Terrorism Discuss the War on Terrorism |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#22 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
Being deliberately obtuse does not win your argument. There is also nothing new in using "alternative" fuels by the military. The press seems to have noticed all of a sudden. (I wonder what corporations stand to make a fortune supporting which technologies?) bio fueled ships: Navy Green: Military Investigates Biofuels to Power Its Ships and Planes: Scientific American aviation biofuel- Agency Seeks to Develop Military Aviation Biofuel - U.S. Department of Defense Transformation News Story ethanol used by U.S. army in the 40's: Ethanol Fuel History. there's more but I'm sure other people can use google. |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
My argument is: Technology deployed by the military to get the mission done is expensive, not developed by the military alone and doesn't always end up producing anything we the public will ever use. |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
The military was the first to utilize carbon fiber skin for aircraft, because of the potential stealth benefits as well as being able to carry more payload because of the decreased weight. That technology has been shifted to commercial, and the 787 is the worlds first commercial plastic (carbon fiber) airplane. The 777 had a plastic tail section.
Its kind of a sad statement on humanity that our biggest technological breakthroughs come from trying to kill people in new more efficient ways, but I guess its hard to argue with results. |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
The military was the first to utilize carbon fiber skin for aircraft, because of the potential stealth benefits as well as being able to carry more payload because of the decreased weight. That technology has been shifted to commercial, and the 787 is the worlds first commercial plastic (carbon fiber) airplane. The 777 had a plastic tail section. |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
My argument is: Technology deployed by the military to get the mission done is expensive, not developed by the military alone and doesn't always end up producing anything we the public will ever use. |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
Its kind of a sad statement on humanity that our biggest technological breakthroughs come from trying to kill people in new more efficient ways, but I guess its hard to argue with results. Of course we could spend a lot of resources on making sure people don't want to kill us in the first place, seemingly that's just talking madness. |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
so do you disagree with anything that's been said by any of the other posters in this thread? |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
I'm not hopeful this media blurt amounts to more then a bunch of hot air to support some corporation somewhere. A Marine company isn't making many technological innovations all on it's own, there's a few companies helping them and a lot of tax money to be spent. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
|
Are they really doing that, or was this a joke? Sounds so cool. The Air Force will have its entire fleet certified to fly on biofuels by 2011 and has already flown test flights using a 50-50 mix of plant-based biofuel and jet fuel; the Navy took its first delivery of fuel made from algae this summer. Biofuels can in theory be produced wherever the raw materials, like plants, are available, and could ultimately be made near battlefields. ... which was probably grown in a pond. A photobioreactor is a closed vessel with inputs for water, an algae culture, nutrients (slightly composted sewage), light (either directly or with solar powered red and blue LEDs), and CO2 (thats right, the very "evil pollutant" that plants use for photosynthesis) can produce vegetable oil that can go right in the tank in warm weather, or can be transesterified into biodiesel. ![]() A base doesn't have to be very big before you can start putting these in for power. A nuclear powered tanker could produce it continuously while underway, delivering fuel to mobile formations in the field via vertical convoys. |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
From the article... This pretty much defeats the only downside of bio fuels, which were the inevitable increase in cost of food, but if they use algae for this, then great. |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
well of course they can. i think the point being made here is that the military will be experimenting with and developing new technologies that could make them less cost prohibitive. If you want to make green technology cheaper, all the rich green-minded Liberals need to pony up and start putting their money where their mouth is. |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
|
Well, you can be pessimistic if you want. Your choice. The whole point of the OP was possibilities, not inevitabilities. |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
|
Not being pessimistic, being realistic. I've spent more then a decade now in R&D with most clients being in the defense sector. There is an amazing range of innovations and equipment that never get to be commercial products because they cost too damn much to get into the mass market. There are even technologies that cost too much for the military even without congress being involved in such things as funding. Yet there is still a constant demand for innovation. |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
|
One of the advantages to deploying new technology to the military first is it doesn't have to meet commercial standards. For example military vehicles don't have to meet commercial safety standards, their emissions don't have to follow EPA regulations, etc.
I think the algae that eats CO2 and poops diesel, if it works, will be the thing that ultimately resolves the fossil fuel energy crisis - and there will be downsides, like mutated algae species running rampant over ecosystems. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|