grazing and drinking water along the way. They were nomads, so they brought cattle as food supply along with them, as well as their families etc. Present military hardware requires too much power for this to be feasible anymore.
The problem today is that the wars we're going to fight are in places that we would like to be our friend when the war is over
Even in a total war, you generally don't want to completely obliterate the terrain. At worst, you want to kill the population and then move your own people in to exploit the resources. If you don't care about the people or the resources, you probably wouldn't be there at all.
But for every vehicle on the battlefield, the military has many away from the battlefield. Those should be hybrid or electric, maybe powered by small reactors on military bases.
That's certainly possible. Aircraft carriers already do this, for example, containing small(ish) nuclear reactors that provide the power. If you had efficient hydrogen fuel cells, these reactors could be used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis of sea water for smaller craft. The military is currently about the only user of LiS batteries, which are another alternative. They have a higher energy density than other cells, but only last for about 30 charge cycles. This makes them perfect for things like UAVs, where weight matters and being reusable after 30 missions is a very low priority. Replacing the batteries in a vehicle after a month is probably an easier logistical challenge than importing enough diesel to keep one running.
The big problem with using nuclear power near a combat zone is that the presence of enriched uranium is likely to make the base a very attractive target. A well placed bomb or missile that breaches the containment can scatter radioactive material all over your troops. It's less of a problem for ships, because getting a boat, plane, or submarine close enough to attack an aircraft carrier is a lot harder than getting a guy with a rocket launcher close enough to attack a base on land.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You're comparing an actual something to a virtual nothing. Not fair. Is there not a possibility that if all those resources were spent on something else we would now have something much more life-enhancing than GPS? Think flying cars... no, scratch that... world peace perhaps?
But you're also comparing things that don't exist with things that do. Honestly, if we spent less money on the military, we would just spend more money on entitlement programs. Temporary quality of life improvements, unfortunately unsustainable because of our population profile. Personally I'd prefer more military spending than we have now, because at least we (as in my generation) will get *something* for it. I don't have such high hopes for the 12% of every paycheck pumped into the SS Pyramid Scheme.
Right, I'm sure that once Germany had taken all of Europe and Russia they'd have just sat on their hands contented.
Without US involvement, Germany still wouldn't have taken Europe - much less Russia. It's the Soviets who would have been the big winners and "liberated" Western Europe had the Americans stayed at home. Whether you think that America would have ended up at risk of coming under the rule of tyrants depends on what effect you think that this would have had on the cold war. Perssonally I don't think that even Soviets emboldened by the conquering of Europe would have tried to invade the US after Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Ever hear of the Bund? That was the name of the Nazi party in the United States made up of 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd generation German-Americans. While Hitler did not like the leader(he was essentially snubbed by Hitler on a trip to Germany), Kuhn saw himself as America's Hitler. There certainly weren't millions in the party, but they had enough members to fill Madison Square Garden when they rallied there. When people saw thousands of Brown Shirts marching down the streets of New York in 1939, you can damn well bet they felt the "threat of every person coming under the rule of a handful of tyrants".
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
One of the crops native to Afghanistan is safflower, safflower oil could be readily made into biodiesel.
Also its a premium grade food oil so any surplus could be sold on the world market. It can also be used for
dyes and paints. Of course it would be better for a native safflower processing industry to develop but
that takes time. The army could build a processing plant and start buying safflower crops right away
and then when they leave turn over the processing plant to a native company.
The army gets cheaper diesel to fuel trucks and tanks and the native people actually make money and develop industry.
Of course that makes too much sense.
The thing is more or less unstoppable. It is the most powerful tank, well, ever. It is agile, accurate, and extremely hard to kill. The "hard to kill" part accounts for much of its inefficiency given its obscenely heavy armor. The M1A2 variant is almost 70 tons. Efficiency wasn't in the design parameters. Being the baddest motherfucker on the battlefield was.
A better idea when talking redesigns is to build a new tank. This is something the military has been talking about, but isn't getting around to doing and maybe they need to move it up. Never mind the cost of an M! moving under its own power, the things are impossible to airlift. A C5 can lift a whole one of them at a time. Also, while you might need to roll out the M1 against Russia, it is overkill in many situations. A lighter battle tank would work fine. that could of course have a smaller, more efficient engine and so on and so forth.
That would seem to be a more sensible course of action if you are going to spend time and money to rebuild a tank. Build and use those, keep the M1s hanging out if they are needed.
Even the Russians themselves weren't as confident as you seem to be. They were convinced they would never be able to deal with fighting on two fronts, against Germany and Japan. They relied on the Chinese to hold off the Japanese. They even pushed the communists in China, who they were supporting, to aid the Nationalists in fighting the Japanese.
The Soviet Union might have made things tough for Germany but I doubt they'd be able to fend them off forever. They were successful specifically because of American involvement.
All I know is that if I were a soldier getting shot at, and my gun jammed because some hippie insisted that it be manufactured in some environmentally-friendly way, I would be pretty pissed off
Chances are that if "some hippie" designed it in an environmentally-friendly way, it would also end up being cheaper to make.
As it is, you get to have heavy, ineffective crap guns, and heavy, ineffective crap armour because "some suit" has decided that it would cost more than a soldier's life is worth to equip them properly. Perhaps "some hippie" might apply a little more human compassion and kit out soldiers with what they need to go into battle, do their work, and get home alive and with roughly the right number of limbs.
Exactly.
GP is assuming the Americans would have gone on to create the bomb. That is not certain.
The Germans were also working on their heavy water experiments at the time. Without US involvement the European war would have definitely lasted longer and could have possibly allowed the Germans to perfect the atomic bomb that the Americans might not have been even trying to create since they would not be involved in the war. The Americans were working hard for it primarily because they feared Germany would get it first. Germany *would* have achieved the atomic bomb, it is hard to speculate how long it would have taken, but it would have eventually happened and it also hard to know if the Americans would have had it or not. By the end of the war Germany did have bombers that could hit New York so if Germany achieves it first, game over.
That aside, without US involvement Germany *would* have taken Britain, then with only a single front to worry about they could have focused the entirety of their forces on Russia. It is not a forgone conclusion that Russia would have won that fight. Even with Germany's forces split between two fronts they almost were overrun. If Hitler had not been so obsessed with taking Stalingrad he could have bypassed it and hit Moscow before winter set in, especially if he had the resources from the Western front at his disposal. Germany had the finest military in the world at the time. I am not taking anything away from the Allies, but the fact is, the German military was the best. Efficient, professional and deadly.
If Germany was able to get the bomb....a Nazi regime with a nuclear arsenal is not something I would like to think about.
Every time I refill I do so from the same pump, always to the brim, and record the exact volume of fuel pumped and the mileage. I have a high-accuracy fuel-economy record going back 3 years.
the improvement in fuel efficiency from my conversions is between 2% and 2.5%
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Indeed, even a cursory read of Sun Tzu's Art of War makes it quite clear that logistics are what wins and loses wars. Our foundering in Afghanistan and Iraq would be of know surprise to Sun Tzu, wars of the sort we've been fighting pretty much always go to the defender. More so now that it's a war crime to pillage.
Solar is always auxiliary power. I don't think this stuff is to replace fossil fuel dependency, just mitigate it. You could have put enough solar cells on top of 4ID headquarters (of course it's not 4 ID headquarters any more, but whatever division is currently running that AO)to power half the damned thing, and you wouldn't have made it any more of a target. It was a huge sprawling 3 story office complex. The point isn't that you can get rid of all the generators, the point is to use less fuel. I seriously doubt the DoD is under any delusions that they can ship some solar cells over and stop worrying about diesel all together.
All I'm saying is that on the larger bases (where the majority of the people are), solar cells would be a much better auxiliary source than incredibly heavy, possibly dangerous, low yield mini-nuke plants. You also don't entirely understand the scale of a place like Victory (which, granted is unusually large). You can't hit large swathes of it even with mortars.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.