kallend 2,184 #1 December 21, 2010 www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #2 December 21, 2010 Good stuff in that article. I did enjoy his irony about the war for oil, MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 December 21, 2010 Good news. It's not good for our military to rely on the very people we are fighting for fuel. Becoming more independent of oil will reduce the amount that those sheiks can manipulate us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #4 December 21, 2010 QuoteGood news. It's not good for our military to rely on the very people we are fighting for fuel. Becoming more independent of oil will reduce the amount that those sheiks can manipulate us. My son-in-law works for Sapphire, who have a DoD contract to buy as much algae derived jet fuel as they can make.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #5 December 22, 2010 This is really good news as long as the green technology is coming from the U.S. and not china. We have already seen Harry Reid outsource a huge windmill contract to china, lets hope this stuff stays home."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybill 22 #6 December 22, 2010 QuoteThis is really good news as long as the green technology is coming from the U.S. and not china. We have already seen Harry Reid outsource a huge windmill contract to china, lets hope this stuff stays home. Hi jg, 'Got ta' be careful who'z doin' the appropriatin' 'Remember that Air Tanker fiasco a while back??SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 December 22, 2010 The article started off badly: QuoteAnd 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. Then he wrote: Quote 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. So it appears that the columnist here actually understands that the military isn't doign this to stop global warming or to do this as a way to make the environment better for the world. Indeed, the military is doing this because it is in the best interests of security and troop safety to do it. Of course, he hits on EXACTLY what is needed to get people to lessen dependence on fossil fuels - (1) saving money; and (2) saving lives. Then, of course, he hit on the big one! QuoteAnd, if Congress will simply refrain from forcing the Navy to use corn ethanol or liquid coal — neither of which are clean or efficient, but are located in many Congressional districts — we might really get a green revolution in the military Yep. Bingo! The ethanol and liquid coal crap that has been commanded by Congress in an effort to "go green" is neither efficient nor clean, but was championed by the greenies and Al Gore (who recently admitted that he was wrong about ethanol). The environmental problem is most easily solved when it's not about the environment. IT's about cash. And from a military standpoint it's about security on strategic and operational levels. Take that "fraudulent, anti-science" shit out of it. We are dealing with interests here - not feelings. The military is looking after itself - not Greenpeace. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #8 December 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteThis is really good news as long as the green technology is coming from the U.S. and not china. We have already seen Harry Reid outsource a huge windmill contract to china, lets hope this stuff stays home. Hi jg, 'Got ta' be careful who'z doin' the appropriatin' 'Remember that Air Tanker fiasco a while back?? Yea, I remember. At least Airbus would have built the aircraft in Louisiana there by employing 10's of thousands of Americans. China? Don't expect them to do anything for us any time soon."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #9 December 22, 2010 Did some reading on Oil from algae. Interesting stuff. Most notably was they expect oil from algae to eventually cost as much as gas does right now. The author of the original article in this post did stretch the truth a little though. The navy didn't save millions. They may not have bought millions of dollars worth of diesel, but they spent up to $425 a gallon for the algae based diesel fuel that still needed to be shipped to where ever it was needed. I guess the DOD is eating up the research cost for the rest of the U.S. Not a bad thing though if they can get the cost of algae fuel down between $2-$3 a gallon like they are predicting and create diesel farms on bases over seas."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #10 December 22, 2010 Quote I guess the DOD is eating up the research cost for the rest of the U.S. Well, that's hardly a new development. DoD funded research has benefited the civilian aerospace industry for decades. And then there's GPS.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 349 #11 December 22, 2010 Quote 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. By early 2007 the Marines in Iraq had similar bases. The commanders on the ground at that time saw the same risk with the fuel convoys, and invested in alternative energy kits. Each kit cost roughly $100K, and utilized a mix of energies (mostly solar as I recall), to power the small forward operating bases. I can't remember who manufactured the kits, but they were packaged specifically for ease of transport, set-up and oversight (X number of generators, Y number of solar panels, wiring, etc). Nice to see the initiatives expanding to other areas. ETA: this info is from an article several of us passed around at the time, from memory. Anyone else who was out there and saw these work, I'd be very interested to hear what you thought.See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites