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
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.
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."
Oh wait, no, course not.
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."
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?
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.
Fahrenheit again? Metricate your shit, America!
Battle of the sexes.
Oh, believe me: in that one you don't want to eliminate the opponent.
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
Not many tents stand up very well under a yard of earth.
Go to these places and see how long you last without AC. The real WTF, is why they are taking so long to build more permanent structures, or leaving. This in the middle BS is costing us a fortune.
Really. For all of the 'tent money' they've spent, they could have dug in, literally, with buried structures that would be safer, cheaper and very useful for the enemy once we pull out.
Oh, wait. (Actually even permanent emplacements that were used by enemy forces once we've moved out could be quite valuable for us. Nothing like knowing exactly what to expect and where the literal back doors are).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I grew up in Oman, you insensitive clod.
Seriously though, you can survive in very hot places without AC, you just can't _do_ all that much. At over about 40 degrees in the shade, your body expends most of its energy trying to get cool. AC just allows you to function fully all day long, it's not technically necessary (at least if not fighting a war). It hit 50 degrees in the shade a couple of times when I was there.
That being said, I (obviously) wasn't living in temporary structures over there, like tents.... most of my homes had AC (most of the time), and all proper buildings retained a little of the night cool to lower the high mid-day temperatures. The thicker the walls, the better they did it - some places with massive walls, without AC, remained at absolutely fine temperatures throughout the day.
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.
Yes, because no solution should be implemented unless it solves all problems, even if those problems are completely unrelated.