Submitted by redingerforcongress t3_yfbyck in Futurology
Comments
Gagarin1961 t1_iu4p2f6 wrote
Never understood why Democrats never pushed to move the military past the strategically important, but limited in quantity, fossil fuels.
If they want to push the world forward, transitioning the worlds largest producer of emissions is an important start… yet it’s just a minor consideration. They have control over the worlds largest producer of emissions, and they don’t even care.
americansherlock201 t1_iu4x5ai wrote
I’d recommend you look into the military and see that they’ve already been doing a lot of that. They’ve been moving away from fossil fuels for years now. Just because you don’t see a member of congress talking about it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. US military reliance on fossil fuels has been dropping for years already.
Gagarin1961 t1_iu55ztm wrote
I have looked into it, but there is no big push to turn the military green. No politician is talking about it.
I guess because it can’t be used for divisive purposes? Are the democrats really using climate change to “get” corporations or do they want to actually put effort into the emissions they actually control?
americansherlock201 t1_iu568ex wrote
There isn’t a “big push” politically because it is already happening. The military long ago realized the benefit of a green military and has been working towards that. Publicly calling for them to do it would result in any politician getting laughed at when they are shown that it’s already happening.
BingBongMcGong t1_iu4vhlm wrote
Huh? Do you have a source that shows Democrats hamstringing the military's efforts to move away from fossil fuels?
Gagarin1961 t1_iu54uhs wrote
Hamstring? They haven’t been doing anything to a legitimate degree at all.
No action is confusing when they are literally the ones in control of it. Instead they focus on corporations that they don’t control.
It’s so confusing it makes me question their true motives, actually.
MilkshakeBoy78 t1_iu6l4hb wrote
> Instead they focus on corporations that they don’t control.
that's good because the military is already going green for years.
pantslespaul t1_iu51nhp wrote
China is by far the largest producer of emissions. I’m not sure how the US Military would be involved in reducing that….
Gagarin1961 t1_iu554tz wrote
China is not a single entity, they’re a country of millions of individual companies and organizations.
The US military is the largest producer of emissions of any one organization/entity.
hurffurf t1_iu54rvg wrote
Everything in the army runs on jet fuel because aircraft are where something like 80% of the fuel goes. There's no battery fighter jets. It's still a massive amount of emissions but making every land vehicle in the military electric reduces their total fuel consumption by like 2%.
Gagarin1961 t1_iu55fz5 wrote
The military can already synthesize jet fuel from the air and the ocean.
There is not large scale move to transition to that, though.
The technology literally exists and the leaders aren’t embracing it. Make you wonder…
GnomerDomer t1_iu3wvth wrote
Its funny to think that being green while murdering other men is a concern
phoenix1984 t1_iu49617 wrote
They’re not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I see two reasons. First, oil is a liability. Getting it, often from hostile foreign powers. Transporting it. It limits the military’s strategic options. Second, when already poor govts struggle to deal with successive natural disasters, that creates civil unrest and the potential for geopolitical destabilization. Who has to deal with that instability? The military.
When it comes to fighting climate change, the military might not be doing it for the same reasons we are, but they’re a formidable ally in the fight.
cookiemonster247 t1_iu4izx8 wrote
But also, set up base camp with some solar panels, and your good. Anything running on gas is gonna require constant transportation to keep bringing in oil
phoenix1984 t1_iu4p4zi wrote
Yeah, with electricity there are a lot of potential sources of power. Solar and wind, but candidly also diesel, methane, even burning wood and trash is an option in a pinch. The military also gets access to a suite of small to midsized nuclear power sources. For them it’s about flexibility. With just gas and diesel, they’re a lot more limited. Solar powered FOBs can operate independently for a lot longer than one dependent on regular gas trucks.
ChalupaCabre t1_iu4pbnf wrote
Everything can make electricity on the battlefield.
Not much can make diesel on the battlefield.
Electric motors are also quiet and much more efficient than diesel.
141_1337 t1_iubmxzi wrote
That's a big selling point for the new engine on the Abrams X tech demonstrator
teflong t1_iu4ljoa wrote
Yep. The EV equation is beginning to go from "environmentally friendly" to "strategically important". The US government knows that non-renewable energy scarcity will be an issue in the mid-term, even if one party is still beating the "fake news" drum to rile up their ignorant voting bloc.
crb8520 t1_iu2x6j1 wrote
Are these the same batteries that got their bolt recalled for fire?
Affectionate-Depth66 t1_iu37ibh wrote
No the Bolt is not using the Ultium architecture.
crb8520 t1_iu391qx wrote
Good to know
mf-TOM-HANK t1_iu31kpc wrote
Sometimes batteries fail and catch fire.
crush11111989 t1_iu3ae5s wrote
So do gas-powered engines..
Ok-disaster2022 t1_iu3cs0x wrote
So does fertilizer
Franklin_le_Tanklin t1_iu3grdf wrote
So do missiles
ChalupaCabre t1_iu4pgya wrote
So do humans.
classic_lurker t1_iu3mgal wrote
Ford pinto I’m looking at you….
UOLZEPHYR t1_iu3jdql wrote
flashback to the Ford crown vics
Tech_AllBodies t1_iu3umso wrote
They're not exactly the same, but they are the same form-factor, that being "pouch cells".
Barely anyone is using pouch cells, as they are seen to be inferior for the use-case of cars.
It remains to be seen whether they will have future issues because of this choice.
sambull t1_iu4o0ff wrote
civilian fleet is going to get smashed by the demand the military(s) will create converting
redingerforcongress OP t1_iu4pqrt wrote
They've invested billions into new factories, but you're probably right.
activedusk t1_iuadxk9 wrote
It's the wrong chemistry for the type of environments and stress that such equipment experiences, if they can switch to LTO or other type of more robust batteries then it should be fine. Tanks and armored vehicles should all become hybrid because besides increasing range on the same sized fuel tank with relatively small percentage of added weight, it will also increase acceleration, improve responsiveness, make them quieter and difficult to detect when stalking behind cover or scouting and reduce maintenance cost of the engine as it run closer to optimum rpm most of the times, other benefits also exist with regards to powering more powerful electronics easily or enabling new electric powered equipment previously impossible to use because it couldn't provide enough power (think radars, Lidars, lasers, masers, microwave emitters and other sensors or weapons). If there is a big downside is likely cost because of many things related to producing more robust versions of a commercial product.
FuturologyBot t1_iu2vwjl wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/redingerforcongress:
The battery pack will be based on GM's Ultium platform, which it's using to power its own electric vehicles. Due to the type of battery cells it employs, Ultium is billed as a modular and scalable system that can be adapted to different needs, so it may just fit the bill for the military.
GM said the military wants a light- to heavy-duty EV for use in garrison and operational environments in order to reduce fossil fuel use. As a result, that should reduce the military's carbon emissions.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yfbyck/gm_will_make_an_ultium_battery_pack_prototype_for/iu2s5df/
[deleted] t1_iu33dub wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu446fn wrote
[removed]
RickShepherd t1_iu4mwx1 wrote
LG Chem gets no mention? Odd. Almost like acknowledging that a non-US company, building a critical and potentially dangerous component for the US Military, would be received differently than to suggest a flailing domestic producer was doing it.
ChalupaCabre t1_iu4puwz wrote
Yeah LG has a bad history in batteries.
But they are South Korean, and that is pretty Americanized and friendly to the American military.
redingerforcongress OP t1_iu4pu8i wrote
LG Chem is actually funded to build a lot of factories domestically.
Decent_Expression179 t1_iu42sij wrote
Who is going to make all the portable diesel generators to recharge them in the field?
The_4th_Little_Pig t1_iu4cj66 wrote
They have solar charging stations that can be pulled by trucks.
_AtLeastItsAnEthos t1_iu4d5md wrote
Modular nuke reactors
Benny13k t1_iu4fv4k wrote
Gm probably lol
xCaldazar t1_iu5p7kd wrote
I wouldn't be surprised to see them doing a hybrid setup for any vehicles that leave the base. Like the new Edison hybrid semi trucks
redingerforcongress OP t1_iu2s5df wrote
The battery pack will be based on GM's Ultium platform, which it's using to power its own electric vehicles. Due to the type of battery cells it employs, Ultium is billed as a modular and scalable system that can be adapted to different needs, so it may just fit the bill for the military.
GM said the military wants a light- to heavy-duty EV for use in garrison and operational environments in order to reduce fossil fuel use. As a result, that should reduce the military's carbon emissions.