Slashdot Mirror
Saving Lives On the Battlefield With Green Tech
Harperdog writes "This article describes the efforts by some in the Pentagon to save lives by using renewable energy in the battlefield. 'Seventy percent of all convoys carried liquid fossil fuels, and attacks on convoys ... account for about half of all the casualties. Generators consumed more of the fuel brought in than did combat vehicles and air support.' It's a good description of energy efficient projects already happening in Iraq. '... the first significant response in a combat zone came with the investment of almost $100 million for insulating thousands of tents in the two war zones. Before, air conditioners in summer and heaters in winter powered by generators controlled the climate inside the tents used as barracks, dining halls and offices. Now they spray foam so it covers the exterior of the tents like shaving cream. Foaming the tents saves the military $2 million a day in avoided energy costs. This translates into a payback of less than two months. It saves 100,000 gallons of fuel per day, taking 4,000 trucks off the road each year."
Anybody ever find that phrase ironic when applied to the military?
Granted, this isn't directly like some of the more egregious examples. Usually, "saving lives" involves killing more of "them".
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
They put their minds to it and try to figure out how to save lives and this is what they come up with?
How about bombing and shooting less people!!!?!!
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
When the cost of safely delivering gasoline in-theatre is $400/gal, any non-trivial reduction in fuel consumption will result in a serious cost savings for the military. I'm all for this.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Foaming the tents saves the military $2 million a day in avoided energy costs.
If it's a semi-permanent base, couldn't they also have invested in earth-covered buildings? Covered with a yard or so of earth they might also provide a better defense against small arms fire and shrapnel.
A classic misunderstanding of statistics. Lets see how this works.
Lets assume we have 100 future martyrs loaded up and ready to blow.
Send 500 convoys. Lets say 90 get blown up by the 100 martyrs.
Ivory tower metrics MBA says, lets cut back so we only send 250 convoys. Since a bit under a fifth of convoys are blown up, that means by definition only about 40 convoys will get blown up.
Send 250 convoys. 90 get blown up by the 100 martyrs. Maybe due to doubled security, VERY optimistically twice as many fail, so best case only 80 convoys get blown up by the 100 martyrs.
Ivory tower metrics MBA gets confused that losses are 100% higher than expected.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-how-can-we-make-the-war-in-iraq-more-e,14213/
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
halliburton said the foam was better than the dirt.
Oh wait, no, course not.
Deleted
And offered it at the bargain price of only $4000/pound.
Tents with air conditioners?
Deleted
Man, oh, man, are you going to be disappointed.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Then transfer the green ideas back to USA and the war itself may not be necessary.
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because war and politics go hand in hand.
Funny how the "hippie dippies" are aware of this and it completely sails over your head.
If being a hippie means surviving and also not burying my loved ones, then count me in, man.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
What part of THOU SHALT NOT did you nimcompoops not understand?!!!!
killing people is antisocial behavior in any context.
You are also making assumptions (that the number of martyrs is fixed).
Alternatively, it could be the case that every single convoy is attacked, and on average 20% of the trucks are destroyed. In that scenario, cutting the number of convoys in half will generally reduce the number of casualties by the same amount.
The best move is to not do war.
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Because everybody has a driving need to feel really clever and witty, and writing "IMAGINE IF WE ENDED THE WARS!" makes them feel that way. It's completely obvious and predictable, but it's also easy karma on Slashdot.
This is a basic confusion of who makes decisions. Troops go to war because the President/Congress/The People tell them to. If you have a beef with them, this is a democracy. Vote. Don't take it out on the Pentagon for trying to protect its troops.
Besides, if you think about it, this strategy removes targets from the battlefield. Fewer targets mean fewer attacks. Fewer attacks mean less dead on both sides. In Vietnam (remember John Kerry?), they used swift boats intentionally as targets to draw the enemy into fighting to make the death counts higher. This time they're doing the opposite. Shouldn't that be a good thing?
Battle of the sexes.
Save lives by roaming the battlefield.
Remember the New Earth Army solar cooker in The Men who Stare at Goats? This is doing the same, in a much bigger way.
Green as in non CFC and similar...NOT green as in color, color being off topic.
Those who can, do.
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because war and politics go hand in hand.
Funny how the "hippie dippies" are aware of this and it completely sails over your head.
Discussion of technology used in a war situation does NOT always go hand in hand with politics, and this topic is about foam on tents. There's no politics involved, no contractors out of control, no politicians making claims, not even a weapons system; just foam on the tents. The problem is that hippie dippies are unable to discuss military operations without ranting about politics. Only someone with a gratuitous axe to grind links foam on tents to the horror, the horror, the horror...
Mongolian Yurts are insulated and reusable and can be set up in hours. Funny that it took them so long to consider having to keep soldiers for extended periods under severe conditions. The military should check in with some of the existing Yurt building companies and see what it would cost to field test some. They should be roomier and as I say reusable. The traditional ones get set up and taken down several times a year and last for many years. The thick woolen insulation with a few layers of kelvar would probably be bullet and explosion resistant, the insulation provides the give needed to allow the kevlar to flex. It just seems like a better option than foaming tents then tossing them once you are done.
Start using nuclear-powered generators. Problem solved.
Where are you going to get the earth? The foam and application equipment can be used even on small fire bases that can only be resupplied by air. You can ship a bulldozer by air, but it will have to leave to base to go dig up dirt. Big target. If the ground is soft enough to dig up easily, do you think the local who owns the land will be happy about it? The foam can be applied quickly and eaisly to already existing structures in all environments.
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
If fuel is so difficult to deliver there, then I'm not sure that bringing in 2000 lbs of wood and other materials to build an underground shelter is going to be cheaper than a 200 pound tent even if it saves some energy costs. Plus there's the added difficulty of trucking in a 20 ton excavator to dig the holes in the first place. Plus, not all soils are conducive to building below grade structures, some sandy soils make it quite difficult to do.
For more permanent bases, I believe they just build conventional hard sided above ground structures.
I have read convincing speculation that the US invaded Iraq mainly for oil.
If energy security is the problem, then green technology is the only long-term solution. The US military just found a way to inject itself into the middle of the solution.
Apparently, they're helping! The Iraq war is artificially creating short-term, tangible consequences of oil dependence... so Mission Accomplished?!
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because the military is being used for political ends that have nothing to do with the safety of this country, and everything to do with the safety of defense contractor profits.
When they stop playing politics with defense, I'll stop complaining about it.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
But that would send the message to that we were going to be there a while, and we don't want to make them feel like we're invading their country permanently...oops too late.
Not many tents stand up very well under a yard of earth.
Any armored fighting vehicle can be fitted with a backhoe attachment, and some are. They are used to fill Hesco bastion to protect those fire bases, and Hesco is easy to use.
The ubiquitous ISO shipping container could be dug in and left in place, then covered with earth defined by Hesco. The tents etc often arrive in ISO containers anyway.
Renting ISOs and shipping them back out of theater is a waste of money. Vanilla ISOs fill US ports (a result of the trade imbalance) and are cheap (individual units under two grand if you buy them for private use). Send them one-way, revet them, and use spray foam on the outside to prevent internal condensation.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
no, this is about *the U.S. military* putting foam on tents and claiming it will save lives.
A military that is a tool of power and money grubbing elite who are fighting needless wars of choice, mass murdering and maiming innocents to line pockets and get political coin.
All the while spewing the lie that it is fighting terrorism, spreading democracy, making us safer.
And don't give me any bullshit about 9/11, that's not what either Iraq nor Afghanistan fighting is about.
Here's a bizarre idea. Build a 10mw nuclear reactor that can be embedded underground and have concrete poured over it. Nuclear reactors of that size SHOULD be shippable by truck.
Then set it up. If the electrical power for these bases is largely coming from generators, to run the air conditioning and what not, by my rough guestimates this should save about 600 gallons of JP8 per hour. Even if such a reactor costs 50 million to build, and one gets blown up in transit over there, it saves $250,000 an hour. Which means it would pay for itself in about 10 days. Deploy these une masse to provide all of the electrical power you need to bases. Maybe ship in some excess reactors and use catalysts and hydrolysis to make artificial JP8.
Then, when you retreat from the war theater, leave it for the natives by hooking it up to their electrical grid. A small contribution, sure, but enough to power 10,000 homes.
Bullshit! The people voted for change, and they got yet another Bush. Obama has continued the elite's agenda of war. Renaming troop's activities doesn't change that the (pointless, for profit, for political coin) wars go on and on and on.
we don't have democracy, we have oligarchy and plutocracy.
I find their justification for this to be incredibly deceptive; It ties together reactionary/feel good terms like
green energy, saving troops and saving money for the tax payer. Those are all good right? Any patriotic
American should be for that!
Yes, but this there are far more issues that could have a bigger impact than switching to Solar energy on the
battle field. How about moving away from the use of depleted uranium ammunition's which has made Iraq the most
radio active country on the planet? Causing deformations in children, cancer in both troops and civilians and will have
an impact on Iraq for thousands of years to come!
This article insults my intellect cause it proposes to put a bandage on a massive wound.
I dont know... Am I so cynical that I cant see something that is an honest effort? Its so hard not to be
jaded when your bombarded with propaganda and misdirection all the time.
Troops go to war because the President/Congress/The People tell them to.
No. Troops go to war because they decide to... they are not automatons. Every single one of those troops has gone to war decided that going to war is the best option for them. You should not surrender your integrity when you enter the service.
That being said, I think _most_ of them made the correct choice, since they have been put in difficult positions. Some may feel the war is just, some may not. For the latter, the negatives against following orders have not been large enough. More responsibility lies with those who decided upon the war, but some still rests with those who carried it out. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
I'm just trying to figure out why people get the label "hippie" when they complain about war for profit, power and political coin.
I'm not a peacenik, hell, I love weapons. I own weapons. I love a righteous war (like WW II) and I love to see evil scum get blown up, shot up, burned up. yeah, come get some!!
BUT,
I get the label "unpatriotic" "hippie" "traitor" when I complain about these bullshit pseudo-wars that the U.S. is inflicting on innocents, to line defense contractors and construction contractors pockets, and to have a rallying point for politicians who have failed to do their most basic of duties, and to provide an excuse for power-mongers to deprive us of liberties and build a police state.
cleaning up someone else's mess doesn't mean you like to do it.
Obama is doing the responsible thing. Cleaning up the geopolitical mess that bush created without thinking things through. It is one of the few things I agree with. Because the moment we leave Afghanistan the Taliban take back over and Bin Laden comes out of his cave again. They are far to strong still. However since the American public thought it would be a quickie kill them off and leave, and let the mess sort it self out like what we did in the 1980's with the Soviet occupation, This time we are sticking around. Hopefully for the next 20-30 years. that way a whole generation grows up not hating the USA but at least thinking mostly nice things about us.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Because the military is political. "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means."
But the whole problem is logistics - hauling stuff in a combat zone is hard.
When packed, a small 13x13ft tent takes up a space around 5 ft x 2 ft x 2 ft and weighs around 400 lbs.
You can fit around 50 of them in a single 20' container, and each tent will provide more square footage than than 20' container. You say that the containers can be buried, but are they safety rated for burial, and can they withstand corrosion after a year or more of burial in wet ground?
So if you need lots of space fast, bringing in one container full of tents sounds a lot easier than 50 empty containers. And you don't need to bring in any heavy equipment to dig 50 holes.
Thank God there aren't more people like you, otherwise we'd all be speaking German today.
owned.
You need shelter for troops long you worry about heating/cooling and long before you worry about insulation. The tents will always be there before there is any time to give thought to insulating them. More complicated solutions will work when expanding pre-existing bases with a long time to plan and prepare. The foam will work on any base of any size in any theater- That is the big advantage.
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
You know, faraway wars in strange lands that don't matter to you. Seems like a fantastic way to save fuel and lives. Just saying.
Bibo Ergo Sum.
And canvas tents don't turn into deadly shrapnel when hit by explosives.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
So when the oil runs out, not only will there be one less thing to fight over, the ability to fight will also be greatly reduced. Are those two things a bigger advantage than the disadvantage of an oil-less world?
(im going to assume you are in a NATO alliance country). Troops decide to go to war much like you decide to pay taxes to support their efforts. Also, Godwin's law.
the problem is, you are a free-rider, man. Thats always the problem with hippies, they never pay.
The end of oil reserves will be a great day for the civilization. Collectively the developed world will be able to ignore the middle east and its religion of peace into oblivion, kinda like they do with Africa now.
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because the military is being used for political ends that have nothing to do with the safety of this country, and everything to do with the safety of defense contractor profits.
When they stop playing politics with defense, I'll stop complaining about it.
"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing... but controlled and purposeful violence." - R.A. Heinlein
War IS politics.
It's about time that an alternative has been thought over to have some good benefits as this would ensure to preserve the non-renewable sources of energy to a little extent. I think that it would just make sure to have better use of the renewable sources of energy. The cost that has to be incurred right now will be reduced to a very good extent. I think that it would just make it sure that the people will indeed have the best of the benefits at a cheaper price, but this is only possible only if an effective technology is about to make its way good enough to replace the current existing one. designer girls coats
It could also be that we have friends in the theater, and want them home.
The ______ Agenda
"Go to these places and see how long you last without AC"
My understanding is that people have lived in these places for the last 30,000 years or so, some people have a magic secret that hasn't been cracked by the US military then. And unfortunately in most of these places as well as building civilisations they've also proved its perfectly possible to wage wars, from the Pharoahs to Alexander and to the present.
So the US military can only fight where there is aircon? A secret weakness revealed! best keep that one quiet ;-)
Ha Ha. Over 300 million people, the largest military budget in the world by far, and you're afraid of a guy living in a cave!
Ha Ha. Perhaps he really *is* that good!
Duplicate. Stick to games reviews, pal, not games theory.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
How about bombing and shooting less people!!!?!!
It's fewer you goddamn commie bastard.
Yours, a grammar Nazi.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This time we are sticking around. Hopefully for the next 20-30 years. that way a whole generation grows up not hating the USA but at least thinking mostly nice things about us.
Um, neighbouring countries will just look at this as 20-30 years of US foreign occupation, on the perhaps irrational basis that the US is a foreign country whose military are occupying another country and impacting on the political structure of that country.
Just like the USSR did, in fact.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What sounded like a great idea at first, quickly turned to a nightmare as insurgent Muslims armed with Gillette Mach 3's tore through base like a marauding band of Sioux warriors. Not a scalp was left unshaven. Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
I can already see the usual "we can save lives if we just had world peace and nobody fought wars" blabber about to come. And btw, there's no irony with saving lives while fighting wars.
Bottom line, lets stick to the technological and relevant aspects of this story, hippie dippie bullshit is just plainly offtopic and should be moderated as such.
Discussing war without involving politics is about as interesting as discussing the design of goalposts but never actually playing or watching a game of football.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because war and politics go hand in hand.
Funny how the "hippie dippies" are aware of this and it completely sails over your head.
Discussion of technology used in a war situation does NOT always go hand in hand with politics, and this topic is about foam on tents. There's no politics involved, no contractors out of control, no politicians making claims, not even a weapons system; just foam on the tents. The problem is that hippie dippies are unable to discuss military operations without ranting about politics. Only someone with a gratuitous axe to grind links foam on tents to the horror, the horror, the horror...
Fuck off, I suppose if it was 1940 you'd be happy discussing in the abstract the design of concentration camp towers and showers?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
> Cleaning up the geopolitical mess that bush created without thinking things through.
I bet that people who financed Bush stood to gain from the war, directly or though oil crisis/control of resources. What is a mess for you might be a plan for somebody else. Yes, the plan might hurt the USA. For really powerful people that is not a problem, they have set up transnational organizations under our nose for decades. If you consider financial power as more effective than political one, the new world order that conspiracy nuts fear is already here.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
bringing them home will help even more
Using BOTH is an option, and the "shrapnel" factor would required an explosive sufficient to shred the container (and kill everyone in it, which would also apply to a tent). Tents don't arrive alone. There are plenty of ISOs that arrive with other supplies, and accumulate at bases once empty.
Military ISOs are VERY common, very adaptable, and frequently used to replace tents.
http://www.seabox.com/v3/military/
"can they withstand corrosion after a year or more of burial in wet ground?"
Yes if appropriately painted (or tar or foam the outside). The vanilla sort are usually made of corrosion-resisting Cor-Ten steel (they spend much of their lives at sea).
They can be abandoned after they are no longer needed. Third World countries are efficient at re-using steel which is completely recyclable.
A bit of time with a torch will reduce most containers to panels convenient for handling, and they make excellent shops and small buildings as-is (I have two 40' High Cubes, one fitted with power and light).
They have plenty of vertical strength, as can be seen when loaded ISOs are stacked on ships. For even stronger revetting, bury one, set a second atop it, cut open the roof (torch, Sawzall, etc) and fill with earth.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
So, if it's saving them $2 million a day, we can cut that out of their anual budget, right?
They have plenty of vertical strength, as can be seen when loaded ISOs are stacked on ships
Sure, they have good vertical strength, but they aren't designed for pressure from the sides.
This brings to mind the soda can trick -- take an empty soda can (with no dents), put it on the floor and carefully kneel down and place one foot on top of the can and balance all of your weight on that one foot - the can will easily support your weight. Then, take your fingers and poke in the sides of the can and it will instantly collapse under the weight.
Since shipping containers aren't meant to have pressure exerted from the sides, my guess is that they are not safe for burial, especially if you're going to put dirt on top -- a foot of dirt on top of a 20' container weighs 10 tons. I wouldn't want to be standing in that container unless it was specifically engineered to handle the side loads from the earth pressing in on the sides.
For even stronger revetting, bury one, set a second atop it, cut open the roof (torch, Sawzall, etc) and fill with earth.
The would place up to 80 tons of weight on the container -- this may be within the design specs of a freestanding container, but again, with the added pressure from the sides, I certainly wouldn't want to be standing in that container.
There are ways to mitigate side loading with proper construction techniques when preparing the hole you're placing the container in, but then you're getting farther away from the fast and cheap construction that you expected the containers to provide in the first place.
we aren't cleaning up any mess. we are making more. more murder, more maiming, more profit, all on Obama's watch. He is Commander-in-Chief, he could stop this ongoing fake "war" *instantly*