Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

What will happen when the world's armies run out of oil?

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 5:21am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,166 posts

Knight

A military moves more then it stays in place, Signor Nich. The ships, the planes, the tanks, the trucks, what about them?

It's all a matter of Googling. Why dont you do it yourself?
The U.S. military, the nation’s single largest oil consumer, wants to wean itself from petroleum, and is deploying its immense buying power and authority to commercialize nascent technologies deemed to be in the national interest.
The Navy, which aims to get half of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, has been buying biofuels in small but expensive quantities, as in four times the cost of conventional fuels. Earlier this year the Pentagon invoked the Defense Production Act to solicit proposals to build at least one integrated biorefinery with $210 million in government funding. The biofuel buy has outraged some congressional Republicans, who are attempting to bar the military from purchasing any fuel that costs more than petroleum.

The US already has a Great Green Fleet, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and a strike force of 71 jet fighters, helicopters and transport planes is powered by a 50 50 mix of algae, cookin oil and conventional fuel.

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 8:55am

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

Also it will take 34% more ethanol than petrol to travel the same distance.
US military uses 360000 barrels of petrol daily
so it will be 360000X1.34 = 482400 barrels of ethanol to operate on same effeciency.
482400 barrels = 14954400 gallons
It takes 26.1 lb of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol.
So,   14954400 gallons will take :
                                                14954400 gallons X 26.1=390309840lbs
                                                 
USA produced 12.1 billion bushel corn in 2008 (could not find newer results.)
or  307.34 billion kg of corn
or 677.37 billiob lbs
1 bushel corn = 25.4 kg
677.37 billion lbs will produce   26 billion gallons of ethanol
which will suffice
1738 days or
4.76 years.
@ enigma, it is b/w me and them, you don't need to get wrecked about it.
As for m1 abrams,
RPG- 29
Metis m
Kornet
MILAN
H-J 8

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 9:02am

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

Ethanol powered aircraft. It's feasible.

We are not i say it again NOT talking about agricultural air crafts, we are talking about bombers and dog fighters, with fuel tanks built for petrol.
No land vehicles can be mcguyverd to carry extra fuel.
But with air crafts, its very very hard.
So, if a plane has a 3 hours operational time on petrol it will have a two hrs operational time on ethanol.
P.S I know planes don't use petrol, they use jet fuel.

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 6:17pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Ethanol powered aircraft. It's feasible.

An agricultural aircraft, with a loaded wait of 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)? Now lets compare it to a small military aircraft, some of the smallest are drones. The MQ-9 Reaper, a small drone, is 10,500 lbs, almost three times that of the small plane. A standard F16 us  26,500 lb (12,000 kg)fully loaded. And a bomber, like the B-2A? 336,500 lb (152,200 kg) fully loaded, a hundred times that of the little plane there. It would be like saying "Helicopters can run on electricity with our current technology *Points toward remote control helicopter*"

It's all a matter of Googling. Why dont you do it yourself?
The U.S. military, the nation’s single largest oil consumer, wants to wean itself from petroleum, and is deploying its immense buying power and authority to commercialize nascent technologies deemed to be in the national interest.
The Navy, which aims to get half of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, has been buying biofuels in small but expensive quantities, as in four times the cost of conventional fuels. Earlier this year the Pentagon invoked the Defense Production Act to solicit proposals to build at least one integrated biorefinery with $210 million in government funding. The biofuel buy has outraged some congressional Republicans, who are attempting to bar the military from purchasing any fuel that costs more than petroleum.

The US already has a Great Green Fleet, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and a strike force of 71 jet fighters, helicopters and transport planes is powered by a 50 50 mix of algae, cookin oil and conventional fuel.

It isn't going to be ready for several more years, but it does show that it is possible to run ships on it (Although considering one of the things is "Nuclear power", I wouldn't be surprised if it worked.

Though I am pretty sure that the conventional fuel is for the planes, I have never heard of one that big working on biofuel.

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 6:22pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

To clarify the last post, the planes on the "Great Green Fleet" are powered by a mixture of bio fuel and jet fuel, from you source, which is feasible depending on how much jet fuel there is, however in the case of this happening, it would still be impossible to use planes like that.

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 9:10pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,166 posts

Knight

The planes do use a mix of biofuel and conventional fuel:

ABOARD THE USS NIMITZ " As a Royal Australian Navy helicopter lands on the ABOARD THE USS NIMITZ " As a Royal Australian Navy helicopter lands on the deck of the USS Nimitz on Wednesday, two American destroyers, a cruiser and a fuel ship are steaming alongside the aircraft carrier some 100 miles north of Oahu. The ships in the carrier strike group and the 71 aircraft on the deck of the Nimitz, including fighter jets, helicopters and transports, are all running on a 50-50 mix of petroleum and biofuel derived from algae and used cooking oil. In fact, the Aussie Sikorsky Seahawk is the only military machine except the nuclear-fueled Nimitz not powered by biofuels.
But as Rear Admiral Tim Barrett of the Royal Australian Navy greets U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, deck workers run a fuel line to the helicopter and began pumping the biofuel blend produced by Solazyme and Dynamic into the Seahawk. Minutes later, Barrett and Mabus sign a statement of cooperation pledging the two nation’s navies to collaborate on biofuels research and deployment.

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 9:27pm

EnigmaX

EnigmaX

100 posts

@ enigma, it is b/w me and them, you don't need to get wrecked about it.

Except that basic civility towards others is everyone's concern.

RPG- 29

Aside from an insurgent propaganda video on Youtube, the onlt trustworthy documentation I could find showed that an RPG-29 reportedly injured several tank crewmen of a British Challenger. Important to note that this was not against an A2, and that there are no documented penetrations of an RPG-29 penetrating the depleted uranium composite armor of the A2.

Metis m

Only documentation I could find was, according to the IDF, it had caused damage to Israeli Merkavak Mark III tanks in the 2006 Lebanon war. Russia has denied this. It is important to note that the Merkahvah is relatively outdated, and its speculated that it will be discontinued within the next five years.

Kornet

The Kornet is credited with disabling two A1s and one Bradely IFV vehicle in the opening week of the war. The losses werent permanent, and no crew members were killed.

The sources I checked aggree that the Kornet can ideally penetrate around 1250mm of steel. The M1A1, according to this site here, the M1A1 that saw combat in Desert Storm had the steel quivalent of 1300-1600 mm of steel. Furthermore, from the same site, Iraqi T-70s engaged several M1A1s at very close ranges, and multiple hits failed to penetrate the armor.

MILAN

The last technical update was over 15 years ago, Its in the process of being fazed out and replaced, and theres no documentation of it being used against any western MBTs. Or any Western nations, for that matter.

H-J 8

Average of 800-1000mm steel penetration, which isnt enough to penetrate A1 chemical equivalent thickness of armor. May be if you hit the track you could hope to disable the tank temporarily, but you're not going to pop the turret off in a glorious fireball.

Short of DU penetrators and airborne munitions, the best an infantryman can hope to do is disable the tank. The Abrams has a stellar record in survivability, and another stellar record in crew survivability should the armor be compromised. And when you consider that A2s are being upgraded with TUSK, and that the A3 is due to come out in 2017, the Abrams will take just about anything you throw at it, and then it will run over you.

We are not i say it again NOT talking about agricultural air crafts, we are talking about bombers and dog fighters, with fuel tanks built for petrol.

Which is why I said "feasible" and not "hay guize we kan doo dis rite naow!" Yes, I can read; I know that its a cropduster. But if you think back a bit to your "America will lose its airforce" argument, this shows that ethanol-powered flight is perfectly viable. Consider the various defense contractors who would stand to gain a lot of money from developing a militarized version? If America needs an airforce, it will have an airforce, come hell or high water.

An agricultural aircraft, with a loaded wait of 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)? Now lets compare it to a small military aircraft, some of the smallest are drones. The MQ-9 Reaper, a small drone, is 10,500 lbs, almost three times that of the small plane. A standard F16 us  26,500 lb (12,000 kg)fully loaded. And a bomber, like the B-2A? 336,500 lb (152,200 kg) fully loaded, a hundred times that of the little plane there. It would be like saying "Helicopters can run on electricity with our current technology *Points toward remote control helicopter*"

Oh silly me. I thought we could just throw bushels of corn into the air intakes of a Harrier jumpjet! Or that the US would actually buy a Brazilian cropduster as a viable military alternative!

Thats what I obviously must have been thinking, because its absosolutely ridiculous to expect that the most powerful nation on Earth would take a concept and then design their own aircraft based on their own needs is ridiculos.

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 10:32pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Which is why I said "feasible" and not "hay guize we kan doo dis rite naow!" Yes, I can read; I know that its a cropduster. But if you think back a bit to your "America will lose its airforce" argument, this shows that ethanol-powered flight is perfectly viable. Consider the various defense contractors who would stand to gain a lot of money from developing a militarized version? If America needs an airforce, it will have an airforce, come hell or high water.

Fine. We will have crop dusters as an air force, if you really want it. It would probably be more efficient to use the fuel for rockets, anyway, since you wouldn't need a round trip.

Oh silly me. I thought we could just throw bushels of corn into the air intakes of a Harrier jumpjet! Or that the US would actually buy a Brazilian cropduster as a viable military alternative!

Glad I cleared that up.

Thats what I obviously must have been thinking, because its absosolutely ridiculous to expect that the most powerful nation on Earth would take a concept and then design their own aircraft based on their own needs is ridiculos.

Of course. After all, if that where true we would have electric helicopters. Maybe we could just throw the planes? After all, it works fine for a paper airplane.

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 11:45pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Aside from an insurgent propaganda video on Youtube, the onlt trustworthy documentation I could find showed that an RPG-29 reportedly injured several tank crewmen of a British Challenger. Important to note that this was not against an A2, and that there are no documented penetrations of an RPG-29 penetrating the depleted uranium composite armor of the A2.

Actually, I found a source like this while researching for my RPG (The role playing kind. RPG for an RPG.) There was a New York times article, a short paragraph, that states an m1 was damaged. That is probably what he is talking about.

 

Posted Sep 11, '12 at 3:52pm

SonOfVader

SonOfVader

113 posts

How about we all scrap our militaries and use the remaining oil on something useful, like helping to develop third world countries?

 
Reply to What will happen when the world's armies run out of oil?

You must be logged in to post a reply!