IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Follow the math

According to Steve Anderson, a retired brigadier general who served as Gen. Petraeus' chief logistician in Iraq, the Department of Defense spends $20 billion air conditioning tents and temporary structures for the military. That's more than NASA's entire $19 billion annual budget.

That cost comes out of the fuel needed to heat and cool tents on the front lines. However, the trucks that transport this fuel have become targets for IEDs used by the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Anderson, at least 1000 soldiers have been killed moving fuel.

Anderson believes that a simple solution would be to instead spray tents with polyurethane foam, kind of like the foam sealant you would use in your own home. In fact, an active $95 million contract to insulate tents is producing $1 billion in cost avoidance, proving it's both safer and greener than air conditioning the desert. Doing this while also searching for other energy-efficient solutions would save both money and lives.




http://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-costs-more-than-nasas-entire-budget




Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" 1897
New Long ago and far away.....
One hundred dollar banknotes were shipped:

"In the year after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 nearly 281 million notes, weighing 363 tonnes, were sent from New York to Baghdad for disbursement to Iraqi ministries and US contractors. Using C-130 planes, the deliveries took place once or twice a month with the biggest of $2,401,600,000 on June 22 2004, six days before the handover."

"The numbers are so large that it doesn't seem possible that they're true. Who in their right mind would send 363 tonnes of cash into a war zone?"


[...]

"...Asked what had happened to the $8.8bn he replied: "I have no idea. I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it's important."


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1


During the Iraq war, fuel had to be trucked in from Kuwait (by Haliburton) because the Iraqi oil equipment had not been maintained or was destroyed. For a thoroughly depressing, fascinating account of the entire mess:

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-Emerald-Rajiv-Chandrasekaran-ebook/dp/B000JMKTK0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461805308&sr=1-1&keywords=imperial+life+in+the+emerald+city
New Dunno.
Defense News from 2008:

Defense Department at Forefront of Energy Conservation, Official Says

By Navy Seaman William Selby

Special to American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21, 2008 – The Defense Department is constantly looking for ways to proactively conserve and reuse energy, a department official said.

“We’re really leading the nation in looking at energy and considering energy,” Mindy Montgomery, deputy director for investment, Office of the Director for Defense Research and Engineering, said during a teleconference with bloggers yesterday.

Montgomery said that every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oilraises the DoD’s fuel spending by $1.3 billion per year. The department has spent $3 billion to $5 billion extra each year due to the price increase over the last couple years, she said.

But energy conservation does more than help to compensate for rising prices, Montgomery said. It makes operational sense, too, she noted.

“Seventy percent of the convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan are for fuel and water,” she said. “So if we can reduce those, we can reduce all the security assets that go along with all … these convoys.”

While DoD has made progress in energy conservation, Montgomery said, it still has a long way to go.

“Since 2005 we’ve reduced our total energy consumption by 6 percent,” Montgomery said. “On the installation side, since 2003, we’ve reduced our demand by 10 percent.”

Unfortunately, reduced energy consumption doesn’t automatically translate to money saved, Montgomery said. DoD has spent $13 billion in total energy costs since 2005 due to rising fuel costs, she said.

“I’d like to say we’ve saved, but unfortunately, energy costs have gone way up,” Montgomery said. “Even though we’ve reduced consumption, it still costs us more in the long run.”

Montgomery said that some electricity costs have stabilized, which should lead to savings in the near future. Installation-specific improvements also should lead to savings, she said.

To reduce energy consumption at installations, the department created the Power Surety Task Force to focus on combatant commanders’ energy needs, Montgomery said. For instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers were using tents that were worn out and were not energy efficient, Montgomery said. The task force recently found a substance called installation foam to spray on the tents, which is reducing energy consumption by about 30 percent.

“Now, we’re keeping the air inside,” Montgomery said. “By the way, the tents are actually about 20 percent cooler than they ever got with the air conditioning,” she added.

Montgomery estimated that the DoD will save about $400,000 a day and take about 13 fuel trucks off the roads a day as a result of using the insulation foam.

The Department also is looking at more efficient turbine engines for aircraft, more fuel-efficient engines for the next generation Humvee, and other alternatives that may decrease energy and fuel costs, Montgomery added.

“That program is run by the Army tank and automotive command,” she said. “They’re looking at different drivetrains, different kinds of engines, [and] different power systems on the vehicle.”

Montgomery said the task force also has been focusing on modifying technologies and looking for new methods of power generation.

“We actually just opened a solar farm [that produces] over 14 megawatts in Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada,” she said. “We’ve also, for the last 20 years, had a geothermal plant at China Lake [Naval Air Weapons Station, Calif.],” she added. “I want to say it produces somewhere between 180 and 200 megawatts.”

Officials also are looking at expanding its use of geothermal power generation, which uses heat from the Earth.


UrethaneBlog (quoting a 2009 WaPo story):

For all the emphasis on new technologies at the Pentagon, one of the most successful initiatives involves decades-old technology: insulating thousands of tents in Iraq and Afghanistan with a two-inch layer of foam. The foam is sprayed like shaving cream from 55-gallon drums and hardens in about 20 minutes.

A $95 million program to spray-foam tents in Iraq has dramatically reduced the amount of fuel needed for heating and cooling, saving $2 million in energy costs per day, Anderson said. It is also reducing the Army's logistical footprint, which includes roughly 900 trucks per day moving in and out of Iraq, he said.

"We've already taken 12 trucks off a day," said Anderson, who previously served as deputy chief of staff for resources and sustainment for the multinational force in Iraq. "That may not seem like a lot, but it adds up pretty . . . quickly. Those are some of the most dangerous roads in the world. I'm confident it has saved lives."

A $29 million contract has been signed to insulate tents in Afghanistan, where vulnerable land supply routes pose serious challenges as the United States attempts to build up its forces.

"If we're going to be in Afghanistan for a while, it behooves us to foam as many structures as we can," Anderson said.


I'm not sure how the original story came up with $20B for A/C for tents.

The DoD knows this is a big problem. "Simple solutions" aren't so simple for an organization as large as the DoD - it takes years to implement things even when they're not controversial. But the issue was being addressed.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New That number has been around for a while
--

Drew
New Yeah, but all those stories cite the same guy.
And the link always goes back to a PRI radio story, but that link is broken because they're rejiggering their dB or something.

Anyway, it might be right, but it seems likely to be the same kind of accounting that says the F-22 would have cost $1B each (i.e. it includes everything possibly related to the program over its 40+ year life).

The $20B number is supposedly an annual cost. $20B/365 = $55M/day. My previous reply said they were saving $2M/day in all-up costs with the spray-foam treatment, or 3.6%. So, either they didn't do enough tents, or the spray-foam really doesn't make that much of a difference to the total cost.

There needs to be more context for the $20B number. What does it include?

Just spitballing - I'm no expert on this stuff. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Sounds reasonable to me
Assuming the numbers are right, 3.6% savings in total budget by insulating some tents sounds pretty good. Consider it's probably not all the tents, just the worst offenders, and that when you're done you're still air conditioning a tent in the damn desert, and how efficient do you think it's going to get?
--

Drew
New Always the outside chance
we don't put tents in other peoples deserts. Of course, since Iran is unlikely to invade us, we might as well invade them. It creates jobs: grave diggers, prosthetic makers, oh! and military contractors!!! It's the only real growth industry we've got.
"Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."
~ AMBROSE BIERCE
(1842-1914)
New yup, if it wasnt for defence spending we would be broke
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
     Follow the math - (lincoln) - (7)
         Long ago and far away..... - (dmcarls)
         Dunno. - (Another Scott) - (5)
             That number has been around for a while - (drook) - (4)
                 Yeah, but all those stories cite the same guy. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     Sounds reasonable to me - (drook) - (2)
                         Always the outside chance - (hnick) - (1)
                             yup, if it wasnt for defence spending we would be broke -NT - (boxley)

LYNX-tested and approved!
54 ms