Army to buy 4,000 Electric Vehicles

[Kitsune]

Seems like a pretty good idea actually....would not mind one myself to go back and forth to work and the store

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/a ... s_112408w/

Army to buy electric cars



By Kris Osborn - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Nov 25, 2008 7:26:14 EST
Aiming to save fuel and advance alternative-energy plans, the Army, Navy and Air Force intend to buy thousands of battery-powered, 35-mile-an-hour electric cars and light trucks to provide on-base transport, senior Army officials said.

“The Neighborhood Electric Vehicle [NEV] will be at Fort Belvoir, [Va.,] before Dec. 15. Our goal is to have the secretary [of the Army, Pete Geren] there to drive in one of the first ones,” said Paul Bollinger, deputy assistant Army secretary for energy and partnerships. “We are having bumper stickers put on and decals on the doors which say ‘Army Green, Army Strong.’ ”

The Army plans to order the street-legal NEVs from E-Z-Go, Native American Biofuels International and other electric-car makers. E-Z-Go, which is a subsidiary of defense giant Textron, makes golf carts that are listed online at about $1,300 each.

“We’re excited about this,” said James Cooke, CEO of Native American Bio-fuels International, Arlington, Va. “We’ve been working on alternative energy for about three-and-a-half years. We’ve innovated with Native American tribes all over the country.”

Next year, 800 cars will be delivered and 4,000 over the next three years. Ultimately, “we should be able to go to at least 10,000 vehicles overall,” Bollinger said.

The Army’s plan has persuaded its sister services to jump on board.

“The good news is that the Air Force and Navy have come to us and said that they want to piggyback on the order. Previously, the Air Force was looking at low-speed vehicles, which are actually still gasoline vehicles. We’ve skipped that and we are going straight to electric. We are eliminating the fuel issue, period,” Bollinger said.

An Air Force official confirmed his service’s involvement in the electric car purchase, but could not immediately provide details.

The Army is moving quickly; the purchase plans were unveiled last month as part of the service’s ambitious new energy strategy, which also calls for the construction of solar and geothermal facilities.

Bollinger said each electric car would use an average of about $400 in electricity per year, compared to the roughly $2,400 in fuel needed to run a gas-powered car, citing General Services Administration figures. Moreover, the 4,000 electric cars will save 11.5 million gallons of fuel per year, he said.

Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Va.-based think tank, noted that the price of fuel is nearly half of its record high earlier this year.

“In a few months, the savings that they could have expected has dropped by half,” he said.

The first batch of vehicles will likely be leased per year from Native American Biofuels International, Bollinger said. The Army expects to continue to lease the electric cars on a yearly basis and possibly buy them down the road.

“We will not be paying any more for the NEV than for a standard gasoline-powered vehicle,” Bollinger said.

The NEVs, now powered by lead-acid batteries, may one day be operated by lithium batteries, which are able to store and dispense larger amounts of energy at a lighter weight compared with lead-acid batteries.

The Army hopes to inspire a broader market for electric cars and has been telling automakers about the plans.

“Chevy is looking at making the Volt, a street vehicle that will go highway speeds. We don’t need that because the speed limit on our installation is 30 mph. We don’t need something that big or expensive, but we might need something that powerful. So in the future, if they are able to make it, that is great,” Bollinger said.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now all we need to do is resurrect the US Army nuclear power program to charge the things up. Those new nuclear battery reactors would be just great for the job.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Now all we need to do is resurrect the US Army nuclear power program to charge the things up. Those new nuclear battery reactors would be just great for the job.

How much lifetime do those reactors have?

[Lonestar]

How much lifetime do those reactors have?

About 10, if we're talking about Hyperion Power's micro-reactors.

[Sea Skimmer]

Two different kinds of very small reactors are currently being pushed. The Hyperion Hydride Reactor, which has no moving parts and uses thermocouples to make power is expected to last about 7-10 years between refueling. It was designed by Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory and basically nothing can go wrong with it. The other type being pushed by Toshiba is called S4 and is more conventional sodium cooled fast reactor driving a steam turbine, with a mobile neutron reflector that lets it go 30 years. However it’s also a lot more expensive, and a lot more technologically risky. Hyperion claims to have 10 firm paying orders, while Toshiba is still working on firming up just one as a free prototype for a town in Alaska. Either way though, current US nuclear regulations treat these small plants exactly like they would a full scale nuclear plant, so until that changes it’s a huge financial hurdle to adapting either one within the US. Hyperions orders are all foreign, Toshiba has money to burn if it can get its plant validated.

Odds of the military actually buying either one are about nil right now, but at one point the US military had no less then seven reactors running powering various remote bases.

[defanatic]

That truck looks surprised somehow.

[Ender]

Now all we need to do is resurrect the US Army nuclear power program.

Dahahahahahahaha! NO. We tried that before, and those fuckers were utterly incapable of operating in a safe manner. This isn't something a rigorous training program could fix either, it is an institutional culture difference. In the Army, your number one priority is taking care of your squad mates. In the Navy, your number one priority is taking care of the equipment. "Save yourself so you can save the ship. That's how you save your friend." That thinking is anathema to the Army. And any attempt to rectify that, like they tried last time, will be fought tooth and nails by the brass, like last time.

[MKSheppard]

We tried that before, and those fuckers were utterly incapable of operating in a safe manner.

How strange then, that the Army operated a whole series of reactors, from the first one which actually put nuclear generated power on the US Grid for the first time, to the MH-1A, which generated power for the Panama Canal Zone grid from '68 to '75 from a repurposed liberty ship. PM-3A operated from 1962 to 1972 at McMurdo in Antartica; with the oonly real problem being the SL-1 accident.

[MKSheppard]

This isn't something a rigorous training program could fix either, it is an institutional culture difference. In the Army, your number one priority is taking care of your squad mates. In the Navy, your number one priority is taking care of the equipment. "Save yourself so you can save the ship. That's how you save your friend." That thinking is anathema to the Army. And any attempt to rectify that, like they tried last time, will be fought tooth and nails by the brass, like last time.

Funny how the Army has managed complex programs before, run them without them burning down the house --- here's a hint -- Virtually all the research and development from the 1950s onwards in ABM, namely ZEUS, ZEUS-XE, SPARTAN, and SPRINT, which culiminated in the operational Mickelson SAFEGUARD complex were managed and developed by the Army.

In fact, the Army still has the ABM mission -- the 49th Missile Defense Battalion runs the GBIs at Fort Greeley.

They also have their own navy -- check out the fine details of the 88K MOSes...

[Marko Dash]

friend's wife is a nuke engineer for the sub fleet. IIRC, the way she tells it. the army tried using a reactor that had manual control rods. one scrammed, firing the rods up through the stupid bastard controlling them and embedded themselves in the roof.


the truck looks surprised because it was just told it's father was a 4x4 ATV and it's mother was a golf cart.

[Ender]

How strange then, that the Army operated a whole series of reactors, from the first one which actually put nuclear generated power on the US Grid for the first time, to the MH-1A, which generated power for the Panama Canal Zone grid from '68 to '75 from a repurposed liberty ship. PM-3A operated from 1962 to 1972 at McMurdo in Antartica; with the oonly real problem being the SL-1 accident.

Yes, the "only real problem" being the worst accident we've ever had and a direct result of intentional negligence. And of course, let us ignore that those other projects had NRO holding their hands the entire time, something that, as I pointed out, the brass fought tooth and nail.

Funny how the Army has managed complex programs before, run them without them burning down the house --- here's a hint -- Virtually all the research and development from the 1950s onwards in ABM, namely ZEUS, ZEUS-XE, SPARTAN, and SPRINT, which culiminated in the operational Mickelson SAFEGUARD complex were managed and developed by the Army.

In fact, the Army still has the ABM mission -- the 49th Missile Defense Battalion runs the GBIs at Fort Greeley.

They also have their own navy -- check out the fine details of the 88K MOSes...

Hey, check it out, apples are the same as oranges. Do you honestly not see the difference between operating a naturally inert system and operating a system intentionally brought to an unstable state?

[Ender]

friend's wife is a nuke engineer for the sub fleet. IIRC, the way she tells it. the army tried using a reactor that had manual control rods. one scrammed, firing the rods up through the stupid bastard controlling them and embedded themselves in the roof.

Funny that subs are male only then. But your story refers to the SL-1 incident, though the details are grossly off.

[Sidewinder]

friend's wife is a nuke engineer for the sub fleet. IIRC, the way she tells it. the army tried using a reactor that had manual control rods. one scrammed, firing the rods up through the stupid bastard controlling them and embedded themselves in the roof.

When did the US Army build a fucking nuclear reactor with fucking manually operated control rods? Because this speaks of criminal ignorance of the dangers of radiation, not to mention it's BEGGING for a meltdown, or at least an accident in which someone sacrificed his/her life to prevent a meltdown.

[Ender]

friend's wife is a nuke engineer for the sub fleet. IIRC, the way she tells it. the army tried using a reactor that had manual control rods. one scrammed, firing the rods up through the stupid bastard controlling them and embedded themselves in the roof.

When did the US Army build a fucking nuclear reactor with fucking manually operated control rods? Because this speaks of criminal ignorance of the dangers of radiation, not to mention it's BEGGING for a meltdown, or at least an accident in which someone sacrificed his/her life to prevent a meltdown.

15 second breakdown: The fuckers couldn't be assed to do the maintenance the proper way, so they opened it up and began manually pulling them. On top of that, they tried to do multiple rods at the same time. They pulled out too many, insufficient neutrons were absorbed, the reactor went supercritical and began boiling. Water flashed to steam and expanded. This hurled the rods they were still pulling out, impaling one of the guys to the ceiling, and poaching the other guy in steam. Massive burns and a huge radiation dose killed him. And from that point, the situation deteriorated. Look up SL-1 and see what has been declassified.

[Sea Skimmer]

Dahahahahahahaha! NO. We tried that before, and those fuckers were utterly incapable of operating in a safe manner. This isn't something a rigorous training program could fix either, it is an institutional culture difference. In the Army, your number one priority is taking care of your squad mates. In the Navy, your number one priority is taking care of the equipment. "Save yourself so you can save the ship. That's how you save your friend." That thinking is anathema to the Army. And any attempt to rectify that, like they tried last time, will be fought tooth and nails by the brass, like last time.

So if the navy takes care of its equipment so well, how come Thresher imploded after the Navy shortchanged her overhaul and ignored a large number of faulty welds? Why did Scorpion sink just five years later after she was repeatedly denied SUBSAFE improvements the Navy considered essential following Threshers loss as part of a deliberate policy of shortchanging maintenance yet again?

How come none of the operational army reactors melted down or otherwise suffered catastrophes? Could it be that in fact both services had to learn how to handle such dramatically more advanced systems in the early years of the Cold War?

Course… the USN continues to ram its nuclear powered steel tubes into surface ships and mountains on a regular basis, quite often as the result of very deliberate negligence, its just gotten lucky not to hit anything on the reactor compartment… yet.

Yes, the "only real problem" being the worst accident we've ever had and a direct result of intentional negligence. And of course, let us ignore that those other projects had NRO holding their hands the entire time, something that, as I pointed out, the brass fought tooth and nail.

No one actually knows why the single moveable control rod was withdrawn too far, the people you know died, but we do know that the reactor was simply inherently flawed in only having one rod, and such an accident should just not have been possible. We also know the control rod was prone to getting stuck which is probuabbly why it got pulled on. This was direct result of the Army wanting a cheap reactor so could power 60+ radar stations on the DEW line. Hey.. cost cutting killing people yet again, only at least it was only 3 instead of nearly two hundred.

Anyway none of this matters, since we could just use civilians to run the reactors on Army bases, just like civilians already do everything else including killing the enemy now. That or we could just rob people from the navy, or even exnavy civilians as its submarine fleet continues to shrink.

[Zixinus]

FUCK YES!

‘Army Green, Army Strong.’

'Cos it eats all its greens!"

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

“We’ve been working on alternative energy for about three-and-a-half years. We’ve innovated with Native American tribes all over the country.”

Wut? Native American tribes? They still live in tribes? What?

Bollinger said each electric car would use an average of about $400 in electricity per year, compared to the roughly $2,400 in fuel needed to run a gas-powered car, citing General Services Administration figures. Moreover, the 4,000 electric cars will save 11.5 million gallons of fuel per year, he said.

That's what I call proper environmentalism. Efficient, purposeful, affordable yet clean. It's doing a job it CAN do (hopefully).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

friend's wife is a nuke engineer for the sub fleet. IIRC, the way she tells it. the army tried using a reactor that had manual control rods. one scrammed, firing the rods up through the stupid bastard controlling them and embedded themselves in the roof.

Funny that subs are male only then. But your story refers to the SL-1 incident, though the details are grossly off.

Uhm, I think he's referring to a civilian employee of the navy who works on nuclear sub maintenance and disposal? I know of several female nuke engs at PSNS/Naval Base Kitsap under that definition..

...That said, the description is idiotic beyond belief, so I figure it's more likely bullshit.

[Phantasee]

I love EZ-Go golf carts! My cousin's golf course just ordered a bunch of new ones for the next season, the model we tested was pretty fast for an electric. Actually, I think it might even give one of the gas Yamahas a run for their money.

They really are a good choice, when you think about all the running around you would do on a base. It's a good idea, glad to see they did something with it.

[FSTargetDrone]

Uhm, I think he's referring to a civilian employee of the navy who works on nuclear sub maintenance and disposal? I know of several female nuke engs at PSNS/Naval Base Kitsap under that definition..

...That said, the description is idiotic beyond belief, so I figure it's more likely bullshit.

Here is an old (40-minute) video on YouTube about the accident. I found it referenced on the Wiki article about this incident.

And here is a 1961 Time article linked from the Wiki page:

Friday, Jan. 13, 1961

Runaway Reactor

Early in the subzero night, alarms flashed in three fire stations dotted across the lonely Idaho Falls test site of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Fire crews raced toward the gloomy silo housing the experimental nuclear reactor that the Army calls SL-1 (Stationary Low No. 1), suddenly ground to a halt at the silo door when their detection equipment registered lethal radiation. Lead-suited rescue workers took over, but inside the reactor room radiation was up to 1,000 roentgens an hour (450 is a man-killing dose). They could stay inside for just a few moments at a time—long enough to haul out one man who still showed signs of life. Moments later he was dead. Two others were already beyond help, their bodies shattered by an explosion that had wrecked the reactor.

The SL-1, designed to supply heat and power for Arctic DEW-line outposts, had been running successfully and efficiently for 2½ years, had been shut down for overhaul for two weeks. It was equipped with every built-in safeguard, every "fail safe" device known to science. What went wrong with SL-1? Although technicians could stay in the building for only brief periods, everything they saw suggested that the impossible had happened: the reactor had suddenly boiled up in a runaway atomic reaction. In thousandths of a second, its water coolant had been turned into superheated steam that ruptured the reactor tank. Best guess was that some of the cadmium control rods (which are inserted to stop the nuclear reaction) had somehow been lifted out of position.

The answer to the explosion was more than a matter of passing interest. Private light and power companies believe that atomic power will never be economically feasible unless reactors can be built close to cities to reduce power transmission costs. Many a city is chary about admitting this forerunner of the atomic future. As they searched for explanations, AEC agents ran up against another sorrowful problem of the atomic age: What to do with the bodies of Seabee Electrician Richard Legg, 26, Army Specialist John Byrnes III, 22, and Army Specialist Richard McKinley, 27? Since they will long be radioactive, they will have to be buried in lead coffins in some secluded area or consigned to the sea.

I must say, I am moderately interested in what became of the bodies.

[Beowulf]

I must say, I am moderately interested in what became of the bodies.

Lead lined concrete caskets, covered with more concrete. What else?

[MKSheppard]

Lead lined concrete caskets, covered with more concrete. What else?

HEADQUARTERS
MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON 28, D.C.
In Reply Refer To
AMHRC 31 January 1961

SUBJECT: Internment of Radioactive Remains

TO: Superintendent
Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington 11, Virginia

1. Radioactive remains of SP4 Richard L. McKinley were interred at Arlington National Cemetery on 25 January 1961.

2. It is desired that the following remark be placed onthe permanent record, DA Form 2122, Record ofInternment:

"Victim of nuclear accident. Body is contaminated with long-life radio-active isotopes. Under no circumstances will the body be moved from this location without prior approval of the Atomic Energy Commission in consultation with this headquarters."

FOR THE COMMANDER:

Leon S. Monroe, II
2d Lt. AGC
Assistant Adjutant General

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is it among the biggest graves there?

[FSTargetDrone]

I must say, I am moderately interested in what became of the bodies.

Lead lined concrete caskets, covered with more concrete. What else?

One contemporary story I read mentioned a possible burial at sea.

Anyway, you are right and I just found this after reading Sheppard's post:

...John Byrnes is buried in his hometown of Utica, New York; Richard Legg in his hometown of Kingston, Michigan, and Richard McKinley in Arlington National Cemetery.

As far apart as they are, their graves are strikingly similar. The caskets are lined with lead and sunk in concrete. The coffins rest inside metal vaults driven as far as 10 feet into the ground. Concrete has been poured on top of the vaults so that relatives of the dead men can freely visit and care for their grave sites.

Byrnes, Legg and McKinley were given such elaborate burials because they died together in what is still history's only fatal atomic power accident. Now more than 15 years old, it was an accident that killed two of them at once and the third two hours later -- a tragedy that left their bones and bodies radioactive.

Also at the link, there is something about this incident being a murder-suicide?

[Saxtonite]

Also at the link, there is something about this incident being a murder-suicide?

I heard that it was a result of a "Love Triangle". I think the book Killing Our Own states that, but I don't think they went into much detail. Heard of this incident before, impaling, burying in lead/concrete, etc but wow with

"Victim of nuclear accident. Body is contaminated with long-life radio-active isotopes. Under no circumstances will the body be moved from this location without prior approval of the Atomic Energy Commission in consultation with this headquarters."

heh.