US military targets green energy

[Starboard Tack]

Nellis Air Force Base, in Nevada, is part of an initiative that aims to cut the US military's energy consumption, replacing some of the oil it uses with renewable fuels.
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2012/12/20121210163949436595.html

Every little bit helps.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Unfortunate choice of words.

[GliderGuider]

2. Anything to keep the Mills of the Gods grinding on a little longer, I guess...

[Starboard Tack]

3. Any reduction in carbon footprint is a plus of sorts.nt

[NoOneMan]

4. I doubt it has

Did they use magic to make the 72,000 panels?

[Starboard Tack]

5. Manufacturing requires energy.

More renewable energy, the less carbon. Those panels need virtually zero maintenance and last a long time.
Would you prefer we make diesel generators?

[NoOneMan]

6. I prefer we cease production of unnecessary items

And while the production created a "green" power infrastructure, it comes with substantial carbon debt and simply powers an unnecessary human activity.

We did not need to burn hydro-carbons to make the green infrastructure that is going to be used to wage resource wars. Simply ceasing the resource wars would eliminate the need for the production (and also limit the supply the fuels tangential production)

[Starboard Tack]

8. I agree. However it isn't an either or scenario.

Energy use is ubiquitous. It is used for good things and bad things. We have little control over that, but if the damage caused is lessened in any way, then it is less of a minus at the very least.
I'm trying to keep my life cup half full. I deal with this dilemma every day, juggling between my panels, batteries and backup generator, in an effort to cause as little damage as possible, while still getting what I need. Not an easy task, as we approach the winter solstice.

[NoOneMan]

9. Its not about good vs bad, but necessary vs unnecessary

What is necessary? Ensuring that we don't starve or drown in 50 years, have access to clean water, and increasing the carbon sequestering capacity of the earth. Its difficult to do any of those things without increasing the immediate aggregate carbon emissions (other than planting trees); as in "difficult", I mean not worth the immediate carbon-debt for many of these activities.

What is unnecessary? Everything else. Everything. This includes building green infrastructure that will power more unnecessary production.

Why? Because this is a question of survival and bringing our planet back into homeostasis. All other concerns are now moot. Petty. Irrelevant. Unnecessary.

but if the damage caused is lessened in any way

Its not lessened. It creates more energy, which fuels more production. It may lower the cost of dirty fuel at home, making it more attractive abroad. The energy is used to secure further carbon-base energy, that will be burned in further production. All of this is unnecessary as far as survival is concerned, if you are concerned at all about survival.

[Starboard Tack]

11. You may well be right, but I hope not.

Meanwhile, I will do everything I can to reduce my carbon footprint. I don't see the world as "home and abroad", but a place we all live and each individual has a responsibility to help the planet survive. Production is not fueled by cheap energy, but by demand.

Reduce demand and you reduce production. Question is "How?" Wait for global economic collapse? Maybe. I prefer an educational approach, along with living by example.

[GliderGuider]

7. "More renewable energy, the less carbon." I do not agree.

As far as I can tell, as more renewable energy is developed in one place, it simply frees up the carbon that would have been burned there to be burned elsewhere - in Chindia for example. As long as there is a market for all FF that can be produced, the addition of renewables just expands economic activity, it doesn't reduce carbon emissions one iota.

The only thing that will reduce emissions is a global economic crash that reduces the world's demand for energy.

So given all this - yes, I'd prefer we use diesel generators over solar panels. We're going to emit all the carbon (and crash the global economy as a result) anyway, so we might as well get on with our job. Let's not force the rest of life on this planet suffer at our hands any longer than it has to.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Well, that's an interesting take.

And unfortunately, you may well be right. However, I see it a little differently. I enjoy the air I breathe. Logic dictates that eventually, wind and solar will surpass other energy sources and they will provide the very energy they require to provide for their own production.
I think the global economic crash will come regardless. The increase in solar and wind energy production may slow that crash down, but it will also ease the transition toward a less destructive species. And from a selfish POV, I wouldn't feel the impact of such a crash anywhere near as much as those who are totally dependent on fossil fuels.

[Nihil]

12. I'd rather that they reduce energy by reducing the excessive size of the military ...

... but, as you say, every little bit helps.

If nothing else, it will boost the installers/maintainers in the region so that will, in turn, help
any thinking civilians there who wish to do the same thing as the military ...