Biden energy secretary doubles down on electrifying US military's vehicle fleet by 2030:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...militarys-vehicle-fleet-2030-we-can-get-there

Last April, Biden said his administration is working to make 'every vehicle' in the U.S. military 'climate-friendly'

"I do, and I think we can get there, as well," Granholm said. "I do think that reducing our reliance on the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels where we know that global events like the war in Ukraine can jack up prices for people back home… does not contribute to energy security."
"I think energy security is achieved when we have homegrown, clean energy that is abundant like you see in Iowa," Granholm added. "We think we can be a leader globally in how we have become energy independent."
--
Absolute, abject, insane, dangerous, incomprehensible stupidity.
I cannot think of a better way to describe this idea to polite company.

Cost...performance...logistics... all take a backseat to religious dogma.
But then: Democrats. Why expect anything different?

News for you, lady:
In the field, these vehicles will be charged by diesel generators.
Often.

 

Our biggest logistical problem is feeding those armored beasts constantly with the specialized fuel we have. Electrifying vehicles solves part of that problem, but may create others. And other countries from China to Russia to Germany to the UK are doing this as well. But this is being proposed by the US Military Industrial Complex who see this more as an opportunity than anything else. And the Army is warming up to the idea especially if there is another oil embargo along the way by Saudi Arabia that will drive up fuel costs and dminish our ability to respond if necessary abroad. Electric vehicles solve most of those questions and liabilities we have. Vehicles will be lighter, relatively speaking, than the traditional behemoths, but still will have the firepower projection that the US military is known for. Only an EMP effect would neutralize their effectiveness, but that would happen anyway with the traditional gas guzzler vehicles too.

Russia found out the hard way on how to keep that logistical train going for their armored vehicles. When they first invaded Ukraine, many were running out of fuel and practically abandoned on the road and just left them there. Even though a total electrified military vehicle force is probably decades away, it is moving with the times. What we really need to do is get rid of the divisional format and heavy vehicle formations for any and all US Active military forces. Divisions should be national guard only as homeland defense in case of invasion. We should also double the size of the National Guard as well IMO.


https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-...ectrification-of-us-military-ground-vehicles/

https://www.alke.com/military-electric-vehicles

https://www.defensenews.com/industr...ffering-to-meet-armys-electric-vehicle-needs/

 

The current M1 Abrams operating in the field uses ~60gal of diesel per hour, and currently carries 500gal of fuel.
Math that.

 

Which proves my point of the logistical problem. An Armored Battaltion or heavy battatlion will have what, 70 M1 tanks alone plus the M2/M3 that has similar characteristics on its use, and that is just one battalion. Transporting these beasts is a logistical chess match, and it cost what $1 billion to send some 70 obsolete M1 tanks to Ukraine from the US to Europe.

 

Diesel isn't particularly specialized, and current truck/diesel engines can run on anything combustible, including cooking grease used motor oil.

In the field, how will we generate the power needed to charge these vehicles?
Diesel.

If the field, the Abrams carries 500gal diesel, and burns 60gal/hr.
Math that into kWh and battery capacity.

 

Nothing says battle ready like tanks that go 200 yards because a) charge ran out, b) batteries weighed so much they sank the vehicle in dry ground... The battleship floats away because the props stopped because the a) charge ran out, b) batteries got damaged by the salt air...

There's stupid, and then there's the Biden administration. Truly special in that regard.

 

So do we frequently pause the war for a few hours while the vehicles charge?

 

And so, now, we can move all those vehicles , and their fuel, AND generators.
That sounds much easier and much more efficient.

We sent armored and infantry -divisions- to operate in the field in Iraq. Its not like the process is new or poorly understood.

 

FYI, some basic tactical reconnaissance method, is to be quiet as possible, with electric vehicles, it makes it that much more efficient.

BTW, this electrification of equipment has been going on for decades.

 

That's nice.
Tell me about 70 ton Abrams and 7-ton cargo trucks.

Quantify this.

 

I had this discussion with my father last night, it must be a *thing* on Fox.
Highlighted in red: I don't think it's "religious dogma". I think it's smart to get ahead of the game. Would you prefer to be behind in the game?
There is a finite amount of oil available to convert into fuel, which, over time, means increased cost and decreased reliable supply. As this occurs, and it will regardless of what we want, the conversion to some other form of energy to move vehicles will be increasingly necessary. I would prefer to be prepared for it rather than wait until the last minute and then have to scramble to change over. In the case of our military, we could be left with military vehicles that have no fuel to move. Which is more "stupid"?
Read this, maybe it will shed some light on the subject: https://drillers.com/how-much-oil-is-left-in-the-world/
I wouldn't call it "Absolute, abject, insane, dangerous, incomprehensible stupidity." I think that NOT addressing this issue is "Absolute, abject, insane, dangerous, incomprehensible stupidity."
And even if it lasts 50 years, how long will it take to *convert*? What about plastic? Do we have a good viable replacement for plastic?
Still listening to tapes for music?

 

Ever been to a homestead that is off the grid but they have power anyway? They don't exactly have an oil pump in their backyard or a refinery to refine that crude oil. Homesteaders primarily use solar and/or wood as their source of heat and solar as their sole source of electricity. Army will come up with a plan to do the same with these vehicles that are totally electric. But it is being pushed by the US military Industrial Complex and they are part of that "fossil fuel" conglomerate too.

Electric vehicles can be charged with generators or with solar panels, and generators are much easier to transport than tens of thousands of gallons of fuel. However, per the M1 operating manual, they use JP-8 jet fuel for its engines. This is the same type of fuel used for most commercial airliners, among other uses. It can use diesel fuel when JP-8 is not available, thus creating more logistical nighmares for the US army when feeding these beasts.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA573594#:~:text=The US army single fuel,JP-8 till year 2025.

 

Technology has come a long way, but you still thinking the old Mark VI tank is still around, and that practically went 200 yards before breaking down in WW1

 

What powers the generators?

 

While a practical comment, it does not address the dogmatic argument made in the article.

Energy is energy; BTU and kW are just names for a quantity of it.
What do you suppose will create the energy for the field generators needed to power these vehicles?
Today: Diesel. Just like the engines they run now. Where's the benefit?
50-75-100 years: Fision?

Back to the dogma:
How does converting today's fleet reduce our reliance on the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels?
How does it contribute to energy security?
How does homegrown, clean energy move an armored division in combat somewhere in Asia Europe or Africa ?
How does changing the source of the energy that turns the wheels of that armored division make us energy independent?

 

GOOD GRIEF they wouldn't be able to mount guns and carry ammo because of the weight and size of the batteries!!!

So she proves not only that she knows NOTHING about energy but also NOTHING about the military. Yet Biden would never fire her even after this idiotic policy.

 

Well, let us both be assured that I wasn't referring to WWI era technology. Do you have any idea how much a modern battle tank weighs? And then add the battery pack necessary to move it at battle speed, and endurance, and I assure you you don't have a solution that remotely responds positively to the design criteria of one.

 

I suppose it depends on the recharge but if no one has yet offered the current GM HUMVEE that takes essentially 5 days to recharge fully... The stupid of these fantasy players in the Biden administration is its own version of stupid.

 

Ahhhh it can be refilled in about 5 minutes using a very portable fuel. Where are you going to get all the electricity to charge all those vehicles in a battlefield situation? Are you going to ask the other side for a time out to charge back up?

 

What say at all does Granholm have over the military??

 

And they are REAL quiet when they are sitting there out of a charge.

 

You --clearly-- do not understand the energy demands of modern combat.

1 tank, 500 gallons diesel; in the field it will burn it in in 8 hours. That,s 20,000kw in 8 hours - 2500kWh. Assume 40% efficiency, that's 1,000kw/ hr actual.
How heavy to you think a 8,000kWh battery might be?
How big?
How many solar panels will it take to charge it?
How long to charge?
How do you charge it 200km from its start line?

Now, multiply that by the number of tanks in a division.
And the infantry carriers.
And the support vehicles.

And its raining. At night.

Logistics nightmare?

 

This is great news for EVERY OTHER WORLD POWER. They'll be firing away and we'll be saying "Hey wait! we need to re-charge, please hold your fire".
Ahh, i see the "logic" of the left is in full force again.

 

I don't get peoples reaction to this. Is your contention that it's not possible?

 

By 2030?
Sure.
They'll cripple the army's ability to do anything - but it is perfectly possible.