Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Government going clean?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Government going clean?

    Hi All,

    I read this article today and thought I would post a link, cheers all.

    http://www.solarreviews.com/news/oba...ciency_031915/

  • #2
    That XO will be recalled like many other Obama signed. One comes to mind is recalling the XO telling the DEA to stand down Marijuana. Going to be a lot of people in deep chit looking at Life sentences for distribution and tax evasion.
    MSEE, PE

    Comment


    • #3
      Nice find!

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.
                    MSEE, PE

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sunking View Post
                        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/Renewab...folio_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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                            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.
                            MSEE, PE

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X