User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:59 am

The USAF and US Army are exploring technologies to save money on energy. The US DOD is the largest consumer of energy in the US.

The USAF is using solar, wind, and other renewable energy sourses at Nellis, Fairchild, Minot, and Dyess AFBs. Hill AFB has been using biomass fuel, since 2004, from a 1.3 megawatt landfill gas project.

The USAF has won the EPA's green Power award.

The US Army is using fuel converted from trash in Anbar Province, Iraq to generate electricity. This is reducing the number of tanker trucks that carry fuel in Anbar. In McLean, VA, the Army, along with Purdue University two 4 ton "tactical refineries. Each refinery runs for 20 hours on 1 ton of trash, producing enough electricity to power a small village.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346190,00.html
 
QFA380
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:38 pm

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:24 am

I'd have to say this would be a great thing if it came into fruition. Defence forces use loads of energy and the US being the biggest would use the most. I'm hoping though that money saved with this is used properly, helping troops returning from Iraq/Afghanistan, giving troops better equipment etc. Who would have though that bases could become models of environmental efficiency?

Next step, cutting the red tape and other assorted BS associated with defence procurement (we need that too).
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:51 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The US Army is using fuel converted from trash in Anbar Province, Iraq to generate electricity. This is reducing the number of tanker trucks that carry fuel in Anbar. In McLean, VA, the Army, along with Purdue University two 4 ton "tactical refineries. Each refinery runs for 20 hours on 1 ton of trash, producing enough electricity to power a small village.

Smart very smart. Armies live and die by their supply chains and the less you need to bring in the better off you are.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
I'm hoping though that money saved with this is used properly, helping troops returning from Iraq/Afghanistan, giving troops better equipment etc

Just the fact you are cutting down on the number of tanker convoys you need is enough reason to do it.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
Who would have though that bases could become models of environmental efficiency?

They have for years. Most bases have pretty large areas of training ground that is essentially undeveloped and wildlife havens.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
QFA380
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:38 pm

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:18 am



Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
They have for years.

On an episode of Air Force News, the podcast. They were boasting about how much coal they can and do burn at Eielsen AFB, it was quite a large amount although Eielsen is pretty big. That's not being a role model of environmental efficiency.

Leaving land open as wildlife 'havens', is not something that protects the environment. The land is there for training and the DoD probably just can't be bothered to get rid of the animals, maybe they like them because of the realistic training they give troops. Training them that an animal can give away your position, so don't scare the animals. Good for the animals? Yes. Being an environmental role model? Hardly. They need that land.
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:26 am

The USAF is planning on using gasified Coal for its fuel uses as well. I read an article in the Missoulian that talked about building a giant Coal gasification plant near Great Falls, MT, of which the USAF would use 16% of production for their fuel needs.

Sounds like a plan to me.
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:50 am

I guess they realized that without a stable oil supply, we really have no tactical military. We are simply un-armed without oil, save for nuclear powered or rocket powered assets.


So it's worth trying to have SOME military capability without oil, instead of being un-armed and at the risk of losing a future conflict against an energy-rich enemy.
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:51 am



Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
I'd have to say this would be a great thing if it came into fruition. Defence forces use loads of energy and the US being the biggest would use the most. I'm hoping though that money saved with this is used properly, helping troops returning from Iraq/Afghanistan, giving troops better equipment etc. Who would have though that bases could become models of environmental efficiency?

Next step, cutting the red tape and other assorted BS associated with defence procurement (we need that too).



Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The US Army is using fuel converted from trash in Anbar Province, Iraq to generate electricity. This is reducing the number of tanker trucks that carry fuel in Anbar. In McLean, VA, the Army, along with Purdue University two 4 ton "tactical refineries. Each refinery runs for 20 hours on 1 ton of trash, producing enough electricity to power a small village.

Smart very smart. Armies live and die by their supply chains and the less you need to bring in the better off you are.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
I'm hoping though that money saved with this is used properly, helping troops returning from Iraq/Afghanistan, giving troops better equipment etc

Just the fact you are cutting down on the number of tanker convoys you need is enough reason to do it.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
Who would have though that bases could become models of environmental efficiency?

They have for years. Most bases have pretty large areas of training ground that is essentially undeveloped and wildlife havens.

Although I realize that the miltary has used a lot of energy in the past one thing is true and I've noticed in the Navy the last 15 yrs or so and I'm sure it's same in the other branches is they have been very proactive with recycling almost to the point they have always forced us to recycle or the individual(s) have to explain why we throw recycleables to the Base Commander and this includes families in base housing. We have had sperate Recycle bins that get picked up once a week besides the trash. On the Aircraft Carriers and this was in 1994 they were recycling pulpables, plastic, paper and the like in the recycling division on the ship.

Another thing they have always done is conserve energy, for example if you live in the barracks or housing they have motion detectors porch that only turn on power when someones around also the barracks personnel can only set the thermostat no higher than 70 degrees, anyways the point is the military has been way ahead of the power curve in those in green thinking. I know there's ways that they can always improve but I think it sets a precendence for the general public to follow. becuase I know not everyone on the outside is required to follow these type of rules and the ones that take advantage the most of recycling the most are street people trying make a buck, or select organizations .

I suspect the miltary has done this is twofold to obviously make money back and to take car of the atmosphere.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:04 am



Quoting QFA380 (Reply 3):
They were boasting about how much coal they can and do burn at Eielsen AFB, it was quite a large amount although Eielsen is pretty big. That's not being a role model of environmental efficiency.

You do realize they are warming buildings from -50F outside temps. It takes a bit more energy to do that then it would at Nellis.

That and there is no natural gas system in Fairbanks, so the alternative is fuel oil. Coal at least is cheap and more imporantly is locally produced in Alaska.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:44 am



Quoting L-188 (Reply 7):
It takes a bit more energy to do that then it would at Nellis.

At Nellis they are cooling buildings from +120 degree temps.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:45 am



Quoting QFA380 (Reply 3):
They were boasting about how much coal they can and do burn at Eielsen AFB, it was quite a large amount although Eielsen is pretty big. That's not being a role model of environmental efficiency.

Coal, the clean burning type, is very effiecent, cheap, and abundent.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13991
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:28 pm



Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
The US Army is using fuel converted from trash in Anbar Province, Iraq to generate electricity. This is reducing the number of tanker trucks that carry fuel in Anbar. In McLean, VA, the Army, along with Purdue University two 4 ton "tactical refineries. Each refinery runs for 20 hours on 1 ton of trash, producing enough electricity to power a small village.

Smart very smart. Armies live and die by their supply chains and the less you need to bring in the better off you are.

It also removes all that garbage from the streets, which will go along way to improving the quality of life for the local residents.

Locally by me Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station is building a huge solar farm which the base commander said will take the entire base off the grid on Sunny Summer days.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:06 pm



Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 6):
I suspect the miltary has done this is twofold to obviously make money back and to take car of the atmosphere.

Reducing cost of ownership to the taxpayer is great and your right about "two-fold" as it extends to other recycling programs...I know my local bases recycle damn near everything and sell these materials on the local economy returning the profit to the base social programs such as clubs, youth centers and other MWR programs...it's a Win-Win for the military, community and taxpayer.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:12 pm



Quoting QFA380 (Reply 3):
On an episode of Air Force News, the podcast. They were boasting about how much coal they can and do burn at Eielsen AFB, it was quite a large amount although Eielsen is pretty big. That's not being a role model of environmental efficiency.

You couldn't be further from the truth. Its actually very clean and friendly. Coal burning today is not the same as the coal burning of years ago. It is much cleaner now with much less waste and environmental impact. So much so, that its being looked at again as a major source of power for our future.
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:46 am

What I don't understand is how does this thread qualify as Military Aviation & Space? I know its a miltary topic in general and thats it, It belongs in Non-Aviation.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:36 pm



Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
Who would have though that bases could become models of environmental efficiency?

The most agressive recycling programs I've ever seen have been on US military bases. In many cases, military bases have some of the largest chunks of undeveloped land in their region as well and it's managed quite carefully. For example, Fort Knox has a substantial unit that acts as game wardens for the vast amount of base land outside the gates of the central base.

There have been plenty of environmental disasters in the past including a number of Superfund sites but the DOD has very much cleaned up its act and is now, more often than not, setting a good example for others.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 2133
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:14 am



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
You couldn't be further from the truth. Its actually very clean and friendly. Coal burning today is not the same as the coal burning of years ago. It is much cleaner now with much less waste and environmental impact. So much so, that its being looked at again as a major source of power for our future.

This is a complete fabrication on every level.


Not only are coal plants dirty, but they emit more radioactivity than any nuclear reactor ever could.
Their contributions to C02 emissions are vast.

Some new types of coal plants, both proposed, and few built or operating, certainly reduce a number of the problems with coal as a power source. That being said, it's cheap and domestic, so it has some favor with certain groups, but it sure isn't clean.
 
N1641
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 2:10 pm

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:46 am

military is doing whatever it can to save money, all the money is going to the war. At the base I'm at the gym no longer provides towels to save money.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:53 am

Coal also kills more people than 100 Chernobyls ever would.

Ever been to India or China? Any idea how many people die because of coal? It's a miracle they don't drop dead on the spot.

Ever been to Georgia? A lot of people there die from coal too. It is a major coal generating state. Elevated mercury levels, radioactivity, soot particulates. And coal is a worse Co2 problem than oil. Gassefied coal is far worse than actual gas in terms of CO2 load on the environment.

Ever been to West Virginia? Coal killed many thousands of them from black lung (hint hint), as well as ruined a good deal of their beautiful scenery.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:58 am



Quoting N1641 (Reply 16):
Coal killed many thousands of them from black lung (hint hint)

Dude you don't get the black lung from an open pit mine.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:51 am



Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 15):

Not only are coal plants dirty,

Not when you are using either the right type of coal or have the proper scrubbers installed.

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 15):
but they emit more radioactivity than any nuclear reactor ever could.

Perhaps a bit of research will dispel that myth for you:

Quote:
The radiation hazard from airborne emissions of coal-fired power plants was evaluated in a series of studies conducted from 1975–1985. These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment. For the average citizen, the radiation dose from coal burning is considerably less.



http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17):
Coal also kills more people than 100 Chernobyls ever would.

See above indicates otherwise. Do you have anything to support your theory?

We should be building more coal plants and we should (as the air force is doing) be looking into coal to liquids and coal to gas technologies. While not a panacea it offers a viable partial solution. There are no free lunches when it comes to energy, all forms of energy production have strengths and weaknesses.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:19 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 19):
Do you have anything to support your theory?

Do I have anything to support what? It's not my theory. It's just a fact, soot kills people. Ever been to Beijing?....
 
dragon6172
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:00 am



Quoting QFA380 (Reply 3):
Leaving land open as wildlife 'havens', is not something that protects the environment. The land is there for training and the DoD probably just can't be bothered to get rid of the animals, maybe they like them because of the realistic training they give troops. Training them that an animal can give away your position, so don't scare the animals. Good for the animals? Yes. Being an environmental role model? Hardly. They need that land.

While role model may be just a little bit of a stretch, DoD does quite a bit more than you may think. If you seperate the bases from the operational units especially. Anyone who has seen the exhaust left by a B-52, LAV, Abrams MBT, or any other operational equipment can easily argue about the DoD's adverse effect on the enviroment.

However, when it comes to the bases, things are very different. As someone said, just about every freakin light switch is tied into a motion sensor, so that lights are only on when people are present. EPA and hazerdous material inspectors routinely inspect, enforce, and penalize units and individuals for spills and drips smaller than what you would find under the average automobile. As for the land, yes it is there for training. But much of it just provides a buffer between the base and civilization. Wildlife does end up on the land, and because many of the species are protected, its the military training that gets curtailed, not the animals life. I remember several training events postponed or canceled due to some animals mating season. Even some plant life is protected on bases. As for keeping the animals around for some training purpose? Hardly, maybe you have watched one too many movies. The fact is that if the base was not there, chances are good that the land would be developed, and that wildlife would be pushed to live somewhere else.

The DoD, corporations, businesses, people all around the world, everyone needs to do more to protect our planet. The DoD is doing some work on improving their "greeness"(and I am not saying they have the perfect system in place, come on, they are a government agency), and that is much more than others.
Phrogs Phorever
 
N1641
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 2:10 pm

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:06 am



Quoting L-188 (Reply 18):
Dude you don't get the black lung from an open pit mine.

I think I'm getting the black lung, Pop, eh eh
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:55 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
It's just a fact, soot kills people.

Sure it does, so does fire when it's not contained. Soot from modern coal plants is largely captured with scrubbers. About fifty percent of the US electrical output is produce by coal fired plants. According to your theory we should be dying in droves.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
Ever been to Beijing?....

Ever hear of the EPA?
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:10 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
Do I have anything to support what? It's not my theory. It's just a fact, soot kills people. Ever been to Beijing?....

You, like several others, are assuming that these plants operate the same way coal power plants did many years ago. They don't. If you don't want to believe that, its fine with us. Assume away.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:41 pm

What does the EPA have to do with Chernobyl vs the worldwide death toll from coal? China doesn't care about the EPA... so the death toll from coal is enormous. Including here at home.

One study easily Googled suggests 30,000 annual deaths from coal pollution in the USA. That seems at least possible since large fractions of our populations live in degraded areas like Texas, Atlanta, Gary IN with air quality that fails EPA standards.

Yes, we have pollution scrubbers on (some of) our coal plants, which are fairly effective.

Does this make it as safe as nuclear, certainly not. And the carbon problem.. is curtailing the number of new plants built. THey are too financially risky now.

The sooner we get away from coal, the sooner we can have a sustainable country and military... Coal is a 100-year answer which is a pitifully short amount of time.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:51 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
What does the EPA have to do with Chernobyl vs the worldwide death toll from coal?

What does Chernobyl and lax Chinese environmental regulations have to do with the US Air Force?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
One study easily Googled suggests 30,000 annual deaths from coal pollution in the USA.

Sorry, but you have lost all credibility.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
The sooner we get away from coal, the sooner we can have a sustainable country and military.

So what's your expert analysis of what needs to be done to free us from the "evils" of coal?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: USAF, US Army To Go Green?

Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:46 pm



Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 15):
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
You couldn't be further from the truth. Its actually very clean and friendly. Coal burning today is not the same as the coal burning of years ago. It is much cleaner now with much less waste and environmental impact. So much so, that its being looked at again as a major source of power for our future.

This is a complete fabrication on every level.


Not only are coal plants dirty, but they emit more radioactivity than any nuclear reactor ever could.
Their contributions to C02 emissions are vast.

Some new types of coal plants, both proposed, and few built or operating, certainly reduce a number of the problems with coal as a power source. That being said, it's cheap and domestic, so it has some favor with certain groups, but it sure isn't clean.

With coal powering 50% of all US electrical generation, the computer you are using is contibuting to the pollution you bitch about. Be careful making dumb statements like "they emit more radioactivity than any nuclear reactor ever could". If you could stand on a coal fired plant smoke stake for one year, the additional radiation dose you would get is equil to two chest x-rays.

BTW, you get more exposure everyday in your own home (while sitting at your computer surfing the net) from radon gas, which is a far more serious health hazard than you will ever get from a coal fired plant. Radon gas occures natuerally deep in the Earth, and escapes through the surface. But, any building will trap the gas, making it much slower to dissipate.

Yes, burning any fossil fuel makes CO2. But, it is a natuerally occuring gas anyway, and global man made CO2 production does not contribute to global warming. In fact the Earth has been cooling since 1998.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17):
Coal also kills more people than 100 Chernobyls ever would.

Ever been to India or China? Any idea how many people die because of coal? It's a miracle they don't drop dead on the spot.

Ever been to Georgia? A lot of people there die from coal too. It is a major coal generating state. Elevated mercury levels, radioactivity, soot particulates. And coal is a worse Co2 problem than oil. Gassefied coal is far worse than actual gas in terms of CO2 load on the environment.

Ever been to West Virginia? Coal killed many thousands of them from black lung (hint hint), as well as ruined a good deal of their beautiful scenery.



Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
One study easily Googled suggests 30,000 annual deaths from coal pollution in the USA. That seems at least possible since large fractions of our populations live in degraded areas like Texas, Atlanta, Gary IN with air quality that fails EPA standards.

We are not talking about 3rd world countries (you forgot Mexico). Their enviornmential problems are hugh, and they need to follow in our foot steps for protecting the environment and controlling polution. We are talking about what the USAF and US Army is doing, and they are making progress. Is it to save money, or the environment? Personally, I don't care. But it is working for them, and the US as a whole.

The 30,000 deaths you talk about occured 50+ years ago. Not today. Today, the tragic deaths of coal miners is caused by cave problems, cave ins, explosions, methane gas, etc. The most recent year with the most US coal miners deaths was 2007, and we lost 42 of our citizens, there were no deaths in 2000-2005. BTW, I live in Texas, and can breath claen air all day long, even in the DFW Metroplex.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
Yes, we have pollution scrubbers on (some of) our coal plants, which are fairly effective.

No, in the US, all coal fired plants have scrubbers.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):
The sooner we get away from coal, the sooner we can have a sustainable country and military... Coal is a 100-year answer which is a pitifully short amount of time.

The US has some 50% of all the world's coal reserves. At current usages, that alone is a 350 year supply. The US comsumes some 5 billion tons of coal per year.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: angad84, RetiredWeasel and 43 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos