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."

Comments

Irony

[tverbeek]

If the US military manages to become independent of fossil fuels, allowing the civilian sector to take advantage of the technology they develop, they could effectively work themselves out of a job, since their primary function is to secure parts of the world where fossil fuels are found.

Re:Something Spurs Innovation Further

[elrous0]

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. It's one thing that my "energy efficient" front-loader washer sucks ass at washing my clothes compared to my old traditional washer. It's quite another thing if my helmet can't stop a round because someone at the Pentagon thought it would be a good idea to go with an environmentally-friendly ceramic instead of titanium.