Representatives push for DOD investment in renewable energy

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:07 am

ecologically friendly non-lead ammuntion

This has been around a while. The army invented it for vehilce combat training. Blue rounds. Now it it used for many things. More commonly called frangible, but not completely the same as what police use. Also been called 10% rounds. When they hit something hard like a tree or rock they pretty much turn to powder.

choff · Post by **choff** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:58 am

I know that duck hunters are encouraged to use non-lead birdshot, how ecologically friendly are these target rounds on humans. I know that during WW2 Sherman tanks used target marking rounds to defeat Tiger tanks?

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:40 am

tactical theatre thermonuclear warfare

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:21 am

Tom Ligon wrote: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.

Beat me to it. So I'll just say, "Me too!"

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:58 am

DavidWillard wrote:
choff wrote:If the greens are really red on the inside, maybe it's an insidious sabotage plot. Imagine if the military are forced to adopt wind turbine powered tanks, solar powered submarines and ecologically friendly non-lead ammuntion.
You can make rounds out of Bismuth. Which is chemically benign and considered non-toxic. :}

Non-toxic lethal devices. What a wonderful idea.

choff · Post by **choff** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:27 am

Should cause some conflict within the Greens, on one had the new ammo will help with overpopulation, on the other they'll want to make all rounds non-lethal to qualify as non-toxic.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:30 am

ladajo wrote: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).

If I would a soldier I would select the first and the second - categorically not. Nevertheless I doubt in usefulness of such devices as effectiveness of those is highly depended on weather conditions.
E.g. you need to charge battery now and Sun is covered by clouds. You have 2-3 very advanced Javelin missiles, see the hostile tanks and can not fire.

And are flexible solar panels available and accepted by US Forces (Ground or Marines)? Advantage?

This device has parameters http://www.protonex.com/downloads/produ ... 2-1110.pdf :
Wehight (mass) - 16kg
Continious output power - 300W
Fuel consumption - 0.45 l/h (ten hours - 4.5 l =~3.5kg+may be 0,5kg canister)
So, device+fuel enough for 10 hours wehghs 20 kg and as I understand can be easily be carried by back-bag

Now let's compare if you have any data.
I would give one parameter:
Dependency on weather - yes

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:26 pm

goat-driven clockwork generator sets

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:54 pm

Joeseph,
I am not saying Fuel Cells are not useful, they certainly are. I am saying that one should adopt a multi-path approach to the problem and use what is needed. The question on the table is what is more effective for an extended remote primarily foot mobile mission? And the answer is based in the traditional approach of lots of one shot batteries and pre-staged caches, or less one shot batteries (size and weight) replaced by more rechargables and recharging methods. When you are on foot and far away it is all about first weight and second volume (although they tie closely). To answer your question, both Marines, Army and SOF use the systems discussed. And at the end of the day it is about what works best for where, and what works best is defined by meeting mission needs (for that mission) as well as increasing mobility and effectiveness.

On one mission it may be better to take a fuel cell, but on another where you could be limited in liquid resupply or access, they may opt for compact solar or compact wind. Or some combination.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:31 pm

ladajo wrote:On one mission it may be better to take a fuel cell, but on another where you could be limited in liquid resupply or access, they may opt for compact solar or compact wind. Or some combination.

I am really interested what they do use? Not for discussion but for only my knowledge.
Producing company and model?
As for example I know that they use Trijicon sights, M4 assault rifles of Colt, M110 rifle of (forgot), m249 machine gun of FN USA, M203 underbarrel grenade launcher of Colt, etc.

93143 · Post by **93143** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:43 pm

MSimon wrote:
DavidWillard wrote:
choff wrote:If the greens are really red on the inside, maybe it's an insidious sabotage plot. Imagine if the military are forced to adopt wind turbine powered tanks, solar powered submarines and ecologically friendly non-lead ammuntion.
You can make rounds out of Bismuth. Which is chemically benign and considered non-toxic. :}
Non-toxic lethal devices. What a wonderful idea.

As I recall, bismuth exhibits inferior ballistics due to its somewhat lower density vs. lead.

There is another option generally considered non-toxic:

pro
anti

I haven't researched this in detail; those are just early results from a Google search...

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:08 pm

For Solar, this is a 40x60 ft example of what is in use. It puts out 2KW.

There are other variants.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usarmyafrica/5729619892/

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:13 pm

Oh, forgot about turbines. Just google "micro wind turbine" and you will be buried in hits. This tech has been around for a few years. They get smaller and smaller every year, and they are dirt cheap.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 3:26 am

The first is similar to sail - roomy but light in weight. Thank you - I did not know.
Regarding wind turbines, as I understand you are proposing me googling.
But I am asking a little bit different: is US Army or Marines considering (examining) wind turbines or solar panels for acceptation them officially as military equipment?
As I know many examined and non-accepted types of weapons or equipment.