Amid budget cuts, DoD spends on 680 “green” projects
So, we saw earlier today that the Pentagon is slashing personnel costs and they claim that technology is the way to go in the next war – I guess what they really mean is that cuts to benefits and the number of troops is better spent on political projects like “greening” the military. From the Washington Times which uncovers 380 environmental projects;
Among the 680 projects: 357 based on solar development, 289 based on thermal, 29 on wind and five others that haven’t been disclosed but rather labeled as “electricity generation,” The Blaze reported, citing a Defense Department document.
The idea behind the green-energy move is to limit the United States’ reliance on overseas energy sources — a line of logic that argues such scale-backs will actually bolster America’s security.
“The primary thing to remember about all this is that we’re not doing it to be ‘green’ people,” said Mark Wright, a spokesman for the Defense Department, in The Blaze. “We’re doing it because it reduces energy dependency, helps protect service members and costs less money. The fact that it is good for the environment is a very fortunate happenstance.”
Well, that’s a laudable goal, indeed, but if they were serious about reducing dependency on foreign oil, the first thing they would do is put millions of Americans to work developing and refining our own energy resources rather than spending time and energy on unproven sources.
In a link from The Blaze sent to us by Chief Tango, some experts are doubtful that the particular projects upon which the DoD is spending their share of tax payers dollars will actually produce any measurable effects;
Nick Loris, a senior policy analyst in energy and environment with the conservative Heritage Foundation, told TheBlaze the green projects don’t add to the readiness of the U.S. military, only inhibit it.
“This is another way to create crony capitalism where the government is using taxpayer money to fund politically preferred technologies,” Loris said. “People don’t really notice it as much if you’re greening the military, but even environmental groups are saying a lot of these things aren’t even protecting our environment, in fact they make it worse. Not only are we wasting taxpayers’ money but there is dubious environmental benefits as well.”
And, you were worried that the Pentagon was going to waste that $770 million that they raided from our Tricare surplus.
Category: Big Army
I never understood why the Pentagon wastes defense dollars on green projects of any kind. That is the purview of the EPA, the DOE and countless lesser sub agencies. Spend their dollars on more troops and better training and equipment for them. I don’t care how many miles per gallon an Abrams tank gets or what the fuel consumption is of an A-10. As long as they are there, maintained and doing their job, that should be the concern of the DOD. It sounds like more of the whiny, kiss the POTUS ass crap so they can say to him and Congress, “look, we are doing our part in energy efficiency.” Makes the libtards happy but it sucks money away from what the military is all about…killing people and breaking things, period.
I think you’re right to cast a weary eye on this, but let’s not paint with too broad a brush. I think this shows some of the benefits of looking – smartly – at other options.
“To the Marine Corps, it isn’t about money or global warming,” says Colonel Bob Charette, the hard-charging head of the Marines’ two-year-old Expeditionary Energy Office. ‘It’s about saving lives.'”
“In 2003, at the outset of the second Iraq war, General James Mattis commanded the 1st Marine Division during the initial drive to Baghdad. He found himself repeatedly outrunning his own fuel resupply lines, forcing him to slow down to remain fully powered. In a post-combat report that has since become a touchstone for military analysts, he called on the Department of Defense to ‘unleash us from the tether of fuel.'”
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/natural-intelligence/Natural-Intelligence-Charge.html?page=2
aflapr: the vast majority of these programs do not actually increase the efficiency of military equipment. They merely subsidize the production of “green” fuels/other items that are essentially the same as the conventional items they replace, but are produced by “green” sources or processes vice conventional ones.
Paying $25/gallon for “bio fuel” instead of buying conventional fuel oil or jet fuel at $3.50 a gallon or less for military ships and planes is JUST FREAKING STUPID, no matter how “green” the process to produce it was.
Hondo – agreed. And maybe the Pentagon/Government/etc is too large, inefficient, and political to tell the difference, but I was impressed with some of the weight/battery savings, etc mentioned. I also realize that the environmental reporter for Outside magazine might not be an unbiased reporter…
As far as this being a “liberal” idea, the recent push for biodiesel, solar plants for bases, and other fuel efficiences were started by Rumsfeld around 2006. A distinction should be made with regards to “green” projects that power a stateside base versus making a tank more fuel efficient.
TMB: I have no problem with making military equipment more fuel efficient or lighter, or more “green” – provided the changes do not make the equipment less effective. If it reduces effectiveness, no dice.
I can make an M1A1 tank more efficient by dropping in a much less powerful diesel engine that operates near the top end of it’s performance “envelope” at all times and thus wears out quickly, or by removing a bunch of its armor. Of course, it would be a dog, performance and/or survivability-wise. And it would be hugely less suitable on the battlefield afterwards.
The commercial world focuses on the bottom line. There, efficiency is king because the more efficient solution often saves $$$.
In contrast, the military instead demands effectiveness. A solution that is inefficient but effective is quite acceptable on the battlefield (think an airstrike to take out a bunker). A solution that is hugely efficient but less effective is not – because it costs lives and loses battles. Think trying to take out that same bunker with an infantry squad because “that’s the efficient way to do it; it uses less fuel and ammo”.
Sadly, I fear far too many at high levels in DoD either don’t understand the difference, or don’t give a damn because they’re playing politics. And if that’s so, we’ll pay for that in blood during the next war – and if we lose it, for a long time thereafter.
If it doesn’t contribute to a more effective military, DoD should NOT be the one to pay for the initiative. Period.
Here is why “greening” is an important technology. If we can reduce fuel costs for such things as power generators on remote outposts (the primary consumption of fuel overseas) by 50%, we can reduce the amount of necessary logistical convoys to these areas. That means less troops on the road doing nothing but trucking cargo… that means lives are saved when they are not being blown up.
we have money enough for 5X expensive bio-fuel or attempted million-dollar cruise missliles at Syria, but didn’t have enough to keep the WWII memorial open. . Makes perfect sense to me.
In theory I support the concept of these projects – but if it doesn’t save lives or make our stuff work better for less money, screw it – the most cost-effective energy project they could do is open domestic areas to responsioble exploitation.
Hondo, I absolutely agree. I’ve just had this debate with so many people in the last few years who automatically scream “hippy libtard!” when any discussion of green technology comes up. Rumsfeld’s memo on the subject referred to increasing battlefield effectiveness by reducing logistical burdens. The DoD recently fielded a system that recycled and reused 75% of the gray water in a FOB cutting back on water requirements. They’re also fielding several solar powered systems for the battlefield and trying to standardize battery technology across the force. If they could throw some money at a more fuel efficient but just as powerful engine for the Abrams it would be more than worth it.
I don’t mind the Air Force and the Navy experimenting with new fuels as proof of concept, but the DoD budget is not the place to force an industrial capacity for the stuff – especially with our current budget outlook. I’m also leery about the green energy programs on our bases. Some green projects are money sinks with a slight environmental benefit and others will actually have a return on investment.
So. . . . . I guess the military is going to fight all its future battles only in windy sunny daytime hours. /snark off.
If anyone is to develop this energy efficient untethered from logistics equipment, let it be private enterprise commercial companies, who will then turn around and sell it (at a mean nasty profit) to Uncle Sugar.
Unleash the military do what it’s supposed to do best — kill the enemy and break their toys.
killing people is green. At least that’s what they told me in boot camp. Or were they lying about blood making the grass grow?
TMB: reducing battlefield logistical requirements is good, provided you can do so without reducing combat effectiveness. But substantial reductions are going to be very difficult.
As B Woodman points out above, there are also no “one size fits all” solutions. Solar/wind solutions for isolated or fixed locations might be workable in places like Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia. The same aren’t gonna work that well in Alaska, Korea, or Europe in the winter.
Some level of basic research into such measures is acceptable. But, to repeat myself: $25/gal bio-fuel for ships and planes is JUST PLAIN STUPID outside of a lab or test range. You only need a few hundred gallons and access to a test facility to verify that using bio-fuel won’t hurt an existing turbine, turbojet, or diesel engine. You don’t have to fuel a plane or ship with the stuff and operate it to prove that.
Justin: 50% reduction in fuel requirements? You’re smoking “green leafy substances”, amigo. In most current designs, you’ll be lucky to see 10-20% increase in efficiency. Most existing powerplant designs are fairly efficient to begin with. It’s the weight and/or use profiles that jack up the fuel consumption greatly.
Use profiles are dictated by doctrine, tactics, and the enemy; they’re not going to change that much. Weight isn’t either. So you’re looking at new technology breakthroughs for that kind of improvement. Good luck with making that cutting edge stuff work reliably under field conditions any time soon. Ditto affording it if it does.
What you want falls in the “nice, but ain’t gonna happen” category with respect to radically improved equipment. It will take changes in tactics, doctrine, or policy to make that a reality. As in: WAY less deployed troop support (e.g., hot food, showers, PX, MWR, whatever). Kinda doubt that’s gonna happen any time soon, either.
I wonder how much money these outfits providing “Green Fuel” to the US Military bribed (*OOPS*, donated to) B. Hussein 0bama & Co.? Let’s not forget about the Tricare surplus getting raped and pillaged to buy windmills as well!
I heard one of the wind projects involves getting the USS Constitution fitted with some newer weaponry….