http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22432Despite these growing pressures, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), co-chair of the new congressional Defense Energy Security Caucus, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on August 10 to drive the continued investment in renewable energy. Other caucus members joined Hinchey in signing the letter, such as Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Jack Kingston (R-GA) and the office of Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).
Representatives push for DOD investment in renewable energy
Representatives push for DOD investment in renewable energy
It's insidious. We have members of congress calling for the military to lean into windmills and solar panels as future energy sources.hanelyp wrote:Translation: they want the military dependent on over priced under performing energy sources.
Why now?
There is more of a reckoning force afoot that small modular reactors would be beneficial to basic warfighting capability. There are designs such as IFRs, Babcock and Wilcox's Mpower, Sorensen's LFTRs and other types of MSRs and other designs that would take only engineering development, no new Physics.
There are other black swan (Read Talib) possibilities that should be investigated, but may also be stopped, such as Polywell.
The political purpose of the stressing low power density systems for military research must be to stymie the development of high power density systems. Who'd want that? Such systems, be they LIFTERS, IFRs or Pollywells, if allowed to develop, would certainly find their way into the civilian sector too. With power densities 6 orders greater than combustion, such systems would wreck the fossil fuel business at the margins. Who needs to avoid that?
Lackies in congress know no political bounds. Both Republicans and Democrats pander to the status quo.
When you are at the end of a long and deadly logistics chain, solar power makes more sense than diesel generators. JP5 (aka diesel fuel) costs about $500/gallon on the front line in Afghanistan.Helius wrote:It's insidious. We have members of congress calling for the military to lean into windmills and solar panels as future energy sources.hanelyp wrote:Translation: they want the military dependent on over priced under performing energy sources.
Why now?
Not all "alternative" energy sources are foolish.
There might actually be a few good military reasons for certain renewables.
Modern soldiers are so dependent on electronics that they wind up carrying stupendous loads of batteries into the field. Portable means of recharging is one area of active military interest. Leaves more carrying capacity for ammo.
Once you clobber a place, you wind up having to rebuild it. As Colin Powell said, "You break it, you bought it." So reconstruct with renewables. Think about it ... get Iraq, which can export oil but does not have much refinery capacity, set up with servicable but meager energy, forever limited. With luck they learn to make do with it rather than exploiting their own reserves. Should keep them in check for a generation, at least.
Modern soldiers are so dependent on electronics that they wind up carrying stupendous loads of batteries into the field. Portable means of recharging is one area of active military interest. Leaves more carrying capacity for ammo.
Once you clobber a place, you wind up having to rebuild it. As Colin Powell said, "You break it, you bought it." So reconstruct with renewables. Think about it ... get Iraq, which can export oil but does not have much refinery capacity, set up with servicable but meager energy, forever limited. With luck they learn to make do with it rather than exploiting their own reserves. Should keep them in check for a generation, at least.
This is well along in field use now. SOF, go figure lead the charge, as well as the marines. There are now several fielded functional alternatives. And there is continued improvement in this area. Smarter, faster, better.Modern soldiers are so dependent on electronics that they wind up carrying stupendous loads of batteries into the field. Portable means of recharging is one area of active military interest. Leaves more carrying capacity for ammo.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Citius, Altius, Fortiusladajo wrote:This is well along in field use now. SOF, go figure lead the charge, as well as the marines. There are now several fielded functional alternatives. And there is continued improvement in this area. Smarter, faster, better.Modern soldiers are so dependent on electronics that they wind up carrying stupendous loads of batteries into the field. Portable means of recharging is one area of active military interest. Leaves more carrying capacity for ammo.
This is well proved:
http://www.protonex.com/defense/index.aspx
But don't know how about renewables.
Why now is because, well, Greenies are watermelons. Green on the outside, and red on the inside...Helius wrote:It's insidious. We have members of congress calling for the military to lean into windmills and solar panels as future energy sources.hanelyp wrote:Translation: they want the military dependent on over priced under performing energy sources.
Why now?
But aside from THAT... There's a big push now in renewable energy, fuel efficiency, and other "green" technology. General Petraeus did a video for ASAALT recently about how we're putting (tens of?) thousands of soldiers in harms way every day to transport fuel and perform logistics missions.
On that, it makes sense. But it's so far off (and unpromising) as we all know, that it's stupid for the military to invest in green technology. It's just one way for the Watermelons to divest our critical defense budget into their redistributive programs.
They are using solar and wind for now for renewables. The fuel cells have been around a bit, but are still not practical for foot patrol type work. There has also been a big push for better battery tech, some of which has bled over into the civilian market already. One of the cooler (pun intended) things I have seen being used is a flexible solar panel "tent" shelter. You rig it up and it cranks out about 2KW per day. Very slick, and even comes in field colors to blend.Joseph Chikva wrote:Citius, Altius, Fortiusladajo wrote:This is well along in field use now. SOF, go figure lead the charge, as well as the marines. There are now several fielded functional alternatives. And there is continued improvement in this area. Smarter, faster, better.Modern soldiers are so dependent on electronics that they wind up carrying stupendous loads of batteries into the field. Portable means of recharging is one area of active military interest. Leaves more carrying capacity for ammo.
This is well proved:
http://www.protonex.com/defense/index.aspx
But don't know how about renewables.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
I can imagine wind and solar but only for camps.ladajo wrote:They are using solar and wind for now for renewables. The fuel cells have been around a bit, but are still not practical for foot patrol type work. There has also been a big push for better battery tech, some of which has bled over into the civilian market already. One of the cooler (pun intended) things I have seen being used is a flexible solar panel "tent" shelter. You rig it up and it cranks out about 2KW per day. Very slick, and even comes in field colors to blend.
Patrol work I imagine as they live in camp, then go out for patrolling and then return back. All electronic equipment has to be charge before patrolling. So, portable charging equipment is not required at all. As they are patrolling within only a few hours.
But if we consider dismounted infantry (marines) without any transport (12-24V current source) they should have portable power units and in this case fuel cells may be the best solution. IMHO
Renewables have not good power/mass ratio. Better if they would carry more ammunition.
Also, I like exoskeleton’s idea:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/hulc/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... hoto2.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... hoto7.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... oto11.html
but till now that has limited capability. Also due to the limited capability of storing enough energy in Li-ion batteries in acceptable mass.
"Green energy" applicability is of course dependent on the mission. A wind mill will not power an aircraft carrier. A solar panel will not be useful on a submarine. But as already mentioned small unit applications are numerous. The special forces personnel,operating for days or weeks behind enemy lines needs huge battery resources to power their radios, lasers, etc. An efficient modest sized solar panel would greatly reduce this burden on desert missions. A solar panel on top of a vehicle likewise would help to maintain battery charge , and through a battery, power intermittent electrical needs without needing to fire up the engine as frequently, providing both a fuel advantage and possibly a stealth advantage. There are many possible uses. Many of the low power, intermittent requirements may have significant benefits.
A fuel cell, while not renewable, would be extremely useful, especially if it would run off of any hydrocarbon- alcohol, gasoline, diesel, kerosine, vegetable oil or even sugar syrup.
Dan Tibbets
A fuel cell, while not renewable, would be extremely useful, especially if it would run off of any hydrocarbon- alcohol, gasoline, diesel, kerosine, vegetable oil or even sugar syrup.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
I am not sure that for fuel cell running on e.g. methanol you can effectively use gasoline or some other fuels.D Tibbets wrote:"Green energy" applicability is of course dependent on the mission. A wind mill will not power an aircraft carrier. A solar panel will not be useful on a submarine. But as already mentioned small unit applications are numerous. The special forces personnel,operating for days or weeks behind enemy lines needs huge battery resources to power their radios, lasers, etc. An efficient modest sized solar panel would greatly reduce this burden on desert missions. A solar panel on top of a vehicle likewise would help to maintain battery charge , and through a battery, power intermittent electrical needs without needing to fire up the engine as frequently, providing both a fuel advantage and possibly a stealth advantage. There are many possible uses. Many of the low power, intermittent requirements may have significant benefits.
A fuel cell, while not renewable, would be extremely useful, especially if it would run off of any hydrocarbon- alcohol, gasoline, diesel, kerosine, vegetable oil or even sugar syrup.
Dan Tibbets
Renewable energy sources as such are roomy and I can not imagine how Special Forces can use them "behind front lines". Though as a rule modern battles are very mobile and have not front lines at all. Iam sure that for Special Forces better to carry some fuel for fuel cell than very roomy wind generator.
Even in desert in maximum radiation condition solar panels installed on the top of battle machine can not produce enough power.
Till now we have not think up fuel better than hydrocarbons. As hydrogen has better heat/mass ratio but gasoline or diesel fuel has better heat/volume ratio. Alcohols have only clean exhaust advantage. And that is not critical for military.
Actually, when out on an extended mission, solar and wind are useful, and have been used. The flexible panels are key, when in movement they are rolled up and pack with minimal weight. Same with a small wind turbine. (useful up in the mountains). When in layup, you roll out the panels, or set up the mini turbine (or both), and do some charging. Very useful. Batteries in the field are a major pain in the butt.I can imagine wind and solar but only for camps.
Patrol work I imagine as they live in camp, then go out for patrolling and then return back. All electronic equipment has to be charge before patrolling. So, portable charging equipment is not required at all. As they are patrolling within only a few hours.