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

You mean this guy?

https://news.yahoo.com/watch-kennedy-stumps-biden-official-225312844.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

I am sure he could ask a great many obvious questions about this inanity which the Biden administration could not answer.

 

All these *engineers* in this thread! LOL!
The errors throughout this thread are, to say the least, comical!

 

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: Fission?

Back to the dogma, lifted directly from the article:
-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?

 

Short answer: chemical process. The improvement on the chemical process that produces electricity is the key, imo.
We have a long way to go, so it is important to get a good start on it, and keep up the innovations.
Fusion is promising, and some major strides have been made recently, but it is still a long way from being productive and they still need a good fuel source. IMO, this is why we are seeing an interest in the moon from private industry, hence the companies involved in space flight.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/world/lunar-lander-japan-uae-hakuto-r-scn/index.html
It failed, but tells me someone thinks there is value in moon exploration, and maybe mining. (Helium 3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Suppor...h/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface

 

Unfortunately, that is what Sec. Granholm said, though it was walked back by her staff the next day. Both Biden and alternatively Granholm chose the phrase "climate friendly" which is of the euphemistic and amorphous phraseology of "climate change" vs. "global warming." But maybe they both know (at least Granholm) that you can't electrify tanks.

 

That's 50-75-100 years tech.
Today? Foreseeable future?
Diesel. Just like the engines they run now.
Where's the benefit?

Back to the dogma, lifted directly from the article:
Given that for the foreseeable future, we're running these electric vehicles on diesel:
-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?

 

I can't help that you don't understand, but I'll try....
Quit making all kinds of assumptions. You are pigeon holing yourself into a box that has no exit. You are assuming that because you don't understand, it must be impossible and ridiculous, without doing anything to improve your understanding.
Did you read the links I posted? They only were posted 4 minutes before your response, so I'm going to assume not.
Try it, it'll help.

 

Can't answer the questions, eh?
S'ok - neither can anyone else.

 

I did answer the questions.
Have you considered the possibility you haven't understood the answer?
Have a wonderful day!

 

You and I both know you know this isn't true.
Thus, your retreat.
Buh-bye.

 

You do realize our government relies on Elon to figure this stuff out don't you?