The White House announced Tuesday it is inviting contract proposals from green energy firms to boost the Army’s use of renewable energy.
The administration is making $7 billion available for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to spend on locally-generated biomass, geothermal, solar or wind energy for up to 30 years.
The move is part of a broader White House-led push to green the armed forces, over GOP opposition, which claims the efforts are a waste of taxpayer dollars.
The Defense Department has set ambitious targets, aiming for renewable sources to account for 25 percent of its energy by 2025, with the Army working toward getting 1 gigawatt of power from green sources by that year.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
I'd think it would be a tactical advantage to not need fuel to be supplied to either a mobile unit or a base in a foreign country that may or may not be hostile?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Science Chic wrote: I'd think it would be a tactical advantage to not need fuel to be supplied to either a mobile unit or a base in a foreign country that may or may not be hostile?
What do you mean? A solar or wind powered tank? I am sure you recognize that whether a tank is powered my diesel or biodiesel, they both have to be brought in.
Science Chic wrote: I'd think it would be a tactical advantage to not need fuel to be supplied to either a mobile unit or a base in a foreign country that may or may not be hostile?
You would be correct if the alternative sources were already tried and true. They are not and it's the job of agencies like DARPA and NASA to do the homework on a smaller, less expensive scale. Once the new technologies and sources have been proven and the cost of production is lower than conventional source of energy it will be time to integrate alternative sources of energy across the Federal Government.
In the meanwhile, personnel, ships, tanks, aircraft, and other vehicles that are defending our nation need to be ready at all times. Develop new systems in the background and test them until they are proven and cheaper than current sources then integrate them in to the forces in the field.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Science Chic wrote: I'd think it would be a tactical advantage to not need fuel to be supplied to either a mobile unit or a base in a foreign country that may or may not be hostile?
You would be correct if the alternative sources were already tried and true. They are not and it's the job of agencies like DARPA and NASA to do the homework on a smaller, less expensive scale. Once the new technologies and sources have been proven and the cost of production is lower than conventional source of energy it will be time to integrate alternative sources of energy across the Federal Government.
In the meanwhile, personnel, ships, tanks, aircraft, and other vehicles that are defending our nation need to be ready at all times. Develop new systems in the background and test them until they are proven and cheaper than current sources then integrate them in to the forces in the field.
A $10-per-barrel increase in the price of oil costs the Department of Defense approximately $1.3 billion (Nearly equal to entire procurement budget for the U.S. Marines).
-One out of eight: Number of U.S. Army casualties in Iraq resulting from protecting fuel convoys.
Science Chic wrote: I'd think it would be a tactical advantage to not need fuel to be supplied to either a mobile unit or a base in a foreign country that may or may not be hostile?
You would be correct if the alternative sources were already tried and true. They are not and it's the job of agencies like DARPA and NASA to do the homework on a smaller, less expensive scale. Once the new technologies and sources have been proven and the cost of production is lower than conventional source of energy it will be time to integrate alternative sources of energy across the Federal Government.
In the meanwhile, personnel, ships, tanks, aircraft, and other vehicles that are defending our nation need to be ready at all times. Develop new systems in the background and test them until they are proven and cheaper than current sources then integrate them in to the forces in the field.
That has to be one of the most ludicrous statements of all time. How many defense systems has the Pentagon developed that are cheaper and even proven than current systems? You guys are such tools.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
