Why not have US Military build solar and wind, go carbon neutral?

[MontyFloyd]

Why not have US Military build solar and wind, go carbon neutral?

US Military owns 8,849,476 acers, can easily build enough PV and Wind to power all buildings, and then offset carbon from military vehicles.
And then pay less to operate everything.

And since its under control by the CinC, all he has to do is make an order (and they will have to do budget somersaults)

Thoughts?

 

[nwdiver]

..... ideology. Also ideology.

And.... it would conflict with ideology.

 

[MontyFloyd]

..... ideology. Also ideology.

And.... it would conflict with ideology.

Whose?

Poll after poll and statement after stamen says the majority of Americans on all political sides are concerned about climate change.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Why not have US Military build solar and wind, go carbon neutral?

US Military owns 8,849,476 acers, can easily build enough PV and Wind to power all buildings, and then offset carbon from military vehicles.
And then pay less to operate everything.

And since its under control by the CinC, all he has to do is make an order (and they will have to do budget somersaults)

Thoughts?

You know that many of those acres of land are used to drive things on, drop things on and to explode stuff, so not really usable.

However, examples:

HSGS breaks ground on solar microgrid for Fort Hunter Liggett in California

The microgrid will make USAG Fort Hunter Liggett the first US Army installation to achieve 100% net zero energy use for critical power loads.

www.solarpowerworldonline.com

Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos to build 99-acre solar project for emergencies

Once built, the system will ensure the base can serve millions of Orange County and Los Angeles County residents during an emergency, officials said. Its airfield could remain in use for bringing i…

www.ocregister.com

It's not like they aren't looking at it.

 

[MontyFloyd]

You know that many of those acres of land are used to drive things on, drop things on and to explode stuff, so not really usable.
....

It's not like they aren't looking at it.

The amount of land for blowing stuff on is tiny compared to what they don't use. I think most of it is wild for environment survival, hiking, etc, not explosive.

Thanks for links.

 

[EVEnergy]

ItsNotAboutTheMoney is right - you need large (and I mean really large) pieces of land (huge, square miles of land) for live fire exercises, maneuver room for troops and tanks, etc. firing ranges, and training areas. We'd go out in the field for weeks at a time and cover miles and miles of territory during our field exercises. We'd set up our 155's in a location and start dropping shells miles away from our position; then pack up, move and do it all over again. You need empty space to set up, empty space to fire over, and empty space for the impact area. If you're doing integrated training (troops, field artillery, tanks, etc.) then you need even more room to be safe and to give everyone enough space.

Good idea though

 

[MontyFloyd]

ItsNotAboutTheMoney is right - you need large (and I mean really large) pieces of land (huge, square miles of land) for live fire exercises, maneuver room for troops and tanks, etc. firing ranges, and training areas. We'd go out in the field for weeks at a time and cover miles and miles of territory during our field exercises. We'd set up our 155's in a location and start dropping shells miles away from our position; then pack up, move and do it all over again. You need empty space to set up, empty space to fire over, and empty space for the impact area. If you're doing integrated training (troops, field artillery, tanks, etc.) then you need even more room to be safe and to give everyone enough space.

Good idea though

Let me reiterate, the amount of land that is NOT used for live fire and training is far more than used for training.

For example: Ammo depots.
These are vast areas of isolated bunkers housing ammo. It is extremely rare for ammo depot to explode, the last in USA was during WW2 (in storage, not during transport). Covering that land with PV will make barely used land to easily power a local base and civilian areas.

Here is an example, easily 10 square miles of that cannot be used for any training.

Then you can look at motor pools, parking lots, large buildings, aircraft hangars, etc.
More than enough space to generate gigawatts of PV.

 

[ThomasD]

You cannot put solar on munitions storage igloos. There are requirements such as the depth of soil on top to the thickness of the concrete. Minimum distances from buildings. Minimum distances from other explosive storage sites. No base will put solar around or near their flightline. You may be able to put solar on some buildings but not all. You will also never see solar certain types of aircraft shelters/hangers.

 

[ArcticStation]

The military has been looking at renewables for some time to help solve daunting logistical challenges. Today's military consumes enormous volumes of petroleum based fuels. Getting fuel to ships at sea, to ground forces deployed overseas at remote areas and to aircraft operating from austere locations is not only expensive, it is often done via a fragile supply chain that could easily be disrupted.

So what is being done? As sited above, solar is one potential avenue. Some are more innovative and are in the early stages of R&D, but imagine being able to capture carbon to produce fuel via the technology outlined below:

The Air Force Has A Plan To Make Jet Fuel Out Of Thin Air

A new carbon transformation process could be game-changing for the Air Force, which spends billions annually to buy fuel and ship it around the world.

www.thedrive.com

I'm sure there are other initiatives being investigated to help solve the military's logistical challenges, but it won't surprise me if some of them end up benefiting all of us.

 

[MontyFloyd]

You cannot put solar on munitions storage igloos.

I did not say on the bunkers, the area that between the bunkers.
As to space requirements, is there a document with requirements you can link to?

 

[ThomasD]

555.218 Table of distances for storage of explosive materials (high) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

B = Barricaded U = Unbarricaded Quantity of Explosives - Pounds over Quantity of Explosives - Pounds not over Inhabited Buildings - Barricaded Inhabited Buildings - Unbarricaded Public highways with traffic volume 3000 or fewer vehicles/day - Barricaded Public highways with traffic volume 3000...

www.atf.gov

 

[ThomasD]

https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/DODMAN/605509-M-V1.pdf

 

[MontyFloyd]

555.218 Table of distances for storage of explosive materials (high) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

B = Barricaded U = Unbarricaded Quantity of Explosives - Pounds over Quantity of Explosives - Pounds not over Inhabited Buildings - Barricaded Inhabited Buildings - Unbarricaded Public highways with traffic volume 3000 or fewer vehicles/day - Barricaded Public highways with traffic volume 3000...

www.atf.gov

This chart list Inhabited buildings or active roadways. The 605509-M-V1.pdf is guide about handling AE and power of explosives, and acceptable practices. Nether mention limits to non-Inhabited structures, nor limits to how long a patrol unit can be in area.
A QRA could be forwarded that installing PV in some areas in proximity to AGM would be acceptable.

 

[ThomasD]

Slide the bar at the bottom of the page

555.218 Table of distances for storage of explosive materials (high) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

B = Barricaded U = Unbarricaded Quantity of Explosives - Pounds over Quantity of Explosives - Pounds not over Inhabited Buildings - Barricaded Inhabited Buildings - Unbarricaded Public highways with traffic volume 3000 or fewer vehicles/day - Barricaded Public highways with traffic volume 3000...

www.atf.gov

 

[ThomasD]

Chapter 9

(PDF) DOD AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY STANDARDS - … · and cancels DoD 6055.9-STD, “DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards,” October 5, 2004. It establishes uniform safety - DOKUMEN.TIPS

DoD 6055.09-STD DOD AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY STANDARDS February 29, 2008 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) Report Documentation…

dokumen.tips

 

[MontyFloyd]

Slide the bar at the bottom of the page

555.218 Table of distances for storage of explosive materials (high) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

B = Barricaded U = Unbarricaded Quantity of Explosives - Pounds over Quantity of Explosives - Pounds not over Inhabited Buildings - Barricaded Inhabited Buildings - Unbarricaded Public highways with traffic volume 3000 or fewer vehicles/day - Barricaded Public highways with traffic volume 3000...

www.atf.gov

Chapter 9

(PDF) DOD AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY STANDARDS - … · and cancels DoD 6055.9-STD, “DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards,” October 5, 2004. It establishes uniform safety - DOKUMEN.TIPS

DoD 6055.09-STD DOD AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY STANDARDS February 29, 2008 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) Report Documentation…

dokumen.tips

Everything here is summed up in

C1.1. GENERAL

C1.1.1. These explosive safety standards (hereafter referred to as “Standards”) are issued
under the authority of DoD Directive 6055.9E (Reference (a)). These Standards are designed to
manage risks associated with DoD-titled ammunition and explosives (AE) by providing
protection criteria to minimize serious injury, loss of life, and damage to property.

This does not prohibit building anything within the blast radius, (referring to first post only another magazine quote "Separation of magazines" (thus excludes all other structures), this is to insure there is no chain reaction of one magazine setting of another.
PV are inert. Worst that could happen is a number of panels are damaged/destroyed (assuming no personnel in area by chance).

Put in another way, if the base wants to install structures such as security cameras and even the specifically mentioned barricades, there is no issue.

Yes, in the incredibly unlikely case of an AGM exposition there will be loss, but not a chain reaction of panels blowing up.

There is a specific mention of power grids:
C6.5. ELECTRIC SUPPLY SYSTEMS which limits to 50ft minimum from the Magazine and buried, there is no prohibition outside of that radius.

Back to my earlier example here, there are clusters of AGM that are separated 2000ft (!). Lets be generous and have a 200ft exclusion zone around the AGM cluster, what is left is a 1600 ft wide strip of land that is unused, 15840 foot long (can be 21120 ft if one wants to stretch it), 2,5344,000 sq ft of usable land.
And that is just 1 small strip of land.

I do not see anything in the document that prohibits installing a PV array within 50ft radius as long as the power cables are burred (lets go with 200ft to add extra safety but still have plenty of useable land).

Maybe I missed something, so please be very specific as to what sub section you refer to.

 

[MontyFloyd]

And it is happening, the US DoD is building solar arrays.

Army floating solar array is the largest floating system in the Southeast

WASHINGTON – The Hon. Rachel Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, will participate in a ribbon-cutting e...

www.army.mil

 

[MontyFloyd]

Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos to build 99-acre solar project for emergencies

Once built, the system will ensure the base can serve millions of Orange County and Los Angeles County residents during an emergency, officials said. Its airfield could remain in use for bringing i…

www.ocregister.com

A side note, I used to training on this base, very good use of extra land.
A bit of reminiscing.

 

[dipper]

For God shake. The President screaming for Green doesn't own an EV or have solar panels on his home.

The WH should also be covered in solar panels and have EVs everywhere.

Walk the Walk. Just too much talking and no walking.

Not until the leader leads, the army sits.