Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

17

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

8

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.

5

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.

6

141_1337 t1_iubmxzi wrote

That's a big selling point for the new engine on the Abrams X tech demonstrator

1

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.

3