# U.S. Military Taking Serious Interest in Electric Vehicles



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Pentagon plans to spend cut its fuel bill by $17 billion over the next seven years, partly by switching to hybrid and electric vehicles for its bases and even theaters of conflict.

More...


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Even then it will still be the highest polluting single entity on the planet.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The highest single polluting entity on the planet is the government of China, followed by the government of India. 

The U.S. Military doesn't even come close to 1% of their respective outputs, and what it does exhaust is orders of magnitude cleaner per volume.

But then, you knew that.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> The highest single polluting entity on the planet is the government of China, followed by the government of India.
> 
> The U.S. Military doesn't even come close to 1% of their respective outputs, and what it does exhaust is orders of magnitude cleaner per volume.
> 
> But then, you knew that.


Do you mean the countries as a whole, or just the government vehicles of those countries?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

rochesterricer said:


> Do you mean the countries as a whole, or just the government vehicles of those countries?


The OP said only, "the highest polluting single entity on the planet."

Being a Communist country, all of the power plants as well as their enormous fleet of vehicles and much of industry are a part of that entity.

India (the government) is more of a hybrid politically, but still owns enormous amounts of their industry and most (all?) of their coal and nuclear power plants.

I suppose it is remotely possible I read something into the OP not intended, but it came across as a nonsense backhanded dig at our military. While they are certainly a big target when it comes to opportunities to pollute less, they are simply doing the best they can to fulfill the mission given to them by the citizens of our country - and yes, as a matter of national security and prosperity that includes keeping the flow of inexpensive gas going. In any event, they are nowhere near the highest polluting single entity on the planet and so I threw the BS flag...


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

PhantomPholly said:


> The U.S. Military doesn't even come close to 1% of their respective outputs, and what it does exhaust is orders of magnitude cleaner per volume.


Exhaust ?
Im talking about the depleted uranium sprayed all over Afganistan and the berilium used to clean the US Navy's ships in other countries ports.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

RIPPERTON said:


> Exhaust ?
> Im talking about the depleted uranium sprayed all over Afganistan and the berilium used to clean the US Navy's ships in other countries ports.


Name a single person who has died from picking up a depleted uranium round? (Hint: There aren't any).

Now, how many people have died indirectly from inhalation of dirty coal smog and directly from coal mining and related activities in China?

As to use of beryllium, it appears to have been used all over the world and that the U.S. stopped using it almost 20 years ago once the health risks were discovered. According to the only article I could find with number, approximately 3,000 Navy members over a period of 20 years MAY have had enough exposure to had caused a related health issue - or maybe not. In all, the likelihood of a Navy person to have suffered health issues related to beryllium is lower than the likelihood of a soldier having been killed during the first Gulf War, which in turn was lower than the likelihood that that same soldier would have been killed by a drunk driver had they been stationed at home during that same time. Other countries on the other hand (such as China and India) may well still be using beryllium for cleaning ships.

Now, if you want to continue a political rant (and apparently we are in agreement as to the intent of your OP), then let's move this to the Chitchat section. This, however, is the news section and we should be discussing facts not paranoid fantasies.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

PhantomPholly said:


> Name a single person who has died from picking up a depleted uranium round? (Hint: There aren't any).
> Now, how many people have died indirectly from inhalation of dirty coal smog and directly from coal mining and related activities in China?
> As to use of beryllium, it appears to have been used all over the world and that the U.S. stopped using it almost 20 years ago once the health risks were discovered. According to the only article I could find with number, approximately 3,000 Navy members over a period of 20 years MAY have had enough exposure to had caused a related health issue - or maybe not. In all, the likelihood of a Navy person to have suffered health issues related to beryllium is lower than the likelihood of a soldier having been killed during the first Gulf War, which in turn was lower than the likelihood that that same soldier would have been killed by a drunk driver had they been stationed at home during that same time. Other countries on the other hand (such as China and India) may well still be using beryllium for cleaning ships.
> Now, if you want to continue a political rant (and apparently we are in agreement as to the intent of your OP), then let's move this to the Chitchat section. This, however, is the news section and we should be discussing facts not paranoid fantasies.


You try too hard.


----------



## Mark C (Jun 25, 2010)

It makes good sense to use EV's on military installations and in other places where practical. The trick is producing the energy, and the military is moving forward with renewable energy projects in an effort to make them less dependent on anything/anyone outside their base of operations. I think a good part of the goal is to reduce or eliminate the fuel truck convoys that are somewhat easier for our enemies to target.

After the initial monetary investments, it should reduce the amount of money spent on fuel and reduce localized sources of pollution which are also good things.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Mark C said:


> It makes good sense to use EV's on military installations and in other places where practical. The trick is producing the energy, and the military is moving forward with renewable energy projects in an effort to make them less dependent on anything/anyone outside their base of operations. I think a good part of the goal is to reduce or eliminate the fuel truck convoys that are somewhat easier for our enemies to target.
> 
> After the initial monetary investments, it should reduce the amount of money spent on fuel and reduce localized sources of pollution which are also good things.


The big challenge for the military is that it doesn't have budget for both "go to war vehicles" as well as "peacetime use-around-the-base" vehicles. Too, some of the Army (and probably some of the Marine) "bases" are enormous training ranges with no power except around the baracks / administration centers.

For the most part, only a very few folks on military bases have "pool vehicles" that are not their "go to war vehicles." They either walk (or march or double-time) around base or take their personal vehicles.

I'm not trying to rain on the parade, that's just pretty much how it is. The savings are just not there today in any meaningful way.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

RIPPERTON said:


> You try too hard.


Based on the amount of effort I spent actually looking up the facts, apparently you think taking 2 minutes to check your facts is "trying too hard." 

If that's as high as the bar is set for baseline criteria, I'm proud to be an over-achiever. Another couple of years of trying too hard and I'll be a 1%-er....


----------

