Go Green! U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels
- Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:45am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Last week, 150 Marines lugged new equipment in to Afghanistan that could change the face of war drastically. But the soldiers weren’t transporting state-of-the-art weaponry or body armor — instead, the Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines were carrying renewable energy tools: portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; and solar chargers for computers and communications equipment.
The new equipment is part of the military’s aggressive push to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, according to the New York Times. Why the green push? Because guarding fuel convoys is costing too many lives and resources, say some military officials.
“Fossil fuel is the No. 1 thing we import to Afghanistan,” said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to the Times, “and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people.”
As the Times points out, large fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan have become “sitting ducks” for insurgents. According to one Army study cited, for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed. In just the last three months, six Marines have been wounded guarding fuel runs in Afghanistan, the Times says. Just yesterday, more than a dozen oil tankers carrying fuel for NATO troops in Afghanistan were torched in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
“It used to be that the most dangerous job in the military was infantry,” Maj. Gen. Anthony Jackson said in San Diego’s North County Times this spring. “In Iraq, it was truck driver.”
According to that report, Marine bases are implementing solar panels and on-demand water heaters. Besides saving energy, those heaters may also boost morale: the effects on a soldier of always having hot water cannot be quantified, but can be seen.
But solar panels and water heaters are just the beginning. The NYT says that last year the Navy introduced its first hybrid vessel (it runs on electricity when cruising under 10 knots), and took its first delivery of fuel derived from algae this summer. Additionally, the Air Force will have all its planes certified to fly on biofuels by 2011 “and has already flown test flights using a 50-50 mix of plant-based biofuel and jet fuel.”
And according to the Times, when all the expenses are considered, “the cost calculation is also favorable.” That’s in line with a USA Today report this April, which said the “green” initiatives could save the military up to $1.6 billion, as well as benefit “national security and troop safety.”
“There are a lot of profound reasons for doing this,” Mabus told the Times, “but for us at the core it’s practical.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 692 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 491 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 375 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 343 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 315 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 329 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 236 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 315 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (63)
Susan Harkins
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 12:33pmNext, we will be reading:
Last week, 150 Marines lugged new equipment in to Afghanistan that could change the face of war drastically. But the soldiers weren’t transporting state-of-the-art weaponry or body armor — instead, they were carrying sticks and stones. Barney Rubble was on shore to greet them, and supply them with M1-A1 flintstone assault vehicles which can hurl rocks a staggering 120 feet.
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 12:27pmIf government had only done what it said it would do when it created the Department of Energy: The Department of Energy was instituted on8/04/1977, by the infamous Pres. Jimmy Carter.
TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
AND NOW IT’S 2010 … 33 YEARS LATER … AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS “NECESSARY” DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!
Now, you can “say” that government will handle health care efficiently, or that it will legislate responsibly, or that it will protect our borders, or that it will educate our children, or that it will “regulate” business, or that it will do any number things it has promised, you don‘t have to look far to see that government hasn’t done any of those things at all, much less “efficiently.”
There is NO HOPE for America if government is in charge of our economy, our liberty, our freedom or our health care. The ONLY possible result is failure. Americans must take the controls, or lose this great nation to the greedy self aggrandizement of our politicians.
Report Post »flatbrokeranch
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 12:09pmI say just cut some holes in the floor boards of all of the trucks and tanks and just do the Flinstone thing.
Report Post »I also happen to know that there is a fairly good supply of rocks in Afghanistan that the soldiers could throw or maybe shoot out of a sling-shot, I also saw on a cartoon that the injuns used smoke to send communications, oh wait, scratch that, that would probably be air pollution. Never mind….
senah
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 11:41amProbably much cheaper to throw away a Li battery then to charge it up with a solar panel.
Report Post »seayalater73
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 11:24amHow many pages you think we‘re gonna get to before the HuffPo Emo Blog Troll’s hijack this thread for anti-war loony tunes rants?
My bet is 5!
Report Post »MikeinIdaho
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:51amGreat idea! Don’t worry about food, weapons and ammo, just bring solar panels and cook the enemy to death!
Report Post »raybojabo
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:38amThe second part of this article on the algae based fuels being mandated for the Air Force by 2011, reminded me of this article from june:
http://www.transalchemy.com/2010/06/terraforming-gulf-of-mexico-with-fuel.html
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 11:02amOkay, that’s scary. When you mess with mother nature, you always get burned. Remember Asian Beetles to eat Aphids or killer bees being bred with domestic bees or how about the Gypsy moth bred with the silk worm. How did all those things work out?? RIGHT, not good with the OPPOSITE results. YOU CAN’T FOOL MOTHER NATURE!
Report Post »Redhead Leann
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:30pmOh Dear Lord! I haven’t heard about this. Makes sense now.. evil bast**ds. I’m stunned.
Report Post »Everyday, assaults, we must stop this. Thank you for the link. Anybody have a plan?
I’ll passs this on to many…..
whitaker
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:13amAnyone who knows about military strategy knows an armys weakest link is its supply line which we will find out if packastan keeps up with the road block. these might be a good idea if they produce enough energy with out being too bulky.
Report Post »seayalater73
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 11:01amYeah, why not? I mean we already hual around enough other usless, inefficient gear. Pile it on, folks.
Report Post »FORLORNHOPE
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:11amOf course they could always protect the truck drivers by killing the bad guys first. But we do not want to offend the bad guys by shooting first. If solar panels are so good why are they not on every house…. because they are junk. There will be the predictable unintended consequences to follow.
Report Post »Sledgehammer
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:51amDiesle, as my ole Gunny would say, pointing to his combat boots, will get you any where! If anyone out there has any idea that will help our warriors, now is the time to pith them!
Report Post »GrumpyCat
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:49amI think the article misses the military point that transporting fuel to the battle field is very expensive. I think this is a very appropriate use of solar power, especially in this battlefield. The insurgents know full well where our bases are, nothing about shiny solar panels will change that.
Report Post »seayalater73
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 11:08amYou’re still going to have to comminicate all kinds of logistics to the forward deployed. Or do you think your soldiers and marines are gonna plug their bodies into solar panels? Truth is none of the systems they are testing have the efficiency to put a dent in anything of strategic significance.
Wow, I bet none of you really grasp how hot-button this is within the ranks. Am I the only one been stuck on OP for weeks at a time?
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:33amWow, I feel so much better. Large stationary solar panels certainly aren’t sitting ducks for insurgents.
Report Post »senah
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:28amMaybe the reflection off the solor panels will blind the enemy.
Report Post »derekcrane
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:35amI just thought: What if it’s cloudy?
Report Post »captquest
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:20amYea, I’m working on an environmentally friendly nuke!
Report Post »anigmanm
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 11:17amcan it be delivered by a kite, or better yet a helium balloon, think of all the savings that will bring…………..hehehehehe
Report Post »derekcrane
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:20amFighter planes use a lot of fuel. There are experimental planes using solar power — we should retool for a more environmental friendly Air Force — before it’s too late.
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:34amYea, maybe the next step is to drop flowers on the enemy.
Report Post »rolandg79
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:12amlol if you really think an officer is going to give you the real reason your an IDIOT! This is real good IDEA test the product whyll out troops are at war. No commen sense. BIGGER TARGET who knows what the failure rate for these solar pannels are,. who cares its just a test phase in a combat zone. Stupid to push this AGENDA.
Report Post »Jefferywilliam2774
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:09amwhats next we gonna send mcgruber in to make weapons that are made from grass and treebark or howabout going back to the roman empire weapons and bow and arrows…
Report Post »printdesignchicago.com
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:05amnothing like some large, shiny solar panels to give away your position to the enemy….
Report Post »DanB
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:11amIt isn’t just a matter of giving away your position. That is also now your “fuel.” So that nice new target is all that needs to be hit. Collateral damage might be nice when the enemy targets the solar array…. Oh wait! Some of these things are designed to offer shade? Does that mean other “soft” targets will be under these arrays?
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:32am@ printdesignchicago.com
Report Post »great point.
DanB
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 11:05amI was just looking a “photo” provided of the solar unit. You are so right. Tents are covered to blend into the environment, but here is this black thing just sitting out there…. It looks like you could quickly fold it into the container for transport and concealment but you wouldn‘t get any power from a solar unit that wasn’t getting the sun to reach the solar panels, eh? And that thing doesn’t look like a small unit either.
You are still going to be dependent on fuel convoys. Somehow I doubt this thing isn’t going to do much other than power their electronics. Great stuff for a field base. Quieter than a gas powered generator, but as has been said, the thing is a nice black target to give away your location.
I think of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back where the rebel base is given away by locating their power generators.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:04amI must be color blind. Because when I was in the service, all I ever seen was green and that was back in the sixties. But as far as the solar panels and the generators and all the other crap that these soldiers are going to have to carry now. Seems to me I would rather have bullets and grenades than solar panels. I would whole rather have better fighting equipment and armour than a water heater. Gee, next they will want them to send over sleep number beds to sleep on.
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:03amYes…Thats what they need to worry about… More crap to hump…
Thanks America… you just gave the guys getting shot at more worthless crap to worry about.
Report Post »QweeQwa
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:03amGood move.
If we dont have Petrol we can not engage in any meaningful war.
We have everything but that.
Like the Hempster said, :Do we rely have a choice?
We do not.
Therefor it is imperative that we do!
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:37amThat is the ultimate goal. If we do not have fuel, we cannot conduct war. Perfectly understandible coming from people that want to do away with the military and turn them into a big Habitat for Humanity team.
Report Post »skepticalbecausesomeoneneedstobe
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 12:38amI dont understand your problems with this.
Report Post »its really only a good thing…
you really think heavy machinery is an issue? or that doing this is somehow a step backwards?
you think the military would do that to its soldiers?
we cant advance renewable energy until it is embraced by more people, but so far you are just stifling it. You are the problem with it.
chazman
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:02amNothing like hot water in the field! How heavy is this junk, anyway?
Report Post »dressseller
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:59amAnd the government doesn’t think that lugging around all these solar panels, energy saving lights, tent shields and solar chargers will be a target …just the same as the fuel trucks?? That‘s a stupid assumption and so I maintain that it’s not about ‘going green’ at all. Nor is it about saving military lives.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:24pmNope, it’s more about being able to keep an army in the field when our standard sources of power are being compromised to the point where alternatives are being looked at. As for the size and weight of this new gear, the size, weight, and efficiency will go up as more effort is concentrated on the equipment that shows the most promise in the field.
Report Post »Remember field radios? The PRC’s of WWII and on up until Vietnam were carried by a single man because they were so damned big! Now every trooper is wired for sound (literally) and the radio is about the size of a pack of cigarettes! The military has always brought about great technological leaps when the needs of war require new ideas…And we’re seeing it happen again with new ways to power our high tech military.
Dustyluv
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:57amWe will be fighting with mobile solar panels and windmills if the ******** get their way! Remember November!!!
Report Post »NoName22
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:57amThat’s a good thing. Less convoys get renewable energy in. But I’m still for voting out Dems =)
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:16pmConsider the point: As long as we are dependent on petroleum products for our armed forces, they are vulnerable. Liquid fuels are still the most efficient way to power heavy vehicles, but finding alternative sources and alternative power supplies which make them LESS vulnerable is always a good thing.
Report Post »And in any future war, ensuring a reliable source of power and fuels will be a MAJOR question, especially when a future enemy may have the ability to CUT OFF our access to our primary sources of petroleum products.
In times of war, great strides in technology are made because of necessity. And so it also goes with power production.
hempstead1944
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:52amAs long as Pakastan militants keep blowing up our fuel trucks we won’t have a choice about “going green” ……..
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:10amThe CIC is at enmity with his charges. This makes perfect sense.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:27amwho is selling the green crap? I bet he is a buddy to someone in the white house.
Report Post »Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Czar
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 12:13pmGo Army!
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 1:27pmBoy, that right –
http://wp.me/pYLB7-bc
Report Post »anOpinion
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 1:55pmI don’t understand why most people here hate the idea of green energy. It reduces our dependency on foreign oil, is better for the environment, and in this case may save lives.
The only problem I have with green energy is the government funding specific technologies and companies, but green energy itself is a good thing.
Report Post »George1
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:05pmThis is where “green” and efficient technology takes hold and becomes truly effective, when the military gets it’s hands on it and has to shape it into terrorist killing or life saving technology. Our military uses effective equipment, and they will reshape the industry by making “green” equipment effective.
Report Post »CultureWarriors
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:44pmanOpinion: I don‘t think most would have an issue with green energy as long as it’s ready, dependable and not some pipe dream. I think most feel that our military is not a place to experiment though. Let’s do that here at home.
Report Post »