US Army Embraces "EV Future" With New Electric Hummer

On Earth Day (Apr. 22), President Biden stated, "every vehicle in the United States military is going to be climate-friendly." He said, "we're spending billions of dollars to do it."

Months later, the U.S. Army bought a 2022 Hummer EV pickup from General Motors' subsidiary GM Defense, Detroit Free Press reported.

https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/us-army-embraces-ev-future-new-electric-hummer

What does PrepHole think about an all electric military? Will it work?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    gay & dumb

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i mean it kind of has to, at a point.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"every vehicle in the United States military is going to be climate-friendly."
    Yeah

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Every US weapon of war is climate-friendly since it offsets the carbon used in its creation by killing people who would otherwise pollute and have polluting kids.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What happens when the power plants are hit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      electricity is easier to generate than fossil fuels if infrastructure gets taken down. it's not that long ago that a fucking pipeline got hacked

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >electricity is easier to generate than fossil fuels

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it literally is
          do you know how much expertise, labor, maintance, and infrastructure goes into one oil refinery?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you fucking retarded?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ladies and gentlemen, we have finally uncovered the identity of the notorious Retard of Kyiv. Allegedly, responsible for single-handedly killing 300 gorillion vatnik brain cells.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not when you're off grid in the middle of a war

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is also much harder to store. And producing it at the point you need it, in sufficient quantities, is not easy either.
        You'd have a point if we were considering a purely defensive war, and the entire primary energy was supplied by PV, wind and water (with suitable storage batteries all around to make up for its impermanence). You could just drive up to any house with a full battery, confiscate the energy under martial law, recharge your vehicle, drive on. No way any enemy could destroy all of those.
        But as it is, the energy infrastucture very much isn't like that and most of our wars are on foreign ground (thank god). So your statement is very much wrong.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it literally is
        do you know how much expertise, labor, maintance, and infrastructure goes into one oil refinery?

        The US barely keeps its own electric grid properly maintained to the point where the underground cables, which yes we still use, have a slime mystery substance enveloping them for miles because nobody cleans that shit and only does repair work.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >slime mystery substance

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >slime mystery substance

            Its from the plastic coverings on wires from the 1960's decaying. Its toxic and a skin irritant. Honestly there are several better examples he could have used that are far worse.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the U.S. Army bought a 2022 Hummer EV pickup
        The DoD bought one of these shit piles at the direction of the Biden regime so that they could make this press release. They ate not going to use those crap piles for any military purpose, other than maybe base taxis. This is not how procurement works

        >electricity is easier to generate than fossil fuels
        Literal retard sounding off on energy

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >easier to generate with no infrastructure
        lmao you clearly are talking shit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is conservation of energy?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >pipeline got hacked
        Akshually that was only their billing/sales software. They could still deliver and pump at full capacity, they just couldn't bill anyone for their liquid garden gnome, so they stopped operations.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >electricity is easier to generate than fossil fuels if infrastructure gets taken down
        Not when plants use fossil fuel

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      recharge with diesel generators

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Giant hamster wheel with genetically enlarged hamster or a lot of normal hamster wheels with normal hamsters

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >giant li battery in combat vehicle

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t-72 cosplay

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mine explosions doesn't destroy vehicle
      >dents battery
      >car burns up 300 meters later

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As opposed to a gas tank and huge fucking motor? Ya'll are stuck in the past. Electric motors have more torque and better effeciency, and you swap a bunch of gear out (motor and transmission) for a battery that's getting lighter and stronger every year. Think about the space savings in the vehicle alone. If you're worried about the battery blowing up well what the fuck do you expect in combat? No more gas to catch fire, no more oil, battery can be put into an armored case with blowoff just like ammo which you're also presumably carrying.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >y'all
        stop being a libshit. No southerner on the internet uses "y'all". It's insulting to pretend you live south of the mason-dixon line you yankee fuck

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I live in california lolol fuck the south

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I live In california

            Well that explains quite a bit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Catch monkeypox and get stabbed by an illegal.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As opposed to a gas tank and huge fucking motor? Ya'll are stuck in the past. Electric motors have more torque and better effeciency, and you swap a bunch of gear out (motor and transmission) for a battery that's getting lighter and stronger every year. Think about the space savings in the vehicle alone. If you're worried about the battery blowing up well what the fuck do you expect in combat? No more gas to catch fire, no more oil, battery can be put into an armored case with blowoff just like ammo which you're also presumably carrying.

            >t. pretends to be black in arguments

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >think about the space savings

        Which there will be none, because the entire vehicle will be batteries to be able to match the weight and range requirements.
        Combat vehicles are heavy, batteries are heavy. It’s a bad mix.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        fuck it rkm

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Think about the space savings
        >make a 70ton tank
        >40 tons of it are battery

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >tanks
          The logistical burden of tanks is extreme, and is a major limitation for where they can be deployed. An M1 Abrams consumes about 13x as much fuel per mile as a semi hauling a trailer. A tank that weighs as much as an MBT with the capabilities of a light tank, but didn't have the logistical burden of a normal tank would definitely have its benefits.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A tank weighs 70 tons because that’s what is needed for the capabilities that it has, that’s without using heavy, large batteries.
            If you tried to match those capabilities with batteries the tank you’d end up with would weigh much more and be much larger, and if you want to keep it the same size and weight then it’s range would be lucky to hit double digits.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That's why I specified the capabilities of a light tank you dumb fuck. Reread my post.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                “Light” tanks are still heavy, dumb fuck, and the comparison remains.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >still failing to comprehend my post

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >still failing to understand energy density

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gettin closer

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ran on gas though

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, pure electric
        It's got a hydrogen generator in the engine compartment that converts water into electricity for the 4 electric motors powering the wheels

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you dumb moron, warthogs ran on hydrogen fuel cells. 343 just made them sound like v8s cus 343 is as dumb as a frightened moron.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The warthog uses a 12.0L, liquid-cooled hydrogen-injected ICE, which is different from a fuel cell. The chemical reaction powering the car is hydrogen combustion. H2 + 02 = H20. It's basically a combustion engine and it would sound like one.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >343 just made them sound like v8s cus 343 is as dumb as a frightened moron.
          God that pissed me off. The Warthog sound effects were perfectly fine, and then along comes Halo 4 and the thing is LOUD AS FUCK.
          >"...Okay, maybe it's just cuz these went through a big shipwreck."
          >3hrs later
          >"No.. no they should not sound like this."

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hydrogen gas, to be precise.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh cool, a Puma.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Stop making up animals

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Kinda looks like that Chupa thingy.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Leftism is a mental ilness.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >climate-friendly warfare
    i don't think they are conceptually or practically compatible

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      On the contrary, genocidal eco-war is the only practical way we'll solve the climate problem with our current level of technology.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        climate problem isn't real

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    While all-electric is a retarded fantasy POL consumption reductions are of immense strategic value. However on PrepHole no one cares so the discussion is a waste of time.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lmaoooooooooooooooo have fun with battery fires ameribros

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      those are Hispanics, moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Looks like an average American "white" to me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have never seen a humanoid turtle before. This is the future of personal military armor, you just tuck into your shell.

      I don't know about hummers, but electric buggies and bikes certainly have a place in the military.

      Agreed. Fast attack and scout vehicles would definitely benefit.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ukrainian ebikes have been defeating russian tanks everyday, electric is the future

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Increases the electricity demands of every fob in existence
      No way this couldn't go wrong.
      Unless they revive that micro Nuclear reactor concept or something. Which I'd be all for.

      There's a pretty big difference between an E-Bike and a Hummer my guy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is this another Ghost of Kiev thing?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, they're actually rolling around on e bikes and soft skin humvees shooting tanks and doing drivebys on Ruskies like a Chicago summer night.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you for confirming this is a Ghost of kiev thing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A barefoot afghani once destroyed a tank
      Pack it up the military future is without vehicles

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a rock once destroyed the dinosaurs
        life is obsolete, welcome to eternal rock meta

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >we're spending billions of dollars
    The only believable statement.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Will it run on the asshurt of soldiers?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >not pictured
    >300lb 40kw genny and 100 gallons of diesel

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know about hummers, but electric buggies and bikes certainly have a place in the military.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I drive a car that was built before 9/11, and so do a lot of other Americans, just trying to get by. The fuck you think this is gonna do other than piss us off?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/KPstA5I.jpg

      On Earth Day (Apr. 22), President Biden stated, "every vehicle in the United States military is going to be climate-friendly." He said, "we're spending billions of dollars to do it."

      Months later, the U.S. Army bought a 2022 Hummer EV pickup from General Motors' subsidiary GM Defense, Detroit Free Press reported.

      https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/us-army-embraces-ev-future-new-electric-hummer

      What does PrepHole think about an all electric military? Will it work?

      Forgot to add;
      I’M FROM LITERAL MOTOR CITY

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would the vehicles used by the military piss you off? What?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I’m not saying it actually DOES piss me off, I’m saying that this blatant propaganda is TRYING to piss us off. The auto industry has always been a sensitive topic famalam

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          so you're a baby.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re a mixed race mutt so idrc

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Absolute retardation and it won't be done either.
    >Much heavier than gasoline - doesn't matter terribly much for civilians, matters a whole damn lot for the army
    >Harder to refuel quickly - takes half an hour at least
    >Harder to store the energy - this goes basically in line with the first point. You'd need batteries on your logistic dump, batteries on your supply trucks, all that nonsense
    And there's no point about the environment either. If you want to subsidize EV - fucking do it in the civilian sector where the concept fits the requirements of the users far better.

    That said, I think Diesel-Electric vehicles offer tons of advantages and it's a matter of time until every combat vehicle and maybe even some supply trucks are equipped with it. The biggest advantage is that it can do wading under rivers and lakes of any depth. This is potentially useful offensively (if the river ground and the banks are suitable), but much more so in defense when you can prepare suitable "underwater bridges" in advance. Imagine ukraine had prepared the dnepr at kherson in such a way, and had EV vehicles - they could destroy the bridges and still be able to cross the river afterwards - at places the russians wouldn't even expect, if they keep the underwater cortridors properly hidden.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > I think Diesel-Electric vehicles offer tons of advantages and it's a matter of time until every combat vehicle and maybe even some supply trucks are equipped with it. The biggest advantage is that it can do wading under rivers and lakes of any depth.

      How is an engine going to work underwater?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Drives with the batteries underwater.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That’s a hybrid not diesel-electric drive

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The same way always have
        You can get a fording kit for nearly any offroad vehicle these days

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I fully see hybrids being a thing for sure, electric motors can just manage so much more torque.
      I highly doubt it will go full electric on anything heavy though.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The physical limit of battery energy density might be interesting in that regard. If it's close enough to gasoline to offset the need for engine+generator, full battery vehicles might exist at some point.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not sure what you mean. There already are fully battery powered cars. Are you implying capacitors?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The reason full battery vehicles make sense for civilian vehicles and not for military vehicles right now is that civilian vehicles can tolerate higher weights (and also longer charging times). Energy density of batteries will probably increase in the future, but for a chemical battery of a given material combination there's a hard physical limit. If that limit is sufficiently high - (we can never rule out new material combinations or entirely new technologies) one could hope for full electric vehicles in the military in the future. And full electric planes for that matter.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              But tanks, APCs and such are already very heavy. We already have electric engines in semi trailers that haul heavy loads. Charging times for batteries also don't matter if you make them hot swappable. There already are fully electric drones in use, too.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Military vehicles already weigh a shitload, there is no possible way to electrify them with batteries and still keep them the same weight or size and maintain the same performance. It’s not even close.
                There are ZERO electric semi trucks used for transportation of goods, batteries aren’t dense enough to provide any meaningful range when hauling immense weight any kind of distance, up any kind of grade, no matter what Tesla says about their gay semi truck.
                The new f150 lightnings range dropped by over 2/3s when towing, that should give you a clue about what would happen to the already overweight and short ranged Abrams let alone what it would do to the range of logistics vehicles themselves.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I can foresee a future where we can hold densities similar to gasoline in cells that produce electricity for sure, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to create an electric jet engine. It is only really energy dumping to be fair so maybe it's not so hard if we had the batteries for it.
              Apparently some people are trying though: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/07/wright-tests-its-2-megawatt-electric-engines-for-passenger-planes/
              They're not even circular but flat along the wing, I could fully see them being even more stealth compatible than current jets to be honest, but at the same time the battery issue is still a battery one.

              I hate boomers that cling to fossil fuel only engines though, because they're been propagandised into an identity by the fuel lobby to the point that they mock people with hybrids which can be just better overall.
              If we can move to pure electric absolutely I would due to the fact that I can make it myself in my backyard, but we won't any time soon really.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but I'm not sure how easy it would be to create an electric jet engine
                A big constraint is the energy density of the batteries, especially for the bigger planes. Airbus's plan so far involves hybrid planes (say with just one or two electric engines) or hydrogen ones.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It sucks how there are no window seats on the blended body jetliner.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no window seats
                >but entire floor is made of glass

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If it's close enough to gasoline to offset the need for engine+generator, full battery vehicles might exist at some point.
          batteries only need to get to be about 25 times more dense

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if the river ground and the banks are suitable
      Of course you could just make them suitable. Set/shoot a few charges at the banks to create a slope if there is none, send an engineering tank to clear the ground and the rest of the slopes. (The engineering tank may need extra snorkeling equipment, or just a power line to a supporting tank). It's like a ponton bridge, but much quicker to make and the enemy cannot destroy it.

      You could also have the vehicles hide underwater for a certain time - potentially very long, if you equip them with power cables to some generator hidden nearby.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Much heavier than gasoline - doesn't matter terribly much for civilians, matters a whole damn lot for the army
      What matters are the cost, range, speed, handling, vulnerability, reliability, maintability and lifespan. If your electric vehicle weighs 400kg more but has the same range and same speed and is no easier to destroy, no less reliable and no harder to handle, it doesn't matter that it weighs more. These mostly aren't true at the moment but EVs are catching up and military R&D could help that along.
      In some niche cases the quieter engine could also be an advantage.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shut up moron I won’t help fund you’re garden gnome ass parasitic project or your chink buttmonkeys.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      electric with an engine as a generator would suit the military very well. Increased efficiency means easing up supply lines, also a far decreased heat signature and sound signature

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is easily the right way forward, and if by some miracle the futurists are correct that the greatest most lightweight and energy dense batteries are right around the corner, well then the diesel electric vehicles could easily be converted.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They could make each part very modular, a battery space that can easily accommodate a battery swap in the future should batteries get to the point of operating independently, and an engine area which can just be removed entirely if needed and turned to storage or something.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    electric icbm when

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Electron has electric pumps
      and yes they dump the batteries in the ocean

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Those batteries are going to be reused soon. RocketLab is pretty close to reclaiming the first stage on every flight. CORONA style

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    electric no but there are massive military advantages to using a hybrid even if it's a couple of minutes of power stored in li-ion form.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know Denel, a South African company, was messing with hybrid recon vehicles - idea being that it transits with a conventional engine and then when it's in the operational area it goes onto super sneaky electric mode. Ended up dying because it was so fucking expensive.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        when was this?
        i know its being done now for aerial drones. combustion engines are far more mass efficient but li-ion powered drones are far more quiet which enables them to get far closer to the enemy before they hear any buzzing sound in the air. so if you want both long range and to get close to the enemy covertly you need a hybrid (also redundant engines help reliability, if one breaks you can use the other and get home)

        by the way this is the reason that many loitering munitions use electric engines. buzzing sound is bad for drones but especially bad for munitions as it enables the enemy to take cover so electric engines are a massive advantage.

        [...]
        That makes more sense, hybrids have good fuel economy and are far lighter than full electrical vehicles. It doesn't seem like a solution that scales well to these types vehicles

        the EV pickup in OP? it will probably never leave the US and will be used to drive important officers around.
        as for heavy vehicles it is scalable, you can have a tank that can drive around for 30 secs on electric power (before the main turbine and generator ramp up) so when it stops it can turn off the noisy,IR generating engine and still retain full mobility and ability to direct the turret. also in general a lot of the waste with military vehicles is just guzzling gas while idling in place which is not a problem if they turn hybrid + they'll get savings from regenerative breaking.

        army vehicles going hybrid are about
        >reducing noise
        >reducing IR emissions
        >having far more electric power on board for electric power demands which are ever increasing with fancy new equipment being put into service constantly

        imagine the ukranian ATGM electric bike (which is silent and cold) dragoons but on a far larger scale and they can recharge their bikes at any tank,apc or mrap

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >imagine the ukranian ATGM electric bike (which is silent and cold) dragoons but on a far larger scale and they can recharge their bikes at any tank,apc or mrap
          I'm imagining recon units consisting of a heavily armed IFV and 4 dismounts riding e bikes that can be strapped to the side of the IFV for charging while driving between AOs.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >waste with military vehicles is just guzzling gas while idling in place which is not a problem if they turn hybrid
          This seem plausible, tanks seem like something that would generally be inefficient when idling

          > they'll get savings from regenerative breaking.
          Doesn't sound even remotely plausible. Tanks don't roll any distance without engine power, it's to inefficient

          >reducing noise
          >reducing IR emissions
          >having far more electric power on board for electric power demands which are ever increasing with fancy new equipment being put into service constantly
          Hybrid tanks would have all of these advantages, at least some time. It's implausible that they would have it for more than 20 minutes at a time or so, unless they shoot themselves in the foot with adding too much weight in batteries

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know Denel, a South African company, was messing with hybrid recon vehicles - idea being that it transits with a conventional engine and then when it's in the operational area it goes onto super sneaky electric mode. Ended up dying because it was so fucking expensive.

      That makes more sense, hybrids have good fuel economy and are far lighter than full electrical vehicles. It doesn't seem like a solution that scales well to these types vehicles

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >hybrids have good fuel economy

        Not really in such vehicles

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I guessed correctly then, but it is worse than diesel?

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    might be a liability in a real war

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I dont see this as a bad thing for POGs, like driving around a base and shit seems like the ideal use for EVs. Now if you're trying to invade a country, I could see that becoming a real problem

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"every vehicle in the United States military is going to be climate-friendly."
    Probably at the cost of robustness and reliability.
    >"we're spending billions of dollars to do it."
    Of this, I have no doubt. Probably will be of by a letter though.
    >What does PrepHole think about an all electric military? Will it work?
    To the gays in charge, I say: "Enjoy your weaponized EM surges, gays"

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wish this wasnt a thing, it will literally kill our military if they do this

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why?
    I'd understand a hummer with the normal Diesel engine driving the front axles and an electric motor on the rear axles that can be cut in when full 4x4 is needed but this is retarded.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Could be useful for how the vehicle is arranged internally:
    >heavy batteries at the bottom, meaning it will be less likely to tip over even with heavy weapons on top
    >no transmission tunnel in the middle, wide and open interior space
    >high torque and acceleration like every EV
    >fewer parts, less maintenance
    Maybe not with the current tech, but I could see it in 10-15 years.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Being designed already (as a tech demonstrator, not a service-ready vehicle).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's a FCHEV though, not a BEV/PHEV, I believe?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's diesel-electric, with supposedly 50-150km electric range. Every wheel has its own motor, no steering mechanism except by velocity differential.

          whats with the huge pointy front section? is it supposed to be a fast amphibious vehicle?

          No idea. It's not amphibic and it doesn't say anything about wading either.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        whats with the huge pointy front section? is it supposed to be a fast amphibious vehicle?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, they are using it to test MGCS systems. Apparently they want it to have hybrid propulsion.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In addition
      >great offroad capacity, see:

      >V2X capabilities as a portable generator for other systems.
      Imagine having an APC with its own mini-kitchen like a Rivian truck.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the production of this so disastrous, that those who pre-ordered might wait 5 years for it?

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is so retarded i can't even. Imagine fucking getting bombed on base and you can't evacuate the vehicles because you need to charge the fucking battery first witch fucking charger that lasts for ages. What's next? Eco friendly tanks? Is us military gonna build electric chargers everywhere?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Is us military gonna build electric chargers everywhere?

      Sounds like a plan of neo-Roman empire

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >US and forces OEM manufacturers in Mexico and China where most mass market cheapo EVs are built agree on standard EV charging standards
        >US pushes EV super hard clandestinely for both economic and security needs
        >China follows suit simply to make money
        >These chargers are found everywhere so most of the world becomes dependent on this infrastructure
        >US now doesn't have to worry about half of it's logistical challenges, just that it's vehicles have the needed charging cables on board
        >Enemies can't destroy this shit without also wrecking their own infrastructure

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's basically the same thing they did with GPS the fuckers

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's basically the same thing they did with GPS the fuckers

            Make your own shit then.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lol.. How the FUCK are they going to charge it in bumfucknowhere country?

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Remember the burn pit debacle in Iraq (desert storm or GWOT, whichever was fucking dudes up)? This is going the same way, except it'll be way worse due to all the nasty shit in a vehicle rated battery pack.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw It consumes biomass from the dead soldiers on the field
    Tasty

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't go in for partizan politics, I am a treehugger for practical purposes like not wanting to live in a nightmare world and because I like going innawoods. The fact that mainstream gayry has made it a 'left vs right' issue shouldn't mean squat to anyone with half a working brain.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry anon, the woods have been all cut down and replaced with solar panel farms

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Think about what you're saying and what leftist thing of woods and their effects on carbon sequestering before you post. If anything the leftist bugeaters will ban livestock, cease pastureland and build solar panels there.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *seize
          Fucking breakfast beers.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's a wealth of unused rooftops, parking lots, deserts. You might even place them above roads and train lines. Hell, in some dry areas, placing solar cells above fields can increase yield because they don't dry out as quickly.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >we can solar panel our way out of fossil fuels, no really guys, I'm super cereal
          Now all you need are an infinite number of batteries to store power for when the sun isn't shining, and an even greater number of open pit mines to get the minerals to make the solar panels and the batteries, and all the energy that is required to power the machines that mine the minerals to make the panels and the batteries

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Batteries can be made from salt these days (ya really). Too heavy for EV so not currently used commercially, still too expensive to provide operating reserve for the electric grid, but that may change. There are also ways to control demand - for example, industrial processes could be reorganized such that they only use large amounts of electric energy during daylight.
            Solar panels do not actually require a large amount of materials, and there's a lot of research how to replace the more rare ones.
            >muh infinite number
            Meanwhile at current, we are using an equally "infinite" number of drills, rigs, mining equipment, refinieries, etc. etc. etc. to supply our fossil fuel. Which will, I hope you're aware of that, run out eventually. So really, what exactly is your alternative? Nuclear maybe - though uranium won't last forever either, mining it is as much a hassle as mining solar cell materials, building nuclear plants is no easier than building solar cells and batteries. I'm all for pursuing both. People who are allergic to either and put all their money on the other are idiots.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Honestly, anyone interested in military matters, geostrategy etc. should be jumping at ways to get off fossil fuels. Lack of oil made the defeat of germany and japan much easier, availability of coal or lack of it made some european states powerhouses and others poorhouses during the 19th century. Lack of gas is currently giving europe and germany giant headaches in their confrontation with russia. Being dependent on a finite ressource is a liability for any strategist, and ways to get around it are a godsend. I never understood why it's a left wing thing, it should be a right wing thing just the same.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                because half of politics and especially these days is not about what should be done or solutions but posturing for social validation and tribalism regardless of whatever side you are on

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Germany’s current energy woes are caused by their own energy policy, the consequences of that is vulnerability that Russia is currently exploiting.

                Futurists don’t live in reality.
                A fully electric society isn’t possible with current technology and no you pie in the sky fantasists, it’s not just around the corner either.
                This kind of thinking is why Germany will be rationing their energy this winter.
                Because their green bullshit isn’t an adequate replacement for their own abundant coal reserves, their irrational fear of nuclear or for foreign Russian natural gas but they did it anyway and now their people will suffer.
                The best we can hope for electrification of military vehicles are diesel over electric, where the drive train is electric motors powered by a generator which is driven by a Diesel engine in conjunction with mild hybrid capability.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The degree that oil is "finite" is much more limited than the strain current electric fuel systems would place on design and expenditure. De-oiling static energy sources (the grid) is valuable because it means more liquid fuels for hefty military vehicles, and I agree that's a huge priority, and to some extent there are unique opportunities for aircraft to reduce fuel dependence, but trying to excise it from vehicles is counterproductive.
                Electrifying hummers might be viable because they are light vehicles, but they are supposed to be expeditionary. Someone already mentioned it here

                they must be pretty confident in that shipping container nuclear reactor lockheed was working on

                but the backdrop to such efforts is the attempt to bypass excessive battery storage with generating power "on the front-line" with portable micro-reactors. I don't like how much, tactical limitations this puts on the use of the new hummer, but maybe the strategic benefits are worth it.
                On the advantageous side it's electric so it'll be damn near silent, and it's easier to dramatically reduce the heat signature and exhaust. I've attached a comparison of what an electric car looks like under FLIR when driving versus a normal car. Besides dropping the necessary thermal exhaust that can give you away in some cases, the signature is much lower, even with commercial vehicles that aren't designed to put the hotter components inward, don't use specialized thermal paint, or use tires/tracks that disburse heat. With EV such vehicles can be invisible to FLIR in a way internal combustion can't, though there may be practical drawbacks as EW tools develop.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              you're an innumerate retard.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are all insults and no arguments.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                solar panels and batteries are made with fossil fuels,

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They're made with energy. Which is currently, mostly, supplied by fossile fuels, but need not be. (There was a period when solar cells could not possibly create more energy than was used in their production, and you would have been correct, but that's long over now).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There was a period when solar cells could not possibly create more energy than was used in their production, and you would have been correct, but that's long over now).
                proofs that its true?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Check any recent papers on the matter, I don't think even one of them considers an EROI below one, but calculating it in total is ridiculously complex. The metric is also strongly subjected to changes with future research, because there are no strong physical limits on how much energy has to go into a solar cell and how long it will last.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >(There was a period when solar cells could not possibly create more energy than was used in their production, and you would have been correct, but that's long over now).

                >There was a period when solar cells could not possibly create more energy than was used in their production, and you would have been correct, but that's long over now).
                proofs that its true?

                >proofs that its true?
                Also be sure add in the energy costs for the needed batteries for storage purposes including the complete life cycle costs for both (battery replacement, recycling, and disposals for both)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Solar Cells emit more IR radiation into the atmosphere than they “save” on CO2.
                They literally warm the earth more than if you just didn’t cover the earth with them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Source?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Basic Thermodynamics

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bullshit.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yup, it's BS. His logic dictates that fossil fuels are much worse since refineries run hotter and continuously emit hotter infrared waves. Adding CO2 will make it much hotter and will amplify it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stage 1 Denial.

                Global Warming happens the same way.
                It’s where the ground absorbs the sun’s energy.
                Then, they ground tries to release that energy by converting it into different forms of energy.
                One of that form is IR radiation, which is absorbed by CO2 particles and warms the atmosphere.
                This is the greenhouse effect.
                This is settled science.

                HOWEVER, this is all calculated based of the natural grounds ability to absorb Radiation and convert it into IR, heat, etc.
                What do you think happens when you cover the ground in something that is multiple times more absorbant of Solar Energy?

                You are doing the Thermodynamic equivalent of paving a large area of land over with asphalt, (another solar absorbant material), and claiming it will cool the earth.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What happens when you constantly emit infrared that is much more intense than a sun's heat on the ground? And on top of adding more and more CO2?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You would need a solar farm multiple times larger than an oil refinery to match its energy output.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And oil refineries will emit very bright and hot IR sources. So it's worse?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don’t know. I think it would be hard to say given how large a solar farm would need to be to match the energy density of an oil refinery.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Remember that they very hot IR compared to solar panels and they emit it continuously. And them releasing more and more CO2 will just makes it worse.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                First of all, that effect is minor since so is the share of world surface we intend to plaster with solar cells.
                Second, as I already explained, that effect is finite.

                Basic logic dictates that a certain extra amount of warmth produced by PV cells to produce energy is momentaneous and therfefore finite, while the effect of the saved CO2 is enduring and therefore infinite. I.e. if PV produces a bit of extra warmth now, the earth becomes a bit warmer until that warmth is emitted and the earth returns to equilibrium, but if instead CO2 was emitted to create the energy, earth would permanently become a little warmer.

                If you place a certain amount of solar cells, it will instantly raise earth temperature by a certain amount - and no more, all the while those cells keep producing energy. If you keep producing energy with fossil fuels, you keep releasing CO2, which will keep raising the temperature higher.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >496,805 square kilometres
                So we just have to cover a surface area equivalent to France in panels (that last about 25 years at most) made partly from unrecyclable rare earth metals. Not to mention that electrical energy tends to get lost to heat radiation when it has to travel such long distances across the grid from these Belgium-sized panels, to where people actually live.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah well, uh, they’re probably smaller than the ground that the oil industry takes up r right?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There's other types of solar than pyoelectric. Granted they kill birds with laser death rays but yeah.
                Not a single rare earth metal in sight.
                Best served in deserts though because of the aforementioned water boiling laser death rays.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh you mean the billion dollar boondoggle that’s currently defunct and wasting away in the Nevada desert?
                If I remember right they let the liquid sodium solidify, and that is catastrophic for solar collectors like these.
                I drive right passed this piece of shit every time I drive to Las Vegas.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lol what the fuck are you talking about? All of them are still up and running and producing 100,000+ mwh per month right now.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh I didn’t know someone purchased the plant, the last I read the company went through bankruptcy.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Also. The average household consumes about 4000 pounds of coal energy equivalent per year. Which do you think is less sustainable, some panels every 25 years? Or 4000+ pounds of coal every single year ad infinitum?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Much as China pretends to be a modern nation, they're extremely dependent on coal. It's a weak point in their armor.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                more like a strength, they are letting the West implode their economies moving to "green energy and China is selling 90% of the solar panels and wind turbines. Meanwhile China is going to jump straight from coal to nuclear because they are smart

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don’t see any problem with solar in and of itself, by itself it’s not even remotely adequate for replacing oil and it’s not nearly as environmentally friendly as you believe.
                25 years is how long they produce in ideal conditions. Panels don’t reach their end of life for a lot of reasons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most of the niggling problems are from us using oil in the supply chain for them, but given enough onboard take up and the greenifying of transport, alongside the recycling of the panels, the whole production line of them absolutely could be self powered and self renewable.
                The main problem is they use plastics as cheap covers and that's not renewable at this time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Noone ever suggested to actually put all the solar cells in those squares, you retarded moron. It's purely for visualization.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lol you just irrationally hate anything renewable. It's your sense of identity. Sunlight heats up the earth whether it lands on a solar panel or not. What matters is what happens to that heat energy when it attempts to go off to space. The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the less heat escapes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Lol you just irrationally hate anything renewable. It's your sense of identity.
                Oh I’m sorry you projecting gay, but I don’t actually remember there be anything against other renewables in my post. And it’s not irrational for me to imply that the logistics of solar power are obviously insane. In case you didn’t get it, I was mocking

                https://i.imgur.com/d12vlGW.jpg

                First of all, that effect is minor since so is the share of world surface we intend to plaster with solar cells.
                Second, as I already explained, that effect is finite.
                [...]
                If you place a certain amount of solar cells, it will instantly raise earth temperature by a certain amount - and no more, all the while those cells keep producing energy. If you keep producing energy with fossil fuels, you keep releasing CO2, which will keep raising the temperature higher.

                for claiming that the land usage is insignificant, even though his map shows you would need to cover at least the equivalent of roughly France or California in solar panels. Furthermore, it’s not just the land usage of the panels themselves but the fact even if we manufactured that many solar panels, we’d then have the problem of disposing of all them at the end of their service life (not to mention all the panels that will inevitably get damaged by the elements).
                >https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-millions-of-toxic-solar-panels-that-cant-be-recycled-destined-for-landfills/
                So not only does solar take up a huge portion of land, but we will need find land to bury the equivalent of nearly 500,000 square km of used panels every 25 years. And again, even if you stick them in desert shitholes where nobody lives, it would be extremely inefficient due to energy loss from having to transfer electricity for thousands of miles across the electrical grid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, and let’s not forget that that this proposed solar utopia has the same geopolitical problem of fossil fuels where several Nations can become immensely powerful by controlling the supply of energy. It really great for Europe if they were at the mercy of Algeria and their comically large solar farm in the Sahara. Fingers crossed ISIS/AQ don’t sabotage it by smuggling in a coupe, of hundred guys with mallets - or better yet, just cut the power lines.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Sunlight heats up the earth whether it lands on a solar panel or not.
                Different materials have different rates at which they absorb solar energy you mong.
                Would you rather stick your tounge on asphalt that’s been in the sun for hours, or just grassy dirt that’s been in the sun.
                You’d touch the grass because it’s less hot, moron.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Solar panels literally take IR light and turn it into electrical potential energy, you dummy. They literally cool the earth. And if they didn't then that's great because we just discovered a perpetual source of energy. Just put an IR lamp on a solar panel and boom, free infinite heat.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Solar panels literally take IR light and turn it into electrical potential energy, you dummy.
                Only a percentage.
                See

                https://i.imgur.com/wDp7wa4.jpg

                > There is a limit to the heat generation of reflective ground materials
                And Solar Panels push pretty damn close to that.
                They absorb 92% of the suns energy.
                (That is a VERY efficient material for absorbing the sunshine.)
                15-20% of that is converted into electricity.
                The 80% of the rest of it?
                That’s converted into other forms of energy.
                IR, heat, etc.

                >it's not infinitely reflecting back on itself there is a loss factor to space.
                1. I never claimed that.
                2. It is true, in that there is loss to space.
                Some energy is lost, some energy is trapped.
                The equilibrium of this is what the atmospheric temperature is.

                So if you juice it with more CO2 it traps more and raises the equilibrium.
                HOWEVER, If you juice it with more energy to be trapped you also raise the equilibrium.

                You are simply going to make the earth hotter by releasing more energy with those solar panels bumpkin.

                They literally cool the earth.
                Lol no.
                >And if they didn't then that's great because we just discovered a perpetual source of energy. Just put an IR lamp on a solar panel and boom, free infinite heat
                And these morons call me stupid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nta but solar panels are not renewable. No one is looking to add more greenhouse gases either
                Solar panels aren't the answer because solar farms take up lots more space (also it does matter were sunlight hits. Forests and perennial vegetation absorb a lot more heat and sequester more carbon/greenhouse gasses than lawn grass, so hopefully that solar farm construction didn't involve cutting down a forest or stripping more of the ecosystem away)
                They have to be replaced every 10-25 years
                Are non-recyclable and just end up in landfills when they're dead
                Are extremely dependant on rare earth metals (which China has a practical monopoly on)

                I'm more convinced on using the reinhardt algae to mass produce hydrogen gasses without electrolysis and molten salt/thorium reactors to power the US "cleaner" than solar/wind farms

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                molten salt reactors are the future

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Once you get enough energy you can dump the excess electricity into carbon capture and store hydrocarbons or CO2 underground if we have to.
                Clean energy is absolutely possible alongside automation, the problem is lack of economic incentives as it absolutely takes a shit ton of effort to change to it and maintain it as opposed to pumping liquid energy to the surface. It is an inevitable source of energy we will have to get used to.

                Personally I think it's worth it, and in terms of human cost (Expense) it is worth the human cost we would otherwise lose to not converting.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >store hydrocarbons or CO2 underground if we have to.
                How the hell does that work

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "store it underground" is describing carbon sequestration, which happens naturally with various processes but can be done deliberately to replete fuel sources over time, this strategy is referred to as "geological sequestration" because the reservoirs already exist. Experiments with this have been going strong since 1996.
                Carbon capture in general is a very popular concept with near 0 government funds because it would solve the problem without "restricting emissions," and restricting emissions is the goal, not the solution.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                use excess production from wind/solar during peaks to create synthetic natural gas as a form of energy storage. Much more logical than half the dumb shit proposed storing renewable energy but climate purists hate fossil fuels religiously so it doesn't get much attention

                https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140106094557.htm

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Efuels are prohibitively expensive rn, just like hydrogen. It will take about a decade with the current projections to make it truly viable at scale.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You inject it underground into stable rocks, after a while it turns into rock itself. They have a plant in Iceland doing that with geothermal energy powering the whole process.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                solar panels don't even have to be on land, it's just the cheapest option now, but once/if we run out of unproductive land they can be put on sea.

                >this make believe is the future

                Oookay. The holy grail of energy is right around the corner.

                the alternative is to use hydrogen fuel cells and generate hydrogen on site from a nuclear reactor, but those are fundamentally still EVs

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Miniature nuclear reactors are what I’m calling the holy grail of energy, and they’ve been just around the corner for the last 50 years.
                Between battery tech and miniaturization of nuclear If anyone puts any stock in military black budget at all then you’d think that these problems have been being worked on by the military sine forever, not suddenly because bugmen began soifacing about based elons electric cars.
                They’re hard problems to solve and I think that wishing for a breakthrough to make your ideas feasible is a waste of time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This anon gets it. Miniature and containerized fission reactors are the key to all the clean carbon free energy we will ever need. And they are possible with today's technology. Each neighborhood or city district could have their own energy plant. No more giant transmission lines spanning for miles. The things that keep us from that future are fear and institutional momentum.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks that the CO2 greenhouse effect is causing by the warm earth radiating heat into the atmosphere at night
                >ignores the actual sun heating the atmosphere by day
                Lmao, I mean, you're close to right. Co2 and other hydrocarbons do absorb thermal radiation. But the majority of it is absorbed from solar heating, not subsequent redradiation of heat from the earth. Global warming happens because the more carbon there is in the atmosphere (or any other comparatively large IR opaque molecules, not just carbon) the more solar energy will be absorbed by the atmosphere, instead of reflected or refracted. This is what causes global heating. So there you have it sport. I hope this post helps you have your science a little closer to the mark next time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What happens if the sun produces more solar radiation?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm glad you asked, anon. This does happen, btw. Obviously the total incidence of energy/radiation per area increases. And, the total solar incidence does fluctuate somewhat, both because of quantity and size of sun spots, and due to the seasons here on earth.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So what do you make of the data that correlates planetary temperature with solar activity while simultaneously not correlating with increased atmospheric CO2?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Look man anyone can make data mean what they want it to mean. All I'm describing are the known heat transfer mechanics.
                [opinion]For me global warming is not a simple case of "its solely anthropomorphic and there are no other factors". Anyone who thinks that is dumb. I know for a fact that us putting more carbon in the air will increase trapped heat. Will it be enough to matter or be noticeable? Harder to say. To your point we can track global avg temps rising year over, century over century, from the most recent glacial maxima (the ice age around 12k or so years ago). There has been speculation, and it is not unwarranted, that the rate of temp rise year over year has increased since 1860 or so. Whether or not we can definitely pin that on human activity is extremely hard to prove. I am in the camp that it is possible, and we shouldn't be spraying carbon or other chemicals into the air all wlly-nilly for no reason. I also posit that it is hubristic to assume anything we do will have a profound impact on the massive momentum of environmental trends that move at a glacial (heh) pace. [/opinion]
                Does that make sense?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Makes perfect sense and reflects my own opinion exactly, but I don’t have the firmest gasp on the figures myself.
                Thanks anon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anytime fren thank you for tolerating my blogposts

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I hate these moronic takes. Doctors already know about bandages, they've seen them before, you aren't revealing some big secret. Dentists have heard of enamel. Electricians know that there are different types of power outlet. The average soldier is aware that guns need to be reloaded after they've shot a certain number of bullets. The average climate scientist has already thought about incredibly simple and basic theories about thermal radiation. That woman behind the bar knows that beer and wine are different drinks. Stop convincing yourself that you've discovered an incredible breakthrough when what you've actually done is make a small step towards understanding a tiny amount of the absolute basics of a profession.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That’s a whole lot of words that don’t explain how I’m wrong.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, because you don't understand that the theory you are putting forward has already been considered by every single climate scientist on the planet shortly before they were accepted onto a university course to even begin studying them. You literally aren't intelligent enough to realise you aren't better informed about complex technical subjects than people who have devoted their lives to studying them. You think you are an intelligent person precisely because you aren't intelligent enough to recognise that you aren't.
                Think of it this way - who is a better brain surgeon, you or a brain surgeon with 20 years experience? Apply it to climate science and then ask why you were ever stupid enough to think you came up with something no scientist ever has despite being in the bottom 3% of the IQ pool.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wow you’re so convincing anon.
                You’ve really changed my mind.
                I’m just a dummy dumb dumb like you said.
                Solar panels have no effect on the climate at all.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But thats the thing - you really do believe you have thought of this possibility and not a single one of the thousands of climate scientists in full time research or academic positions around the world has ever thought of it. Do you also think this about every other subject? Do you have any possible cures for cancer that no cancer researcher has ever thought of? Maybe got a quick and easy solution to world hunger that just never popped into anyone else's head? If you're not busy before lunch could you also take a crack at nuclear fusion?
                But you don't have these because you aren't actually vastly more capable of understanding scientific topics than the collective efforts of a global community of dedicated scientists. You just think you are. You actually do think this and it has never occurred to you that it would be a bit weird for you to be the most intelligent person on the planet and yet have achieved nothing with your life.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > you really do believe
                > You actually do think this
                Look buddy, I don’t really care about the strawman you have in your head.
                Or the imaginary studies you have in your head that you claim prove me wrong.

                I simply stated the science and all you can do is speculate about who I am.
                Cry more (you) stupid idiot.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's already been explained to you that your theory is objectively incorrect, that's not really my point. I just hate people who think they are so intelligent they can propose groundbreaking new scientific theories without needing to ever actually study that subject. It's the exact same thing as thinking you could win the Olympics 100m or perform a 20-hour brain surgery without any training, it's not just regular stupidity, it's fucking incredible. It doesn't matter how much your mother told you you're special. Even Einstein had to study before he proposed anything new. Why do you think you're more intelligent than Einstein? If you think that, why haven't you achieved anything? It makes no fucking sense.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but muh saintly scientists

                Dropped.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >people who study things don't know more about those things than people who don't study things
                You are reason we haven't gone back to the moon. Fucking anti-intellectual parasites. It's an absolute crushing shame that you exist.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You are reason we haven't gone back to the moon
                conservatives put us on the moon, not a bunch of left wing chud climate scientists. We haven't gone back to the moon because of leftist social "scientists" demanding trillions in welfare spending. if the climate scientists weren't retarded they'd actually support nuclear, instead they shill only things made by their Chinese government handlers(solar panels and wind turbines)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks, I've been wondering what it would look like if the stupidest person to ever have existed by a considerable margin tried to express an opinion about modern history

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wernher Von Braun and James Webb were leftists, I forgot. Obviously NASA is failing today because of all those conservatives who took over

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are an autistic person and you should take your objectively wrong opinions back to 4chan

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >can't deny reality so they/them cries about muh pol
                COPE

                conservative chads wanted to role out nuclear decades ago and climate change would have been solved before it was even a problem, smooth brained leftist doomed the planet by wasting trillions on welfare

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How many did Bush build then?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao you aren’t even nearly as intelligent as you think you are.
                >OMG if everyone who was dumb, lol not me ofc, we’re dead then the world would be soooo much better!

                You are a moron anon, literally a mental midget, and it’s a good thing you are because you are quite useful for people smarter than you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You still didn't manage to explain why you think you can come up with groundbreaking theories that thousands of scientists have missed, despite having never studied the subject or done any research whatsoever, and despite not having any idea about any of the figures underpinning your theory. Maybe have a go at explaining that and see if you can figure out why everything you're saying is incredibly stupid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                After looking back after you two posting, i have conclude you are a pseudo intellectual. Nothing intelligent about parroting the msm.

                >people who study things don't know more about those things than people who don't study things
                You are reason we haven't gone back to the moon. Fucking anti-intellectual parasites. It's an absolute crushing shame that you exist.

                >You are reason we haven't gone back to the moon. Fucking anti-intellectual parasites. It's an absolute crushing shame that you exist.
                Or maybe its because we created a welfare state and are sending billions to Israel?
                Where's our free health care btw?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the problem is sending 0.1% of the tax budget to israel
                Every fucking time. Go back to containment. Your views don't matter because you are severely mentally ill.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, you are a religious zealot, you just worship whatever Science! is put in your feed bag.
                No one question the Saints of Science! have you delved into the vast manuscripts of Science!, have you conversed with the almighty?
                I thought not!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, because you don't understand that the theory you are putting forward has already been considered by every single climate scientist on the planet shortly before they were accepted onto a university course to even begin studying them. You literally aren't intelligent enough to realise you aren't better informed about complex technical subjects than people who have devoted their lives to studying them. You think you are an intelligent person precisely because you aren't intelligent enough to recognise that you aren't.
                Think of it this way - who is a better brain surgeon, you or a brain surgeon with 20 years experience? Apply it to climate science and then ask why you were ever stupid enough to think you came up with something no scientist ever has despite being in the bottom 3% of the IQ pool.

                But thats the thing - you really do believe you have thought of this possibility and not a single one of the thousands of climate scientists in full time research or academic positions around the world has ever thought of it. Do you also think this about every other subject? Do you have any possible cures for cancer that no cancer researcher has ever thought of? Maybe got a quick and easy solution to world hunger that just never popped into anyone else's head? If you're not busy before lunch could you also take a crack at nuclear fusion?
                But you don't have these because you aren't actually vastly more capable of understanding scientific topics than the collective efforts of a global community of dedicated scientists. You just think you are. You actually do think this and it has never occurred to you that it would be a bit weird for you to be the most intelligent person on the planet and yet have achieved nothing with your life.

                Is there another phase to this pasta?
                Lol

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Basic logic dictates that a certain extra amount of warmth produced by PV cells to produce energy is momentaneous and therfefore finite, while the effect of the saved CO2 is enduring and therefore infinite. I.e. if PV produces a bit of extra warmth now, the earth becomes a bit warmer until that warmth is emitted and the earth returns to equilibrium, but if instead CO2 was emitted to create the energy, earth would permanently become a little warmer.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Source is his diddled anus

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What you see on your pic is just the heat signature since solar panels aren't cooled down to 0 K.

                You need gold plated mirrors to even reflect IR(as demonstrated by JWST) efficiently.

                By your logic, oil refineries are much worse since they release much much hotter IR than solar panels and with CO2, it will make the problems much worse.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yup, it's BS. His logic dictates that fossil fuels are much worse since refineries run hotter and continuously emit hotter infrared waves. Adding CO2 will make it much hotter and will amplify it.

                You would have to scale up the solar cells to cover VAST amounts of land to replace something like a oil refinery.
                Which will be emitting IR is VAST quantities as well.

                The most temperature effective energy source is Nuclear.
                Since it does produce IR and has a small footprint.

                Hand waiving away Solar’s Thermodynamic effects won’t make the earth cooler.
                :^)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Solar panels doesn't emit very hot IR. Again, oil refineries produce a lot of very hot IR sources continuously. Adding more CO2 will just enlarge the effects.

                I know it does have an effect of land. Anyone who reads the IPCC report on land usage will know this. That's why they called for a mix energy sources.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Solar panels don’t produce much hot IR
                Yes they do.

                To put in comparison of how much solar tards like to underplay the amount of damage solar panels will cause to the atmosphere I will use a little math.

                Total Electricity consumption in the United States was about 3.9 TRILLION kilowatthours (kWh) in 2021.
                https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php

                For an average 60 cell panel your dealing with about 15.38 Wh per square foot in raw output.
                That’s about 27.37 kWh yearly per square foot (in perfect weather).
                Cost of a solar panel is about $10 per square foot.

                To produce enough electricity to cover the USA’s needs you would need to lay out 142,491,779,320.42 square feet of solar cells.
                Or approximately 55,229,372 square miles of panels.
                Cost would simply be 1.4 trillion USD.

                So you would have to cover an area roughly the size of Iowa to produce enough electricity for modern American society.
                And that Iowa sized parking lot would have to have perfect weather. (lol)
                And because of thermodynamics, you are also doing what is thermally the equivalent of paving over an area the size of Iowa with Asphalt.
                Creating, what is in all practical purposes, the biggest space heater in history, all to fight that dastardly global warming.
                Spreading it out will NOT change anything.

                For comparison US Nuclear power plants produced 778 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2021.
                https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy

                A fifth of total energy consumption.
                Using around 54 nuclear plants.
                So to match the 4 trillion kWh annually the US needs, you’d need 270 plants minimum, probably more realistically ~300 for redundancy and capacity.

                So a giant space heater that is at minimum the size of Iowa, requires perfect weather, and costs 1.4 trillion, (expires every 20 years because solar panels don’t last forever. You’ll have to pay $1.4 trillion AGAIN)
                Or
                300 nuclear plants that last 60+ years?
                Hmmm…

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Seconded, this anon knows his business. I have one small gripe though
                >trillion kWh
                Why not say petawatt-hours?
                >billion kWh
                Same thing, why not just say terawatt-hours? I could be off by a factor of 10^3 but you get my point. That's why we have these prefixes in the first place.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Why not say petawatt-hours?
                I used the numbers .gov used.
                I agree with your sentiment though.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are retarded. There is a limit to the heat generation of reflective ground materials, it's not infinitely reflecting back on itself there is a loss factor to space.
                You might as well go on a tard rage about cities being bad, the heat would have been reflected back during the day, now it will only be radiated during the night. Other than the local environment now being barely a few degrees hotter big fucking deal.
                Do you think the extra heat absorbed during the day doesn't get radiated at night? Are you literally this retarded?

                Dumb moron just ate oil lobby propaganda.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You might as well go on a tard rage about cities being bad, the heat would have been reflected back during the day
                They are bad.
                I’ve told you. You are doing the equivalent of making an Iowa sized parking lot.

                > Other than the local environment now being barely a few degrees hotter big fucking deal.
                WOAH there chud!
                The temperature is actually a big hecking deal fyi.

                >Dumb moron just ate oil lobby propaganda.
                Lol the oil lobby doesn’t talk about this stuff.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I will add.
                There is 1 (one) condition where I would be ok with Solar being rolled out.

                And that’s to be roofing for parking lots.
                Parking lots are already an eyesore, and they have similar thermal signatures to solar panels.
                So buy building a solar roof, you’d just be taking the thermodynamic signature of what the parking lot already has, and converting it into something more useful.
                It would also keep peoples cars cooler, so everyone wins.

                Unfortunately the strategy that has been taken thus far is to build parting lots on one end, and then find virgin land to despoil with solar panels.
                Essentially doubling up the thermal spread for no reason.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >muh oil propaganda
                As opposed to the objective Science! behind the green lobby?
                It’s all about garden gnomes and their money, the greens just make you feel better about them fleecing you over the oil companies.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > There is a limit to the heat generation of reflective ground materials
                And Solar Panels push pretty damn close to that.
                They absorb 92% of the suns energy.
                (That is a VERY efficient material for absorbing the sunshine.)
                15-20% of that is converted into electricity.
                The 80% of the rest of it?
                That’s converted into other forms of energy.
                IR, heat, etc.

                >it's not infinitely reflecting back on itself there is a loss factor to space.
                1. I never claimed that.
                2. It is true, in that there is loss to space.
                Some energy is lost, some energy is trapped.
                The equilibrium of this is what the atmospheric temperature is.

                So if you juice it with more CO2 it traps more and raises the equilibrium.
                HOWEVER, If you juice it with more energy to be trapped you also raise the equilibrium.

                You are simply going to make the earth hotter by releasing more energy with those solar panels bumpkin.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lel. IR is heat. Infrared waves are generated by heat sources. And also, it is only converted between electricity and heat energy. No in between.

                By your logic, oil refineries and oil plants are super bad because they are made a lot of metal and their storages are made of metal which conducts and radiates hear much more rapidly than the glass that solar panels have.

                Also, be clear with what "juice" is.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one in this thread ever said oil refineries were good

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Solar panels are the only way to collect solar energy
                Look at this gay

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I doubt that a solar collector would be any better tbh

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >emit
                I'm not sure that's the correct term. What's happening is that solar panels reflect some solar energy, and they absorb some, which heats them up. When the sun goes down they will cool off by convection and also by reradiating the heat they absorbed into the environment.
                The whole "solar panels crate more carbon than they save" is kind of half true, but it refers to the energy spent in mineral extraction, refinement, and manufacture of the panels. Not their operation.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's certainly not easy to make nuclear power stations, and uranium indeed won't last forever, but it's also totally clean and current stocks of uranium could last us thousands of years, centuries at minimum. Peak oil seems to have been a myth, since new methods allow us to coax more crude from the Earth than previously expected, but because of the environmental effects you'd probably prefer peak oil anyway.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Never talked about peak oil, and I'm not particularly motivated by the environment anyway. A lack of oil supply before we switch over to renewables would put us into tremendous economic problems and could send some countries into civil wars that will be even more damaging. So no, I'm very happy it's not happening yet.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the oil will run out eventually
                >I’m not talking about peak oil tho

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The retarded hoops people are jumping through for green energy when nuclear is right fucking here. Hell, Germany buys energy from France (80ish% nuclear grid) despite shutting down their reactors. Really boggles the noggin.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Germany shut down its reactors as a response to the Fukushima meltdown. At this point it would take more money to restart Germany's reactors than it would be to continue scrapping them.

                Germany probably would not have shut down its reactors if it forsaw the events of 2022, though.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Germany is retarded

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                More like corrupted to the ground, looks like their business plan for the next decade was to sit on cheap Russian gas and oil. They not only closed down nuclear reactors but also sabotaged a plane to switch to renewable energy sources by 2035

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The left says stop the nuclear plants and spend trillions (probably) to switch to renewables
                The right says that costs too much
                So they compromise, stop the plants and switch to cheap russian gas instead. Which was... a gamble, but not one that seemed to bad until 2014.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                For the west, with the current state of renewables and electric technology, building nuclear plants is the best solution to dramatically reduce energy dependency from foreign powers. And it’s actually pretty clean energy.
                Too bad greengays are retarded.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet, they kept on increasing their dependency right up until Feb 24,2022. We should have nuked the germs too.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >More like corrupted to the ground
                so like every Western government

                For the west, with the current state of renewables and electric technology, building nuclear plants is the best solution to dramatically reduce energy dependency from foreign powers. And it’s actually pretty clean energy.
                Too bad greengays are retarded.

                >building nuclear plants is the best solution to dramatically reduce energy dependency
                Actually it's fossil fuels in the near term. They work, and they are available, and do not require the capitol investment that nuclear does.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >so like every Western government
                In the case of Germany, they decided to hide failures of political decisions leading to economic failures by relying on resources from the mafia state with a crazy dude in charge. I guess we have a champion.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I understand that and I understand the financial realities of their situation. Doesn't mean they're not retarded. France has been doing nuclear for decades without a major event and is right next door. Fukushima was a confluence of bad events and only really went wrong due to poor engineering between the seawall and emergency gens being lower than sea level (lol LMAO even). Germany's reaction was knee-jerk at best and actively instigated at worst. I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't Fukushima, it would have been some other contrived bullshit.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Directional drills are far less disruptive to the environment than an open pit lithium mine guy.
              I wish these gays would get real and just develop a synthesized fuel that would appease the green lobby so they can shut the fuck up.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Details. And mining doesn't have a big global effect anyway.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, the big disruptive mining operations I know of in western countries are mostly about coal.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well you know very little, because your entire life revolves around agriculture and mining, you’re just a complete ignoramus that thinks the modern world is powered by fairy dust.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >mining doesn’t have a global effect
                Nah, just a local effect poisoning the poor morons in Africa mining your green rare earth metals by hand. But as long as you can’t see the mine from your city/suburb I guess mines don’t exist.

                Synthetic fuels made with recovered carbon would appease the green lobby and provide an actually feasible way of powering a functional military.

                I’m also not convinced that co2 is the prime mover of global climate change, but that doesn’t make the green lobby money does it :^)

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >though uranium won't last forever either
              The french MOX technology does that exactly. You need 1% of "new" plutonium (military surplus of the CW) per fuel cycle.
              95% left are the recycled depleted uranium from a previous fuel cycle.

              In theory this can be done infinitely with fast breeder reactors (that the french have been forced to close down due to the greens... see Superphenix NPP on wiki).

              You still need uranium but even if you would shift the entirety of the world grid to nuclear there would be enough uranium for the forseeable future (100 years).
              Some (green) estimates are way more pessimistic but the fact remains we don't exploit the uranium to nowhere near what we could. We only use the really cheap one. Most of it is underwater for exemple.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Agrivoltics is complex to say the least. The first simple use case is for shade plants.
          https://www.organicfarming.news/2021-08-12-german-farmer-grows-berries-beneath-solar-panels.html

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Electric vehicles have a lot of advantages and a lot of disadvantages. Gas-electric or diesel-electric is probably the best middle ground.
    >EVs:
    Individual motor torque control allows for absurd amounts of torque, which is extremely useful for heavy vehicles, traction control, and handling. Batteries can be conformal to a V-hull or in easily swapped packs that supply troops can charge off a generator or some such.
    It could potentially solve the engine placement problem of IFVs.
    The US is about the only military that could make the logistics work, but a small engine generating electric power a la La Ferrari or that Porche also have some merit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also how quite they are would be a big bonus, even in this day and age. Aside from making them harder for humans to detect without equipment it would be easier to communicate in and around them, ease of communication in the military is obvious massively important.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No solar panels or are they foldable?

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they must be pretty confident in that shipping container nuclear reactor lockheed was working on

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they forgot to put the rainbow vomit queer flag on it

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >every vehicle in the United States military is going to be climate-friendly
    What a complete gay. No more turbines.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hey we can't fight yet I'm still at 80% charge
    >fite me 100% vs 100% charge and see what happens

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Soulless Humvee

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    US Army isn't buying Hummers. They have the JLTV. Fake as fuck.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yep they're totally going to use that and not the tens of thousands of JLTVs that they just bought for Oshkosh.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gas / Diesel will not be in use forever. It has to be phased out at some point. This is like being upset that motorized vehicles took over for horses and carriages. Obviously it's a very long and gradual process and they're just starting with some basic hummers.

    boomers on suicide watch

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is stupid. Lithium batteries can litteraly enflame and explode very easily under heat pressure.
    And how do you recharge them when used in a territory without chargers ?

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't that even more dangerous when the vehicle gets hit? (battery vs. fuel)

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    *shoots your battery and the whole fucking vehicle explodes like a vape battery in your pocket*

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every seems unlikely and unwise, but many if not most isn't a terrible idea I think.
    Other thing is, what do future conflicts look like? Any more Afghanistan's and Iraq's, or just Ukraine's. Or what is likely to happen with Taiwan?

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did Biden think the US’s logistic chain was too efficient?

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kek isn’t the Abrams already short legged for an MBT? Imagine moving a tank with battery powered motors.

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any vehicle used to kill chinkoids is environmentally friendly by default.

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Could be good if they could swap batteries instead of charging the vehicles, that would make for a faster system.
    They could also have a mobile nuclear power plant, imagine a huge land battleship that can dominate the sky with AA and serve as infinite fuel for the advancing army.

    of course its not going to be this cool/good, it's gonna be some shitty political move to appease progressives because big nuclear land battleship is bad because nuclear is bad

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Daily reminder that this isn't for the climate
    The garden gnomes seethe when economies get manipulated from dino juice. lmao

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    decisions made from the DNC campaign orifice never translate to something that will work for americans or the us military
    they're soviet command economy committee tier

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You want dependent still on an unstable region like the Middle East still? Petrostates cannot be trusted. It takes zero sense to get our military ENERGY from people who fucking hate us.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The USA has the largest oil reserves in the world you moron, the only reason we are even subject to foreign fuel markets is because of government policy, just like Germany.

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Dependent on the fucking Middle East for fuel
    >Only NOW do we decide to do something mind-blowing like switch energy sources

    Ugh. It took 4 dollar gasoline for us to figure out maybe it's not a good idea to get our fuel from unreliable partners, instead of simple common sense.

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Climate-friendly

    What about just framing it as fucking National Security?! The petro-states HATE us. We should be as energy-independent as possible. Otherwise we just end up hostages to fuel like fucking EUROPE.

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't we just Ukraine as a future testing-ground? They're going to want to be as independent from fucking Russia as we want to be from the Middle East.

    Do some conversion trials on a future T-series.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean as nice as it would be to make whole new designs for energy-independence, it also would also be cool if we could boost the energy-independence of our EXISTING weapons.

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is there such hate and resistance to electric vehicles? I have yet to only see a few legitimate arguments but the rest are pure idiocy

    compelling arguments against
    >the maximum range for electric vehicles is inferior to gas...for now
    >remotely locking software features and potentially bricking your vehicle
    >scarce charging stations depending on location
    >high initial cost

    compelling arguments for
    >superior performance (Tesla Model S can go from 0-60 is 2 seconds)
    >less moving parts and less maintenance
    >cheaper to drive
    >excluding long drives, no more visits to a fucking gas station

    I assume in the next 5-10 years the range and capacity will be enough to convince the average person to switch over.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >5 to 10 years

      Is what is known as wishful thinking.
      Teslas themselves are low quality vehicles for what they cost, my buddy works in the gigafactory in Reno NV and you wouldn’t believe what quality control shoves out the door in the batter department.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They aren't as green as people think. The production of them, along with sourcing of all the rare earth metals needed for the batteries and shipping everything, puts out more pollution than combustion vehicles. Secondly, unless your home is powered on renewable energy, you're still polluting when you charge it. My point is, they aren't any better for the environment than combustion vehicles.
      My problem with them is largely just range and the fact that batteries lose capacity over time, so that range only goes down, and replacing the cells is expensive as fuck.
      It's inevitable that we will need to switch to something else, likely electric vehicles, but as of now they are largely a downgrade (besides performance).
      I also take issue with the fact that everything is electrical and is not serviceable by the user. I love working on cars and being able to solve any problems I have. Impossible to do so with any of these EVs.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No where in my post did I mention anything about the environmental impact. If you want to attack any of my other arguments I'm all ears

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I don’t know why people don’t like EVs
          >here’s some pros and cons
          >you can only talk about what’s on my list

          Yeah maybe go fuck yourself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because that argument doesn't subtract from any of my points and you know it. It's your Pavlovian response to any time you hear the words 'electric vehicle'. Do you think the processes will not improve over time? It's still basically at it's infancy. And since you're worried about the environment, what is your alternative to fossil fuels? They're a finite resource and obviously they contribute their own kind of pollution.

            >serviceability
            Most cars now are already limited in serviceability because of the software.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >nooo only talk about what I want!!!!
              >anything that isn’t in my curated argument isn’t FAIR!

              Yeah maybe go fuck yourself.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You have nothing. We both know it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I’m glad you’re turning your piss poor argumentation skills into a win, that really explains how you’ve gotten this attitude in the first place.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >resorts to insults

                I'll repeat again since you dodged the first time
                >And since you're worried about the environment, what is your alternative to fossil fuels? They're a finite resource and obviously they contribute their own kind of pollution.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >resorts to stamping his feet when an anon doesn’t stick to the script

                No anon I don’t think you’re getting it. I’m not going to engage in a conversation with you because you’re a child. I’m just letting you know that you are one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >more insults
                >no arguments

                I'll repeat again. Why is it so hard for you to answer? It's not even a loaded question.
                >And since you're worried about the environment, what is your alternative to fossil fuels? They're a finite resource and obviously they contribute their own kind of pollution.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because it’s a retarded form of control for bugmen.
      I won’t live in a pod either. Let the euros and Africans do that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >control
        So you're completely independent with a gas vehicle? Do you have a refiner in your backyard or do you fill up at the gas station like everyone else? If so, it doesn't sound like you have as much control.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >refiner
          Refinery

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why is there such hate and resistance to electric vehicles?
      battery density is not a trivial problem to solve. an electric ford truck has 50 miles of range when towing. that won't be fixed without a totally different battery technology. consumers may learn to deal with that limitation, but the military can't

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >carrying a 1 ton battery bank to go maybe 100 miles
    >that said battery bank gets hit with one stray bullet
    Electric cars are such a meme even in the civilian world, why the fuck would you push it on the military?

  57. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Future Is Eclectic

    Hope the Gov't realizes this

  58. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the future is in mobile nuclear reactors put in bases that can recharge all vehicles.
    No more fuel supply lines.

    If you're against it you're stuck in the past, simple as.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >this make believe is the future

      Oookay. The holy grail of energy is right around the corner.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >he doesn't know
        https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2021/03/23/portable-nuclear-reactor-project-moves-forward-at-pentagon/
        https://interestingengineering.com/us-army-portable-nuclear-reactor-2024

        The future for the military is electric vehicles with swappable batteries that can be swapped out for a generator when the range/rapid refueling while on the go are necessary (such as during an invasion).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That seems inefficient compared to just having a built in hybrid system.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How? Electric forklifts and similar equipment with high uptime expectations have used swappable batteries for a long time now, because being able to swap out the battery makes more sense than having the vehicle down due to recharging when it's needed. With such a system, there would be no reason to go with a hybrid design when you could have batteries mounted there instead for better range under normal operating conditions.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There would be no need for swapping batteries or recharging downtime if you installed a small internal combustion engine that turns a generator in the vehicle itself. This would also improve the vehicles range between refuelling/battery swap stops. Forklifts generally don't stray far from the facility at which they are used, whereas military vehicles are kind of intended to.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There would be no need for swapping batteries or recharging downtime if you installed a small internal combustion engine that turns a generator in the vehicle itself.
                But then you're regularly going to need to be burning fuel every time someone forgets to plug one in when they bring it back to the motor pool, or when back to back missions are necessary. Which means you still need more regular fuel shipments which the entire point of going with electric vehicles would be to eliminate. A properly designed swappable battery vehicle can be back in service in about the time that it takes to fill up your gas tank. Only reason swappable batteries aren't used in consumer electric vehicles is because you wouldn't own one of the most expensive parts of your car which doesn't sit well with most people.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >he doesn’t know that portable nuclear energy has been 10 years away for the last 50 years

  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's nothing wrong with having an auxiliary electric motor system for quiet running or to boost torque if needed, but I think this trend of full electric vehicles with no internal combustion system at all is an oversight, and leaves a lot of good performance on the table.
    For example: a strict EV has a limited range, but add a small ICE and the range easily doubles. And, the ICE can be of a small displacement and be optimized for fuel efficiency, solely focused on recharging the batteries.
    For my money the arch military general purpose vehicle would be a hybrid based around a small turbine engine that can operate on multiples fuels, with a battery electric drive system for silent running if needed. This is in many ways the best of both worlds.
    >t. Some fag on the internet

  60. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Electric motors in wheels and uncompromising V hulls.
    No heat or sound signatures.
    No air intake or exhaust required.
    Submersible.
    Waterjets are very compact and could be integrated into wheel hubs to utilize motors.
    Towed generators and PV panel's. Would provide 1000mile+ range if needed.
    No heavy internal mechanical components required. Quick swap whatever "broke"
    Greater torque and rapid acceleration could provide a non explosive APS against low tech threats.

    But just chucking a battery in a hummer would be rather shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Electric motors do get hot. In high load applications like move heavy armored vehicles quickly they get really hot.
      It would probably be better to keep them inboard where they can be shielded from IR seekers and inside where they can be cooled.

  61. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's the way things will go, but I'm not sure the battery tech is hardy or light enough for battlefield use until we get solid-state batteries. Once we get them though, we can throw them in anything.

  62. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kinda dumb. Nothing in the current motor pool even remotely meets emissions standards. If you can do it without compromising then do it. But I'm pretty sure you can't. When we're talking life and death I'm really not worried about muh footprint. I like it for possibly making them quieter and have less heat signature but that's it. You know these things have a lot of shit going on that sucks power. Fuck a hmmwv. What about a stryker or brad or abrams. The stryker especially has more hydraulics than a los angeles swap meet. It can produce enough compressed air on demand to keep the tires inflated with basketball size holes in them. That just doesn't come easy

  63. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hey so just so we're tracking combat vehicles already contain battery banks. Obviously. And they're not this hand grenade of a feature you imagine them to be. Even in the event of a fire, they all have automatic fire suppression throughout. Someone already thought of this

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A few batteries isn’t the same as literally the entire bottom the the vehicle being covered by batteries.
      I

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who says it would be on the bottom? These things aren't made by hyundai, whatever concerns you have will be thought of when/if such a thing hits production

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Where else would it go dude?
          Your 3 ton battery pack will go where, the roof? That’s an incredibly large potential metal fire that I doubt any vehicle borne fire suppression could extinguish.

          Fully electric combat vehicles will not exist barring exponentially better batteries.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Idk get creative I'm not a raytheon engineer.
            I'm sure if one can figure out how make a 70 foot aircraft have the radar signature of a golf ball one can also figure out the best place for a battery bank

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It’s not about positioning it’s about size.
              Look at how big a battery bank is not a simple passenger car.
              Unless they can get more energy density out of batteries they won’t have a choice but to use so many, and they have to go somewhere.

  64. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's only a matter of time until the army realizes that a fully nuclear propelled fleet of ground vehicles is ideal.

  65. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >zerohedge
    might as well post russian mod press releases as fact
    fuck off

  66. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You morons are forgetting diesel electric has been used for a while.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I’m not forgetting anything bruvva, the biggest haul trucks in the world used for mining are diesel over electric and I’ve maintained them before.

  67. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think its a meme, they can't even get a truck to market that can tow a medium load for more than 85 miles before having to stop and recharge. The new hummer looks fucking awesome, they should just put a turbo diesel in it and never stop winning.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they can't even get a truck to market that can tow a medium load for more than 85 miles before having to stop and recharge
      What percent of truck owners ever find themselves wanting to tow medium loads in excess of 85 miles with their 1/2 ton truck?

  68. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >lithium battery gets a crack
    >lights entire cabin on fire
    >exacerbated by any source of water
    >including human flesh
    IED already inside the hummer, latest innovation

    >run out of charge
    >have to go to le super charge station
    >sit for at least 1 hour in static position to recharge fully
    what could go wrong

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh punctures
      >implying the military hasn't already solved this issue

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        all those protections fail if the battery is sufficiently heated, but sure, a small puncture may not result in a catastrophic fire provided there's zero defects.
        also taking a brief look at the specs, i see nothing about crush protection, one of the main concerns with a vehicle's battery.

  69. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We don't even have the infrastructure in the US to go all electric. How the fuck are they going to run these things in countries were there is no infrastructure for it at all and power is spotty at absolute best? What happens if your EV's battery dies away from you FOB/base? With a fossil fuel vehicle you just need to put more gas in the tank, with electric charging takes time no matter how you do it. Then if the thing gets hit or the battery gets damaged at all really those things burn for days if not weeks and are insanely hard to put out, all while dumping toxic smoke into the air that makes car exhaust look like a breath of fresh air. The car from Richard Hammond's crash didn't go out fully for a long time even with crews repeatedly "extinguishing" it and that's not the only time this sort if issue has been a thing, it happens to Teslas and other EVs too.

    It's most likely an asinine attempt to pander to a minority within his own party.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >We don't even have the infrastructure in the US to go all electric.
      Your reminder that the US power grid was already faced a similar spike in demand when air conditioning came to the scene and quickly saw widespread adoption.

      >What happens if your EV's battery dies away from you FOB/base?
      Your CO brings out the standard issue chastity cages and revokes the masturbation privileges for anyone who allowed such a fuck up to happen.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US power grid is having trouble with AC now

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Only in areas that have bought into deregulation bullshit about how companies will totally do the right thing if they just had less oversight.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I get the feeling full EV adoption is going to be a tad bit more than that. There's a reason someone like Musk whose primary money maker IS EVs and green energy would say we're not ready for it.

        >Alright men, remember, you're not allowed to take your vehicles more than 50 miles away from base.
        >If you do you will be locked in the brig and slapped with a wet noodle until you say sorry.
        I don't think an armored vehicle is going to get the same range as your fancy Tesla. Until battery weight is dramatically reduced you're going to start running afoul of ye olde square cube. That is the primary issue with batteries currently. They're big heavy fuckers (that also like to pop when penetrated). Volatility is an issue on something that you expect to get shot. I'd MUCH rather my gas tank get shot than a battery you might find in an EV. Gas tank might not go and fuel is still fuel. Unlike the movies fuel tanks don't typically go kaboom when shot, the fuel air mix still has to be roughly correct to burn. On the other hand if your EV battery gets shot you better get the fuck out because it's almost certainly going to go.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          men, remember, you're not allowed to take your vehicles more than 50 miles away from base.
          >>If you do you will be locked in the brig and slapped with a wet noodle until you say sorry.
          >not realizing that range is considered when planning out missions
          This would be like sending out any gas vehicle used currently without knowing ahead of time that they wouldn't have enough gas to do the job.

          >Volatility is an issue on something that you expect to get shot. I'd MUCH rather my gas tank get shot than a battery you might find in an EV. Gas tank might not go and fuel is still fuel. Unlike the movies fuel tanks don't typically go kaboom when shot, the fuel air mix still has to be roughly correct to burn. On the other hand if your EV battery gets shot you better get the fuck out because it's almost certainly going to go.
          >still repeating this same lame talking point
          See:

          >muh punctures
          >implying the military hasn't already solved this issue

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can argue against that, while I expect there to be planing in scouting, attacks/ events of opportunity, ambushes, its easier to manage a fuel based vehicle than a battery based.

            it takes time to re-up a electric vehicle for an on the fly adaptation, where as a fuel based, all you need is to attach a new tank/ pour in fuel for a few seconds.

            you also have the consideration of energy source. you are on a FOB with 1-2 gnereators and the local one-eye freddy have pot-shotted all of them into disrepair.

            >how do you get more energy

            you now have a mostly useless hummer, two broke generators with no hope of limping on, and you have to continue regular patrols and operations which leaves you basically on foot in a wide open space.

            if you have good energy management it isn't that much of a problem, I am just suggesting that you adopt some kind of quick replaceable battery/ integrated limp home system.

            the basic question I have for and against electric vehicles is "where is the infrastructure?." laborers and construction workers don't often use electric vehicles because without infrastructure, a fuel based vehicle (this includes propane too) can be re-enabled in a matter of seconds, where as a electric-battery type needs a long time (hours) to charge the battery.

            so it is easy of energy management.

            as a light utility vehicle in logistics or the rear eshalon, it works fine but not as a front line, at-least until you can perform a pit-stop exchange.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >you are on a FOB with 1-2 gnereators and the local one-eye freddy have pot-shotted all of them into disrepair.
              Lol, imagine thinking someone can walk up close enough to a US FOB these days to start shooting things without getting killed before they can do any significant damage if they can even get off a shot.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is IDF

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That was literally the joke dumbass. The vehicle will have a shorter range than a fuel burning one. The range WILL be shorter. Alongside that no matter what you do short of maybe a quick swap battery (which is guaranteed to be a vulnerable process) it takes SIGNIFICANTLY longer to charge an EV than it does to dump some fuel in and go.

            >small man portable battery is comparable to anything a vehicle would need to use
            Anon...

            The whole point is fossil fuel>electric. Switching over right now is stupid, and not just a little. In 15-20 years however that might not be an issue at all to do. Battery tech needs to improve allowing better capacity, range, weight, and safety. Infrastructure, including what you might find on any FOB or outpost, needs to improve as well. There won't be a charging station in the middle of nowhere out in the desert or the taiga and as others have pointed out now your generators are bigger targets because knocking them out eventually knocks out ALL YOUR VEHICLES too.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Infrastructure, including what you might find on any FOB or outpost, needs to improve as well.
              See:

              >he doesn't know
              https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2021/03/23/portable-nuclear-reactor-project-moves-forward-at-pentagon/
              https://interestingengineering.com/us-army-portable-nuclear-reactor-2024

              The future for the military is electric vehicles with swappable batteries that can be swapped out for a generator when the range/rapid refueling while on the go are necessary (such as during an invasion).

              . That's realistically the main thing that would get the US to move to electric military vehicles in areas where combat is actually taking place. Otherwise you're just going from burning JP8 in whatever vehicle to burning JP8 in a generator that's a bit more efficient because everything runs on JP8.

  70. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, I'm trying to think of what a more eco-friendly military would look like, and based on the way conventional/irregular warefare is going, I'm basically seeing these trends:
    >Drones
    >guns calibers are getting bigger
    >increased desire to avoid buying our (US) adversaries stuff (Russian oil, Chinese REM)
    So, why not hydrogen fuel?
    The one anon mentioned algae can make it, seems like a pretty easy thing to store/transport as well (might need to beef up the strength of the cannisters though)
    So I'm envisioning
    >lots of drones. Kamikaze, bomber drones, drones strapped with AA missiles, etc, battery out hydrogen powered
    >big, 155mm AT guns put on the top of wheeled tanks running off of hydrogen
    >nuclear subs/ships with schools of underwater drones
    Its kinda glass cannon-y, but there's no moving a 100 ton tank cleanly, especially when they seem to be going the way of the battleship

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So, I'm trying to think of what a more eco-friendly military would look like
      Step one, stop giving a shit about "eco-friendly". The military cares about this stuff because it translates to reduced logistical burden, which means reduced cost and being able to deploy a better equipped force in areas where the logistical burden would have previously made doing so not feasible.

      Unfortunately, it takes massive logistical fuckups like what Russia is doing in Ukraine right now to even put logistics on PrepHole's radar.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hydrogen fuel is heavy, reducing efficiency. Current hydrogen fuel systems are inefficient, reducing maximum weight. Hydrogen fuel is expensive to procure, requiring efficiency. These three things loop together to cause problems, but US scientists are chipping away at them.
      In the mean time, emphasizing guns and drones and de-emphasizing aircraft, rockets and heavy armor is likely if this is a priority.
      If you are willing to compromise, catalyst material science has made potential breakthroughs with CO2-to-Jet-Fuel technology, which is already being quietly tested. The challenge is that the jet fuel produced is not the same as standard jet fuel so you need to re-kit your jet to handle both, it's not that hard to do but you have to physically do it and for hundreds of aircraft that's a lot of man hours and material.
      The reward is hijacking the power wasted by drag and using it to thresh CO2 and water in the air into syngas, which means that aircraft can be carbon neutral or even carbon negative - CO2 is, in the first place, a measure of wasted energy. It also works better in humid areas, obviously, but even in drier climates it can produce double digit range/efficiency improvements.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hydrogen is light (check the periodic table), highly efficient (check the range on a Prius) and cheap (water is made of it), though.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A lot of hydrogen fuel is made via electrolysis, which is energy intensive and costly

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Hydrogen has a high energy content per unit mass. However, at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, it has a very low energy content per unit volume compared to liquid fuels or even to natural gas. For this reason, it is usually either compressed or liquefied by lowering its temperature to under 33 K. High-pressure tanks weigh much more than the hydrogen they can hold. For example in the 2014 Toyota Mirai, a full tank contains only 5.7% by weight of hydrogen, the rest of its mass being that of the tank.
          Hydrogen fuel is not the same as elemental hydrogen/hydrogen gas.
          I will admit, I'm probably just old, most of my context is with 90s/00s attempts at fuel cells. I am seeing a lot of claims that the efficiency of utilization & production have been improved to near-parity with gasoline. That's what I meant by " US scientists are chipping away at them."

  71. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >electric cars??
    >NOOOO IM BEING OPPRESSED!

  72. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing wrong with that if we would not be deeply dependent on China for those batteries.

    Eventually, going electric for most military assets - tanks, destroyers, corvettes, ... is the right way. That or earth will burn in an ever hotter climate.

  73. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"SGT we need to RTB"
    >"fuck were almost out of charge"
    >"someone pull out the generator we are going to be here for 3-4 days while this thing charges"
    >"ramirez peddle faster"

    enegry management is going to be a problem, I would recommend:

    >replaceable battery for Egress
    >some kind of limp home mode maybe an integrated generator.

    need to stress test the vehicle in absolute shot conditions. need to stress test the vehicle after being shot up, blown up, set on fire, and dropped a little too hard.

  74. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There should be a engineering solution to put wind turbines on navy ships, making them independent from fossil fuel and guarantee 0 CO2 emissions.

    I wish they would put legislation in place to require the military to switch to completely electrical drives until 2035

  75. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"we're spending billions of dollars to do it."
    What happened to free health care Biden?

Your email address will not be published.