The important thing here is the US military is big enough to create a market. They've got lots of money and they don't care if the solution is more expensive than fossil fuels.
Yup. The involvement of the military or other arms of the Government has spurred latter penetration of those technologies or sciences into the civilian market in so many cases.
Arpanet, lasers, operations research, low weight ceramics and materials, robotics, aviation..... I guess its probably a never ending list, if one digs deep enough.
(Edit: I am really excited in seeing what technologies will get commercialized in the future, because of this. We so badly need to move forward on the energy sector, if we need to save ourselves)
We can't. That what everyone ignores. The ONLY technology that can replace our current power sources is nuclear power.
Hydrocarbons are the ideal type of chemical to store and transport energy - nothing else even comes close.
So we have to make hydrocarbons, or mine them.
The goal of the military to reduce the supply line is impossible - they can move away from fossil fuels, but they can't move away from hydrocarbons.
Unless they wish to setup local nuclear reactors.
Solar power simply can not provide enough power while simultaneously being portable. It's also a huge target since solar power uses such a large area.
Generating biofuel locally is a joke. I can just see soldiers driving combines to harvest a crop. Just like solar, biofuels also require a large area. And once you'ved used all the local plants then what?
Next thing you know all local war zones will look like the moon as the army strips every plant for hundreds of miles.
You can't bend the laws of physics though. There isn't enough stored energy in local sunlight, plants, wind or anything else to meet the needs of the airforce, army or whatever. Unless you're splitting atoms locally.
No amount of technological progress is going to change the fact that sunlight, plants and other local sources do not posses enough energy unless you split apart their atoms.
You have to transport energy in large quantities to undertake warfare. The only possible way around this is with stored electricity, except that stored electricity doesn't power most of the machines of war.
You can't bend the laws of physics though. Absolutely true.
So is the fact, that the laws of physics have been there since big-bang. The question would be, have we realized all the potential of all the laws of physics out there, yet? Have we even discovered all the laws of physics, yet?
No amount of technological progress hmmm, I wouldn't be so confident of using those words. All one has to do is look at the history of the last few centuries, or the rate of scientific progress over the last few millenium. It has been exponential.
I think the convergence of easy availability of knowledge to the masses, availability of massive and cheap computational power and the massive inflow from developing countries into the engineering and scientific workforce , will probably make the word 'exponential' obsolete. But then as they say, proof of the pudding is in eating. We should repeat this conversation 20 years from now and see how it went, just for the fun.
Yes, splitting the atoms locally is a good alternative (at least in theory, for now). Watching the progress of battery technology, from the old mercury types, to NICD, then lithium and then A123, that's a promising area.
Caterpillar is now selling a hybrid bulldozer, who knows, them making a plug-in hybrid bulldozer coupled with A123 or more dense battery tech. will inspire the military to build electric machines.
From the article: "Last week, a Marine company from California arrived in the rugged outback of Helmand Province bearing novel equipment: portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers and communications equipment."
So, it sounds like that the military wishes to use hydrocarbons as a portable fuel -- for which there currently is no substitute with comparable energy densities -- but rely less on hydrocarbons to run generators. I have no idea what percentage of energy they were using to run their computers, radios, and air conditioners, but I bet it was substantial. Also, the military has deep experience with smallish, relatively portable nuclear power plants -- see our submarines.
the military has deep experience with smallish, relatively portable nuclear power plants -- see our submarines.
Yep, and satellites, the types that keep going away and away. They are quite often nuclear powered, to run on-board electronics, but not the reactor type though.
Hmm, I wonder what if somebody can make a hydrocarbon with a hyper calorific density, couple it with a high specific output IC engine, electric motors, put on regenerative braking and then batteries with the highest energy density?
The involvement of very large sums of money has made these innovations. It comes from the military because the military has (a) the biggest budget and (b) a need for things that don't exist yet.
About time. Wonder why it took them this long? Fuel supply caravans have been a weak point since the internal combustion engine became important to warfare!
Not only did it take them this long, it's also going to take them this long because this goal is impossible.
This garbage article confused hydrocarbon fuel and fossil fuel, and it makes totally impossible claims.
There ARE no alternatives to hydrocarbon fuel for these purposes. It doesn't matter if you make them from renewable sources you still need to ship them.
Solar power will require such a large area that it will become a target of it's own, and the suggestion to make biofuel from local plants is laughable.
Well, they did say this was for the "forward bases" (read, bases located inside enemy controlled or sympathetic areas). Keep in mind that they also said that for every 24 convoys, they lost on average 1 person. There were probably at least 1 injured for each killed (maybe many injured for each killed). Ignoring any death benefits, how much do you think it costs to keep a marine in a hospital (after airlifting them back to the states or elsewhere in the western world) for a few months and pay for lifetime visits to the VA? 399 to 1 sounds conservative.
I wonder what sort of riots we would have over here if it costed hundreds of dollars for a gallon of gas. Not a valid comparison, but still fun to think about.
a lot also depends on the future military strategy. A Predator uses less fuel than a Raptor (and the fuel consumption by the machine itself is just a tip of the pyramid consisting of all the support, service and maintenance personnel and equipment that machine requires). It is also much easier from the supply logistics point of view to strike using a couple of Hellfire from a drone [or using other precision-strike-from-a-distance weapons] sent from a far away base than to send helicopters with people or to send [even light] armoured ground assault from a close-by base ("Black Hawk down" - compare with modern day strikes in Pakistan). So the military becomes greener. I.e. by minimizing amount of people and heavy equipment involved at the "last mile" there is much savings to be realized.
You don't win a war with just an air campaign. You still need boots on the ground to go after people. Hellfire's work great when the enemy is out in a field with no civilians around. But that is not the case. The enemy is walking around amongst civilians in places like an open market, a row of houses. These are poor places for hellfires because using one there means that now you've got a bunch of people that were neutral on the subject before pissed off at you.
placing boots on the ground causes a lot of collateral civilian casualties (look at, for example, Iraq civilian casualties) and make the people hate invaders and leads to insurgency. The "Black Hawk down" i mentioned is a real story of the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993
where USA had 19 KIA and 83 WIA, and Somalis - anywhere between 300 and 2000.
A precision hit to the building which was the original target in the Battle of Mogadishu would cause much less casualties on the both sides (and much less fossil fuel burned).
>You don't win a war with just an air campaign. You still need boots on the ground to go after people.
Which building would they elect as the target. It's not like the enemy is walking around in broad daylight under view of the eye n the sky.
And it's not just an expression it's how every successful campaign has been one. If it was possible to wage an air only war. Don't you think the US, with he largest airforce in the world would be fully invested?
21 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 68.0 ms ] threadArpanet, lasers, operations research, low weight ceramics and materials, robotics, aviation..... I guess its probably a never ending list, if one digs deep enough.
(Edit: I am really excited in seeing what technologies will get commercialized in the future, because of this. We so badly need to move forward on the energy sector, if we need to save ourselves)
Hydrocarbons are the ideal type of chemical to store and transport energy - nothing else even comes close.
So we have to make hydrocarbons, or mine them.
The goal of the military to reduce the supply line is impossible - they can move away from fossil fuels, but they can't move away from hydrocarbons.
Unless they wish to setup local nuclear reactors.
Solar power simply can not provide enough power while simultaneously being portable. It's also a huge target since solar power uses such a large area.
Generating biofuel locally is a joke. I can just see soldiers driving combines to harvest a crop. Just like solar, biofuels also require a large area. And once you'ved used all the local plants then what?
Next thing you know all local war zones will look like the moon as the army strips every plant for hundreds of miles.
And I would like to add a qualifier to what you have written: What you say, is the present.
The present is not the future.
No amount of technological progress is going to change the fact that sunlight, plants and other local sources do not posses enough energy unless you split apart their atoms.
You have to transport energy in large quantities to undertake warfare. The only possible way around this is with stored electricity, except that stored electricity doesn't power most of the machines of war.
So is the fact, that the laws of physics have been there since big-bang. The question would be, have we realized all the potential of all the laws of physics out there, yet? Have we even discovered all the laws of physics, yet?
No amount of technological progress hmmm, I wouldn't be so confident of using those words. All one has to do is look at the history of the last few centuries, or the rate of scientific progress over the last few millenium. It has been exponential.
I think the convergence of easy availability of knowledge to the masses, availability of massive and cheap computational power and the massive inflow from developing countries into the engineering and scientific workforce , will probably make the word 'exponential' obsolete. But then as they say, proof of the pudding is in eating. We should repeat this conversation 20 years from now and see how it went, just for the fun.
Yes, splitting the atoms locally is a good alternative (at least in theory, for now). Watching the progress of battery technology, from the old mercury types, to NICD, then lithium and then A123, that's a promising area.
Caterpillar is now selling a hybrid bulldozer, who knows, them making a plug-in hybrid bulldozer coupled with A123 or more dense battery tech. will inspire the military to build electric machines.
So, it sounds like that the military wishes to use hydrocarbons as a portable fuel -- for which there currently is no substitute with comparable energy densities -- but rely less on hydrocarbons to run generators. I have no idea what percentage of energy they were using to run their computers, radios, and air conditioners, but I bet it was substantial. Also, the military has deep experience with smallish, relatively portable nuclear power plants -- see our submarines.
Yep, and satellites, the types that keep going away and away. They are quite often nuclear powered, to run on-board electronics, but not the reactor type though.
Hmm, I wonder what if somebody can make a hydrocarbon with a hyper calorific density, couple it with a high specific output IC engine, electric motors, put on regenerative braking and then batteries with the highest energy density?
This garbage article confused hydrocarbon fuel and fossil fuel, and it makes totally impossible claims.
There ARE no alternatives to hydrocarbon fuel for these purposes. It doesn't matter if you make them from renewable sources you still need to ship them.
Solar power will require such a large area that it will become a target of it's own, and the suggestion to make biofuel from local plants is laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29
where USA had 19 KIA and 83 WIA, and Somalis - anywhere between 300 and 2000. A precision hit to the building which was the original target in the Battle of Mogadishu would cause much less casualties on the both sides (and much less fossil fuel burned).
>You don't win a war with just an air campaign. You still need boots on the ground to go after people.
that is just a generic slogan.
And it's not just an expression it's how every successful campaign has been one. If it was possible to wage an air only war. Don't you think the US, with he largest airforce in the world would be fully invested?