backtop


Print 17 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Apr 30 at 8:38 AM

The US Air Force has shown a serious effort to go green, but much work remains

A new Pew Charitable Trusts report reveals the United States Air Force has reduced energy consumption over the past six years by 20 percent, as the military looks to continue going green.

"The military's reliance on fossil fuels compromises combat effectiveness by restricting mobility, flexibility and endurance on the battlefield," according to the new report, as government officials work with private contractors.

Going green is a popular initiative in the U.S. government at the moment, especially among Air Force officials who are interested in developing alternative fuel sources.  Since the Air Force uses more energy and natural resources than the other branches, there has been an even higher urgency for fuel efficiency and eco-conscious projects.

In addition to heavily researching biofuels and green spy planes, the Air Force also is developing solar farms, wind turbines, and power plants at airbases in select locations.  There also are 37 airbases that have renewable energy sources partially powering bases, with the overall number of bases expected to increase.

The Air Force recently performed a successful test flight of an A-10 fighter jet with a mix of 50/50 jet fuel and camelina weed mix.

Military officials and lawmakers plan to work with other contractors to help spur new green projects for use by the military.  The U.S. Army has given EnerDel a contract to make a hybrid Humvee battery, as Army officials also look at various ways to make greener vehicles.

Even though the military is testing biofuels, numerous trials must be conducted before the new fuels will be used during live missions.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: other notes...
By FishTankX on 4/29/2010 6:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
While we may have alot of ships in the navy, it goes without saying that naval propulsion is significantly efficent per ton moved, per mile, than air propulsion.

My back of the napkin calculations are...

DDG-51 destroyer: 8500T fully loaded
F-16 6T fully loaded
(sources Wiki)
DDG fuel requirements:
35,000 gallons per day (30 MPH)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep...
F-16: Unknown gallons per day, but this website says 380KG/min at mach .8 at 15,000 feet. Assuming 1 gallon of JP8 is worth 8KG, we'll say 47 gallons per minute at mach 0.8
http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

So judging from those figures,

DDG-51@30MPH: 174 miles per gallon per ton
F-16 @ mach 0.8: 1.2 miles per gallon per ton

Conclusion: Navy destroyer: 14500% more range per gallon per ton.


RE: other notes...
By JonnyDough on 4/30/2010 3:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
Quite right, because water is not as easily displaced as air is. Now one might think that pushing water out of the way of a ship would use more energy than pushing air out of the way of an aircraft - and it does, however the propellers and jet engines themselves must move a significantly larger amount of air or water to propel the craft forward. Hence, why a ship is more efficient than an airplane. Water density being so much heavier than air means the ship has something to push off against. Especially when you consider how the thin the air is in the upper atmosphere - and hence the need for scram and ramjets.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki