PDA

View Full Version : Clean energy and the Pentegon



S.V. Airlie
04-25-2012, 09:57 AM
In a day when the Defense Dept. is looking at cuts, The Department is to include in its budget funds for clean energy.Interesting. In a time when cuts may effect veterans, clean energy is in the budget.(proposed) Now, I suppose I can wriggle through the maze and justify this but.
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-budget-expand-clean-energy-programs-pentagon-120113553.html

Good idea or no.We already have a Dept of Energy.

Uncle Duke
04-25-2012, 10:20 AM
Maybe you need to read the article you linked to. This isn't about spending $$ on developing new technologies, it's about applying existing technologies in a military setting.

While details are thin on the ground, lawmakers who work on both energy- and defense-spending policy believe the fiscal 2013 budget request to be delivered to Congress on Monday probably won’t include big increases for wind and solar power through the Energy Department, a major target for Republicans since solar-panel maker Solyndra defaulted last year on a $535 million loan guarantee.

But they do expect to see increases in spending on alternative energy in the Defense Department, such as programs to replace traditional jet fuel with biofuels, supply troops on the front lines with solar-powered electronic equipment, build hybrid-engine tanks and aircraft carriers, and increase renewable-energy use on military bases.

Comment from Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee:


“If Israel attacks Iran, and we have to go to war – and the Straits of Hormuz are closed for a week or a month and the price of fuel is going to be high,” Kingston said, “the question is, in the military, what do you replace it with? It’s not something you just do for the ozone. It’s strategic.”

And from Lindsey Graham:


Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who sits on both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said, “I don’t see what they’re doing in DOD as being Solyndra.”

“We’re not talking about putting $500 million into a goofy idea,” Graham told National Journal. “We’re talking about taking applications of technologies that work and expanding them. I wouldn’t be for DOD having a bunch of money to play around with renewable technologies that have no hope. But from what I understand, there are renewables out there that already work.”

LeeG
04-25-2012, 10:29 AM
Jamie, there's a lot to wriggle through on this topic. The Pentagon is better situated to get the free lunch that most Americans want but the facts are oil is getting expensive and it's products run the military. So that means there will be hopeful/less pursuits for "alternatives" along with pragmatic solutions for using less fuel to accomplish a mission.

this is interesting:

A senior House Democrat noted that this wouldn’t be the first time that the Pentagon has been utilized to advance policies that wouldn’t otherwise be supported.
“They did it in the ’90s with medical research,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
In 1993, when funding was frozen for breast-cancer research programs in the National Institutes of Health, Congress boosted the Pentagon’s budget for breast-cancer research – to more than double that of the health agency’s funding in that area.
Politically, the strategy makes sense. Republicans are ready to fire at the first sign of any pet Obama program, and renewable programs at the Energy Department are an exceptionally ripe target. That’s because of Solyndra, but also because, in the last two years, the Energy Department received a massive $40 billion infusion in funding for clean-energy programs from the stimulus law, a signature Obama policy. When that money runs out this year, a request for more on top of it would be met with flat-out derision from most congressional Republicans.
Increasing renewable-energy initiatives at the Pentagon can also help Obama advance his broader, national goals for transitioning the U.S. economy from fossil fuels to alternative sources. As the largest industrial consumer of energy in the world, the U.S. military can have a significant impact on energy markets – if it demands significant amounts of energy from alternative sources, it could help scale up production and ramp down prices for clean energy on the commercial market.

S.V. Airlie
04-25-2012, 10:29 AM
I read the highlighted section...Duke. It's a budget issue. Increased spending highlighted. If that's not your understanding fine. Obama is trying to get his clean energy agenda away from the Dept. of Energy into the DOD. 2 reasons: the failure of Solyndra ( a dept of energy issue) and the reps wanting a strong military.

LeeG
04-25-2012, 10:34 AM
I read the highlighted section...Duke. It's a budget issue. Increased spending highlighted. If that's not your understanding fine. Obama is trying to get his clean energy agenda away from the Dept. of Energy into the DOD. 2 reasons: the failure of Solyndra ( a dept of energy issue) and the reps wanting a strong military.

Jamie, is someone running the dirty energy agenda?

wardd
04-25-2012, 10:36 AM
Jamie, is someone running the dirty energy agenda?

jamie has a problem with not enough polution

S.V. Airlie
04-25-2012, 10:46 AM
Changing to subject again aren't you? Can't come up with any retort or response to what was posted can you?.Resorting to posts directed at me. Typical librat.

Uncle Duke
04-25-2012, 10:47 AM
I read the highlighted section...Duke. It's a budget issue. Increased spending highlighted. If that's not your understanding fine. Obama is trying to get his clean energy agenda away from the Dept. of Energy into the DOD. 2 reasons: the failure of Solyndra ( a dept of energy issue) and the reps wanting a strong military.
A budget issue? That is certainly not my understanding.
You, among other thoughtful people, have problems with the DOE programs which spend monies on research and development of new (unproven) technologies and solutions. Understood.
But this is different - this is spending on implementing existing technologies in a military setting with the intent to expand options for the military. LeeG points out, correctly, that there may be some trickle-down effects - but those would all seem to be good things.

I don't see any hidden agenda or political trickery here. And apparently neither do the conservatives who commented on it.

wardd
04-25-2012, 10:49 AM
Changing to subject again aren't you? Can't come up with any retort or response to what was posted can you?.Resorting to posts directed at me. Typical librat.

the military is one if not the biggest user of energy and along with the energy dept one of the biggest polluters, so any improvement they can make will be welcome.

wardd
04-25-2012, 10:51 AM
A budget issue? That is certainly not my understanding.
You, among other thoughtful people, have problems with the DOE programs which spend monies on research and development of new (unproven) technologies and solutions. Understood.
But this is different - this is spending on implementing existing technologies in a military setting with the intent to expand options for the military. LeeG points out, correctly, that there may be some trickle-down effects - but those would all seem to be good things.

I don't see any hidden agenda or political trickery here. And apparently neither do the conservatives who commented on it.


but, but, obama is prez

xflow7
04-25-2012, 10:53 AM
Am I the only person ever to make their first WB post in the Bilge? :D

I've been a lurker for ages, but I actually have something to contribute to this thread (at least I think so), which is unusual.

In my last job I worked on a military truck program and learned a few things. Fully aside from any perceived politics, at least on the ground vehicles front the DoD is facing a couple of big problems with respect to fuels which motivate a lot of attention on alternative energy and efficiency.

Motivation #1. The DoD's requirement to use JP-8 for essentially all ground vehicles means that they cannot use any of the current generation of diesel engines produced for Western consumption because the impurities in JP-8 are incompatible with the emissions systems required by the US and Europe. So, all new military trucks are built under EPA waivers and use diesel engines built to outdated emissions specs which are now only produced for use in developing markets. What this means is that as developing nations begin to impose more rigorous emissions requirements (which they surely will), the military's supply of engine options is going to dry up.

Motivation #2. The delivered cost of fuel to forward operating points is in the hundreds of dollars a gallon. If you think the average soccer mom is incentivized by $5.00/gal gas to look at a hybrid SUV, the DoD is 100 times more motivated to figure out how to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles.

Uncle Duke
04-25-2012, 10:55 AM
Am I the only person ever to make their first WB post in the Bilge? :D

No, but you may be the first whose "first post" in the bilge was actually to the point and sensible! Welcome!....

S.V. Airlie
04-25-2012, 10:56 AM
what improvement are you referring to. Are you making a suggestion that the Dept of Energy should be eliminated? Almost sounds like it.And I need a decoder for your last post but I was able, I think, to decipher it. Wardd, stick to C&Ps and avoid any commentary why don't you?

LeeG
04-25-2012, 11:02 AM
Xflow7, what is the rational for having all vehicles on JP8?

wardd
04-25-2012, 11:04 AM
what improvement are you referring to. Are you making a suggestion that the Dept of Energy should be eliminated? Almost sounds like it.And I need a decoder for your last post but I was able, I think, to decipher it. Wardd, stick to C&Ps and avoid any commentary why don't you?

not worth a reply

LeeG
04-25-2012, 11:07 AM
Changing to subject again aren't you? Can't come up with any retort or response to what was posted can you?.Resorting to posts directed at me. Typical librat.

I responded to your post Jamie with my own thoughts and a reference to the article. So far you haven't actually discussed the challenges the DOD faces in a time of oil price volatility. I posted the question about the "dirty energy agenda" because the energy agenda, clean or dirty, is a national priority and cannot be moved from the DOE to the DOD. My asking about the "dirty energy agenda" was an attempt to get you to consider your use of the term as it might be not helping you to understand why that aspect of the "energy agenda" is being pursued. It's not just to reduce "dirt" it's to increase utility from an increasingly expensive resource.

Gerarddm
04-25-2012, 11:08 AM
I think Jamie is a bit off base here. Nothing wrong at all with trying to get the DoD more energy efficient. Logistics is a huge money whole for the military. Saving DoD spending helps reduce the need for taxes, and that is a Good Thing, Jamie, is is not, in your eyes?
As for Solyndra, so what? As FDR said, try something; if it doesn't work, try something else. But try.

Any effort to get us off hydrocarbons is good in my book. ( except nukes )

Uncle Duke
04-25-2012, 11:18 AM
Tangent alert!

Any effort to get us off hydrocarbons is good in my book. ( except nukes )
You might want to look at "Traveling Wave Reactor" technologies, which (in theory) can take spent fuel (among others) and convert to energy in a hands-free controlled reaction with effectively no waste or pollution dangers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
http://www.terrapower.com/Technology/TravelingWaveReactor.aspx

End of tangent....:D

wardd
04-25-2012, 11:20 AM
jamie should study up on fuel problems in ww2

xflow7
04-25-2012, 11:22 AM
Xflow7, what is the rational for having all vehicles on JP8?

As I understand it, mainly logistics. The idea was to develop a single fuel that could power planes, trucks, stationary generators, heaters, etc. JP-8 is based on kerosene with, I believe, various additives to make it workable for the large variety of applications/operating conditions.

Uncle Duke, thanks for the welcome! I'll try to find the earliest opportunity to post some off-topic and inflammatory drivel so that I fit in around here.

Dave

S.V. Airlie
04-25-2012, 11:24 AM
This is not ww2., It's now and the fact that Obama is playing games.

Uncle Duke
04-25-2012, 11:26 AM
This is not ww2., It's now and the fact that Obama is playing games.
Perhaps you could be a little specific and explain what "games" you think are being played... that would be helpful.

wardd
04-25-2012, 11:27 AM
This is not ww2., It's now and the fact that Obama is playing games.

really?

fuel was just as much a problem in ww2 as it is now

do you not understand that much of what the military studies is history?

amateurs study tactics, professionals stud logistics

B_B
04-25-2012, 11:45 AM
.... professionals stud logistics
What happens when one studs logistics - is there any money to be made from studding logistics?


edit: :D

Mrleft8
04-25-2012, 11:45 AM
What is a "Pentegon"?

LeeG
04-25-2012, 12:25 PM
It's the new clean energy Pentagon that Obama is playing games with so now it's the PentEgon. Many are upset.

wardd
04-25-2012, 12:38 PM
It's the new clean energy Pentagon that Obama is playing games with so now it's the PentEgon. Many are upset.

better than pentenron

Osborne Russell
04-25-2012, 12:42 PM
In a time when cuts may effect veterans, clean energy is in the budget.

Let's also not forget the favoritism for Sharia.

wardd
04-25-2012, 12:44 PM
do veterans fall under the pentagon?

S.V. Airlie
04-25-2012, 01:05 PM
Not specifically of course not. Not the point. Veterans Affairs should be funded more than throwing more money at the Pentagon to increase what the Dept. of Energy should be doing. Energy should be it's business.If this is the trend, take money away from Energy, we should make cuts in energy it seems.You shouldn't need both departments having the same function, but you actually know why Obama is doing this. Already posted..not commented on and not refuted.

Uncle Duke
04-25-2012, 01:11 PM
Not specifically of course not. Not the point. Veterans Affairs should be funded more than throwing more money at the Pentagon to increase what the Dept. of Energy should be doing. Energy should be it's business.If this is the trend, take money away from Energy, we should make cuts in energy it seems.You shouldn't need both departments having the same function, but you actually know why Obama is doing this. Already posted..not commented on and not refuted.

So, your contention is that the Department of Energy should have oversight and control of all logistics in all government operations - that they should make the decisions about what technologies the Department of Defense is using?

wardd
04-25-2012, 01:12 PM
Not specifically of course not. Not the point. Veterans Affairs should be funded more than throwing more money at the Pentagon to increase what the Dept. of Energy should be doing. Energy should be it's business.If this is the trend, take money away from Energy, we should make cuts in energy it seems.You shouldn't need both departments having the same function, but you actually know why Obama is doing this. Already posted..not commented on and not refuted.

the military has it's own unique fuel requirements and unique means of supply and delivery

the last time there was a push for commonality we got the f-111

who better to develop this than the people that need it

the one thing that the us military is better at than most anybody else on earth is getting huge quantities of stuff to where it's needed

after all many years ago they learned from ringling brothers

Dan McCosh
04-25-2012, 02:01 PM
I'm sitting pretty close to an experimental hybrid Humvee at the moment. The project has been underway for several decades.

Mrleft8
04-25-2012, 02:42 PM
So, your contention is that the Department of Energy should have oversight and control of all logistics in all government operations - that they should make the decisions about what technologies the Department of Defense is using?

Are you actually trying to apply logic to something that Jamie posted?...

Uncle Duke
04-25-2012, 04:25 PM
Are you actually trying to apply logic to something that Jamie posted?...
Not "apply logic", exactly, more like "hope to find logic". Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while...

Call me crazy! :D

LeeG
04-25-2012, 04:29 PM
I'm sitting pretty close to an experimental hybrid Humvee at the moment. The project has been underway for several decades.

If there isn't a tall thin model in a short skirt and high heels displaying it's finer attributes it's not real

ccmanuals
04-25-2012, 04:33 PM
This is not ww2., It's now and the fact that Obama is playing games.

Bullsh!!t. I work in the Dod and the military services have been pushing green technologies in everything they do for YEARS. They are just getting more serious about it. Why wouldn't you be pleased that the DoD wants to save taxpayer dollars and at the same time do their part for the environment. Try and make this political and you have nothing to stand on.

LeeG
04-25-2012, 04:42 PM
Those military guys, always thinking.

Jamie, you're problem is thinking that there's something called "green energy" as though it's a belief system with brown , purple and chartreuse energy somewhere in the wings. There's only energy and this USofA has tasked the military with all kinds of things so they are looking to deal with what's coming down the line.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA556169&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-04-03/review-lt-col-eggen’s-thesis-impact-peaking-world-oil-production-global-balance-p


he U.S. war colleges continue to generate insightful analyses of the potential effects of Peak Oil. Recently the U.S. Army Combined and General Staff College (USACGSC) released an excellent study by Lt. Col. GS Pascal Eggen, Swiss Armed Forces.

The key points of Lt. Col. Eggen’s analysis are summarized in the second paragraph of his Abstract:
“This research has found that the peaking of world oil production will increase the resource awareness of great powers. While oil production will decline, nations will try to preserve their high level of organization. The world politics will shift from idealism, typical of our present growing economy, to realism and offensive realism. The economic rules will move to those of a negative sum game. As a consequence, minor geopolitical players will have to align with great powers, to ensure minimal losses in oil supply. Finally, the great powers will wait until the last moment to start mitigation measures against oil depletion. Indeed, too early a transition towards new sources of energy constitutes a risk to alter their current geopolitical position.”

Lt. Col. Eggen has clearly done a good deal of research for his thesis, including examining the literature on geopolitics, system theory and oil production. He has also done plenty of thinking about the implications of a constrained supply of liquid fuel and the probable human responses to that unprecedented reality. Eggen begins each of his five chapters with a thought-provoking quotation from diverse sources such as Hirsch, Campbell, Einstein, Boulding and FDR, and his bibliography is both extensive and eclectic.

Like most military analysts, Eggen is a realist and approaches the topic of Peak Oil with prudent respect. This reviewer has yet to find a study from the military research community which dismisses Peak Oil as premature alarmism or unworthy of careful consideration. Indeed, Eggen is almost apologetic in pointing out, “The result of this research may seem pessimistic…” (p. 71).

Like the team of German military analysts who examined Peak Oil two years ago, Eggen speaks plainly. He bluntly warns that with respect to the eventual forced transition away from oil, “there is no peaceful and orderly shift to expect” (p. 68). In his section, “Timing is Everything,” he further points out that “breaking [away from oil] too soon induces the loss of some power. Pushed by consumerism, no country will take the risk … until the ceiling of scarcity is hit” (p. 68).

This does not augur well: Dr. Hirsch and others have pointed out that we need a decade or two of sustained, concerted action prior to peaking if we are to avoid its destabilizing effects. Despite the merits of proactive mitigation, the reality is that as tensions increase, there will be powerful incentives (and perhaps strategic imperatives) to hang onto the power bestowed by petroleum, however expensive, despite the longer-term risks of doing so.

Lt. Col. Eggen’s conclusions support those raised by the Bundeswehr and other analysts: “globalization will go in reverse” (p. 65), bilateral deals for oil will increase, and there will be significant risks to domestic security (in addition to the increasing potential for conflict between nations).

In summary, Eggen’s thoughtful analysis is a significant contribution to the military literature on Peak Oil. It should be of interest to senior military personnel, civilian emergency planners and civic leaders at all levels.

wardd
04-25-2012, 04:45 PM
when i was in the army 115/145 av gas was purple, we didn't have any green gas

Tom Montgomery
04-25-2012, 04:54 PM
What a weak troll. :rolleyes: