Comments on: U.S. Army Launches Plan to Make All Military Bases Net Zero

By: Bobs

Bobs — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:34:53 +0000

Didnt know the forum rules allowed such briillnat posts.

By: chris offspring

chris offspring — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:05:10 +0000

So you don’t see the benefits of having a tent that is run by sunlight (which doesn’t need to be refilled) instead of a UPS (which needs to be refilled)?
And you don’t see the benefits of tanks running on hydrogen, which you can produce by “using” sunlight with water? Here the alternative would again be gasoline or diesel which lets those tanks depend on oil. Hydrogen can be produced everywhere as long as “everywhere” means “there is water and sunlight nearby”. Means you can “refill” much easier if the need arises and you are not that dependend on supply lines (side effect: those supply lines are cheaper because you don’t have to transport that much “liquid energy”).

The agenda doesn’t allways have to be about “green” even if it’s sold as such to the public.

And normally the military drives technological advancements a lot more than the consumer segment does. We wouldn’t have GPS if it wasn’t for the military (just to give an example, but there are plenty more).

By: Erdling

Erdling — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:18:20 +0000

Generally speaking, when it comes to a “green product”, there are two sides of the term “green”: (1) impact on environment, (2) impact on human health.

With the military obviously being not so good for human health (since it is designed to take people’s lives), now making it good for the environment doesn’t make much sense. It’s like adding sugar to Mercury in the attempt to make the heavily toxic metal better. Or engraving a smiley on a bullet.