US Military Orders Less Dependence On Fossil Fuel 317
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."
As usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing spurs innovation like trying to kill the other guy.
Something Spurs Innovation Further (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I Understand the Isolationist PoV and I Reject It (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 ...
Re:I Understand the Isolationist PoV and I Reject (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I Understand the Isolationist PoV and I Reject (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware the Nazis had their own nuclear program, correct? It was only canceled due to the fall of Berlin -- something the United States did play a part in.
Berlin would have fallen with or without the USA - it was only a question of who it fell too; the Soviets, the Allies or Both (as happened).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Berlin would have fallen with or without the USA - it was only a question of who it fell too; the Soviets, the Allies or Both (as happened).
It happened only because of US involvement requiring Germany to split between two fronts, which is completely ignoring the pressures placed elsewhere because of directly US involvement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Something Spurs Innovation Further (Score:5, Insightful)
In a real war one would hang those civilian combattants and collect all local guns.
Thing is, small arms fire is near the BOTTOM of the casualty reasons in the middle east for US Troops. Roadside bombs are #1, if I remember right.
Taking away their guns would therefore be ineffective because you'd mostly be collecting the non-insurgent and non-terrorist people's guns, driving people TO the insurgents, and finally because, well, they generally suck at aiming so bad we'd prefer them to make small arms attacks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 p
Ya well don't knock it (Score:4, Insightful)
The US military is responsible for all sorts of amazing technology that makes like better. GPS would be a good recent example. Any civilian company would have said you were nuts to try and build a GNSS. WAY too expensive and really, how useful would it be? Not enough to justify the funds for sure. The military said "Wait we could locate every craft, every vehicle, maybe even every soldier, every bomb? Yes please." The result? The most amazing advance in navigation and location since, well, the theodolite probably. Everything is now GPS for primary navigation (and sometimes only these days). The world now navigates by GPS and is safer and more efficient for it. In fact hte EU recognized the problem in relying on a system owned by the US military and has talked about their own, but despite having already seen the need and the system working, they've yet to launch a single satellite (it was supposed to be up and running by now). For the moment, a military built system is the only option (the Russians also have a military GNSS).
In some cases, the military really gets shit done. This is in part because they have such a large budget, and are used to expensive, long term projects. They are ok with an outlay of large amounts of money for something that will take a long time to develop and deliver. That is something hard to find in the corporate world. Another useful thing is they are public, they are owned by the government. Means anything they do can be made available to everyone. Of course not everything will be, things that are national security related won't (like the weapons themselves) but something like better solar technology? Sure.
So maybe they will lead the way to better renewable power.
Re: (Score:2)
Never said it was a bad thing...merely said it was a thing.
Seen and unseen (Score:2)
The US military is responsible for all sorts of amazing technology that makes life better.
Sure, but at what cost. What was the opportunity cost?
This is in part because they have such a large budget, and are used to expensive, long term projects. They are ok with an outlay of large amounts of money for something that will take a long time to develop and deliver. That is something hard to find in the corporate world.
This is the "missing strawman" fallacy, if you will. 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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Neither do I. Would you invoke Godwin if I said: "I'd settle for another Leni Riefenstahl."?
Re:Seen and unseen (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with technology is that people don't just sit down and decide, "We're going to build this network of satellites that beam signals to Earth where these little devices will use those signals to determine where they are. And we're also going to to have these neat little touch screens that facilitate usability and we're going to have to put together detailed maps and store them electronically."
There are tons of advancements that went into those GPS devices. Many of those advancements are fed others, but many grew out of disparate avenues of research. Some were thanks to the space program, some university research, others developed in corporations and many more developed for military applications.
The point is, we don't know where future technologies will grow out of. It isn't simply a matter of putting our minds to it. Simply throwing money at some vague idea doesn't necessarily result in anything meaningful. The vast majority of technological advancements grow out of real needs, even if it's simply to improve the functionality of an existing piece of hardware.
Even if we decided to completely abandon military spending we wouldn't be able to do it because so many countries around the world depend on American military might. They have the luxury of spending so little on their own militaries because they know that when push comes to shove the US will be there for them.
Re: (Score:2)
True, and I am grateful for their willingness to fund long-term research. Unfortunately, however, for all the same reasons you listed, the military sometimes does nothing but burn huge amounts of money for years and years on projects that
This has to happen. (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at the loss rate on getting fossil fuels where they are needed. I want 5K gal of diesel at a far-FOB in the Afghan mountains. How many K gal am I going to burn just to get it there? It's awful. How about some compact nuke power cells a la submarines. Safe? No. Effective? Very. Generally speaking, war isn't very safe either.
Re: (Score:2)
Gets kind of interesting when the Taliban overrun your FOB.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus giving them a very handy way of wagging the dog. How many nuke plants do you expect to afford to lose in this manner? How many allied troops would there be left in country a week after you pulled such a stunt? For that matter, how would the Afghan military that you're trying to train react? How about the Afghan gov't? How about the UN?
Moronic.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, to put it another way.
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
inform the Taleban that any attempt to capture one will result in that immediate area being denied to them for the next 3 centuries
You think telling guys who believe their invisible friend commands them to kill the infidels who believe in the wrong invisible guy, that if they attack you, invisible "radiation" will strike them all down, and their children, and their childrens children too, will work?
you might as well just nuke afghanistan right now, same end-result and a whole lots less work/fuss, and you might actually get rid of the taliban (which conventional war obviously isnt working for)
Re:This has to happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the enormous costs, the US Army Corps of Engineers has been developing the logistics and technology to have supply convoys go overland [army.mil] from McMurdo to South Pole station [asoc.org]. It's a lot slower:
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of volcanoes there so IF one could dig for geothermal, things may become much easier. Sure, it would be a large initial investment.
Re: (Score:2)
the US Army Corps of Engineers has been developing the logistics and technology to have supply convoys go overland
Another benefit of this approach is that you could probably get the History Channel to help fund it so they could turn it into one of their annoying reality shows.
The answer is... (Score:2)
yabadabadoo! But seriously, why not hemp diesel? (Score:2)
Good pop culture reference :) Anyway, I was thinking that maybe hemp could be used to fuel diesel machines since it grows quickly, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp [wikipedia.org]. Since I've been hearing about hemp diesel for years but have seen nothing come from it (so far), I assumed it is either burdened with legal issues or is otherwise unviable.. Does anyone know about this?
Trickle down? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope that, with so many other technologies developed by the military, some of it finds its way into everyday use.
In this case it's more that technology in everyday use finds its way into the military. They already have diesel-hybrid war machine design programs, for example.
Powergorilla (Score:2)
The holy grail of alt energy (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because before the automobile, we never had wars, did we?
You're dumb, and accidentally correct (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [bbc.co.uk]:
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.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
and IAAPS(I am a political scientist)
and on a personal, political note, the only thing better than a draft would be compulsory term service in either a military or civil capacity. This would get rid of the entitlement culture this country is increasingly showing and would force people to actually learn a skill and be productive(at least temporarily). Let people earn their keep instead of simply sitting around waiting for unemployment checks.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Too many rich warhawks believe wars should be fought by someone else's son.
Re: (Score:2)
I am in favor of compulsory military service for every adult citizen in the US. Many modern nations enforce it: Germany, Norway, China and even Canada. It's not just for small third world nations.
Even without it, we should have had a draft a long time ago. People are on their 4th and 5th tour of Afghanistan. I know they voluntarily signed up for service, but we are down right abusing their situation. The standing army isn't meant to support all wars by themselves. They are there for day to day security enfo
Re: (Score:2)
Do you read the first 50 comments that come up after any story having to do with military matters?
Maybe I'm giving to much weight to the COD culture that reacts to stories about military hardware in the first place. Certainly, I'm not talking about you, maxume.
Maybe the outsized excitement I notice is for military hardware and its trappings. I doubt there would be much appetite for fighting here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US has had a major war for every generation of citizens since it's founding.
War of 1812-1814
Mexican American War 1846-1848
Spanish American War 1898-1898
World War 1 1917-1921
World War 2 1942-1947
Korea 1950-1953
Vietnam 1964-1975
Gulf War 1990-1991
Afghanistan 2001-Present
I'm sure you can find a country with a more violent history (Ghana or someplace), but we sure aren't a peaceful population.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um. The Mexican-American war was also a case where we "went batshit insane and started attacking for little to no reason" -- or rather, the reason was clear, but it certainly wasn't self-defense. And of course there was the entire period of the Indian Wars. We may not have had a military-industrial complex to push us into fighting, but plain old imperial ambition of the "we want this land and we're going to take it" variety did the trick.
Small actions en-masse make a difference (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Detectable? Citation needed. Your fuel guage isn't accurate enough to tell you much and human operation isn't precise enough.
Dyno tests or I call bullshit.
Can offer better than that (Score:3, Interesting)
the improvement in fuel efficiency from my conversions is between 2% and 2.5%
Re: (Score:2)
replacing the headlights with LEDs apparently can save several percent (which in long-term use can be detectable, not a single tank obviously)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also since the panels are permanently mounted on the rear parcel-shelf they trickle-feed 18v into the system while driving in daylight as well, meaning I get a little longer before the battery state drops low enough for the alternator to cut in again. Likewise the LED ancilla
Stop using fuel guzzling vehicles (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Leaving aside the energy cost to actually build the MTU engines, to redesign the M1's transmission, to ship the new engines to the repair yards, to pull the old engines from the M1s and dispose of them, to install the new engine
Also the M1 is what it is for a reason (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your only valid point is about the flexible fuel (and even that is mitigated by having to transport much less diesel in the first place).
All the other operations wouldn't take place at forward bases, so the energy cost is orders of magnitude less than guzzling gas on the battlefield. I saw the Discovery Channel show about the facility that does major overhauls on the M1; it's done right here in the USA.
Failed to learn the lesson of WW2 (Score:2)
Stirling engines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stirling engines are simple, cheap to make, and incredibly weak, unless you have a pretty amazing heat differential.
Just a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Fight or engage local people? (Score:2)
The US military openly admits that their mission is to fight or engage local people? How did that one slip past the censor?
Re: (Score:2)
Supply?? (Score:2)
Stop using supply depots and start using pylons.
Re: (Score:2)
Biodiesel (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
What they are there to do.... (Score:2)
"keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people."
Well, at least they're finally being honest about it. None of this "To bring democracy" crap.
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've often wondered why we have compact portable atomic bombs, but no compact portable atomic generators
The answer in one word: shielding. In its passive state, all that's going on in a nuclear bomb is nuclear decay. U235 has a very long half life, so the radiation is not particularly dangerous unless you are right next to it for long periods. Typically, portable nuclear bombs are designed to be stored safely, transported for a short period, then detonated. Other than the occasional (subcritical) spontaneous fission reaction, there is no x-ray or neutron emission until it detonates. At this point, you d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. We're not fighting wars against entire populations, but smaller factions within that population.
You don't make friends by leaving a lot of nu
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
BOLO (Score:2)
You make a nuclear powered tank the size of a battleship, with enough armor and firepower to fend off any attack. Add a self-aware computer brain.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yeah maybe it's time to give up on that ideal. It's not working out too well. Our so-called friends in Pakistan for instance attack us and give aid money to terrorists to attack us.
It's funny because we had a lot of support among Afghan citizens. We had friends. We just screwed it all up by not winning and threatening to give them back to the Taliban, under Pakistani control of course.
Well I guess we're keeping our friends in Pakistan happy.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You don't make friends by invading a country either, so maybe the whole concept should be re-evaluated ?
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're singing my song.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True for a traditional nuclear reactor. But when one is simply wanting to supply a base with power one doesn't need a power source large enough to supply a city. Enough to supply a single family home would be acceptable. As I noted in a response to another poster, there are TWRs currently in development that are the size of a small car. While still heavy, they could be transported to an FOB if needed, and then buried in the ground and protected from capture by a ring of claymores or other HE method.
TWRs
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Depleted uranium is a hazard beyond its radioactivity, too. It's rather unpopular with the locals due to it being used for ammunition and subsequently getting atomized and dispersed into the local environment, causing health problems.
So I can imagine the idea of burying a huge pile of DU somewhere with "blowing it up" as a contingency to prevent misuse would go over like a Depleted Uranium balloon.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Um, we're there fighting a war against tribal extremists who used to use the locals that they didn't like as 80MM target practice. I doubt that environmental issues are first on the list of the locals. Most of them are more concerned with day to day survival, and frankly, the amount of LEAD being unloaded into their environment right now is of far greater concern than a few isolated and REMOVABLE TWRs.
Re: (Score:2)
i dont think a ring of claymores will be sufficient to protect such a target, once the enemy gets wind of a prize like that, they might decide to risk a large scale assault.
As for size, if you can build a reactor the size of a smart car (saw that posted in this thread), fitting it into a main battle tank should be possible, and if power output is sufficient, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the claymores wouldn't be there to "protect" it per-se, but to destroy it if the base is about to be overrun. Keep in mind that a TWR is fully automatic, small enough and durable enough that it can be BURIED, which means that you might not even be able to SEE the thing from outside the base. People could walk right over it and not know it's there.
As far as putting it in a tank, I think you MAY have played a few too many rounds of Mechwarrior. We aren't at a technology level where we can build (or e
Re: (Score:2)
Well, i thought if you can build a nuke generator the size of a smart-car, that should be able to fit into the engine bay of a modern tank, along with a few heavy duty electric motors. Now, it is quite probable that that thing will pump out more power then the traditional tank-engine, which means you can haul more weight, in this case armor, to make your tank even more invulnerable than it is (which you want, with a nuke gen inside)
Okay, the technology might be a decade away, and the railgun thing obviously
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about enough power to supply single family home, then you're not really talking about enough power to even keep a battalion in business, let alone any larger unit. If all you're powering with this thing is company base camp sized bases (and even then you'd be cutting it close, these guys need to power a *lot* of technology these days) then it's hardly worth the expense to build and transport such a massive item. You appear to have a vision of what's going on over there which is based on
Re: (Score:2)
I've often wondered why we have compact portable atomic bombs, but no compact portable atomic generators.
From the discovery of fire it was thousands of years before we figured out how to get useful mechanical work from it (steam engine etc). Lots of problems with nukes to be solved yet.
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.
No matter what better-than-fossil-fuel energy source they bring into battle, it's going to be of interest to the enemy. It doesn't matter if it's nuclear, solar, or hamster wheels, if it works better than what they are using now then the enemy will want it.
Based on something I read recently about the army being a bit too chubby,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do know what FOB stands for, right?
Just in case you don't FOB stands for Forward Operations Base. It is a small, "tip of the spear" base, usually about the footprint of your average American home. It's walls, if it has them, are often dirt, wood and sandbag affairs, and they frequently take advantage of local terrain for defense.
FOBs are NOT the large "tent city" affairs that you see on the news reports.
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Magic Beans!
Sorry Sir, you've just had a Glenn Beck moment and done the equivalent of saying you have all the one world government conspirators on tape. You are going to have to name this magical device with model number and manufacturer to retain any credibility. Anything less is decades out so far as reactor design goes.
As for easy transport, I've had enough trouble just carrying very small shielded radiation sources up ladders (gamma ray so
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, whatever. I heard there's this unit that's relied on solar power for decades for basic functions. Sure the demonstration I saw required four hours in Iraq to heat his sandwich... But he was living off the land!
He even managed to figure out where a hostage was being held without ever steeping out of the barracks!
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Nuclear Power! (Score:4, Informative)
I was the battalion communications officer for a field artillery unit. Since we were largely underutilized in our primary function (never had more than a platoon worth of guns active at a time), we were primarily providing the vast majority of the gate security for Camp Victory. The types of reactors you're talking about wouldn't even begin to power Camp Victory. It was the size of a city, and had dozens if not hundreds of 1500KW or better generators powering it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 seri
Seems like a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, totally self-reliant (though not "renewable" by any stretch of the imagination) armies without supply lines have been done to death.
Female horses : transport, self-replicating, meat, milk and cheese. And a lot of fun at parties too*. [wikipedia.org]
Incidentally, the Afghans will probably find all about them in their history books. Well, the history books that haven't been burned (yet) by those muslims, taliban and otherwise.
* I mean mongol horse contests, not ... euhm ... muslim late-night activities.
Re: (Score:2)
muslim
It would help your point if you used the phrase "Muslim extremists". Otherwise you may as well refer to the American army as Christians.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many plans to build oil pipelines in Afghanistan, so yes, oil is a significant factor in the current conflict in Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The oil's a gushing over there in Afghanistan, isn't it?
Oil, opium, same song, just a different verse of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but they'll find another place to secure.
Re: (Score:2)
All that is fine & dandy, but the major problem for the US forces in Afghanistan isn't energy, but a lack of strategy, IMO.
Talibans don't have F-16 nor drones, they don't have solar panels, and they still control over 90% of the country.
Example of bad strategy is fuel trucks crossing the Khyber Pass, historically well-known & pretty well-suited for ambush. Just ask the British who lost an army there in the nineteenth century.
This.
Further, there are as yet zero examples of this type of 'external revolution' being successful. If the people of Afghanistan aren't willing to die in huge quantities to change their government, then it probably isn't going to change. Sure we can come in to their garden and pull weeds a while, but once we go home - what do you suppose will happen again?
It isn't simply a matter of where we move the fuel trucks, but instead it goes even deeper than that. How long do we intend to pour money down this ho