Cutting the militaries carbon footprint.

[PeterCrisp]

Can the military help save the world by using less resources or would it just make them unable to do the job they are asked to do?
Could we for instance make a tank GTI made from carbon fibre for lightness (with the added benefit of awesome speed) so it saves fuel? Can the new carries for the royal navy use those new marine kites for that same reason?
While those are rather odd suggestions what more sensible ideas could be brought in that would not hinder the armed forces while at the same time saving money and give a smaller carbon footprint?

 

[Feanor]

Well the USMC has massively switched to natural gas and electric power vehicles for their buses, and on base transportation.

 

[elgatoso]

And the US Navy are making a project for a green Navy.

 

[kato]

The German Army has made it legal for deployed forces (ok, only those) to use vehicles that haven't had their biannual emission checkup done, if the situation demands using them - sorta the opposite in effect

 

[elgatoso]

More from DOD energy blog
1-Gigantic Army solar installation off the ground at Fort Irwin in California's Mojave Desert to advance conversation beyond Nellis. Score - Fort Irwin: 500+ Megawatts, Nellis AFB: 14 Megawatts
2-GREENS, for Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy System, the system consists of stackable 1600-watt solar arrays combined with rechargeable batteries to yield 300 watts of continuous power.
3- the goal of sailing a carrier strike group on biofuel dubbed "the Great Green Fleet."
4-The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to assess the feasibility of developing nuclear power plants on military installations. Not later than June 1, 2010, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing the results of the study. In summary, the study shall consider: options for construction and operation; cost estimates and the potential for life cycle cost savings; potential energy security advantages; additional infrastructure costs; impact on quality of life of military personnel; regulatory, State, and local concerns; impact on operations on military installations; potential environmental liabilities; factors impacting safe co-location of nuclear power plants on military installations; and, any other factors that bear on the feasibility of developing nuclear power plants on military installations.

 

[Gremlin29]

My personal view is that the military's 1st priority is capability, all else is subordinate to this priority. If the military can be more environmentally friendly it should be, but not at the expense of soldiers training and equipment.

Before making any decissions based on carbon footprint you're going to have to convince a skeptical world that 1. Global Warming is actually taking place today and that 2. Global Warming is man made, based on carbon emissions. It's junk science in my opinion, the realease of all the climategate documents underscores this coupled with a definate disagreement within the scientific community, particularly among those that do not stand to make significant monitary gains.

 

[kato]

you're going to have to convince a skeptical world

Actually, no. It's pretty much an accepted fact throughout the world - except for the USA, and US-sponsored thinktanks outside the USA. Climategate? It's a non-issue outside the USA, because everyone accepts that global warming is a fact. I've yet to see any major statistical data against global warming stemming from non-US-influenced sources btw.

 

[Gremlin29]

Actually, no. It's pretty much an accepted fact throughout the world - except for the USA, and US-sponsored thinktanks outside the USA. Climategate? It's a non-issue outside the USA, because everyone accepts that global warming is a fact. I've yet to see any major statistical data against global warming stemming from non-US-influenced sources btw.

I know many non-US citzens that are not sold on Global Warming. Why is climategate a non-issue? It is plain as day the data was manipulated.

 

[Firn]

I have a firm view on the issue, but I think we should leave global warming out of this debate.

Military capability is obviously tied to the ability to sustain military operations, and a critical factor in doing so is fuel consumption. Less fuel spend mean not only less CO2 in the air, but also a leaner logistic tail and greater autonomy for the teeth with surprising cascading effects. The far-flung operations in Afghanistan are only one of the last examples in this regard.

IIRC there was an interesting US study on how reduced fuel efficiency can greatly lessen costs and increase capabilities - and how the wrong parameters, dubious calculations and false fuel costs did inhibit the military to earn those benefits by making the wrong decisions.


Firn

 

[Grand Danois]

Check page 79 of DTI.

Defense Technology International | Jan-10 | Express 3 | Zinio Digital Magazines

 

[dragonfire]

In India with the CRPF which is a paramilitary force (probably the worlds largest) there is atleast one battalion which is called the Green Force which has planted Millions of trees in the last few years

 

[Feanor]

I know many non-US citzens that are not sold on Global Warming. Why is climategate a non-issue? It is plain as day the data was manipulated.

Among the scientific community it's an accepted fact. You can dispute it if you want, but when international summits are dedicated to it, and political parties exist based on the issue, you can't pretend like it's not an issue. It doesn't even matter whether it's real or not. Perception is more powerful then reality. As long as governments are treating it as real, it's real for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[Gremlin29]

It doesn't even matter whether it's real or not. Perception is more powerful then reality.

I agree completely!

 

[Feanor]

So we're back to where we started. The public feels better if we produce less CO2 (whether the effects are real or imaginary is of little consequence, for practical purposes we can assume that we'd have major public discontent quite a bit before the earth melts from green house effects, and that's what we're concerned with here). Therefore we need to go green.

Sorry Gremlin I'm not trying to shut you down, just to steer this back on topic. If you want a global warming debate (which would be interesting to see) feel free to start one in the Off-Topic forum.

By the way I also agree with your premise that military efficiency should not be sacrificed to environmentalism. In that sense the USMC in my opinion has gone down the right path by shifting to eco-friendly vehicles on base, for buses, even pick up trucks (an environmental-friendly pick up truck, go figure ), and the little electric cars that are used to get around base. This has no effect on combat performance but helps a lot with image building.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Actually, no. It's pretty much an accepted fact throughout the world - except for the USA, and US-sponsored thinktanks outside the USA. Climategate? It's a non-issue outside the USA, because everyone accepts that global warming is a fact. I've yet to see any major statistical data against global warming stemming from non-US-influenced sources btw.

How it's accepted throughout the world is irrelevant, the only opinion that matters for finding out the truth is that of the scientific community, which has no boundaries, outside US or not. And it most certainly is not a non-issue among scientists, with some of the most prominent names in the area being flatly against many of the ideas promoted by the global warming side. And since most of nearly all sciences is done in the USA I would pay a bit more attention to what comes out of its scientific community. There are many issues with some of the most basic assumptions of the warming theory and reasons for its existence, from the historical temperatures throughout millennia to the most important problem (IMHO) - connecting CO2 to the warming.
Sorry for going off-topic again but the military's impact on carbon emissions is enormous, so understanding the issue is important for managing military's future.

 

[PeterCrisp]

And since most of nearly all sciences is done in the USA I would pay a bit more attention to what comes out of its scientific community.

I'm sorry but I have to reply to this as it's just so wrong on so many levels it's scary. The UK alone has some of the most respected research facilities in the world (Oxford and Cambridge Universities to name but two) not to mention the rest of the EU and the world.

Staying on topic though I see that home basses are good places to start when thinking of cutting emissions and costs without effecting combat ability. Would it be fair to say that because of the rising price of fuel that most new equipment will have fuel efficiency as at least a minor concern from now on?

 

[Firn]

Staying on topic though I see that home basses are good places to start when thinking of cutting emissions and costs without effecting combat ability. Would it be fair to say that because of the rising price of fuel that most new equipment will have fuel efficiency as at least a minor concern from now on?

It should be a huge concern, at least if the DoD values their own case studies, which are sadly no longer online. The example of the vastly increased costs due to not using a more efficient turbines/engines for the the B-52 (IIRC) was as convincing as the one of the cascading costs due to the old inefficient trubine of the M1 Abrams.

Firn

 

[elgatoso]

From physorg
Fueled by the sun, the Ground Renewable Expeditionary ENergy System (GREENS) is a 300-watt, photovoltaic/battery system that provides continuous power to Marines in the field. ONR began exploring the GREENS idea in fall 2008 in response to a Marine Corps requirement from Iraq for an expeditionary renewable power system
The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, developed and tested the GREENS prototype which has undergone continuous power testing at Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, Calif., where ambient temperatures exceeded 116 degrees Fahrenheit. Even under the extreme temperatures, the system provided 85 percent of the rated energy.

 

[PhysicsMan]

I'm sorry but I have to reply to this as it's just so wrong on so many levels it's scary. The UK alone has some of the most respected research facilities in the world (Oxford and Cambridge Universities to name but two) not to mention the rest of the EU and the world.

Staying on topic though I see that home basses are good places to start when thinking of cutting emissions and costs without effecting combat ability. Would it be fair to say that because of the rising price of fuel that most new equipment will have fuel efficiency as at least a minor concern from now on?

Scary indeed. Scary because is true. A little statistics for you: total number of post-war Nobel Prize winners in sciences (this is only up to '98) - 314; number of US winners for the same - 178. That makes it 56%. Not even taking into account that the real impact is even greater (greater percentage of prestigious scientific publications) this qualifies in my book as most of the science.
Cambridge and Oxford are fine institutions but there are dozens of centers in US that have the same or greater output of scientific research.

 

[Marc 1]

My personal view is that the military's 1st priority is capability, all else is subordinate to this priority. If the military can be more environmentally friendly it should be, but not at the expense of soldiers training and equipment.

Being green is an operational issue. I think I read somewhere that it costs an average of something like $400 per gallon for fuel to get to the end user in Iraq. The more fuel you have to use, the more that has to be supplied. With civvy convoy companies paying'leave us alone' money to the insurgents to get the fuel supplies into Afg from Pak any reduction that can be achieved will aid the US forces and hurt the insurgents.