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

It's cited in the link in the OP!

 

No no no.
"Wind and solar."

 

Charging time is ultimately limited by the power source -- it does not matter how fast your battery 8,000kWh can take a charge when your generator only delivers 100kW.

 

Congress controls procurement.
"General...we know this tank will only travel 10km on a single charge, but that's what we're giving you."

 

"Every vehicle"

 

"Every vehicle"

 

Libs think war is like living in Hollywood.

 

I was correcting the impression that some people have that she was calling for all vehicles to be electrified. That isn’t what she said.

 

I got your picture. A 100 meter windmill riding on a 150 meter pole atop a 4 meter tank charging through the jungle! Quick, call in the air force Agent Orange attack planes. Plus if the enemy is approaching on your left flank you can't turn to face him without losing your power!

 

But not electrifying them. Making them “climate friendly”. That doesn’t mean running them on batteries.

From your own OP

"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."

She isn’t talking about running every vehicle on batteries. She is talking about using biofuels. Not fossil fuels.

So what are you so angry about?

 

That's true. But Biden called for "every" military vehicle to be climate friendly, which raises the natural question how do you make all tanks climate friendly in seven years.

 

Every once in awhile I'll watch an old movie. Tere were many horse drawn wagons on the streets of New York into the 1940's. Change doesn't happen overnight. "instant gratification" is for children.

 

From my own OP:

Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Wednesday that she supports efforts from the Biden administration to require the U.S. military to implement an all-electric vehicle fleet by 2030, telling lawmakers that she believes "we can get there."

Granholm's remarks came during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing following questions from Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who asked the Biden administration official whether she supports the military's adoption of an "EV fleet by 2030."

Today's military vehicles - tanks, truck, etc - are already able to operate on biofuels.

 

She seems to be suggesting that running them on biofuels would meet their objective. Is that impossible in 7 years?

 

That’s Fox speaking. Not her. And we now know that Fox makes a corporate decision to lie to its viewers for profit.

Can you find a quote of HER saying that all vehicles will be electrified? Or can you only quote Fox’s spin on what she said?

 

Tanks?

What moron told you we were looking at electric tanks and why did you believe the idiot?

LMAO!!!

 

Maybe, I don't know. The tank engines (internal combustion or turbine) would have to be modified to run on biofuel, and I don't know if that is feasible for a tank engine or if it can be done in seven years. Worth looking into.

On the other hand,biofuel is not quite as climate friendly as it appears. Pound for pound biofuel emits more CO2 than diesel or gasoline. The claim is that the corn stalks (or whatever) that were cut processed and burned for biofuel are replaced with new corn stalks which sequesters CO2 to make up for what was emitted. Two problems with that. One, today's emission is made up in the future of one to ten years depending on the fuel source. Two, if the original corn stalk had not been cut to burn it would continue sequestering CO2 anyway. But this is getting into the weeds (pun intended).

 

Granholm is on video of making that exact statement, though her staff walked it back soon after to get back to "climate friendly." Also lost in the shuffle and by Granholm was Ernst question about all "non-tactical" vehicles being EV, without defining what that meant.

Try a little credibility in your meme degradation of Fox news.

 

The new Prius tanks are sure to strike fear in the hearts of our enemies.

 

The turbines in an M1 will run on used cooking oil.
Almost all, if not actually all, US military diesel vehicles will are already multi-fuel.

 

It's going to create an even huger logistical problem where to get all the electric power for these tanks.
Especially because these tanks are going to probably need to be charged often.

Considering how much a tank weighs, I could easily imagine the battery bank for an all-electric tank costing a million dollars. And even then the tank wouldn't have a very far range before needing to be recharged.
They'd probably have to send in armored transport vehicles behind the tank carrying reserve battery power. Those battery banks would be far too heavy to routinely change out, and it's not very efficient trying to charge one battery with another battery. Maybe there would have to be a power cord connecting the tank to an armored vehicle carrier behind it, while they were both moving, to be able to move the tank over longer distances. I suspect each tank might even need two or three support vehicles following behind it, for its routine electric power needs while not in the midst of battle.

Most people have little concept of mathematics or engineering but this really is insanity.

 

In addition, tanks don't travel too far in one day, unless engaged in a campaign. Turbines are actually efficient, and there is less of a requirement for them to be electric as to Humvees.

 

FFS she wasn’t talking about running tanks on electricity!

She was talking about running them on biofuels.

 

Here is something else to consider that is difficult to imagine. One small hit to the tank's gigantic battery bank and it will start a huge fire. Only this will be an extremely hot fire that will continue burning for probably 24 hours, maybe even longer. It will be so hot and intense that the crew inside the tank will be unable to safely leave the vehicle.
Almost hot enough to melt steel but not quite. I'm sure of course there will be a special wall separating the crew from the battery bank to insulate the crew from the heat of such a fire. But with the crew trapped inside the tank for 24 hours, the metal walls of that tank are going to have time to slowly heat up, despite use of a gap barrier and insulation (any designed heat protection beyond that is simply not going to be pragmatic).
With a lithium ion battery fire, if you try to hose it with water it will only get more intense, can cause a weak explosion, or series of weak explosions. But that might be the only way they could save the crew. The crew could not be trapped in such a burning tank for 24 hours, they would not survive. The crew compartment would gradually heat up and turn into an oven. The blaze would be so hot they'd be incinerated within seconds after they stepped outside the vehicle, even if they had special suits on.
Hosing water on the tank might be necessary, despite the dangers, to shorten the duration of the fire (maybe down to only 3 hours) and to help cool the temperature on the armor of the tank.

 

Come on, it must be true. Fox news told them that she was referring to electrifying tanks even though they quoted her words that specifically excluded tanks and some tactical vehicles