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."
Nothing spurs innovation like trying to kill the other guy.
Living With a Nerd
Nothing spurs innovation like trying to kill the other guy.
What about trying to stop the other guy from killing you? I think the US military has the luxury of being the hunters that occasionally succumb to attrition. You can still lose that way (Vietnam) but we're not afraid of every single person in America being killed or captured. I'd argue you saw more innovation come out of World War II when we actually faced a threat of every person coming under the rule of a handful of tyrants (and really one very bad tyrant). Sure, Hitler's V1 and V2 Schneider Programs were innovative but look at what the work of the Polish and, later, British at Bletchley Park did to start us into the computer age. When you're striving to solve a problem and the fate of your entire country rests on it ... I think you forgo sleeping, eating, playing video games, etc. The guys 'innovating' in Afghanistan still go to sleep at night. The guys calling the shots probably don't live any differently than you or I and that is quite comfortably.
My work here is dung.
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
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
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.
I fought in WWII, and mainland America never faced the "threat of every person coming under the rule of a handful of tyrants".
Right, I'm sure that once Germany had taken all of Europe and Russia they'd have just sat on their hands contented. They wouldn't have used those extensive resources to make a push to conquer the world. Tell me, since they fought everyone around them to the bitter end, where would have Germany and Japan halted? What borders could have possibly satiated their thirst for power and resources?
I guess my understanding is 'blatantly wrong' and my opinions are 'bullshit each and every way' but I do know that there were divided opinions in America at the time. The isolationists who thought that all Hitler wanted was to conquer a few surrounding countries and the other people who thought that Hitler would stop at nothing until he controlled the world. After reading Winston Churchill's account of the Second World War, I'm in the latter camp. It appears you're confident Hitler would have stopped had he won the Battle for Britain and overrun the Eastern front. He sure didn't stop after the Invasion of Poland and the Battle of France. The German war machine excelled at turning conquered territories into another cog in the war machine. Hitler didn't shut down all the factories producing munitions and arms once he overtook a country.
I appreciate all you did for your country and I'm sorry you are dismally appalled at my attempts to learn and understand the part of history you influenced. I'd be happy to listen to another point of view from anyone who fought in World War II but it would take a great deal of startling revelations to change my opinion on America's risk had the Allies lost.
As time goes on, each generation of youth born after 1950 adds their own layer of "understanding" to history, and usually this "understanding" is blatantly wrong. You're no exception.
And you wonder why your children and grandchildren never visit you ...
My work here is dung.
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
Staying "hidden" isn't the issue. Protecting high-value targets IS. If your primary power source is a large, shiny, fragile (relatively speaking) object that CANNOT be disguised or hidden in any way because that would impact it's ability to function, then you have a logistical and tactical nightmare.
FOB's in Afghanistan of often involved in heavy firefights. Bullets, even small caliber ones, are VERY BAD for solar panels. And YES, they do use camo netting, sandbags, and other methods of obfuscation to make it non-obvious to the Taliban where the soft targets are in the base.
Frankly, this request sounds like it came down from some desk-jockey paper-star type who's never even gotten his boots dirty, much less had to draw his service weapon for anything other than a cleaning and shining. Nice sounding on the surface, but utterly impossible and idiotic in practice.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Political-correctness be damned, it's just a GOOD IDEA. It's an old saying that 'amateurs discuss tactics; professional soldiers talk about logistics'.
The vulnerability of our fighting forces (or any modern military) to attacks on their fuel/supply trains is staggering, and was proven in Iraq. If the opposition in Iraq or Afghanistan was anything close to a peer-level opponent, it would have been catastrophic.
The ability to thin the supply lines also multiplies the effectiveness of the logistics assets you have, as well.
This is a great idea, and the fact that the military is addressing is extremely encouraging for our society. Not that the DoD is magical, but due to their requirements and hard field-testing, their solutions to things tend to be far more pragmatic and practical than the "political" solutions of politicians. Take "integration" as an example - the politicians talked themselves blue in the face about it for decades, but AFAIK there is no more color-blind, racially neutral employer today than the US military.
I'd argue that what the military develops in terms of robust, practical methods of reducing energy consumption will translate into civilian systems relatively quickly.
-Styopa
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
You misunderstand how these bases work. We aren't trying to hide; this isn't a conventional war. We want people to be able to come to the FOBs and report incidents, sell wares, in some cases even go to work (we often work with locals for everything from translators to building contracts, at least we did in Iraq). The FOBS are well guarded of course, you can't just walk in, but they aren't the traditional camp under camo nets. Indeed all the camo nets I ever saw setup were there to provide shade in places like motor pools, not hide anything. Your point would be valid for special ops units and such, but not for the vast majority of troops, at least not in these wars.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
you could add gobs more armour too (in a tank, adding 50 tons of extra weight means bigger engines/more fuel, if you already have that power anyway out of your little reactor, why not use it?
Hell, you could build a tank twice the size of an abrams with a dual heavy bore gun turret, weighing 200 tons or so
What happens when you need to drive your 200 ton tank across bridges that are only rated for half that weight or less? Weight isn't a zero sum game with AFV design. Even if you have the power to move that much weight around it still comes with drawbacks.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Please. I spent a year in Iraq. The largest FOBs are the size of cities, you don't "hide" anything. You're right that this wouldn't be ideal for a platoon or company sized base camp, but for division or even brigade HQ it's perfectly reasonable. Even with the current focus on small units doing "on the ground" patrols, the majority of troops live and work inside the large super-FOBs. Nothing of importance is kept near enough to the walls to allow small arms fire to get close to it, and in the (unlikely, thankfully these guys are universally awful at indirect fire) event of a mortar strike, a few broken solar panels are the least of your worries. You could have stuck a *solar farm* in the middle of Camp Victory, and probably saved a fortune over the noisy and annoying (but I must admit reliable) static generators.
By the way... the noisy and annoying generators we did have? Just as vulnerable as solar panels to small arms or indirect fire, just as shiny (they were commercial jobs and most of them were bright white), and several times noisier (to better give away their positions)... I never even heard of one getting hit. We aren't talking about the little 15KW tactical generators when we're talking about power to middle and large sized FOBs. We're talking about commercial jobs the size of a room.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
"FOB" is a generic term for all of our bases "over there". The largest base in Iraq, Camp Victory, is the size of a midsized American city and is divided into a few "FOBs". They're essentially just areas owned by a specific command, you can drive from one end of Victory to the other without across all the FOBs in perfect safety (beyond a highly unlikely indirect fire attack). There are smaller, company or battalion controlled, FOBs but most of our people are in the larger ones.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Before oil became an important resource to the Western World, we didn't give two shits about anyone in the Middle East.
I think everyone can agree that oil became important as it displaced coal as the primary energy source for vehicles, navies, and all the new military tech that depended on it. So let's set the change date at 1900.
British military interventions in the Middle East before 1900:
First Anglo-Afghan War (1839)
Anglo-Persian War (1856)
Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878)
These were part of the "Great Game" of trying to control central Asia so Britain could protect India from Russia. Before 1900, the United States had never had troops in the Middle East, excepting a few skirmishes mostly involving the protection of our commercial fleet. Most US colonial activity was directed at the rest of the mainland (wars with Mexico), Florida, Hawaii, Central and South America, and imperialism in Japan, Hawaii, China, the Philippines and other parts of the Pacific.
WWI established the West as the colonial owner of the Middle East, and the US and Britain have had troops stationed there ever since. Western powers also established political lines in the Middle East that still haunt us today, as the spoils of war from defeating the Ottoman Empire. The first deployment after the Ottoman Empire entered the war was to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline - later to become Anglo-Iranian and finally British Petroleum in 1953.
Here's a snippet from a BBC piece:
So, no, we didn't give a shit about that particular region of the world until they had something we wanted. Unless you have resources that we want, or you present a security threat by proximity, we don't care what happens to you. Just ask any citizen of Africa.
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.