US Government going clean?

[DanKegel]

Given fracking, there's no need for synfuel at the moment, is there?

And fuel - synfuel or natural - produced in the US doesn't really help with supplying forward positions.
Those long resupply chains are terribly expensive and vulnerable.

Forward operating bases are one place energy efficiency and solar power really pay off.
See http://www.ensec.org/index.php?optio...article&id=507

[Sunking]

There are technically feasible synthetic fuels that can swap in place of conventional fossil fuel but the economics are poor.

I agree with that from a consumer POV. However DoD already has plants ready to go in operation in the event of a war with oil shortages. That is what Germany had to do the last year or two of WW-II. By the time they got production going was too late. Using nuclear reactor waste heat makes it more feasible and practical. Germany had to use coal for the heat source and as feed stock to make synAVgas and syndiesel.

I did learn something. I assumed the ABRAMS tanks used something similar to JET-A, Jet-A1 or one of the Kerosene (#1 diesel) distillates. Bu they I am just a USN nuke, so what do I know about tanks.

[peakbagger]

Abram tanks actually use distillate which is about the highest btu content liquid fuel. #6 is even higher but a bear to handle and is rather filthy leaving deposits in the turbine combustors and the blades.

There are technically feasible synthetic fuels that can swap in place of conventional fossil fuel but the economics are poor. They just don't fly commercially unless heavily subsidized and many of the firms that get involved with these heavy subsidies are not in it in the long term. Vinod Khosla has been quite successful milking the US government. Look up Range Fuels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_Fuels for an example.

[Sunking]

Abrams M1A1 tank that replaced the high maint., gas guzzing gas turbine with electric propulsion powered by very high energy density, lightweight (and therefore air transportable), swappable batteries might be just up their alley, and a solution to a situation that could be transferred to civilian use.

JP I cannot realistically think Heavy Armour vehicles will ever be powered by any kind of battery. The energy density is just no even remotely close to diesel fuel. Specific Density (wh/Kg) of diesel is 55 times higher, energy density (wh/L) is 20 times higher. How in the heck could you recharge them quickly or charge at all in combat. I cannot think of any military or weapon could be battery powered.

Besides the military already has syn-fuel operational. It is done at 2 nuclear plants using the waste heat from the reactors to turn coal into sys-gas, Jet-A and diesel. NoBamas XO is just plane politics.

[SunEagle]

And what happens if it takes a hit.

Here's a cool illustration with a cellphone battery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-xPHopebiE
Imagine same thing with a weapon system.

I have seen that done with an RC battery. LiPo is pretty powerful but also very volatile.

If you can build an automated fighting machine for 1/10th the cost of an Abram you can put a lot more in the field and not really have the extra cost of a live crew or worry about losing people if one gets hit. It doesn't have to be big. Just be accurate with it's fire power and fast to redeploy after firing a round.

As for the original post. I agree with Sunking that having all of the military bases using 30% renewable will be hard. The military will have to find ways to reduce their usage and maybe start using LED lamps or start making candles.

[DanKegel]

30% renewable is IMPOSSIBLE, it is a rubbish unobtainable goal

It's not that unusual. Several states have set similar goals; see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_portfolio_standard

Hell the goberment in USA wil not even allow LED lighting in because it is so inefficient. Goberment buildings require T5 and T8 lighting.

LED-based T8 replacements are in the GSA catalog. Government buildings very definitely are allowed to use LEDs.

[DanKegel]

the biggest is the energy storage density and how many "shots" you can get before the battery goes to low.

And what happens if it takes a hit.

Here's a cool illustration with a cellphone battery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-xPHopebiE
Imagine same thing with a weapon system.

[Sunking]

30% renewable is IMPOSSIBLE, it is a rubbish unobtainable goal that just waste tax payer money trying to accomplish. Hell the goberment in USA wil not even allow LED lighting in because it is so inefficient. Goberment buildings require T5 and T8 lighting.

[SunEagle]

Then the issue shifts to other considerations like how to handle/what to do with the recoil, what to put it in and how to protect/hide/move it, etc. Lots of interesting things to do there.

All those issues have to be resolved but the biggest is the energy storage density and how many "shots" you can get before the battery goes to low.

It might have to come down to the weight of the projectile and the amount of energy needed to put it through steel armor. Could be interesting.

[J.P.M.]

Don't be too sure that DARPA hasn't already developed a light weight armored rail gun that runs off of batteries to replace them Abrams.

Then the issue shifts to other considerations like how to handle/what to do with the recoil, what to put it in and how to protect/hide/move it, etc. Lots of interesting things to do there.

[SunEagle]

I mused some time ago that one way to get the energy storage question answered might be to make it a DARPA mandate. For example, an Abrams M1A1 tank that replaced the high maint., gas guzzing gas turbine with electric propulsion powered by very high energy density, lightweight (and therefore air transportable), swappable batteries might be just up their alley, and a solution to a situation that could be transferred to civilian use.

Sort of the type of "You could just" thinking I rail about. Like most things, the devil's probably in the details, but that's what DARPA seems to be good at.

Don't be too sure that DARPA hasn't already developed a light weight armored rail gun that runs off of batteries to replace them Abrams.

[J.P.M.]

Of course the real reason for our Armed forces to go more towards RE has to do with be independent and isolated from the Power Grid should it be compromised during an attack.

The second reason is the cost of equipment and lives to maintain a fuel supply to a remote post to keep the diesel generators running. This has been calculated as more that plunking down some solar power generators.

According to some reports a lot of our men and women over in the Mid East were hurt or died when their resupply convoy was attacked. Fuel is just too heavy and flammable to be air dropped into a field base so it has to be trucked in.

I mused some time ago that one way to get the energy storage question answered might be to make it a DARPA mandate. For example, an Abrams M1A1 tank that replaced the high maint., gas guzzing gas turbine with electric propulsion powered by very high energy density, lightweight (and therefore air transportable), swappable batteries might be just up their alley, and a solution to a situation that could be transferred to civilian use.

Sort of the type of "You could just" thinking I rail about. Like most things, the devil's probably in the details, but that's what DARPA seems to be good at.

[SunEagle]

Of course the real reason for our Armed forces to go more towards RE has to do with be independent and isolated from the Power Grid should it be compromised during an attack.

The second reason is the cost of equipment and lives to maintain a fuel supply to a remote post to keep the diesel generators running. This has been calculated as more that plunking down some solar power generators.

According to some reports a lot of our men and women over in the Mid East were hurt or died when their resupply convoy was attacked. Fuel is just too heavy and flammable to be air dropped into a field base so it has to be trucked in.

[DanKegel]

To the extent the order causes efficient equipment to be chosen, it'll have lasting effect even if cancelled.

The military recognises that reliance on fossil fuel makes our forces harder to resupply, and is working hard on increasing energy efficiency. Politics won't stop that effort.

And would a conservative president really order agencies to waste energy? Seems unlikely.

[Xtreme]

Nice find!