The U.S.S. Prius
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December 18, 2010As I was saying, the thing I love most about America is that there’s always somebody here who doesn’t get the word — and they go out and do the right thing or invent the new thing, no matter what’s going on politically or economically. And what could save America’s energy future — at a time when a fraudulent, anti-science campaign funded largely by Big Oil and Big Coal has blocked Congress from passing any clean energy/climate bill — is the fact that the Navy and Marine Corps just didn’t get the word.
God bless them: “The Few. The Proud. The Green.” Semper Fi.
Spearheaded by Ray Mabus, President Obama’s secretary of the Navy and the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the Navy and Marines are building a strategy for “out-greening” Al Qaeda, “out-greening” the Taliban and “out-greening” the world’s petro-dictators. Their efforts are based in part on a recent study from 2007 data that found that the U.S. military loses one person, killed or wounded, for every 24 fuel convoys it runs in Afghanistan. Today, there are hundreds and hundreds of these convoys needed to truck fuel — to run air-conditioners and power diesel generators — to remote bases all over Afghanistan.
Mabus’s argument is that if the U.S. Navy and Marines could replace those generators with renewable power and more energy efficient buildings, and run its ships on nuclear energy, biofuels and hybrid engines, and fly its jets with bio-fuels, then it could out-green the Taliban — the best way to avoid a roadside bomb is to not have vehicles on the roads — and out-green all the petro-dictators now telling the world what to do.
Unlike the Congress, which can be bought off by Big Oil and Big Coal, it is not so easy to tell the Marines that they can’t buy the solar power that could save lives. I don’t know what the final outcome in Iraq or Afghanistan will be, but if we come out of these two wars with a Pentagon-led green revolution, I know they won’t be a total loss. Wars that were driven partly by our oil addiction end up forcing us to break our oil addiction? Wouldn’t that be interesting?
Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, the assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations and environment, used to lead the California Energy Commission. She listed for me what’s going on:
SNIPPP—————-
In October, the Navy launched the U.S.S. Makin Island amphibious assault ship, which is propelled by a hybrid gas turbine/electric motor. On its maiden voyage from Mississippi to San Diego, said Mabus, it saved $2 million in fuel.
In addition, the Navy has tested its RCB-X combat boat on a 50-50 blend of algae and diesel, and it has tested its SH-60 helicopter on a similar biofuel blend. Meanwhile, the Marines now have a “green” forward operating base set up in Helmand Province in Afghanistan that is testing in the field everything from LED lights in tents to solar canopies to power refrigerators and equipment — to see just how efficiently one remote base can get by without fossil fuel.
When you factor in all the costs of transporting fuel by truck or air to a forward base in Afghanistan — that is, guarding it and delivering it over mountains — a single gallon of gasoline “could cost up to $400” once it finally arrives, Mabus said.
The Navy plans in 2012 to put out to sea a “Great Green Fleet,” a 13-ship carrier battle group powered either by nuclear energy or 50-50 blends of biofuels and with aircraft flying on 50-50 blends of biofuels. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Makes complete and utter sense, how can you defend yourself if you do not have fuel or a means to pay for it.
By: Grey Area - 29th December 2010 at 08:15
Moderator Message
This thread is off-topic for this forum.
It is, therefore, closed.
Regards
GA
By: Wanshan - 29th December 2010 at 08:13
Just tax I think. Still, its going to go up with the rise in VAT to 20% in Jan! There are no army forces in the UK, just airforce. Any army in the UK will be either small numbers of specialists/higher officers or those there for exercises.
I never said anything about army forces in UK. US armed forces in Europe include air force in UK, about 10k personnel worth. They too require supply, and can be compared to similar European personnel.
By: F-111buff26 - 29th December 2010 at 05:33
Certainly true for alcohol derived from maize, which can sometimes consumes more energy in production than it produces. Alcohol from sugar cane is far more efficient, with a definite energy surplus. Same with biodiesel: huge variation in efficiency, with some sources having little if any net gain.
Unfortunately, some governments have been encouraging production of the most inefficient biofuels. 🙁
also some biofuels are offset by them being a by-product – sugar cane, methane, etc etc
By: matt - 28th December 2010 at 19:12
Actual production of most bio-fuels uses nearly as much energy as it produces… while fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) produce far more energy than is used in collecting, transporting, and preparing them for use.
Algae based biofuels are mentioned. Make more sense as well since that won’t compete with food production.
By: swerve - 28th December 2010 at 17:08
Actual production of most bio-fuels uses nearly as much energy as it produces…
Certainly true for alcohol derived from maize, which can sometimes consumes more energy in production than it produces. Alcohol from sugar cane is far more efficient, with a definite energy surplus. Same with biodiesel: huge variation in efficiency, with some sources having little if any net gain.
Unfortunately, some governments have been encouraging production of the most inefficient biofuels. 🙁
By: ppp - 28th December 2010 at 15:27
Sounds like a good idea if it is truly green (and not just “green” on paper by damaging the environment in a different way!). I’m not too sure about the extensive use of a nuclear powered ships though, if one of them gets hit with a decent size munition its going to make one hell of a mess.
I said: SIMILARLY EQUIPPED units.
I think you are missing the point. I’m interested in comparing the fuel economy of e.g. Leopard 2 versus M1A2, Marder versus Bradley etc. much like the fuel economy of US cars versus European cars and the per household energy use in the US versus in Europe. In Europe, for example, energy prices are higher than in the US (due to fuel tax among other things) and so there is a bigger incentive to be fuel efficient, which results in a more awareness of the need for energy efficiency and more fuel efficient cars and better insulated housing (less heat loss).
Besides, you are overlooking the fact that US troops overseas are also (to a substantial extent) resupplied from US bases in Europe where equipment and ammunition have traditionally been stored with a view to Soviet/Russian threat > Germany (close to 55k-60k US personnel there) + UK (close to 10k US personnel there) > equidistant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_Germany.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_bases
http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/International/The-Afghan-Problem-Logistics-Re-supply-Growing-Violence.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/html_en/logistics07.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/html_en/logistics03.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/logistics-e.pdf
Just tax I think. Still, its going to go up with the rise in VAT to 20% in Jan! There are no army forces in the UK, just airforce. Any army in the UK will be either small numbers of specialists/higher officers or those there for exercises.
In any case, in terms of fuel they could just buy it from the nearest willing supplier in the nearest willing country. No need to use American fuel, its all the same stuff!
In ~1992, there was a report comparing USMC and US Army airlift needs. It compared similarly-equipped & manned combined infantry/armor units, and found that the US Army’s list of “required equipment” would use ~30% more airlift than the USMC’s list.
The main difference was not in the combat equipment, it was in the other stuff…
the USMC would bring basic tents with folding cots while the Army wanted ones with floors, heating & air-conditioning units, and metal bunks with matresses;
the USMC would bring a minimal field kitchen while the Army wanted a “portable mess-hall” (specialized tents to eat in, full-up stoves & dishwashing equipment, etc);
the USMC would bring the absolute minimum of administrative personnel & equipment while the Army wanted to bring the full admin sections with field offices;
the USMC planned for minimal R&R gear while the Army wanted a field gym, etc;
the USMC had basic shower-tents & field latrines while the Army wanted trailers with showers & water heaters, other trailers with proper lavatories, etc.The difference was summed up as:
I think it would be fairer to say the USMC goes to fight a short war, the US Army goes to fight a long war, but they both certainly go to fight a war.
I guess all that does make a difference… I would not be suprised about those types of things in the UK or Germany or Japan but was suprised that those porta-cabin barracks had pizzahuts and mcdonalds in afghanistan.
No wonder people are still trying to develop autonomous cargo airships powered by solar panels.
I believe he is referring to the bases in the UK, which have a crispy creme and cheap fuel amongst other things IIRC.
By: Bager1968 - 28th December 2010 at 02:52
Actual production of most bio-fuels uses nearly as much energy as it produces… while fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) produce far more energy than is used in collecting, transporting, and preparing them for use.
By: Nicolas10 - 27th December 2010 at 23:00
Biofuel is much much worse than fossil fuel. I don’t think it’s all that green. Cost effective? Yes, green? Yikes.
By: matt - 23rd December 2010 at 22:19
I guess all that does make a difference… I would not be suprised about those types of things in the UK or Germany or Japan but was suprised that those porta-cabin barracks had pizzahuts and mcdonalds in afghanistan.
No wonder people are still trying to develop autonomous cargo airships powered by solar panels.
By: J Boyle - 23rd December 2010 at 18:03
I was watching a BBC report once and i thought i had heard that some of the basis in afghanistan had Mcdonalds and pizza huts where the troops could buy food..
:S I thought my mind was playing tricks on me but i am not sure now, wondering if they take saunas, gyms etc as well.
It’s done for morale.
We had a fast food place in the UK…we were miles from the nearest villiage and miles from the nearest town.
If you’ve ever been in the military, you’d know mess hall food gets real old after awhile, no matter how good it is.
When I was deployed to Egypt, they brought along a big screen TV and DVD player and a portable basketball hoop. A sauna? Just go outside.
At any rate, hardly luxuries.
Rather like having an officers mess.
And I beliebve the UK had those all over the world, so its NOT just about America.
Want to bet that the Germans don’t provide luxuries (like beer perhaps) for their troops.
Also, remember the stories of RAF Spitfires attaching beer kegs to their bomb racks in the war? Was that a good use of precious petrol? Or the tonnage used to import US tobacco to the UK during the war.
It’s good to see the military going “green”. Being efficient just makes sense.
I don’t appreciate the guys political comments…he’s obviously a partisan evniro-hack.
And since the Congress has been controlled for the last several years by members of his boss’ party, I bet he’ll be spoken to.
By: swerve - 23rd December 2010 at 17:42
McDonalds & Pizza Huts? They have a lot more than that on some bases!
By: matt - 23rd December 2010 at 17:03
I was watching a BBC report once and i thought i had heard that some of the bases in afghanistan had Mcdonalds and pizza huts where the troops could buy food..
:S I thought my mind was playing tricks on me but i am not sure now, wondering if they take saunas, gyms etc as well.
By: Adrian_44 - 22nd December 2010 at 07:29
Re: The U.S.S. Prius
Wanshan, I understand your point!
In ~1992, there was a report comparing USMC and US Army airlift needs. It compared similarly-equipped & manned combined infantry/armor units, and found that the US Army’s list of “required equipment” would use ~30% more airlift than the USMC’s list.
The USMC is far more self-contained, overall -its ground organization is closer to the Army’s airborne units than “mech” or “armor” units. The Marines come with self contained artillery, and air support.
I remember reading around 1994, a Russian Army evaluation of the USMC’s deployment during Operation Desert Shield. They were surprised and impressed at how fast all parts of the Marine Corp organization were completely setup and ready for combat.
By: Bager1968 - 22nd December 2010 at 02:27
It would be interesting to compare, say, a German versus a US mech-armor brigade. I very much suspect that given similarly equipped units deployed in similar circumstances, the German unit would need fewer supplies than the US unit. Germans in Afghanistan are just as far from home as are US troops in Afghanistan.
In ~1992, there was a report comparing USMC and US Army airlift needs. It compared similarly-equipped & manned combined infantry/armor units, and found that the US Army’s list of “required equipment” would use ~30% more airlift than the USMC’s list.
The main difference was not in the combat equipment, it was in the other stuff…
the USMC would bring basic tents with folding cots while the Army wanted ones with floors, heating & air-conditioning units, and metal bunks with matresses;
the USMC would bring a minimal field kitchen while the Army wanted a “portable mess-hall” (specialized tents to eat in, full-up stoves & dishwashing equipment, etc);
the USMC would bring the absolute minimum of administrative personnel & equipment while the Army wanted to bring the full admin sections with field offices;
the USMC planned for minimal R&R gear while the Army wanted a field gym, etc;
the USMC had basic shower-tents & field latrines while the Army wanted trailers with showers & water heaters, other trailers with proper lavatories, etc.
The difference was summed up as:
The USMC plans to go fight a war, the Army plans to “establish a presence in order to conduct combat operations”.
By: Wanshan - 21st December 2010 at 19:49
Would you fly bottled water from the USA to Germany?
If it’s Polar Bear brand, heck yeah! :D:diablo:
By: swerve - 21st December 2010 at 11:54
but you could argue that any army fighting such a long distance would need the same kind of supply train
Probably not. The US military has a reputation for extravagance compared to those of other western nations. It ships stuff which it could buy locally, it takes more home comforts with it, it pays less attention to resource usage. It ships basics out from the USA (sometimes, as with electronics, back to the country of manufacture!) even for long-established bases in developed countries, where everything could easily be bought locally. Would you fly bottled water from the USA to Germany?
By: Wanshan - 21st December 2010 at 08:13
Why would the US armor unit need more equipment?
I said: SIMILARLY EQUIPPED units.
I would suggest you take a good look at a world map;
The distance from New York City, USA to Kabul Afghanistan is 6,751 mi. (or 10,864 km.)
The distance from Berlin, Germany to Kabul Afghanistan is 2,976 mi. (or 4,789 km.)
I think you are missing the point. I’m interested in comparing the fuel economy of e.g. Leopard 2 versus M1A2, Marder versus Bradley etc. much like the fuel economy of US cars versus European cars and the per household energy use in the US versus in Europe. In Europe, for example, energy prices are higher than in the US (due to fuel tax among other things) and so there is a bigger incentive to be fuel efficient, which results in a more awareness of the need for energy efficiency and more fuel efficient cars and better insulated housing (less heat loss).
Besides, you are overlooking the fact that US troops overseas are also (to a substantial extent) resupplied from US bases in Europe where equipment and ammunition have traditionally been stored with a view to Soviet/Russian threat > Germany (close to 55k-60k US personnel there) + UK (close to 10k US personnel there) > equidistant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_Germany.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_bases
http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/International/The-Afghan-Problem-Logistics-Re-supply-Growing-Violence.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/html_en/logistics07.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/html_en/logistics03.html
http://www.nato.int/docu/logistics/logistics-e.pdf
By: Adrian_44 - 21st December 2010 at 08:01
Re: The U.S.S. Prius
I very much suspect that given similarly equipped units deployed in similar circumstances, the German unit would need fewer supplies than the US unit.
Why would the US armor unit need more equipment?
the German unit would need fewer supplies than the US unit. Germans in Afghanistan are just as far from home as are US troops in Afghanistan.
I would suggest you take a good look at a world map;
The distance from New York City, USA to Kabul Afghanistan is 6,751 mi. (or 10,864 km.)
The distance from Berlin, Germany to Kabul Afghanistan is 2,976 mi. (or 4,789 km.)
By: Wanshan - 20th December 2010 at 08:13
but you could argue that any army fighting such a long distance would need the same kind of supply train and less reliance on oil generators etc make sense specially if your fighting in a hot desert.
Do they have air conditioned baracks in Afghanistan? that must cost a fortune to run!
It would be interesting to compare, say, a German versus a US mech-armor brigade. I very much suspect that given similarly equipped units deployed in similar circumstances, the German unit would need fewer supplies than the US unit. Germans in Afghanistan are just as far from home as are US troops in Afghanistan.
By: matt - 19th December 2010 at 23:32
US logistics train has traditionally been huge, about time they become more supply-efficient. Much the same situation as with general energy use …
but you could argue that any army fighting such a long distance would need the same kind of supply train and less reliance on oil generators etc make sense specially if your fighting in a hot desert.
Do they have air conditioned baracks in Afghanistan? that must cost a fortune to run!
Sign In
December 19, 2010 at 10:27 pm