Go Green, Big Green

The Times tells us that the US military is going green in Afghanistan, since shipping fuel if expensive and dangerous.

A few years back, we were told that the US military was going green in Iraq for the same reason.

If price is no object, some of these green solutons make perfect sense.  And as the Times notes, by creating demand, the military may promote volume and economies in manufacturing.  Maybe.

As something of an aside, this puzzles me every time I encounter it:

There are similar tactical advantages to using renewable fuel for planes and building hybrid ships. “Every time you cut a ship away from the need to visit an oiler — a fuel supply ship — you create an advantage,” said Mr. Mabus, noting that the Navy had pioneered previous energy transformations in the United States, from sail power to coal power in the 19th century, as well as from coal to oil and oil to nuclear power in the 20th century.

OK, what about nuclear?  We have nuclear powered carriers and submarines, but no nuclear-powered small cities.  Is it a "price no object" problem, whereby the ship-sized reactors make sense in their context but not commercially?  A safety issue?  Partial Disclosure: It may be a waste of time to try to educate me on this - I know I have looked at it before but I can't remember what, if anything I concluded.  Still, hopes springs eternal...

Comments

[I R A Darth Aggie]

Nobody wants to live near a nuclear power plant. Even with the new designs. The environmentalists won that round. Now they have to use coal, oil, or natural gas to power their refrigerators.

[Jack is Back!]

Ah, finally, something we can wrap our minds around that creates value - the science of logistics, not just your run of the mill logistics but military logistics. Fuel is the great supply line extender and contraction at the same time. Look at present day Afghanistan and the need to use Pakistan to supply fuel - for aviation, land armor, command centers, transportation, etc. A pipeline would make sense if you could secure it but that is out of the question. How do you provide force protection to the supply line if it is mobile and coming from a source where you are not allowed to protect it? I don't see where small scale nuclear power plays a role unless you power up battery-powered vehicles but that is years away for armor and military transport. The last thing a commander on the ground or one back in Tampa wants to be thinking about is how to reduce his carbon footprint. Its bad enough these commanders have to even consider a force with DADT repealed much less one running on solar power.

[No.]

Is Big Green green?
=======

[Danube of Thought]

The US Navy's experience with nuclear powered surface vessels other than carriers established that they were horribly cost-ineffective and burdensome.

A guided missile destroyer can go alongside an oiler (or a carrier) to top off every three days or so, and it takes about an hour. No big deal.

[LouP]

"Now they have to use coal, oil, or natural gas to power their refrigerators."

But they don't want to live near them either. Maybe we could just burn environmentalists for fuel.

[Ignatz]

So our fuel tankers are going to be safe or invulnerable when they're hauling biodiesel rather than JP-4?

I'm guessing about 1% of fuel is used to power generators for tent lights and laptops at remote outposts like the solar powered one described.

Electric vehicles need a grid powered by some type of fuel to hook up to.

Even a fuel cell vehicle that could crack water to get its hydrogen needs a reliable supply of water.

I'm guessing this is about 75% institutional PC stupidity and about 25% practicality.
When NASA's main goal is muslim outreach it's not hard to imagine the DOD's becoming fighting a war by reducing its carbon footprint even if it makes it less effective.

[Jim Ryan]

Obama has suggested covering aircraft-carrier decks with solar panels.

[matt]

solar makes sense for remote locations. running high voltage transmission lines in the US costs @ $1,000,000/mile, and that's the easy part. Imagine the cost in A'stan.

That said, the acreage to supply meaningful amounts of power is significant. But to run a few radios and a couple of refrigerators you might need 15-20 panels. The military is already doing some of this.

[Rick Ballard]

Jim,

I thought Obama had ordered the carriers to be retrofitted with masts and sails? Maybe the sails will be coated with PV film in order to power the electric hover jets?

[LouP]

Just line the environmentalists up on the treadmill-powered generators. Problem solved. And if they're kept at in earnest, the obesity problem and unemployment problem will be solved, too.

[Clarice]

Lou, You're a genius.

[Rob Crawford]

Just line the environmentalists up on the treadmill-powered generators. Problem solved.

Inefficient; too many losses between the treadmill and the generator.

I say give the Greens the world they long for: chain them to the front of trucks and Hummers and Abrams and let them provide old-fashioned muscle power to our military.

[Jeff]

the only reason the military should even consider some of this is because it works better for their needs than conventional power sources. Solar panels for charging radio batteries for special forces teams comes to mind.

[Boatbuilder]

If the solar panels worked worth a damn, there would be no need for discussion. The military would have them, and use them.

Same, of course, for "renewable" power.

How about putting the burden of persuasion on the greens, and let the military (and everybody else) do what is best for their needs and budget.

[Threadkiller]

Every time I hear solar/government I will have to submit this ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-kSgNasm1I&feature=channel"> Link

[George Ditter]

All the nuclear powered cruisers (intended as anti-air escorts for the carriers) were disposed during the Clinton Administration. Conventional power (to the extent that gas turbines are conventional) makes some sense for the Aegis ships since they need a lot of volume topside and big tanks filled with fuel act as ballast better than a reactor. Still most of the CGNs were not that old when they were scrapped.

[AL]

Even a fuel cell vehicle that could crack water to get its hydrogen needs a reliable supply of water.

[AL]

Hybrid ship? Clinical idiot.

“Even a fuel cell vehicle that could crack water to get its hydrogen needs a reliable supply of water.”

Not to mention reliable supply of electricity to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

[Lepanto.]

Galleys maneuver in a calm.
==========