Action Plans
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
The Call To Action describes motivation and purpose for this game.
Corresponding work: Idea Card Chains for this game
|
Action PlansenergyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game endThe Call To Action describes motivation and purpose for this game. Corresponding work: Idea Card Chains for this game |
|
|
(No video? Try this) |
Call to Action for the energyMMOWGLI game !!Your ideas and action plans are needed. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps depend far too much on petroleum, hampering our forces. The global supply of oil is finite and increasingly hard to find. Costs continue to rise. We need to improve our energy security, increase energy independence, and lead the nation towards a clean energy economy. Please help us execute the Navy Energy Security Strategy:
The energyMMOWGLI Portal contains further game information. |
|
Action Plan 1 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
https://secure.onr.navy.mil/energymmowgli/images/mmowgli2012.JPG |
| 2 |  |
|
| 3 |  |
|
| 4 |  |
http://www.enn.com/images/rls/navy_energysecurity_logo_highres.jpg |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24zNBWPDJLM The new Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus says his top priority is supporting Sailors, Marines and their families. He also wants to make the Navy energy independent and cut costs. See more DoD videos at http://dodvclips.mil |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB35qd7erjg U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus says the Navy and Marine Corps use enough energy spark alternative fuel infrastructure development. This Carnegie Council event took place on November 9, 2010. For complete video, audio, and transcript, go to: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org |
| 3 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZVahtetS8E U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus explains the strategic and tactical reasons for the U.S. Navy to seek alternative energy solutions. This Carnegie Council event took place on November 9, 2010. For complete video, audio, and transcript, go to: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org |
| 4 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ-J91SwP8w JOIN the conversation on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/Postcarbon (thanks for sharing the message!) *** (19. MARCH 2011) WINNER OF YOUTUBE'S BEST NONPROFIT VIDEO AWARD!!! *** Fossil fuels have powered human growth and ingenuity for centuries. Now that we're reaching the end of cheap and abundant oil and coal supplies, we're in for an exciting ride. While there's a real risk that we'll fall off a cliff, there's still time to control our transition to a post-carbon future. A deeper analysis of the crises we face, and possible solutions we can work on right now can be had HERE: http://j.mp/PCReader +++ WE ARE LOOKING FOR volunteer translators or subtitle help!!! Any language. Contact media@postcarbon.org. So far, we have - In PORTUGUESE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l6jkqv63lU With SIMPLIFIED CHINESE subtitles: http://www.tudou.com/playlist/p/l11764222i95039245.html With TRADITIONAL CHINESE subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOBSAYP1LpU With HUNGARIAN subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4IEhUrrDL4 With FRENCH subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5SaC-luI98, dubbed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeEU_uy4YrQ&feature=player_embedded With ITALIAN subtitles http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/wlfaeB6WAYWP/it/104157/ RUSSIAN subtitles http://bit.ly/A6pDb0 Thanks to volunteer translator Maksym Mirzabaiev SLOVAK: http://www.universalsubtitles.org/sk/videos/wlfaeB6WAYWP/sk/189458/ (Thanks to Martin). SPANISH: subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7cbTbo0RaY or dubbed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIydcOn_3kI SONG CREDIT: "Can I Kick It?" by Tribe Called Quest |
| 1 | Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:43:32 -0700 | gm_donb: Chat messages are only visible to plan authors. |
| 2 | Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:43:56 -0700 | gm_donb: Testing chat. |
| 3 | Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:38:08 -0700 | gm_mike: Mike chat |
| 4 | Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:39:25 -0700 | gm_jason: Testing chat |
| 5 | Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:40:23 -0700 | gm_garth: chat chat chat |
| 6 | Mon, 7 May 2012 14:14:14 -0700 | gm_donb: hey Chad can you please test the image loading, local and online? |
| 7 | Fri, 18 May 2012 18:40:54 -0700 | brutzman: image loading is working, but some warping can still occur. Example in Action Plan 3. |
| 1 | Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:42:24 -0700 | gm_donb: This is the same initial action plan as previous games, with history of prior entries available. |
| 2 | Sun, 13 May 2012 13:45:33 -0700 | gm_donb: These videos are pretty interesting. Recommended viewing. |
| 3 | Tue, 22 May 2012 05:57:52 -0700 | Jez3Prez: yes, I guess now we know that climate change is real: cf. "300 Years of FOSSIL FUELS in 300 Seconds" youtu.be/cJ-J91SwP8w |
Action Plan 3 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:19:30 -0700 | brutzman: The link to the library guide will be active on the published version of this action plan. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:20:41 -0700 | JayAre: test |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:20:57 -0700 | brutzman: http://web.mmowgli.nps.edu/energy/ActionPlanListEnergy2012.html#ActionPlan3 |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:21:27 -0700 | zebra: trying this out |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:21:49 -0700 | gm_chano: Test |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:25:53 -0700 | JayAre: tring again |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:10:45 -0700 | gm_chano: http://www.nps.edu/Video/Portal/Video.aspx?enc=KyfOaRF3xJFR9F%2fbGYiatyWyRrj6FpXlvaBnPCWHzQ4%3d |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:34:09 -0700 | gm_chano: http://www.nps.edu/Video/Portal/Video.aspx?enc=8Q8H6I8yygO%2bZL%2fMi0DoEDmfBjxncKIm |
| 1 | Fri, 11 May 2012 14:58:55 -0700 | brutzman: I'm keen to see where this goes. |
| 2 | Mon, 21 May 2012 08:17:04 -0700 | JayAre: We are working on putting up a web site linking to key energy sites, documents, & agencies, particularly those most relevant to DoD. |
| 3 | Mon, 21 May 2012 08:19:29 -0700 | JayAre: We at the Library are also willing to assist MMOWGLI gamers by answering reference questions. See our "Ask a Librarian" page at http://vrlplus.cb.docutek.com/nps/vrl_entry.asp. |
| 4 | Tue, 22 May 2012 10:05:02 -0700 | Seahawk91: Will there be a way for us to see what information is available from the library from within the game? |
| 5 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:36:47 -0700 | nory: How interactive is the new subject guide? Does it provide an expert systems, logic gate set up that allows someone to filter down to what is truly wanted by answering a set of questions? Also would need to allow for non-specific queries when the person checking does not yet know what to ask. |
| 6 | Thu, 24 May 2012 17:54:07 -0700 | JayAre: Seahawk91: We'll have to discuss where within the game to put the Library's links, but you can get to the Library home page and search our library catalog at http://www.nps.edu/library/. nory: The subject guide set up by library staff http://libguides.nps.edu/energy is intended more to provide food for thought to game participants as well as info. on DoD/Navy/Marine Corps energy policy, practice, innovation. And you can always ask a question via this forum or Ask a Librarian: http://vrlplus.cb.docutek.com/nps/vrl_entry.asp. The "filtering" suggestion is a good one and something we might consider. I think at the very least we need to develop an FAQ. |
Action Plan 4 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp1QL6c9S6U Headlines from around the fleet: The Green Hornet is making a test flight on Earth Day; Navy Recruiting Command is incorporating hybrid cars into its recruiter vehicle pool; the Navy reminds Sailors of its zero tolerance drug use policy. |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8EiAWG5iU4 The U.S. Army unveiled the Clandestine Extended Range Vehicles, or CERVs, as a part of the display at the 2012 Chicago Auto Show. The CERVs are diesel-electric hybrid prototypes that have been engineered for reconnaissance, targeting and rescue missions. Visit http://tardec.army.mil/ to learn more about the Army's |
| 3 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEMOpCRktm4 Short presentation animatic created for SkyTran. Video by: Ashley Tyler aptyler89@gmail.com www.krop.com/aptyler Music by: William Price willprice.sound@gmail.com |
| 4 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HrA729MpnY Hybrid pickup trucks are unique because they have exceptional fuel economy, but drive and are fueled the same way as a normal pickup truck. While they are usually more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts, from a cost-benefit analysis, it may not be all that much of a premium. The new Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra hybrid pickups have fuel economy that's 50% better in the city, and they offer over 300 horsepower and 1,500 pounds payload as well as 6,100 pounds of towing. These hybrid pickup trucks actually have the same mileage as many popular 4-cylinder mid-size cars. Check out this footage of hybrid trucks with the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra, as well as commentary from John Schwegman of Chevrolet and our very own Kirill Ougarov of Motor Trend. |
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 12:55:27 -0700 | Podge: Some food for thought on how it will work: command posts will be recharging stations, and distance between command posts will be designed to support the max ranges of the vehicles. |
| 2 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:00:09 -0700 | mrsfist: The biggest issue with converting to hybrids is cost. How will this be fixed. |
| 3 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:05:38 -0700 | mrsfist: Currently all vehicles are american companies. Would this apply for hybrids as well. |
| 4 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:47:46 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Hey guys, I'm a gamemaster for this exercise. Have you been experiencing any technical difficulties with this Action Plan? If so, give me all the details and I'll start working on it. Thanks! |
| 5 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:48:18 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: We have indications you've been trying multiple times to invite the same people. |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 14:29:03 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Hey folks, a gamemaster here. We're experiencing technical difficulties with some actions plans. This one is particulary active, which is great. Please hold all comments and uploads to this action plan while we fix the problem. I'll put out another comment when it's ready to go. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:35:59 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: As you've likely noticed already, the technical problems from earlier today have been resolved. Play on! |
| 8 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:59:51 -0700 | Crzr81: I just posted to images that Army is testing a hybrid heavy duty tactical vehicle. Looks like it could have applications to MRAP. |
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:52 -0700 | Podge: Command posts will be the recharging stations, and we'll need to manage the distance between them to ensure the vehicle has the endurance to travel between the posts. |
| 2 | Tue, 22 May 2012 12:59:04 -0700 | Podge: We can also use fuel cells, much like we're using today in cars (GM fuel cell). These fuel cells will need to be recharged also as they deplete, which can be done at the command posts. |
| 3 | Tue, 22 May 2012 12:59:10 -0700 | nory: Conversion to hybrid vehicles should consider converting to a fleet set up. Vehicles are kept at recharging stations and a central computer handles booking of them . This works well in city situations where fleets are used by many people to travel. |
| 4 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:03:47 -0700 | nory: Temple University is working on an interesting project to increase the efficancy range and performance of hyrids. Their vehicle design seems well suited to the needs of a naval fleet we are postulating on this. http://vader.eng.temple.edu/research/labs/composites/projects/hybrid-car/ |
| 5 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:05:27 -0700 | Podge: For the "what will it take" section, we should convert it to a list, as the section is described on the left. |
| 6 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:06:59 -0700 | nory: Agreed on the what will it take - for instance the use of hybrid PEM fuel cells should be one of the items |
| 7 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:18:38 -0700 | Podge: I edited the "How will it work" section to add details. There is still more work to be done there, but I have to sign out for a few hours. |
| 8 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:42:00 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Hey guys, I'm a gamemaster for this exercise. Have you been experiencing any technical difficulties? If so, give me all the details and I'll start working on it. Thanks! |
| 9 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:49:04 -0700 | nory: re LCDR Steve's question: System is hanging on updates, refresh appears sporatic, and unique lock on data during updates is not occurring. Still much better than the last test on Piracy last summer. |
| 10 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:51:10 -0700 | mrsfist: I mainly keep having server downtime issues with the website. I ended up completly having to get out of the internet and come back in. |
| 11 | Tue, 22 May 2012 14:27:45 -0700 | MOD: Thanks for the invite to co-author, Nory. Shoot me some details, or ask me some questions. Either way, I will respond. |
| 12 | Tue, 22 May 2012 14:36:27 -0700 | mrsfist: Here is the transportation energy data book link. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/download30.shtml |
| 13 | Tue, 22 May 2012 14:59:41 -0700 | KNOWLEDGE: Do you think there is a way to apply wireless charging to the vehicles? I know the technology is available for hand held devices, but if i could be expanded upon so that the vehicles are always charging. |
| 14 | Tue, 22 May 2012 15:16:08 -0700 | nory: Mod your write up of questions was excellent. Could you post it here on the comments and let's look at dividing them out and adding them to our Action Plan. |
| 15 | Tue, 22 May 2012 15:59:25 -0700 | nory: Mods questions: 1) Determining what type of fuel (AEF-Alternative Energy Fuel) would be required to operate said vehicles for optimum performance. (Biofuel or Electricity/Fuel combination) 2) Utilizing NASCAR engineering resources to redesign said vehicles, for endurance,strength, and speed. (Getting to where we need to be quickly is imperative. No good in re-inventing the Model-T, if we give up speed as a factor in vehicle operation based only on fuel efficiency) 3) Transferring learned information across all branches of military and civilian government operations. 4) Must be cost effective from a operational aspect and Research and Development aspect. 5) Must meet goals of vehicle's requirements for said operation (eg: transport, police and fire, bomb disposal, ect). 6) Must be able to meet "fleet" acquisition requirements in bulk. How many, how fast, how soon to either build new or retrofit completion? Question: Is conversion cheaper than manufacture? Once the power plant is changed, how many can be converted annually as a targeted goal within reason, by 2016? 1st question,...how many vehicles are we talking about switching over? Or, would it be cheaper, once Research and Development is completed, to sell older vehicles to create cash flow for new upgraded AE government vehicles, or re-cycle older vehicle materials (metal, rubber, glass,..ect) to manufacture new AE vehicles? |
| 16 | Tue, 22 May 2012 16:11:16 -0700 | prof: Fuel cell technologies could be an interesting intermediate step. Need to avoid the design an implementation debacle of the F-35 program (I'll have the same, but can we make it a little different for my service, please?). We lose economies and research benefits on that front. Probably best done by ONR-type agency, keep it in house, then market to public (if appropriate) afterwords. |
| 17 | Tue, 22 May 2012 16:32:16 -0700 | nory: Excellent point prof. Fuel cell technologies is a good intermediate step. There are research teams everywhere working on these, many academic and some private. The Navy could consider leveraging some of the published information and either work with others or (as you suggest) take it in house in one of the research agencies. I'd be more apt to suggest collaboration to reduce redundant repeating of steps done elsewhere but then again sometimes a totally fresh look at the problem might yield new directions. |
| 18 | Tue, 22 May 2012 16:38:52 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Gamemaster here. Hey guys, don't forget about the "Images" and "Videos" tabs in this Action Plan. Please populate those areas with any multimedia products you think may help the group better understand your perspective. Keep up the great flow of ideas! |
| 19 | Tue, 22 May 2012 17:50:53 -0700 | prof: nory, I concur. My thought about keeping it in house is to avoid "mission creep" and to maintain focus on the actual aspects of the project, namely end-game alternate fuel for low-emission/sustainable/renewable applications. Outside vendors and think-tank types could clearly be brought in, but I am thinking of a "Bletchley Park" type of operation with the best and brightest brought inside for a solution then take it into the light for board-spectrum solutions beyond the military application base. |
| 20 | Tue, 22 May 2012 17:51:22 -0700 | rcamp004: You'll want to ask yourself what kind of Fuel cell you want and for what purpose. Remember PEM's (Proton exchange membranes) have been around for years and have been used on the ISS and subs and are rated up to 36g's of force. Compare that with a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) which are ceramic, have a better efficiency but are ceramic and therefore more brittle. Also, you can run fuel cells in reverse as water electrolyzers. So, if you have energy to spare and want to produce H2 for fuel this can be another potential use. |
| 21 | Tue, 22 May 2012 20:54:16 -0700 | mrsfist: Let's look at the goal here. Are we looking at completely setting up the governments own hybrid or are we looking at just getting the government to convert to save money and oil? |
| 22 | Tue, 22 May 2012 21:09:11 -0700 | mrsfist: MOD: to answer some of your questions about speed and performance the vehicles are already out there. Jaguar has a hybrid sports car, speed, and Chevy has a hybrid truck, performance. I attached a video review on the hybrid truck. It would not take much at all to replace are current fleet of gas hogs with these. They also have combat applications. It would not take much to drop that engine into many of are many of are combat vehicles. |
| 23 | Wed, 23 May 2012 01:37:11 -0700 | MOD: mrsfist: NASACAR technology has more to do with taking said vehicles, strengthening it for longevity using light weight alloys, accessing optimal horsepower and torque with engine/power plants based on bio-fuel technology (not electricity/battery storage like Tesla Motors), and maximizing endurance of internal engine components. NASCAR knows how to get maximum performance out a vehicle. Of course, Tesla Roadster can accelerate to 60 MPH in 3.7 seconds, but after traveling across country in a vehicle, I can personally state, America's infrastructure is not ready for the electric vehicle as of yet. Not enough charging stations. Also, keep in mind, Jaguar is owned by India (Tata Motors). The concept of this exercise to to focus on "out of the box" thinking. Saving money on oil means developing alternative fuel sources, AKA Bio-fuel. Also, Chevy=Battery Pack Fire Risk. No such things as "drop in engine", based on hybrid drive train design vs. internal combustion engine design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hybridserie.png Apples and Oranges. Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance requires a 30% reduction in petroleum use by 2020 on 600,000 GSA vehicles. This is based on both alternative fuel vehicles and fuels***. (GSA and DOE will be involved in this petroleum use reduction co-ordination). It's going to be a hard met goal to make a hybrid fleet, based on current battery cell technology, safety requirements, infrastructure, as well as cost prohibitive. But, we shall move forward. |
| 24 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:17:49 -0700 | mrsfist: Like I mentioned before we have to look at our goal. Are we looking for immediate action over the required 30%? A cost analysis would have to be performed on new development versus current technology. Is this something we plan on improving over time or do we want it 100% at the implementation. Of course 100% is not going to happen at this point anyways due to the fact that there are current hybrids already in the fleet and more coming in. Do we want this to be a government hybrid for our fleet that we put out in mass production rather than buying commercial? |
| 25 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:20:21 -0700 | prof: 30% should be the low-hanging fruit. New R&D should be the way forward. |
| 26 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:30:31 -0700 | mrsfist: I agree but do we implement current technology now? |
| 27 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:15:28 -0700 | MOD: prof: I agree, 30% should be the low hanging fruit. First, we must define what we consider the term "hybrid" means. It can mean a series of things. Secondly, we must initiate a plan of actions that reduces petroleum intake on current vehicles immediately that, is easy and cost effective. The implementation of "current technology" must also be defined...and not limited to complete change in drive trains on vehicles in use now. A cost reduction in fuel use and vehicle operating time opens the door to R&D and acquisition of a fleet of newer, standardized "AE (Alternative Energy) friendly" government vehicles for everyday use. Daily mileage of GSA fleet is a factor that needs to be consider across the board. Some agencies use more road time than others. Especially law enforcement. By reducing fuel intake and/or increasing gas mileage...or 30% goals can be met initially. Still, there is the issue of infrastructure (conversion to total electric cars) once the the "perfect" hybrid is achieved. Unless of course, these electric fleet vehicles are limited in travel distance. As a matter of National Security, this includes traveling to areas hit by natural disasters, a "hybrid" could not fend for itself if the power is chopped. Remember, it's chopped at the gas pumps also. I think we should focus on bio-fuel and components engineering as a solution that can operate any vehicle, which includes minimal changes to a standard GSA fleet vehicle. |
| 28 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:47:33 -0700 | prof: the other ting to consider is that the majority of generated electricity in the country comes from coal, so we would have to focus on renewable generation as well. |
| 29 | Wed, 23 May 2012 12:36:12 -0700 | mrsfist: I added a picture of a modular hybrid design. This could be highly used for combat vehicles were HEVs may not be an options. This allows for different types of internal combustion engines (ICE) (hydrogen, biofuel, gas, etc) to be used to support the current operation of the vehicle. It also allows for the veration of using an ICE or a Fuel Cell. |
| 30 | Wed, 23 May 2012 13:09:52 -0700 | MOD: mrsfist: I viewed the ICE schematic, which makes any combat vehicle extremely vulnerable to IED's attacks. Additional armor plating reduces fuel efficiency. Although, it may serve our purposes for non-combat roles. Good job. |
| 31 | Wed, 23 May 2012 13:19:21 -0700 | mrsfist: prof you asked about electricity. Curretly (as of March 2012) coal accounts for 46% of electricty production with Nuclear plants accounting for 21%. This is a huge jump and only increase with need. |
| 32 | Wed, 23 May 2012 14:24:01 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Hey folks, a gamemaster here. We're experiencing technical difficulties with some actions plans. This one is particulary active, which is great. Please hold all comments and uploads to this action plan while we fix the problem. I'll put out another comment when it's ready to go. |
| 33 | Wed, 23 May 2012 14:24:50 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Hey folks, a gamemaster here. We're experiencing technical difficulties with some actions plans. This one is particulary active, which is great. Please hold all comments and uploads to this action plan while we fix the problem. I'll put out another comment when it's ready to go. |
| 34 | Wed, 23 May 2012 15:54:05 -0700 | gm_jollyme: Secil seems to have similar ideas about base transportation: https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy#65_2744. Recommend inviting Secil as an Author for this Action Plan. |
| 35 | Wed, 23 May 2012 15:57:12 -0700 | gm_jollyme: joshrich seems to have similar ideas about base transportation: https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy#65_2658. Recommend inviting joshrich as an Author for this Action Plan. |
| 36 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:15:34 -0700 | gm_jollyme: Should we include "combat" capacity to this Action Plan? |
| 37 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:32:52 -0700 | nory: "combat capacity" should be an offshoot of this Action Plan and might merit its own plan to keep it from being subsumed by everything going on in this one. |
| 38 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:35:17 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: As you've likely noticed already, the technical problems from earlier today have been resolved. Play on! |
| 39 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:45:17 -0700 | mrsfist: I agree with nory. what is usable for non-combat will have more difficulties converting. |
| 40 | Thu, 24 May 2012 04:22:35 -0700 | Hokieman78: The main issue with hybrids is that they are most applicable, in any any use and context, with those situations where time shifting of energy production and usages is desirable, and for those uses where starting/stopping is occurring frequently. Steady-state usages are not good candidates for hydridizing a power source. That said, one excellent use for a hybrid system for generator sets would be to utilize the batteries to store excess power not used during generation, allowing the gen set to the started and stopped more frequently. Applying this to portable gensets for FOB and outpost use should result in significant fuel savings, just not large quantities in the overall sense. But when you consider the cost of transporting a gallon of diesel to a mountain outpost in Afghanistan, it makes the hybrid set cost very competitive. |
| 41 | Thu, 24 May 2012 04:29:02 -0700 | Hokieman78: And on a larger scale for domestic base use, hybrid-based storage for time shifting of energy production in those areas where the Navy pays for demand usage from the local grid. Many years ago early in my career my company developed ice storage technology for use in time shifting operations of cooling loads for large buildings. Made the ice at night when demand and rates were lower, then used the stored ice slurry to cool the building during the day. Substitute the complex ice making and storage systems with a massive array of smaller commercial hybrid-based battery storage units, and voila, you have a land-based demand shift systems for land use. |
| 42 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:55:05 -0700 | evdansully: Converting shore facility vehicles, primarily BSVE controlled, would require coordination with GSA. Most vehicles could be converted, some heavy duty use vehicles (snow plow/dump truck types) may not be able to make the leap. Would also recommend solar powered electric recharging stations. Similar to what is at Google Headquarters. |
| 43 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:38:00 -0700 | mrsfist: An an intermediate relief to fuel can be the new drop-in fuels that are now developed. These require no engine modification, can be mass produced, and do not effect the food supply because they are made from non-food crops (jatropha, algae). |
| 44 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:30:43 -0700 | MOD: mrsfist: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/17/bp-gives-up-on-jatropha-for-biofuel/ |
| 45 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:33:19 -0700 | mrsfist: the boeing article is 2011. new tech to produce it. |
| 46 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:45:13 -0700 | gm_ying: Related to cards #193, #1826,#821 |
| 47 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:03:51 -0700 | Crzr81: Army is having success with a heavy duty hybrid tactical vehicle. Perhaps it can be extended to MRAP. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/images/2007/03/28/fttsmsv.png&imgrefurl=http://www.wired.com/autopia/2007/03/army_tests_heav/&usg=__LPDr0TblDxTh6nKE38JP5wAS_nY=&h=272&w=650&sz=229&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=KdiOZQIn2-l_cM:&tbnh=57&tbnw=137&ei=GI6_T7SSH4Xg2QXlyqGrCg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dheavy-duty%2Bhybrid%2Bvehicles%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1. |
Action Plan 5 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
|
| 2 |  |
http://localhost/images/5/Screen_shot_2012-05-23_at_9.31.23_AM.png |
| 3 |  |
http://localhost/images/5/Screen_shot_2012-05-23_at_9.33.15_AM.png |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri1KWmRcHvc http://www.dailyenergyreport.com; Learn how OPOWER is helping utilities educate their customers about ways to curb energy consumption. OUR FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/DailyEnergyReport OUR TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/dailyenergynews |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WaToiunuWY BJ Fogg, Director of the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, was the first of three speakers on the subject of changing behaviors and changing policies at the 2011 GSB Healthcare Summit. In his address, he focused on behavior change at the individual level and the essential steps for people to build new habits. Related Links: Stanford GSB Program in Healthcare Innovation: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/phi/ Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab: http://captology.stanford.edu/ |
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 12:31:51 -0700 | rmmckeon: I don't think each member/family necessarily has to pay their own bill. In other applications, households receive a statement of electricity usage, designed to give them SA on what they're using. Theyre not required to pay the bill themselves, per say |
| 2 | Tue, 22 May 2012 12:49:25 -0700 | rmmckeon: Does this also mean that if a member/family wanted to install renewables (solar, wind) they could? What about old, inherently inefficient housing? |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:01:17 -0700 | gm_rachel: Hi team, it strikes me that behavior change is an important element when considering our plan, since it has to do with navy housing. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:06:29 -0700 | gm_rachel: An interesting innovator in the realm of behavior change is BJ Fogg (Stanford). Here are a few links to BJ: http://www.bjfogg.com/http://captology.stanford.edu/ |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:29:04 -0700 | gm_rachel: What if everyone who lived in navy housing (or maybe each household) had an energy dashboard...ways to better visualize energy use and comparisons with others so that there could be incentives (from a friendly competition perspective) to lower consumption. OPower is a company that offers this as a consumer-facing solution: http://opower.com/ |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:36:12 -0700 | gm_rachel: Team, one of the important issues named in the comments at the bottom of this page (by players who may just not yet be part of this action plan but who are interested) is the degree to which there are privacy concerns here. Are there any precedents to be learned from, when it comes to weighing privacy concerns on household-specific energy consumption with the chance to lower energy by calling out highest consumption households? |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:42:04 -0700 | gm_rachel: What if more military housing was administered by commercial companies? Don Brutzman was mentioning that the Naval Postgraduate School has a housing situation like this via La Mesa...perhaps our action plan would benefit by learning from this model? |
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 12:37:16 -0700 | Seahawk91: This is exactly what the Navy needs to do. Residents in Navy Housing now use more than the average American consumer because they have no incentive to save. By metering each house and offering incentives for savings (as well as penalties for overuse) will go a long way to reducing energy consumption in Navy housing. |
| 2 | Tue, 22 May 2012 13:28:37 -0700 | nory: For this to work the Navy needs to reduce the carbon footprint of many of the base housing units. From inefficient water heaters to flooring that does not dissipate heat/cold the basic house supplied by the military creates its own money pit. |
| 3 | Tue, 22 May 2012 14:34:16 -0700 | gm_jollyme: The Department of the Navy (DON) should require all new Miltary Contruction (MILCON) projects (including Navy housing) to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified and set a goal of upgrading 75% of all existing Navy buildings (including Navy housing) to LEED certified by 2022. |
| 4 | Tue, 22 May 2012 15:48:24 -0700 | monstermariner: I dont think you want to totally remove the family's entitlement to the subsidized energy, but maybe set a budget for them based on number so many percent LOWER than the base average? You do have to normalize for the house they are in. im an army brat and sometimes I lived in a brand new apartment, other times a 1950s house. Point is, data can be taken on the history of a homes consumption, if a family goes over it then they are responsible. Just like they are responsible to replace windows if they break it. |
| 5 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:27:38 -0700 | Echo6Joker: Making military families pay for their power will be dead in the water; no politician will abide by it. What about good old-fashioned shame? No one likes to be on the commander's radar for anything. What if commanders got a bad-boy list of people that were over a limit? Some might say this an intrusion into "privacy" or something like that, but if it is costing the navy an unreasonable amount of money then it is the navy's business. It's not going to be a huge fix all at once, since some people may not care, some commanders may never read the email, etc. However, there will be a number of commander's for whom this becomes their "thing." It doesn't cost the navy anything more than a number of meter-readers and time to plug names into emails, both of which can be automated to some degree with relatively minimal up-front costs. |
| 6 | Tue, 22 May 2012 19:37:25 -0700 | rcamp004: What about encouraging families to install solar panels or wind generators on the property by getting the meter to turn backwards? Maybe even a new subsidy for military families to carry out different types of conversions? It might have a higher initial start up but would have a pay off over the total cost of operation. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:34:04 -0700 | monstermariner: I think we need to modify the houses first with solar, geo, lighting. Give them the capability first, then we can make sure the behavior optimizes the constraints of the quarters. No new housing should be built without those things. |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:35:11 -0700 | monstermariner: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/military_hndbk.pdf Looks like DOE and pacific nw labs are looking into as well, another agency partnership?? |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 13:49:00 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Would a phased-in approach be more palatable to residents, commanders and politicians? Paying for your one's own utilities is very reasonable but it must be introduced in a way that avoids shock and anger. |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:57:47 -0700 | nory: A phased in approach makes sense. Also consider adding a housing utility rat amount that would cover a prudent person's utilities. The money is already budgeted and certainly gives a positive incentive to conserving energy and pocketing a bit. We already expect more for less of our military with adding on the sticker shock of out of pocket utilities. |
| 11 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:01:15 -0700 | gm_jollyme: The Authors for Action Plans 5 and 8 should consider collaboration regarding bullding modifications and new Military Construction (MILCON) projects. |
| 12 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:21:56 -0700 | monstermariner: I concur, I think we give the families the tools to succeed, give them a ration, then incentivize them to beat the odds. punishment should prob be a last resort. |
| 13 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:36:12 -0700 | gm_pat: I have modified Action Plan 5 to emphasize a modification to BEHAVIOR. Action Plan 8 deals with ARCHITECTURAL features to be energy-efficient. Action Plan 27 is for SMART GRIDS on base. It represents a FUTURE implementation of AP 5 and AP8. |
| 14 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:08:30 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Hey, gm_pat. I added this to your breakout thread Smart Grids, but will add it here too in case it is helpful determine what is already being done and by whom: "Resident Energy Conservation Program to Launch Navy-wide" http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=66699 |
| 15 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:34:26 -0700 | wryan34: Education and outreach need to be a big part of this for the families and other residents that reside on base if this is going to change behavior. People need to understand where their high energy usage comes from. Which appliances draw most power, what does a couple degrees change in the thermostat do, much is saved from energy efficient lights, etc... You can reduce a fair amount of energy usage very quickly with simple behavior changes. |
| 16 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:04:42 -0700 | evdansully: Were I am from, housing has been privatized, and the PPV contractor includes the utility bill in the monthly rent/rate (probably until individual meters are installed by the local utility provider - for water and elec). The PWD Utilities branch does not see the elec or water usage of housing, and does not invest resources in that area. It might make sense for the local utility provider to expand their existing energy awareness program they run with civilian housing to the PPV housing. |
| 17 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:07:55 -0700 | evdansully: A lot of these comments about incentivizing energy reduction go hand in hand with DoD workers in Govt Office Bldgs. That is a bill the Govt sees directly and would benefit from reduced energy consumption by the workers. |
| 18 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:25:32 -0700 | gm_katy: This is a good idea, and is already being phased in. Thank you to PotentialFutures for pasting the link to the press release describing the Navy's program. |
| 19 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:17:28 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: A possible modification to this would be to give everyone a monthly/yearly energy limit. If they go over that limit they pay the difference. If they go under that limit, they keep half of the diference. The same could be done at an organizational level. This rewards people and organizations for saving energy and will penalizethose people who do not try to save. |
| 20 | Thu, 24 May 2012 18:50:10 -0700 | Yellow Rain: A large number of comments assume a direct rational link between cost and savings, overlooking the much more common response -- bitching about bills and rates along with half-hearted, half-informed and ultimately ineffective efforts to save electricity/money. Best approach is to reward those with the highest efficiency with added vacation time or energy cost rebate, and (2) where families have children, put energy savings strategies in their hands -- they're hardwired to "do the right thing." |
| 21 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:11:30 -0700 | Yellow Rain: A large number of comments assume a direct rational link between cost and savings, overlooking the much more common response -- bitching about bills and rates along with half-hearted, half-informed and ultimately ineffective efforts to save electricity/money. Best approach is to reward those with the highest efficiency with added vacation time or energy cost rebate, and (2) where families have children, put energy savings strategies in their hands -- they're hardwired to "do the right thing." Also, any effort to alter the behavior of sailors and their families should be tied directly into the entire Naval Energy Strategy -- it is not just about being a good citizen, it is about being a great Sailor contributing to the greatness of the Navy. It's ALL important. |
| 22 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:53:48 -0700 | nory: http://www.energystar.gov/ maybe we could leverage some of what has already been done to help people conserve energy. Certainly the verbiage gears one into the idea of being a good citizen of the world (translates right into contributing to the undeniable greatness of the Navy). |
Action Plan 6 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 15:09:21 -0700 | rvl: Could this be expanded by including solar panels as a part of ship construction, to cover typically exposed areas of the ship? Perhaps an expandable or extendible array incorporated into the ship design? |
| 2 | Tue, 22 May 2012 15:11:11 -0700 | gm_jason560: How about using electrochromic windows combined with solar power to save energy costs on cooling and create power for small led lit instruments? |
| 3 | Tue, 22 May 2012 17:39:31 -0700 | rcamp004: What about coating the roof with flexible solar panels so the awning can retract when it's not needed to cover or make power? |
| 4 | Tue, 22 May 2012 17:41:10 -0700 | brutzman: This sounds sensible and similar to aircraft in the airport during a sunny dat. They ask passengers to close the window panels, reducing inside heat from sunlight. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 13:35:16 -0700 | gm_maier: sure, there are not as many windows on ships or aircraft, but having a mobile carport object with a retractable roof on wheels would make it practical on sunny days and easy storage at night |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:00:48 -0700 | nory: The 'space film' developed by NASA and used in survival packs is light weight, strong, and would work well on rollers. It reflects well and could either keep heat in (cold seas) or dissipate it in warmer areas. |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:54:14 -0700 | gm_katy: These sound like great ideas. However, regarding the mobile carports, it sounds like the materials would be pretty pricey. Ships are rather large, so what would be the return on investment after factoring in the price of purchasing the materials? In other words, how long would it take to make back the purchase price through energy savings? |
Action Plan 7 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrL476g662I This is a very brief video showing you how to set up your own inexpensive cadence meter. I do not show you every single step. You will have to fill in some of the blanks yourself. Most bicyclist don't use speedometers or cadence meters, but I have found them useful. Experienced bicyclist spin at 70 to 90 rpm. competive racers peddle at 80 to 120 rpm. Roller racers can spin over 200 rpm. I have heard the record is 300 rpm. I usually average 78 rpm during my hour commute. I am most confortable peddling around 85 rpm. For a better workout I will try to keep it over 95. My top rpm so far has been 133 rpm. Because, I use 2 speedometers (one on the wheel and one on the crank) I can get some other useful information. I know that I peddle 92% on the time. And, my average gear ratio is 1.89. So, for each rotation of the peddle I am traveling 13.7 feet. If you want to use the k/hr mode use 1667 to configure the speedometer. I figured this all this out using a Excell spreadsheet. It was only later that I understood why it works. 88 X 60 = 5280. So, the rpm = mph. Don't believe me. Do the math yourself. It is an interesting exercise Having two speedometers on the handle bars can be distracting. So, If you are watching numbers instead of traffic get rid of them or move them where you can't see them. Usually I am most interested in my average speed. Since speed is a combination of cadence and gear, I have found it most useful. I know if my average speed drops below 11 mph than it is going to take me more than an hour to get home. I know what you are thinking. But, I am old and fat. My bike with all the lights and extra clothes for early morning cold weighs 45 pounds. Even if I had a $10,000 carbon fiber bike I am not going to average 20 mph. Plus, my experience is that speed in an urban area with lots of traffic is not an advantage. You get into trouble quicker and have less time to react. |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_VhQYL7PNo Christian Gerlach, a graduate of Flinders Business School, has pioneered a renewable energy technology that taps the energy of the sea to generate electricity. http://www.flinders.edu.au/sabs/business/http://www.waveriderenergy.com.au/ |
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:06:35 -0700 | rcamp004: So, are we looking at turning prop shafts into brushless motors? Does anyone want to explore the "brake" part with some sort of anchor/tidal dynamo? |
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 17:41:20 -0700 | NavyMIT: I still don't understand the concept of a "sea brake" for a ship. I'm definitely in favor of developing a system to harness power from a trailing shaft or using the spinning propulsion shaft to generate extra electricity. |
| 2 | Tue, 22 May 2012 17:56:32 -0700 | rcamp004: Pardon the pun but I'm in the same boat as NavyMIT. I'm all for extra power, but I can't visualize a "sea brake". |
| 3 | Tue, 22 May 2012 17:57:02 -0700 | prof: Aside from a sea brake, I am thinking of technology similar to the video I attached in the video section. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrL476g662I In addition, this could be a low-friction solution. |
| 4 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:00:24 -0700 | Seahawk91: Will a sea brake produce more energy than it costs to use it? |
| 5 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:02:22 -0700 | prof: seahawk91, that is the issue I see with breaks and such that I show in the picture. I like the magnet idea from the bicycle, as it pulses electrical current that can be directly used as either AC or converted to DC |
| 6 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:03:34 -0700 | gm_maier: how often to ships brake? based upon estimates, how beneficial do you think it could be? |
| 7 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:13:53 -0700 | NavyMIT: I still don't buy the concept that a ship truly "brakes" ... For most modern warships (with controllable-pitch propellers), the shaft will spin at a constant RPM, but the thrust provided by the propellers will be reduced by changing the pitch. This reduction in thrust causes the actual "braking" of the vessel. The HEV regenerative braking systems actually use an electric motor attached to the axle of the vehicle ... Rather than braking with traditional friction pads, the electric motor is simply operated in reverse. Since we don't really do this with ships, I definitely think a passive electricity capture system (like a parasite sitting on the propeller shaft) is a more feasible concept. Any other thoughts? |
| 8 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:47:51 -0700 | rcamp004: The prop has to pass through the hull at some point. Syphoning power out of the shaft with magnets is going to build up a charge on the outer hull. This just means degaussing will have to happen much more often. |
| 9 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:48:06 -0700 | prof: NavyMIT, this is the exact concept I was alluding to in the video. Thihnk of that, but modify so that instead of counting shaft rotations, we are generating power in an almost frictionless way. |
| 10 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:49:33 -0700 | rcamp004: NavyMIT and Prof, let's not forget hydraulic lines with large pistons. We can siphon power out those too by turning them into dynamos as well - which is what the rpm counter is basically. |
| 11 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:52:03 -0700 | prof: rcamp004, this is a great point. Now can we do this while reducing friction, heat and movable parts? |
| 12 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:58:35 -0700 | rcamp004: prof, friction will come down to choosing the right bearings. For heat, we might want to pump some sea water in a cooling line depending on how hot we're anticipating this on getting - in which case ceramic bearings. Movable parts - dynamos have few moving parts - in this case we're assembling a brushless motor which are very reliable and highly efficient. |
| 13 | Tue, 22 May 2012 19:06:18 -0700 | prof: rcamp004, can we begin to think outside the box of choosing the right bearings. This is certainly a great step in the right direction, but down the line is there a way to move beyond bearings? By reducing friction we can reduce heat and hence smaller, more efficient pumps for water cooling. Perhaps sail directed air-cooled venting? |
| 14 | Tue, 22 May 2012 19:33:17 -0700 | rcamp004: prof I've been playing with the idea of ferro fluids as lubricant and magnetically responsive shocks/bearings. This might either pick up interference from the current induction or it might play beautifully with it and have a very low friction/heat penalty. |
| 15 | Tue, 22 May 2012 21:22:49 -0700 | monstermariner: the capability to regenerate could be very useful, maybe in the form a prop shaft generator. Not sure how much power it would generate but with the inertia of a large deck amphib slowing down there may be some sizeable juice to recapture. Maybe Makin island could take a modification seeing she has a crew familiar with electric drive and the fragmernts of an infrastructure to take advantage of. |
| 16 | Wed, 23 May 2012 06:00:00 -0700 | dolfin719: it sounds like heading down the path of reducing system losses (I^2 x R, friction & heat, etc.) is the most likely to pay off. If we use SW for cooling a system, is there a way to capture that heat for other uses? if we have rotational or hydraulic energy "going to waste", is there a way to recapture some of that and put it to use? We always have to remember, though, TANSTAAFL. |
| 17 | Wed, 23 May 2012 06:05:51 -0700 | prof: rcamp004, this sounds fascinating. Do we have to deeal with issues surrounding heat sinks or any supercooling here? |
| 18 | Wed, 23 May 2012 06:26:14 -0700 | prof: not a free lunch, just a cheap one! recapturing is one thing, but shaft turns for efficiency is another. We should be looking at both, I believe. |
| 19 | Wed, 23 May 2012 06:40:48 -0700 | dolfin719: regarding efficiency, there should be more consideration for maximum efficient speed in the design process rather than some (arbitrary) "sprint" speed. the realistic uses and operating mode of the ship needs to be considered when defining the requirements that will drive design parameters. for example, how often (outside of sea trials) do most surface ships operate at their flat-out, maximum speed? how much above max. efficient speed is their absolute max speed? how much more fuel must be consumed to get that delta in speed? if the delta-v is more than 2-3 knots (WAG), i think we are "overpaying" for that maximum speed. |
| 20 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:22:48 -0700 | prof: dolfin719, this brings us back to energy capture in slow-down phase. As we reduce speed, how can we convert inertia to power reserves? Who else do we need here? |
| 21 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:44:57 -0700 | monstermariner: maybe an idea is a reverse aux power unit like subs have ( not just a shaft unit ). an appendage that releases to now only slow down through drag but spins using the inertia of ship moving through the water. |
| 22 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:45:08 -0700 | prof: good point. could then be used for acceleration bursts as well, if needed |
| 23 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:43:20 -0700 | dolfin719: Lowering an APU when you need to slow down might not be fast enough to avert disaster. I've found that when you really need to slow down from high speeds, it needs to happen right ** now! But what if we used a series of generators with their impellers in a tube running the length of the ship with the ability to control the opening of the inlet/outlet doors (or louvers). Full disclosure: this is based on an idea somebody posted in another thread I commented on. By being able to open the Regenerative Breaking System doors with the flick of a switch, you would have instant access to the drag feature to slow the ship. I don't know how many generator/impeller sets of what size would be necessary to achieve an adequate drag coefficient, but I'm certain a smart NARC at NPS can figure it out. |
| 24 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:25:39 -0700 | NavyMIT: I do like the idea of having channels with impellers, but the naval architecture will definitely be tough. USS Albacore tried a number of experimental "braking" technologies, including the use of a drag parachute (underwater) and hydraulically-actuated "flaps" (in a ring around the hull). Needless to say, the parachute ripped off of the submarine (it was a large USAF one) and the metal brakes vibrated violently / activated without user-input. I suspect that more sufficient braking could be accomplished (with less energy) by a combination of new control-surface and propeller design. I'm not sure if modern submarine propulsors are controllable-pitch, but that would help. The tunnels are very "Hunt for Red October"-esque, but it would be an interesting way to develop some extra energy. Flow noise around the hull would still be a tremendous issue. |
| 25 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:42:27 -0700 | rcamp004: @NAVYMIT what about control surfaces along the side of the hull? Or something like an aero-foil that will put a drag component in the opposite direction? |
| 26 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:20:02 -0700 | gm_katy: This idea definitely sounds like it has merit. Thank you for creating such a detailed and technical action plan! |
| 27 | Thu, 24 May 2012 15:38:56 -0700 | NavyMIT: @rcamp004: I don't think you'd be able to slow the momentum of such a large body with just control surfaces. Astern propulsion is the best course of action, but the "all back" command takes some time. The control surfaces are mostly for pitch / heave control, and likely have minimal contribution to surge control. Also, you would have to consider the tremendous forces / added-mass effects on any submerged lifting surfaces used as brakes. Depending on your prevailing speed, you could easy bend / rip-off the control surfaces ... Huge forces are at work underwater (i.e. not necessarily as "easy" as stalling an airplane). I think the focus should be on innovative propeller design, specifically better controllable-pitch designs. The other thing to consider - though not acoustically sufficient - would be some sort of water-jet system. LCS and other high-performance planing hulls use water-jets, and they can stop almost instantly just by vectoring the thrust in the opposite direction with the jet "buckets" ... Might be too difficult for subs, though. |
| 28 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:58:14 -0700 | dolfin719: NavyMIT: Submarine screws/propulsors are fixed pitch. We change speed by changing engine RPMs. To slow, we reduce shaft RPM and let the boat coast down. To slow faster, we shut throttles completely and windmill the shaft. To slow really fast we use astern steam to slow, stop, or even reverse the shaft. And as you mentioned, the underwater fluid dynamics problem is greater than for a surface ship and significantly greater than for an airplane. Overall, I don't think that trying to figure out a "braking" system for submarines will be that useful (acoustic issues, hydrodynamic issues, etc.) but it might be useful for a surface ship, especially if using a regenerative type of system. |
| 29 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:30:14 -0700 | NavyMIT: Agreed. Thanks for the extra info about submarine operations. That being said, if we re-focus on surface ships, what will be the biggest challenges? Do we have any major technical hurdles to overcome, or does COTS technology suffice for a regenerative system? Anticipated costs and engineering challenges for a surface-specific system? Anticipated energy savings? Lastly, are there any other real-world case studies for other ship classes? |
| 30 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:39:27 -0700 | dolfin719: Since flow noise and hydrodynamic forces are less of an issue for surface ships, I think that some kind of "scoop injection" or louvered opening to a hydro-generator might be the best and quickest responding system for a ship to get some regenerative braking benefits. |
| 31 | Fri, 25 May 2012 08:13:29 -0700 | rcamp004: @NavyMIT thanks for the info on control surfaces. Thrust vectoring is a great way to achieve vector control. @doldfn719 the info on subs was very great. Thanks. If we're focusing on surface ships what about spoilers on the deck that drive dynamo generators? When the wind hits them they'll drop and when there's no wind they'll rise. The pressure gradient can crank dynamos and if their combined force is small enough they won't push the ship too far down into the water. |
| 32 | Fri, 25 May 2012 09:06:30 -0700 | prof: Scoops and thrust vectoring are really creative solutions, and ones which could certainly be piloted in the short term, both in modeling with current hull designs and for incorporation into new classes (think DDG 1000). Could be an added bonus/SOP (auto) for Quick Stop maneuvering. |
Action Plan 8 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
http://localhost/images/8/Screen_shot_2012-05-23_at_5.52.51_AM.png |
| 2 |  |
|
| 3 |  |
|
| 4 |  |
|
| 5 |  |
|
| 6 |  |
|
| 7 |  |
|
| 8 |  |
|
| 9 |  |
|
| 10 |  |
|
| 11 |  |
|
| 12 |  |
|
| 13 |  |
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:21:24 -0700 | gardener: Who is in this with me? |
| 2 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:21:52 -0700 | gardener: I just typed some chat words, clicked submit. Where did they go? |
| 3 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:26:06 -0700 | gardener: Dear gamemasters: I am typing into this chat room, and I see no evidence of it when I submit my results. |
| 4 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:26:24 -0700 | gardener: Hah! This is behaving like a Write Only Memory. Remember those? |
| 5 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:29:39 -0700 | gardener: Looks like we must build a card chain. I've typed in the notion of starting with an energy audit. From there, upgrade designs, etc. |
| 6 | Tue, 22 May 2012 19:53:46 -0700 | evdansully: This is an ok start, but DoN is already heavily involved in ESPC and DSM projects that are based on energy savings. It is my understanding that most installations have had several energy audits, and low hanging fruit such as lights and motors have already been taken advantage of. |
| 7 | Tue, 22 May 2012 19:56:30 -0700 | evdansully: Also, pure renovation of an old gov building often results in greater energy use because the renovated bldg now has to comply with outdoor air ventilation requirements which ultimately means spending more to heat and cool the make up air. |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 03:54:31 -0700 | warpaw: Mic Check |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:43:11 -0700 | gm_rachel: Hi garender, I can see what you typed |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:52:03 -0700 | gm_rachel: One question that occurs to me is how changes to the built environment will be related to cultural changes around energy consumption. Architects & psychologists would say that the space in which we find ourselves and the implicit and explicit values that are embedded in it are likely to shape our behavior in subtle ways. Does anyone know more about the relationship between the built environment & behavior change? |
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:25:01 -0700 | gardener: Stuff typed into the chat room don't show up. |
| 2 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:32:34 -0700 | gardener: why do I not see gm_sharma on the leaderboard? |
| 3 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:33:22 -0700 | gardener: I have not found gm_sharma on the leaderboard. |
| 4 | Tue, 22 May 2012 18:33:55 -0700 | gardener: sluggish response caused me to retype my message. |
| 5 | Tue, 22 May 2012 20:38:27 -0700 | evdansully: Recommend broadening this topic/title to be "Shore Energy Optimization Strategy" |
| 6 | Tue, 22 May 2012 21:08:26 -0700 | gardener: Not sure I understand that title, its meaning. Do like the edits going on with the plan |
| 7 | Tue, 22 May 2012 21:11:05 -0700 | gardener: To be honest, I stopped playing, with no plans to return due to server crashing and long delays making game moves. Came back due to this invite, but not nearly as enthused about playing as when I first joined the game. I do think that these action plans are an important component. |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 01:48:35 -0700 | UKPolSci: I've added a few 'human factors' points to a couple of fields - building users/work patterns etc - the idea being that there's no point building 'energy efficient' buildings, if the way people will use them will remove those efficiencies. |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 03:43:35 -0700 | Seahawk91: Is there a standard procedure for making changes to the action plan? I added the need to get rid of excess capacity. |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 03:56:37 -0700 | warpaw: I would say post a suggested change here. Then wait 15 min and if no one says anything just add it to the plan. |
| 11 | Wed, 23 May 2012 03:57:07 -0700 | warpaw: This will be our primary point to discuss since only GMs can see chat... |
| 12 | Wed, 23 May 2012 04:41:12 -0700 | evdansully: Many of the cards talk about specific building improvements, or studies to make improvements. CNIC and NAVFAC are already heavily engaged in this activity. This action plan could be a place to provide recomendations for improvements, or ideas for how to implement guidance or instructions already in place. Maybe title should be modified to reflect "improvements" as there already is a shore energy strategy. -I too am having great difficulty staying on line, will try to add some ideas during the day. |
| 13 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:08:17 -0700 | Seahawk91: Concur with evdansully. Part of the issue with this plan is finding the funding to execute it. The good news is that the ROI from demolition and rebuilding more energy efficient buildings when worked into the recapitalization of the shore infrastructure should provide more than enough support for the project. |
| 14 | Wed, 23 May 2012 06:01:02 -0700 | Seahawk91: Much of the focus so far has been on exploiting efficiencies in new construction. Should we also talk about the potential for energy generation as well? |
| 15 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:18:06 -0700 | UKPolSci: just came across this: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/25807.pdf Low energy building design guidelines - from the Federal Energy Management program provides guidance on 'what low-energy design means, specific strategies to be considered, when and where to apply these strategies, and how to evaluate their cost effectiveness.' I'd suggest building the action plan so that it ties into and draws upon documents and sources like this - does anybody know of any other applicable resources? |
| 16 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:21:02 -0700 | UKPolSci: Seahawk91 - agreed - we could advocate building photovoltaic tech into buildings where appropriate, so they can potentially start generating as well as being efficient. |
| 17 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:24:23 -0700 | UKPolSci: The action plan currently implies replacing facilities -in the same place-. Now obviously, this won't be possible in every case, but should we suggest the audit stage include idetifying facilities that could be re-located somewhere more temperate to reduce heating/cooling needs? |
| 18 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:02:47 -0700 | gm_jollyme: The Authors for Action Plans 5 and 8 should consider collaboration regarding bullding modifications and new Military Construction (MILCON) projects. |
| 19 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:29:00 -0700 | gm_maier: #gm_jollyme, collaborate with Authors for Action Plan 27 as well. |
| 20 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:35:55 -0700 | evdansully: Tried adding this many times yesterday, looks like it is working today. In the "How it Will Work" box I have added several main recommendation topics, each which has a list of specific action items. Others can add items as they see fit. |
| 21 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:42:35 -0700 | evdansully: I cleaned up the plan, deleted some stuff that DoN already does such as work with USGBC, design facilities to LEED standards, etc. Had to meet the new character limits also. Sorry! |
| 22 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:45:43 -0700 | evdansully: Also, buidling audits have been done extensively. There are more projects to go around than funds to support. eROI is used to prioritize project at the RMIG and SMIG. |
| 23 | Thu, 24 May 2012 20:17:07 -0700 | evdansully: In the context of energy use throughout the DoN, I believe Shore Facilities is one of the major characters in the novel. Future energy strategies are already being considered and employed at the installation level. Many of the idea cards that address facility issues that have been played during this exercisse could fit into this plan. Some of the ideas are costly, and would take a considerable amount of time to employ. Conversely, some of the ideas are relatively cheap, and could be deployed in the field in a very short amount of time. |
| 24 | Fri, 25 May 2012 01:02:01 -0700 | UKPolSci: thank you for doing that evdansully. |
| 25 | Fri, 25 May 2012 04:03:55 -0700 | Seahawk91: Current limit on characters is preventing any additions. |
| 26 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:19:52 -0700 | evdansully: Sorry I used all the space. Any ideas for Images to be uploaded? |
Action Plan 9 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 | Tue, 22 May 2012 21:14:47 -0700 | monstermariner: I think we need to address investment in their development as well as identifying the correct method for creating a demand signal. Pulsing industry to see what they are using. racing sailboats may be a great start, new zealand has programs that teach hull form, composites, advanced nav arch. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:40:27 -0700 | gm_joseph: The America Cup Catamarans are using carbon Fiber/Kevlar/Carbon. In the Offshore Powerboat World, and these boats do over 200 mph while getting pounded, use ballistics-grade Kevlar49 and pure 100% carbon fiber with hand-laid laminates, and military grade resins to execute solid performance in the most adverse sea conditions. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:40:41 -0700 | gm_joseph: The America Cup Catamarans are using carbon Fiber/Kevlar/Carbon. In the Offshore Powerboat World, and these boats do over 200 mph while getting pounded, use ballistics-grade Kevlar49 and pure 100% carbon fiber with hand-laid laminates, and military grade resins to execute solid performance in the most adverse sea conditions. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:19:42 -0700 | NavyMIT: The America's Cup boats are amazing feats of engineering, but the factors-of-safety are much too small for naval warships. This Action Plan will require a much more through consideration of stricter material standards and tolerances, all of which will entail very close collaboration with the major classification societies. I definitely support the use of composite materials (for the total hull / superstructure of larger ships), but we still have to address some of the following: 1. Who will develop appropriate safety standards for composite materials? This will require a much larger research investment / more extensive FEA tools. 2. What US shipyards will satisfactorily produce all-composite warships? 3. To what extent will composites fulfill the classified USN survivability requirements / shock tests? 4. Should we just design smaller warships instead, or is the expensive push for composites well worth the large investment? In my opinion, I do believe that composites will provide naval architects with new flexibility, but the capabilities still must mature. |
| 5 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:05:29 -0700 | nory: The current problem with composite ship design knowledge is that so much of it is porprietory and kept safely under wraps by various sailing groups. The America Cup boats even keep their keels hidden when out of water so as not to let out stability secrets. Until the knowlege sharing happens it might be very expensive for the Navy to recreate those wheels. |
| 6 | Fri, 25 May 2012 09:41:00 -0700 | NavyMIT: Very true. However, I also know of several professors / researchers who have a background working with the America's Cup teams (as naval architects / structural engineers). Now they're in academia (or even at USNA). With sufficient research funding and a greater acceptance of composites, USN could definitely harness the knowledge and talents of these individuals. This might be one solution / work-around to the issue with proprietary information. |
Action Plan 10 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:53:01 -0700 | gm_craig: This is a great objective for plenty of reasons, but energy efficiency is probably not greatest among them. The reason is that simply from an engineering perspective, the energy savings potential from reduced weight and space in ship construction will be minor relative to the energy required to propel the ship (of any size) through the ocean. The requirements are simply on a different scale by orders of magnitude. The amount of power consumed by ALL of a ship's electrical load is a very small part of overal energy consumption from fuel used. |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 22:18:26 -0700 | gm_ying: Related to the idea cards #341(saw1998), #342(Podge), #343(joshrich), #393(food_for_thought) |
| 3 | Thu, 24 May 2012 22:19:18 -0700 | gm_ying: Related to the idea cards #341(saw1998), #342(Podge), #343(joshrich), #393(food_for_thought) |
| 4 | Fri, 25 May 2012 10:44:33 -0700 | gm_ying: Should Navy invest (buy or develop) light weighted Android and iOS apps for alerting distribution balance ( Card 341 by saw1998) 1) in the existing shipboard equipment ( Card 342 by Podge) and 2) in the future EV infrastructure ( Card 393 by food_for_thought)? reference: http://news.yourolivebranch.org/2012/05/25/us-department-of-energy-green-button-program-spurs-smart-apps/ |
| 5 | Fri, 25 May 2012 11:55:37 -0700 | nory: Should the Navy consider virtual servers for the systems and take them completely away from hardware architecture dependency? |
| 6 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:00:19 -0700 | nory: Virtualization allows "a hard disk image is interpreted by a Virtual Machine Monitor as a system hard disk drive. IT administrators and software developers administer them through offline operations using built-in or third-party tools. In terms of naming, a hard disk image for a certain Virtual Machine monitor has a specific file type extension, e.g., .vmdk for VMware VMDK, .vhd for Xen and Microsoft Hyper-V, .vdi for Oracle VM VirtualBox, etc." per Microsoft. At work we use virtual servers to allow one client (i.e. laptop) to readily access UNIX, SOLSARS, SPARC, and other boxes without huge conncetion software outlays. |
Action Plan 11 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:48:47 -0700 | dynamite: Test: Is Talk it over working? |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 18:42:25 -0700 | gm_kaleidopop: Hello! |
| 3 | Thu, 24 May 2012 18:42:30 -0700 | gm_kaleidopop: Yes, the chat is working... |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:40:32 -0700 | gm_katy: This is a great approach to decreasing consumption and increasing efficiency. The Navy Energy Coordination Office is currently working with other commands to establish energy awareness GMT (general military training) for all Navy personnel to take yearly, as well as energy awareness training for boot camp, OCS, Commanding Officer/Executive Officer/Command Master Chief schools. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:42:12 -0700 | Brett Saffell: I think there is something more specific to actual ship-handling as well. For instance, how to navigate to save fuel, or how to sail more efficiently in bad weather. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:55:10 -0700 | gm_sharma: The majority of ship-drivers are pretty well-versed in 'optimal' speed of a ship for fuel efficiency. Most ships carry the LM2500 gas-turbine engine, and dependent on ship class, the optimum range is around 12-14 knots (gas-turbine much less efficient at low speeds). Additionally, as far as steerage during inclement weather, the greater concern is typically positioning the ship to ride in such a way to take the wave breakage about 15 degress off the bow. This is done for a variety of reasons (less stress to ship structure, lessens chance of 'gear adrift' that could damage equipment, crew rest etc.). Typically during bad weather the ship travels at optimum speed anyway, so the fuel efficiency is about the same. The one area I could see this being adapted to better use would be requiring more CO's to adhere to optimum speed rules during transit. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 12:13:21 -0700 | NavyMIT: The other intent of this Action Plan is to prepare sailors for the future all-electric warship concept. One of the major barriers / challenges will be providing sufficient training to safely and effectively maintain / operate a warship featuring IPS. DDG-1000 is going to be the test platform in the Fleet, but we have to prepare sailors (officer and enlisted) in the classroom before they head to the waterfront. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 12:29:02 -0700 | PotentialFutures: There are many many many programs of this sort being run in nearly every sector: academia, industry, the military, non-profit, NGO & governments. What would be really helpful is to create a platform that enables and encourages convergence between these groups' efforts so that redundancy is decreased and actionable plans can benefit from sharing the diverse resources and knowledge-sets the various interests. Perhaps a collective intelligence platform, like this one or similar, could be set up and primary players who are already working toward these goals, could be invited to coordinate their efforts in one place. This will be difficult to accomplish, but a proper, credible sponsor or consortium of sponsors, could provide the glue that might encourage the various interests to come out of their silos and begin working toward convergence. THIS would be a true culture shift. |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 15:21:50 -0700 | rcamp004: Having worked with some military, advanced training was always an issue when folks would be reassigned to another base. Without proper replacements the advanced tech and green energy went unmanaged and without maintenance. Training more people would prevent these scenarios. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 15:26:29 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Here is an article from 2009 on a Navy *voluntary* program, Incentivized Energy Conservation, or i-ENCON, aimed at implementing "smart steaming" techniques for ships that reduce fuel consumption. http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-energy-conservation-plans-save-99-million-1.94206 I am not part of the military; I don't know if or how this has scaled. But, it seems to me that it should not be "voluntary." Someone mentioned in the card play the need to rethink the DON policy, which I understand penalizes if fuel allotments are not used. Clearly changing that mandate is crucial. |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:32:12 -0700 | NavyMIT: I definitely agree that some sort of consortium needs to be formed. Without creating too much bureaucracy, I think the Navy would make a much more serious showing if a Joint Energy Resource Program Office (or some equivalent) was developed. On the education side, NEEC is doing great things for naval architecture education, but the impact isn't nearly broad enough (very few naval engineers / naval architects graduate around the country each year). IEEE would be an interesting professional society to tap into, but I don't know how involved they are in Navy-specific actions. Any thoughts on how to best structure an "efficient" bureaucracy / organization to make this happen? Who should be the major players (beyond some of those that I've listed)? What powers should they possess? Will they have sufficient authority to delegate / order major re-structuring of nation-wide curriculum / energy efficiency training programs? |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:58:12 -0700 | dynamite: How about an online system that allows Navy personnel to give input to COs about energy savings they see in their own job? Kinda like a suggestion card. |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:09:14 -0700 | NavyMIT: I like the idea of a command-wide opportunity to foster / promote energy-saving ideas. Should we leverage technology and develop some sort of command social network, or just a basic survey website? There also has to be some sort of tool / spreadsheet that can be developed to quantitatively (and objectively) track / compare real energy saving ideas. |
| 11 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:14:09 -0700 | dynamite: There was a small card chain on the idea of starting an online system. A suggestion another player made was to translate feedback on the online system into pragmatic results by creating an incentives program. One of the problems we want to avoid is creating more data rather than creating results. Also, is there a feedback system already in place where personnel can inform that chain of command of energy savings they see in their jobs? Perhaps it could function as both a social networking site plus a place where any navy personnel can fill out a "suggestion card" for savings they might see. |
| 12 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:49:15 -0700 | dynamite: Is the "talk it over" section working for other players? |
| 13 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:14:01 -0700 | PotentialFutures: @dynamite, I have not found a working "Talk it Over" interface yet...we will just have to let all of the sausage-making hang out! |
| 14 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:17:59 -0700 | PotentialFutures: @dynamite, @NavyMIT player Podge, in Action Item #22, has begun putting together a proposal to: "Establish an internal program that tracks, evaluates, and assesses component usage (shipboard, shore facilites, etc.). This evaluation can be broken down into useful data to determine optimal operating patterns." He did not mention it being online, but that is the best solution, and I'll convey it back. Perhaps he/she should come into this AI or you should move to that one? #22. |
| 15 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:25:59 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I like this idea of Dynamites to create an online feedback platform that would enable people to report from their corners of bases and ships on areas where they can maximize energy usage. Dynamite, you and Podge should talk. I wonder if the Navy already has something like this? Anyone know? |
| 16 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:31:15 -0700 | nory: Some green consortiums already have carbon footprint interactive training templates that can be adapted to various scenarios. Most of it is public domain and can be freely adapted to customize for advance training before people deploy. |
| 17 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:33:38 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Where are we at with the A.I.? Who is the lead? What needs to be done next, please? I think we only have 12-15 hours left. Thanks! |
| 18 | Thu, 24 May 2012 13:17:51 -0700 | gm_pat: Recommend gm_katy be lead author. She is at OPNAV enrgy culture change. |
| 19 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:00:42 -0700 | gm_katy: This is a highly interesting and thoughtful action plan. As I mentioned in my first comment, we at the Navy Energy Coordination Office are already overseeing many efforts similar to those listed in "How will it work?" However, we could use some help fleshing out how to approach 6 and 8. For 7, my office already serves that purpose from the Navy side, and Office of the Secretary of Defense has a sub-office to do so from the joint side. So, we are on the case, but could use additional fleshing out of your thoughts. |
| 20 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:30:08 -0700 | PotentialFutures: @gm_katy-- there are ideas floating in this and other A.I.s that may be applicable to #6 & #8. -------- Re 8: there is some discussion of creating a web-based app, similar to this game but much simpler (and accessible on mobile phones), that would allow personnel to send to the appropriate offices, feedback and recommendations for improving energy efficiency in their areas of responsibility. Harnessing these types of social media platforms for any subject-specific inquiry and deploying it to personnel force-wide, is the same application of social media technologies that industry is already using to improve feedback from customers and clients. Perhaps a central-Navy portal....a central domain....that houses the portals to any and all Navy-related programs that are seeking feedback from sailors, marines and their families. Energy issues would be just one of those portals. I don't know how extensive current military "social networks" are, so wouldn't know where to start making more specific recommendations. ------------ Re 6: a less-expensive (and I would argue) more effective route than building regional training centers, is to establish e-curriculum programs. There are many many great e-education programs already being explored by universities all over the world. Some are traditionally web-based, some with social media attributes, others are closer to simulations taking place in 3D online virtual worlds. Again, I don't know what you already know (I assume a lot), but if there is a way to follow-up outside this game, I can try to source a few examples and send them. |
| 21 | Thu, 24 May 2012 15:31:54 -0700 | NavyMIT: gm_katy: Regarding (6) ... I envision this as a better means to teach sailors about electric machinery / energy efficiency. We already have very robust bridge simulators, DC trainers, etc. throughout the Fleet, but I think that there is a significant deficiency WRT machinery space trainers. Many universities are involved in cutting-edge electric machinery research, so why don't we provide additional funding to actually build hands-on laboratories? The academics can "plug-and-play" with their experimental technology, and the sailors can train on proven equipment (that is similar to that found on all-electric warships, like DDG-1000). This could also work well with some of the curriculum at the Naval Academy ... USNA already has an engine lab and extensive EE spaces, but it would be truly amazing to have an "electric warship machinery space simulator" at the Academy. One of the many concerns of the current leadership is the lack of sufficient education to prepare sailors for DDG-1000, directed-energy systems, etc., so this would definitely help. |
| 22 | Thu, 24 May 2012 15:40:33 -0700 | dynamite: For 8 I see online web page with three options: 1) Input/Suggestion/Feedback. An online form personnel can fill out about where they see energy savings in their jobs. The online form gets forwarded to a Command CO who is provided incentives and commendation for putting the suggestions into practice. 2) Education. Academics and industrial specialists upload 'Lessons" about new technologies and skills. It could be used as both a training tool and for public outreach. It could also be designed with "online courses" (many universities across the country offer successful online courses that can provide a model) with pictures, audio, and video. This of course can only supplement, not replace hands-on training; but it may be an interactive environment to spark ideas. 3) Networking. Naval Personnel, Academics, Industry Specialists create online profiles to help find people working on similar projects, a type of interactive, user built directory. |
| 23 | Thu, 24 May 2012 16:06:45 -0700 | dynamite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrFqj2_m1fY I think this is a good video that provides a model the navy could use to leverage intra-military social networks to create practical energy savings. Marc Ferrentino is talking about social networks within corporations (i.e. SalesForce) but the framework he discusses is something that can be used to build collaboration on projects (e.g. energy savings) within the military. |
| 24 | Thu, 24 May 2012 22:09:57 -0700 | gm_ying: Take a look at the idea cards around #478,#483,#486,#489 (marinemagnet) |
Action Plan 12 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
http://www.makebiofuel.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/algae-biofuel.jpg |
| 2 |  |
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:03:51 -0700 | nory: Sending invite to Kenhub who is playing cards that mesh well with this |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:16:25 -0700 | kenhub: Is anyone on the team knowledgeable about the amount of heat energy generated by the engines of these large ships? Can this energy by applied to the production of biofuel? How about other heating purposes on board ship? |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 03:45:23 -0700 | nory: Will gather notes and link to them here for discussions |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:36:03 -0700 | prof: need to identify and flesh out "what will it take" and "how will it work" |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:36:34 -0700 | prof: need to identify and flesh out "what will it take" and "how will it work" |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:25:15 -0700 | prof: pardon the vernacular, but is going from "poop to power" a technology worth exploring? |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:42:33 -0700 | gm_katy: How would ship propulsion systems need to be modified in order to use biomass as fuel? Currently, all of our alternatives are required to be drop-in replacements. |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:39:53 -0700 | rcamp004: @gm_katy This would depend on the quality and grade of fuel the NAVY uses. I would assume a Marine Diesel with 0.02% Sulfur content. In either case, most trucks are easily being fitted from diesel to bio-diesel. A few years ago, bio-diesel conversions required a pre-warming stage to change the viscosity. So, biomass-> bio-diesel usable by the ships engines. Can you elaborate on what you mean by drop-in? I might be able to give a better answer if I knew what was meant by that. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:37:09 -0700 | nory: If drop-in replacement means plug and play then that limits the scope of what can be proposed. A better question would be whether the Navy is willing to explore 'outside the box' and not require drop-in replacements only for purposes of developing alternatives through action plans. |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 05:44:59 -0700 | nory: Would these just be for biomass (envision huge seines to gather behind) or could it also be adapt to a 'scoop and cycle' methodology farming the plastic sea? |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:09:32 -0700 | kenhub: Does the output have to directly impact energy production or can it be indirect. More specifically, biomass can be used for food generation by producing fertilizers and other plant nutrient which can in turn be fed hydroponically or through soil beds for food production. This would reduce the amount of food required for transport and reuse waste. A complete energy cycle could be developed for large ships like carriers with final use being as fuel for electricity or biodeisel. |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:12:45 -0700 | gm_katy: "Drop-in" means "plug and play." By SECNAV instruction, all of our alternative fuels have to be drop-in, so that we don't end up eliminating savings by paying for mods. All of the biofuel we are currently using, when mixed 50-50 with traditional petroleum-based fuel, is drop-in. |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:26:44 -0700 | nory: So the Drop Ins requirements match a lot of fleet vehicle requirements to be able to use alternate or traditional fuel with the same engine. At least with diesel engines being able to burn almost anything from used frying grease on up there are more options. Exploring LNG based fueling would violate those parameters. |
| 12 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:20:07 -0700 | rcamp004: @Kenhub @Nory ISRU is about using every available resource. That means if we can baseline for plastic farming, gathering materials to compost for nutrients in Hydro/Aeroponics or gathering Algae to make batches of fuel for travel. Even using molecular sieves to pull molecules like N2, CO,or CO2 from the air to drive reactions or to act as nutrients in hydro/aeroponics. It's a "live off the land" mentality. |
Action Plan 13 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:40:22 -0700 | prof: see card for essentials on the discussion. Need to assess and develop how it will work. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:43:14 -0700 | rcamp004: A lot of times planes/jets jettison fuel before landing to minimize fire hazards. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:43:24 -0700 | rcamp004: A lot of times planes/jets jettison fuel before landing to minimize fire hazards. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:46:00 -0700 | rcamp004: That said, jets also carry external fuel pods. There are trade-offs to this though. Pods carry a weight penalty on aircraft, which means burning through more fuel to carry the extra fuel. Sorry about the double comment post. I keep having connection issues. If I could delete it I would. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:40:13 -0700 | nory: The connection issues are still be worked on and double posting is the least of it right now :) |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:01:05 -0700 | prof: granted, pods are an issue, but that is for the refueling bird now anyway. this would also minimize landing weight in addition to being a range entender and pollution reducer. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:35:30 -0700 | nory: How would reverse suction function on this proposal? What kind of structural changes to implement that would it take? |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:22:40 -0700 | gm_katy: Interesting thought. I'm curious to hear more about the revers-suction. Can you elaborate? |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 13:11:55 -0700 | gm_maier: cannot fathom the safety risk on revers-suction idea, aircraft dump fuel in real emergency situations, not to minimize fire hazards |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 20:53:30 -0700 | CaptainKarma: Keeping a tanker airborne could negate any savings from recovered fuel unless it could defuel a lot of other aircraft in a hurry. Are tankers designed to land with a full load of fuel? |
Action Plan 14 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
http://localhost/images/14/Mobile_trash_gasification_Unit.jpg |
| 2 |  |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etz5DFY-HfQ Knowaste is the Recycling Specialist for Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHPs). |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RminZFgqenk http://www.geifuelcells.com 1-810-610-2816 Global Energy Innovations (GEI) has developed a fuel cell capable of changing the way we process energy world wide. The unit is reputed to even be able to convert human waste into energy. Don't be surprised if in the next few years homes are completely disconnected from the power grid. |
| 3 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYpZIPkjDs InEnTec Chemical's proprietary Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM ) transforms virtually any type of waste material into valuable commercial products including: - ultra clean fuels that can be used to generate electricity - a glass-like material that can be used to create items such as blasting grit or building materials and recoverable metals. The technology was recently tested in Port Arthur, Texas by some of the nation's largest chemical companies. |
| 4 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGW-zJMZsbM Martin LaMonica of CNET gets a look at the Green Energy Machine from IST Energy, which converts office waste into electricity and heat. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:27:11 -0700 | gm_jayd: Website on Mobile gasification plant. Takes garbage, makes into pellets and runs on it's own (as long as there is garbage to eat up) after two hours of start up. http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/01/18/dont-truck-your-waste-to-a-landfill-truck-a-gasification-plant-to-your-waste/1/ |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:34:47 -0700 | gm_jayd: Website on Mobile gasification plant. Takes garbage, makes into pellets and runs on it's own (as long as there is garbage to eat up) after two hours of start up. http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/01/18/dont-truck-your-waste-to-a-landfill-truck-a-gasification-plant-to-your-waste/1/ Says it turns 3 tons of trash per day into synthetic gas. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:35:58 -0700 | gm_jayd: IST Energy s GEM (Green Energy Machine) The machine can convert up to 3 tons of waste per day into synthetic gas. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:44:30 -0700 | gm_balaji: Sounds very interesting and promising. It will be interesting to know what is the energy input requirement for such machines. Certainly looks like it can be retrofitted on to the fleet. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:54:59 -0700 | gm_jollyme: From the CNBC Guest Blog - Tamminen: Waste Not, Want Not Http://www.cnbc.com/id/47478553 Of course, not all waste has quite so obvious a path from cradle to cradle. For example, Americans dump over three million tons of used disposable diapers into landfills each year, but may yet learn something about turning, uh, waste into wealth. UK-based Knowaste recycles soiled diapers and converts them to energy and recovered fibers and plastics . |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:36:26 -0700 | Wonton: There are also biodigesters and plastic-to-fuel systems ( http://www.plastic2oil.com/site/home). Maybe the waste would need to be taken to a floating offshore base where it could be proccessed. |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 13:42:14 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Hi. I added a couple programs to the Who is Involved field, but the system is borked so I cannot add to the others. Here is a link to the existing Department of Defense Resource Recovery and Recycling Program (RRRP) http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/turn-in/scrap/QRP/RRRP.pdf , which would need to be expanded to encompass biological waste recycling as well. --- I also recommend adding cooking oil to the proposal, which can be burned with very little further refinement to power aux systems or feed back into base electric grids. |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:42:32 -0700 | PotentialFutures: On shore, composting toilets would provide *ample* bio-material that could be converted into fuel on site. This would also decrease, substantially, demand on water supplies. |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:52:02 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Would like to add, even if redundant: Recycling of bio-waste and oil into fuels will be most beneficial if the additional energy either fed back into the larger electricity grid, or is dedicated to run support or aux systems as one part of a larger, synergistic energy capture paradigm. |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:25:39 -0700 | PotentialFutures: HI. I added an image and article to the images tab. |
| 11 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:38:46 -0700 | maplevt: IST Energy is a company who already builds the GEMs (Green Energy Machine) and are apparently installing one at Edwards Air Force Base. See link: http://www.istenergy.com/press-room/301-41912-gem-shipment-to-edwards-afb.html |
| 12 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:51:18 -0700 | gm_pat: For a ship, biowaste is miniscule! Consider a 300 person crew eating 3000 kcal/day. This is 37,500 kcal/hour, equivalent to 58.5 horsepower. But it is waste, so each person has already extracted most of the 3000 kcal. So, the useful power is approximately 5-10 horsepower. Compare this to one LM2500 engine which makes 30,000 hp. This is only 0.03%. - Conclusion: Not worth the weight and volume of installing ON SHIP. .....Still useful for land, with more people making waste. Sources: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-units-d_664.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LM2500. |
| 13 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:01:39 -0700 | maplevt: Here is another source for land bases to recycle all kinds of waste and even hazardous waste that can reform this waste into usable chemicals via Plasma Technologies: http://www.inentec.com/videos.html#AVPlayerID_2bb553eb |
| 14 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:01:55 -0700 | maplevt: Here is another source for land bases to recycle all kinds of waste and even hazardous waste that can reform this waste into usable chemicals via Plasma Technologies: http://www.inentec.com/videos.html#AVPlayerID_2bb553eb |
| 15 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:19:26 -0700 | maplevt: Just added video talking about the Green Energy Machine which uses 3 tons of trash daily which is converted to gas to produce power. Very interesting because the technology already works. IT IS BEING INSTALLED AT EDWARDS AIRFORCE BASE SO THIS IS EXISTING TECHNOLOGY!!! |
Action Plan 15 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:58:49 -0700 | Helios33: So a made some changes, see what is missing |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:33:22 -0700 | Helios33: Last day people any changes you can think of. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 13:04:38 -0700 | gm_sharma: This is a great 'idealistic' idea, assuming the world was in such a state as to promote this type of global harmony, unfortunately, this doesn't appear like it'll be the case for a very long time. You're almost describing what could be a "UN Naval Expeditionary Group" or something like that, though UN ground forces have been so wrought with poor planning, auditing, usefulness (see Rwanda, current situation in Sudan), that to take the cost of an actual flotilla under their control would be folly. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 13:12:13 -0700 | gm_sharma: Though one interesting thing to note, is that we do have what's called a "CTF" (Combined Task Force) which is an established group of countries working together to provide assets to provide assistance to a particular area. For instance, CTF 150 is a task force of countries (U.S, Australia, Great Britian, French, Dutch, few others) that are all actively patrolling for piracy in the Horn of Africa. It's not quite the "global navy", however, it is a partnership that has proven very successful and mutually beneficial. A step in the right direction at least. Though as far as a 'global' force that would always be stood up together, we'll have to wait and see on that one... |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:04:14 -0700 | nory: Consider a common force for good that the member nations could agree on (rescue, emergency, etc.) Pooled resources for something like that might be a good first step to selling it past limiting political agendas that color some countries. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:27:24 -0700 | Wonton: I like this idea. I think we need to start thinking this way. CTF150 is a good start. If it's working, can't it be expanded upon? |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:06:49 -0700 | dynamite: I think this action plan with action plan 18 could produce some very interesting results. |
| 6 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:36:50 -0700 | skipper: Is a global tax a good idea? I don't think too many people (i.e. Tea Party Republicans) like having their nation's soverignty "violated." Can we think of an alternative? |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:37:44 -0700 | skipper: Is a global tax a good idea? I don't think too many people (i.e. Tea Party Republicans) like having their nation's soverignty "violated." Can we think of an alternative? |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:38:07 -0700 | skipper: (Sorry for redundancy) |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:35:54 -0700 | gm_maier: I think this concept is more of a political issue, any suggestions on ways to conserve and become more efficient? |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:22:01 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: This is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, it assumes that all contributing nations will share common policy and threshholds for taking action, If America wants to retain freedom of action the only way it can do this is by having a self-sufficient Navy. This is a costly endeavor but one which we have preferred. If we decide to give up this freedom to act, then we can consider this course of action. Otherwise, this course of action is dead in the water. |
Action Plan 16 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqvq5IHjHTg&feature=endscreen&NR=1 Describe this video here |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQxd7_ABic&feature=related Describe this video here |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 05:42:04 -0700 | prof: also need to assess how synthetics will decrease heat issues on moving parts, lessening need for replacement parts from distortion of components. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 06:21:11 -0700 | gm_joseph: 1) Heat issues: superior lubricity lower friction heat by 20-50 degrees. Harley air-cooled engines typically run at least 20-25 F cooler with synthetics 2) Parts and components: Less friction on moving parts , less heat , less wear, fuel savings average 2-5%. Numerous testimonies from drag racers who use synthetics in the differentials and increased runs/seasons between rebuilds/ breakages under very harsh stop to full power runs. Automotive industry and aircraft industry this is a no brainier Here is one website http://www.1st-synthetics.com/info/advantage.html |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 06:27:07 -0700 | monstermariner: regardless of the easy transition I think we need to account for the cost of transitioning industry avail lubricants to MILSPEC, even if it could potentially be a drop in. Is the Navy using any syn/non petro lubricants now? |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:28:11 -0700 | prof: It also raises the question of what the MILSPECS are and why? Are they an artifice of an engineering ideal? Are they real? Can/should they be modified to meet the realities of 2022? |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:31:46 -0700 | gm_joseph: To monstermariner Amsoil Gear oils already have a milspec. The 80- 90 w Severe Gear oil has a MIL-PRF-2105E. Their diesel engine oils have many manufacturer s specs ie, Cummins, CAT Volvo, Mack, MAN, MTU, but, no mil spec yet. I am sure it can be achieved with a little money. To prof I will contact Amsoil to research milspec updates and their willingness to accrue milspecs and 2022 realities |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:11:17 -0700 | gm_joseph: A United States defense standard, often called a military standard, "MIL-STD", "MIL-SPEC", or (informally) "MilSpecs", is used to help achieve standardization objectives by the U.S. Department of Defense. Standardization is beneficial in achieving interoperability, ensuring products meet certain requirements, commonality, reliability, total cost of ownership, compatibility with logistics systems, and similar defense-related objectives. Defense standards are also used by other non-defense government organizations, technical organizations, and industry. As to 2022 realities, with additional R&D, they can and are updated frequently for the future ( ie EPA reqmnts). While petroleum base oils are refined, synthetic base oils are manufactured and can achieve a higher performance level. Synthetic oil is chemically engineered for a certain molecular composition with a tailored and uniform structure. Such fine-tuned control over the final molecular composition of synthetic oils is the key to the superior performance properties of these fluids. Designing molecular structures in a planned and orderly fashion results in molecules, and end-products, that are far more stable than their refined petroleum counterparts. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:42:01 -0700 | prof: gm joseph, thanks for the narrative. My general query was to see if some things were being over-engineered for the sake of it. From time-to-time, the military can take a worst case scenario and make it a one-size-fits-all solution. I just want to ensure that we can generate the savings while not holding on, slavishly, to a set of specs that is not grounded in a reality which is recognizable. Certainly the synthetics are worthwhile and cost-effecient, but I wonder if we should be looking at an even smaller molecular level in nano-technology and the single molecule level of lubricant? |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 04:55:27 -0700 | gm_joseph: Prof, I understand. I was trying to keep it at between your nano tech smaller/ molecule level and presently off the shelf with a little more admin work level. With Amsoil, gear oils already have mil- specs. With engine oils manufacturers specs were satisfied (I did not look at all of Amsoil engine oils to determine mil-specs). I think it is only a matter or crossing t s and dotting i s to get all of the engine oil mil-specs. Overall, the greatest advantages are longer draining intervals/less maintenance, longer component life, less dependency on fossil, a dependable/realistic 2-8% reduction in fuel usage. Initial cost is more but when you factor in the true cost savings, synthetics actually save you a substantial amount over the cost of petroleum oil with time. Three or four oil changes every single year along with poor fuel economy the savings really begin to pile up. At about $35.00-$40.00 per change you ll spend well over $100.00 and this doesn t include the additional down time. Just one synthetic oil change at the around $60.00 and factor in about $250.00-$300.00 per year in fuel savings this starts to make sense. In addition, IMO, in the heat of the battle synthetics are a lot more forgiving when that piece of equipment has been neglected. Race car drivers have been known to finish races with no oil pressure. Here is the Amsoil website. I am a dealer and use the products in everything I own. The concept is established. Look at the automotive use (BMW, Porsche, and Corvette) of synthetics; thinner oils for quicker startups, longer drain intervals, EPA mandated fuel economy savings and lower emissions. Amsoil just happens to have a wealth of information, are very customer friendly, and a very fine product with customer service. FYI, I am an Amsoil dealer but am tapping into their website for info because of their openness and willingness to share information. http://www.amsoil.com/ |
Action Plan 17 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
|
| 2 |  |
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2009/01/04/tsat_usaf_2.jpg |
| 3 |  |
|
| 4 |  |
|
| 5 |  |
|
| 6 |  |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:19:14 -0700 | theluke55: I like the laser idea because it seems like you will conserve the most energy that way with smaller beam spread |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:21:12 -0700 | theluke55: of course because the laser beam has smaller divergence it will have a limited footprint on the earth. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:21:38 -0700 | theluke55: Is there efficient energy transfer from photons to electrons? |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:13:39 -0700 | SolarPunk: I have added some details and references to the plan to give it more credibility. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:13:18 -0700 | rcamp004: There are a few parameters to choose from here. First, collecting the energy via solar panels. Solar panels in space are under 30% efficient, so that parameter limits the amount for beaming. 2nd) The method of beaming could make or break this. If the beam goes radially outward the energy will dissipate as 1/r^2 so at 2 miles it'll be 1/4 as strong and 3 miles 1/9th etc. I propose adaptive optics and a MASER or LASER method to minimize spread. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:43:33 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I appreciate being invited to this action plan. Space-based solar is one of my interests, and I have been involved in some working groups in a very marginal capacity, mostly public relations/communications/social media. But, since I am not an engineer, I am not sure that I have much substantive value to add to this action item. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:44:11 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I appreciate being invited to this action plan. Space-based solar is one of my interests, and I have been involved in some working groups in a very marginal capacity, mostly public relations/communications/social media. But, since I am not an engineer, I am not sure that I have much substantive value to add to this action item. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 12:57:09 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Hey folks, this is a gamemaster. I'm glad to see activity on this action plan. Be sure to populate the "Images" and "Videos" tabs with items that support your ideas. Keep it up! |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:06:42 -0700 | monstermariner: I know some of the ideas make come across as science fiction, are there other ways to make energy OTHER than solar power in space, inertia? thermal? I agree rcamp, transmission is going to be very difficult |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:08:25 -0700 | monstermariner: http://www.spaceenergy.com/About/WhySpaceEnergy.htm so at least someone is thinking about it industry, they also have a shareholder section so at least people are investing in it! |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:13:18 -0700 | monstermariner: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/energy-from-space.htm wonder "who in the pentagon" is really working it |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:50:57 -0700 | theluke55: Hey monster, great idea about other sources for power. Do you think you should put those in the card chain so that people can brainstorm more on them? Maybe like an adapt card for the original card. |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:52:30 -0700 | theluke55: Hey potential, I saw some of your other posts and I think you have some great "outside the box" ideas so keep generating ideas to the card chain even though you don't think you could contribute much to the action item. |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:45:12 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Thank you, Luke! I will do so. Good luck with this coolest-action-item-in-the-deck! |
| 11 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:53:23 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Hey Guys, Iv'e joined (thanks for the invite). Re: gm_LCDR Steve's suggestion, I can do the job of populating the A.I. with images and video. Ok? |
| 12 | Wed, 23 May 2012 22:36:54 -0700 | Royalelk: Hi. I'm not part of the group but I really like the concepts, but here are some questions I have about it: -First of all, how do you provide security for these satellites. We've already seen that the Chinese can shoot down a satellite ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801029.html), so these would be vulnerable to attack, leaving our ships potentially without power. -Secondly, the sun generates massive amounts of energy, most of which is blocked by earths cornea (I'm sorry if I don't have this term correct... I'm talking about the magnetic shield that protects us from most of the suns energy) Is there a possibility of harnessing that energy with satellites farther out, and relaying it back to closer satellites to pass to ships and bases. -Thirdly, how will you make sure that these beams are stealthy... If our ships are powered by these, then enemies could pick up the beams and use them as guidance straight to our ships. While this program would help with consumption, it could sacrifice combat efficiency. Finally, all our current methods of launching rockets involve a HUGE carbon footprint, and energy cost. How will we cut down on this, to make launching this many satellites feasible for the savings in electricity. |
| 13 | Wed, 23 May 2012 23:44:10 -0700 | PotentialFutures: The research that has gone into space-based solar is fairly extensive, and while there are still some technical things to work out, a good many researchers & engineers deem this viable. The limiting factor for this is the cost, and the fact that we do not yet have a space infrastructure to launch, build or sustain these platforms. The commercial space folks are especially interested in the prospect of developing a space-based solar infrastructure, largely because it is the only venture that would be large enough to sustain lots and lots of ships ferrying regularly into space, and therefore the emerging commercial-space industry. Obviously, they are trying to bring down launch costs and create a nimble space fleet and the supporting robots and commercial crews. While there are solutions that have been designed for placing small satellites in near orbit, the real holy grail is being able to build *enormous* geo-stationary structures much further out. The sector is confident; here is an article about a partnership forged in 2009 between California's Pacific Gas & Electric and Solaren Corp. "PG&E to buy 200MW of extraterrestrial solar power annually from a space-based solar array starting in 2016." ... http://www.energyboom.com/space-based-solar-game-changer ... I don't know the status of this project, but remember when it was first announced. ... Someone I know is experimenting with putting small payloads into orbit on lasers--this has been done for very small loads, but larger laser arrays--like those that make up the "Star Wars' missile defense system--could put larger loads into orbit without the need for rocket fuel. Still, lasers are a huge energy suck. I don't know how the energy cost of putting lots of small payloads into orbit via laser would compare to sending a ship or plane around the world to deliver, say, humanitarian supplies to the Pacific. But, I do know that if you travel over orbit, you can get anywhere on earth in about 45 minutes. I suppose if we achieve space-based solar, we will have more than enough energy to launch payloads on laser beams all day long. Perhaps this will allow us to move beyond the carbon footprint of rocket launches that Royalelk has mentioned. As far as defending....once we get to this stage, weaponization of space and defense of space assets will have become part of the fabric of worldly affairs. |
| 14 | Wed, 23 May 2012 23:47:03 -0700 | PotentialFutures: One technology development that could stop the whole space-based solar game in its tracks, is exponential optimization of solar capture on earth utilizing emerging nanotech solutions. |
| 15 | Thu, 24 May 2012 04:12:14 -0700 | theluke55: Hey Royal 1) If we are operating in peacetime we don't have to worry about China shooting down our satellites and we are still improving the efficiency of the Navy's day to day operations. 2) Utilizing lasers could make the beams more stealthy because the beam doesn't spread as much and only people within direct line of sight can see that where we are sending to/from Also, i love your idea of alternative ways of collecting energy. I'm thinking all these ideas that you just had should be put in the card chain. I can see it better there rather then a big thread like we are building now. |
| 16 | Thu, 24 May 2012 04:26:46 -0700 | theluke55: Btw, I can't see anything when I type in the "Talk it Over" section. |
| 17 | Thu, 24 May 2012 05:52:22 -0700 | rcamp004: @RoyalElk you bring up some interesting points but I'd like to clarify and add to some of your interesting points: 1) Carbon foot print of launches: Rocket fuel is mainly H2 and O2 and reacts explosively creating a lot of water and yes, CO2. However, I think CO2 for launches might not be as big as you expect them to be. It's mostly water vapor. 2) Van Allen belts shielding the Earth: Really interesting point here. We are shielded from radiation and solar wind. It would be interesting to see if the magnetic field were strong enough to have a dynamo fly around and create electricity. Also, what you said earlier about harnessing solar wind for power would be really interesting! That's worth putting some thought into, definitely in my opinion! 3)Stealth: You have a good point here. Non-friendlies looking for energy signatures could easily use the beam as a spotlight for our fleets. Perhaps there is a way to confuse the enemy by point to a floating receiver that can broadcast electricity via resonance to nearby ships? |
| 18 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:31:21 -0700 | SolarPunk: @RoyalElk - thanks for your thoughtful commentary. Let me address a few of your concerns: 1) Cost of launches - may finally be about to start coming down, thanks to commercial space in general and SpaceX in particular. They have some aggressive numbers for the near future regarding the cost of launching payloads on their upcoming launch vehicles. 2) In-space utilization of resources - ultimately you would like to get the raw materials for these solar power satellites from space via mining asteroids or the moon, rather than launching it all from Earth. Planetary Resources Inc. is moving in this direction rapidly. 3) Vulnerability of solar power satellites to enemy action as they are such large targets - would have to consider this in the design of the system, it may be better to build numerous small satellites rather than a few large ones. 4) Would the beaming of energy compromise operational security as the enemy would just have to "follow the beam" to find the ships / taskforce? This is a *great* question! |
| 19 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:02:49 -0700 | theluke55: During peacetime why don't we just have the energy sent from satellites to a base station that the potential enemies already know about? Then during wartime we could implement stealthy energy stations/algorithms like rcamp proposed? |
| 20 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:36:19 -0700 | SSGenergy: After speaking with a few of the experts in the field, laser beaming is considered too inefficient (too much loss) so using microwaves has become the preferred method. The microwaves have no problem penetrating the atmosphere, the problem is the receiver on earth will be rather large. This may sound like a movie script but there are already companies that are under contract and plan to provide demo s very soon (next 3- 5 years or so). Here s a pretty good article that talks more about it: http://www.space.com/7617-controversy-flares-space-based-solar-power-plans.html The plan is for the space platform to be placed in GEO where it will be exposed to the sun 24hrs a day. For the security aspect, it really depends on the design, some designs are very robust (large) and could better handle an attack while others are lighter and rely on the number in place for deterrence (would have to shoot down several stations to be effective). Some experts say that one subspace nuclear airburst today would take out satellites around the world so the threat isn t a new one. |
| 21 | Thu, 24 May 2012 16:17:10 -0700 | Royalelk: One other important idea to put into place is the capability to launch replacement satellites very fast, on short notice. This would take out some of the danger for the satellites, and it also gives the option of using drastic means to take out enemy satellites in combat (Nuclear blast) while having the capability to put our satillites back up immediately. |
| 22 | Thu, 24 May 2012 16:19:10 -0700 | Royalelk: Also, is there a possibility of having any kind of receiving station on drones? With power being beamed to them, we could have reconnaissance drones up until something broke, potentially months at a time. |
| 23 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:33:59 -0700 | monstermariner: drones could def recieved beam energy, it could substantially increase their run time |
| 24 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:34:51 -0700 | monstermariner: http://news.discovery.com/tech/energy-beam-laser-military-110810.html |
| 25 | Fri, 25 May 2012 08:13:53 -0700 | SSGenergy: The experts we ve met with over the last few months think that there is potential with UUV, USV, & UGV (pretty much anything that can remain stationary without using energy) would be able to recharge. UAV s on the other hand would probably spend more energy to remain in flight that they would absorb from the beam. Not saying that it s a dead issue by any means, improvements in research continue to progress but with current tech it s not feasible. |
| 26 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:22:05 -0700 | Royalelk: Possibility of changing drones in some way to absorb the energy? Glide while receiving energy, better thermal sensing to keep flying, etc? I just think that the possible benefit is to good to give up on, because this is one great way that no other current plan (To the best of my knowledge) can do, and all evidence suggests that we are moving towards greater and greater drone warfare. |
Action Plan 18 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
|
| 2 |  |
|
| 3 |  |
|
| 4 |  |
http://thefutureofthings.com/upload/items_icons/Freedom-Ship_large.jpg |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:19:34 -0700 | Wonton: garrettg84 had an idea "there were some researchers that were going to trawl the patches to clean them up and use the trash collected in some kind of gasification process for more fuel." |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:32:52 -0700 | Wonton: I'm here, are you? |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:33:04 -0700 | chewy66: if these platfroms were linked to oil lines i think the should have their own source of energy capability such as wonton's comment about generation from waves |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:33:21 -0700 | Wonton: Maybe I need to hit submit? |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:34:05 -0700 | Wonton: When I submit, I don't see anything, do you? |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:43:45 -0700 | chewy66: If these platforms were connected to oil lines in key areas around the world agreements would need to be reached with a lot of different nations to used that supply. These platforms would have to be able to generate their own unique sources of power via solar/wind/waves/nuclear to conserve the supply for the fleet. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 12:49:14 -0700 | gm_sharma: - how will we protect it out of U.S soveriegn (or ally territorial) waters? We would need to assign personnel and craft dedicated to protecting a valuable commodity such as this (if feasible), much like we do to the oil platforms in the Persian Gulf. |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 12:49:44 -0700 | gm_sharma: Ive also sent an invite to user - garretg84 |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 12:50:52 -0700 | gm_sharma: Second question, based on the comments I was seeing earlier. This will be a mobile 'energy station' of sorts, harnessing either wave, wave/fuel, or nuclear energy, then converting to electrical energy? I just want to make sure I have that all right. |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:29:48 -0700 | gm_jas: gm_sharma - you've got it! The only twist is that I'd add material to the mix as well as energy. So these facilities would have energy, beans, bullets and bandages. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:03:38 -0700 | chewy66: I am having some troubles imageoning this senario. it seems to accomplish this that a international space station for the ocean would need to be developed. in wich would take huge amounts of resources itself unless it was able to generate its own means of energy while being able to supply it to the fleets. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:17:17 -0700 | Wonton: garrettg84 had a good idea. He suggested "I read some news a few years back where there were some researchers that were going to trawl the patches to clean them up and use the trash collected in some kind of gasification process for more fuel." He's referring to the large patches of plastic floating in the ocean gyres. The one in the pacific is estimated to be 2x the size of the US. Why can't the Navy partner with someone to build a gasification plant on the offshore base? Can we invite garrettg84 to join this action plan? |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:22:42 -0700 | gm_jas: chewy66 - I was thinking they could be tied into existing pipelines to secure oil / gas. Of course this would only work in established basins like the Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, Offshore west Africa, Arabian Gulf and India Ocean. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:24:13 -0700 | Wonton: How about tidal turbines or wave energy generators? |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:27:27 -0700 | Wonton: Here's a company http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/19/startup-open-2010-winners/. (Should I be posting these ideas in the 'Talk it Over' section and not the Comment section?) |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 07:30:32 -0700 | chewy66: lets switch over to talk it over it makes sense ha |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:13:53 -0700 | Wildcat: Perhaps the offshore base could also include alternative fuel production. This might be natural gas to fuel processing if it can be placed near a natural gas source or one of a number of non-crop related synthetic fuel ideas. |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:22:01 -0700 | chewy66: If these platforms were connected to oil lines in key areas around the world agreements would need to be reached with a lot of different nations to used that supply. These platforms would have to be able to generate their own unique sources of power via solar/wind/waves/nuclear to conserve the supply for the fleet. To make it key for the future the platform would have to be extremely dynamic and multi purpose |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:50:33 -0700 | GrendelPrime: Why hamstring a floating resupply dock by making it stationary? I wouldn't tie it into oil or natural gas. |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:53:54 -0700 | GrendelPrime: Why hamstring a floating resupply dock by making it stationary? I wouldn't tie it into oil or natural gas. Make it a sea based power station with tidal generators, wind and solar. Tow it to trouble spots where needed. Pop a Nuclear plant in there maybe to resupply short range electric: interceptor drones, PT boats, Navy ROVs doubles as a helo platform. |
| 11 | Wed, 23 May 2012 12:41:20 -0700 | gm_sharma: Discussion would be best served in the "Talk it over" section. If anyone has pertinent ideas and would like to join the discussion, or has some other considerations but doesn't necessarily want to be involved in the Action plan, please post to here. |
| 12 | Wed, 23 May 2012 13:47:56 -0700 | rcamp004: @GrendelPrime The Russians have a floating nuclear platform they can two anywhere in the world. It was just a blip in the news back around '09 though. |
| 13 | Wed, 23 May 2012 15:14:26 -0700 | rcamp004: Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station |
| 14 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:49:09 -0700 | NavyMIT: Just a few ideas ... 1. The concept of "offshore basing" should also extend to developing a worldwide network of UUV re-charging stations. UUV endurance is a huge challenge for the Navy, and offshore re-charging buoys / power stations would fit in well with many of the ideas in this Action Plan. 2. Cannibalizing old oil-rigs might work very well for this purpose, as discussed below. Many of the oil rigs are designed to survive the North Sea, have sufficient accommodations, and could easily support modular upgrades. With solar panels and some sort of tidal power generation unit (or nuclear power), you could even make these offshore bases very efficient. The Navy always seems to go back and forth with the whole "sea basing" concept, but it would be interesting to see if there was a strategic case that could be made, as well as an argument that would reduce our energy footprint. |
| 15 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:46:32 -0700 | dynamite: I think ally countries could play an essential role in offshore basing; in the same way we operate land bases and airstrips in other countries we could plant offshore bases in ally waters. There are also opportunities for these offshore bases to supply and help other countries patrol their own waters or they could serve as forward operating commands for international missions (e.g. pirating). |
| 16 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:51:39 -0700 | chewy66: agreed with dynamite this could be something like the international space station of the ocean |
| 17 | Wed, 23 May 2012 22:42:22 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I think sea-based platforms can generate their own energy through a variety of means: tidal, solar, wind, ocean gases or by proximity to existing energy infrastructure, as gm_jas suggested. These bases can also support produce and fish-stock agriculture for restocking fleets, reducing the need for longer-term storage and land re-supply. Hydroponics or even saline agriculture can be harnessed. Saltwater agriculture has been validated as viable by the National Academies. By the way, is your Talk Over function working? |
| 18 | Wed, 23 May 2012 22:43:40 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I am beginning to get a MadMax/WaterWorld image going on with pirates swooping by in skiffs to steal tomatoes and batteries. |
| 19 | Wed, 23 May 2012 22:53:41 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I am unclear on the technical aspects of radio waves, radio communications and signals intelligence. But, if any of those processes produce at least 14mHz of spare radio waves, these can be harnessed to weaken the bond between Hydrogen and Oxygen in salt water, which causes the Hydrogen to ignite. This produces a flame hot enough to power a simple Sterling engine. So...if this scales, then these sea-platforms could also be Radio Communication and Signal Intelligence platforms powered by burning salt water. It seems to me that there are enough alternative energy sources out at sea that some combination of them would make maintaining these things without a drop of fossil fuel or the need to supply fuel, possible. Now, whether the costs of building and defending them would merit the benefits they might offer, is a question that someone with other skills than I have, would need to work out. |
| 20 | Wed, 23 May 2012 22:59:13 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Here are some links to the saltwater engine bit, which you may have already seen in cardplay. But, for convenience: CNN "Researcher Sets Saltwater on Fire" http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/14/saltwater.fire/index.html AND YouTube video of same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li5a6iuPkNc |
| 21 | Wed, 23 May 2012 23:14:45 -0700 | chewy66: "I am beginning to get a MadMax/WaterWorld image going on with pirates swooping by in skiffs to steal tomatoes and batteries." ha i was thinking the same thing |
| 22 | Thu, 24 May 2012 00:11:05 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I need to clarify something I wrote below. I wrote: " ...these sea-platforms could also be Radio Communication and Signal Intelligence platforms powered by burning salt water." --- No, that is not what I meant. The radio and communication equipment would have to be powered through another means, but with so many alternatives at sea, likely would not need to be fossil-based. ---- I meant to argue that a "byproduct" of the generation of radio waves in the course of normal operations, *might* also allow the generation of a secondary power source via the directing of those radio waves into a salt-water engine. This could power other platform needs. --- Whew. I am tired. --- Point is, there is plenty of power at sea for a stationary platform. It is just a question of whether they would serve a benefit. I would venture to suggest that they *might* be more reasonable than an expanding fleet of aircraft carriers, probably as expensive to build, but cheaper to sustain. |
| 23 | Thu, 24 May 2012 04:59:51 -0700 | chewy66: an additional idea that could make these platforms multi purpose is to add an airfield of some sort that utilizes uav assets could be beneficial for power projection. also a huge security presence will need to be required for these platforms due to their importance. any suggestions? |
| 24 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:24:25 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I'm not sure if my vision fits in with this action plan, but when I envision stationary, next-generation marine platforms, I think of facilities that can supply ships but also assume some of their operational burden. --- Rather than seeking to recreate existing land-based or carrier-based frameworks, I am interested in combining new technologies and energy supplies synergistically into lean, self-sustaining, multi-purpose platforms that extend naval reach, and are less expensive to maintain than a liquid-fuel-driven battle group supported via land. |
| 25 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:46:14 -0700 | gm_jas: The comment about vulnerability I think needs clarification. The original idea is around using mobile structures (i.e. semis) so that they can be moved like chess pieces in accordance with operational needs. Once relocated they would remain stationary until they needed to be moved again. Therefore, underway speed is not an issue. As for payloads, large oil & gas production semis have considerable payload capacity once the production topsides have been removed. |
| 26 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:52:52 -0700 | gm_jas: The comment about vulnerability I think needs clarification. The original idea is around using mobile structures (i.e. semis) so that they can be moved like chess pieces in accordance with operational needs. Once relocated they would remain stationary until they needed to be moved again. Therefore, underway speed is not an issue. As for payloads, large oil & gas production semis have considerable payload capacity once the production topsides have been removed. |
| 27 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:07:48 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Basically, carrier fleets *are* off-shore bases. So, if we want to solve the problem of how to make the Navy more energy efficient, perhaps we should be thinking through many of the ideas presented in this game that would enable fleets to not need to rely on liquid-fuel power unless they were seriously underway at high speeds. -- Another thought as far as stationary maritime platforms: wouldn't these only be valuable if they were in deep water, far from territorial shores? I don't know if treaties allow anyone to build stationary structures in international waters. Does anyone know anything about maritime law? This is probably one of the first bits of research we will need to conduct for this A.I. |
| 28 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:09:43 -0700 | gardener: Two links that might relate: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/05/seasteading?currentPage=all and http://www.seasteading.org/book/seasteading-book-beta/ |
| 29 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:32:36 -0700 | gardener: Some of this should be out in playing cards. A few thoughts come to mind: offshore base stations are vulnerable to attack; they can rely on wind, wave, solar, and other renewable sources of energy; perhaps they can serve as energy harvesting platforms for related fuels, e.g. hydrogen. |
| 30 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:07:21 -0700 | PotentialFutures: @Gardner Sea-steading is a good model technically, but wouldn't apply to platforms flying a national flag in international waters, I don't think. ---- As far as this action item: where are we at? Do we need to edit the above criteria to refine the "pitch." What exactly are we proposing, and what are the next steps we need to take? Oh, and how much time do we have left to complete these? |
| 31 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:44:24 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Where are we at with this A.I. Is it complete? Anything need to be done, added, researched? Who is the lead? |
| 32 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:44:58 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Where are we at with this A.I. Is it complete? Anything need to be done, added, researched? Who is the lead? |
| 33 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:12:49 -0700 | gardener: Some risk that many players dropped out due to server. Good point re national flags. Don't have any particular intuitions about that. |
| 34 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:48:48 -0700 | GrendelPrime: The platform would most likely be well defended, Having only need of minimal maneuvering ability, the rest of an aircraft carrier sized craft could be dedicated to power generation, resupply and defensive weaponry. |
| 35 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:50:37 -0700 | GrendelPrime: .. and would probably never really be 'alone' in the water. |
| 36 | Thu, 24 May 2012 17:30:04 -0700 | gardener: I did have in mind submarine attacks; I suppose that appropriate defenses could be invented to handle that. |
| 37 | Thu, 24 May 2012 17:59:21 -0700 | TheKTW: What problems are we still debating? Security seems to be the one that comes to mind, yet also the capacity of the proposed semi submersibles. |
| 38 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:41:47 -0700 | NavyMIT: Various unmanned systems could easily provide security for any offshore bases - assuming rapid advancement in autonomy technology and more investment in unmanned programs. The best protection would be concentric rings of fixed / mobile sensors and defensive systems. Identify threats far enough in advance, and task actual manned vessels to early intercept. By using unmanned systems, operators / analysts wouldn't have to be physically present on the offshore base (though that would still be preferred). |
| 39 | Fri, 25 May 2012 04:33:48 -0700 | NavyMIT: Also, the SEALs are now converting an old warship (USS Ponce) to a mobile sea-base, rather than de-commissioning the ship. Would there be any merit t this approach? Would a program-of-record - warship conversion to sea-basing - serve as a better interim solution until a full design / actual funding is secured for an offshore base? |
| 40 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:49:58 -0700 | monstermariner: maybe utilize containerized approach for all materials. that way the base could be quickly abandoned? |
| 41 | Fri, 25 May 2012 08:06:36 -0700 | nory: http://www.specserve.com/en/section/products-and-solutions/offshore-contracts/living-quarters there are companies that specialize in refurbishing and/or creating new modular offshore living quarters. Certainly looks like work SeaBees could do better/faster/smarter. I know the ones down here in the gulf are designed for rapid exit in case of storms and the 'guts' are modular for ease of emergency evacuations. Not sure manned outposts are feasible from security standpoints but are from a logistics approach. |
| 42 | Fri, 25 May 2012 09:13:07 -0700 | prof: See photo for concept adaptable for long-term offshore basing. Just a way-out idea which may have legs..... |
| 43 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:04:42 -0700 | Royalelk: Is there any chance of having drones be used? These drones could be submersibles, stationed in international water. By having them constantly moving, combined with good operational security, they would be very secure, and I'm sure there could be an algorithm that would station these drones in areas so that they would always be near, and could station with ships. At the same time, these drones could be tidal-wave generators, and generator electricity for the fleet. These drones could be called up to meet a ship, and in addition could possibly be outfitted with monitoring technology, to keep track of ships/subs in the area. |
| 44 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:21:41 -0700 | TheKTW: @Royalelk - Are you thinking in terms of stockpiling, basing, or generators? |
Action Plan 19 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYR9s6chrI0 Aquaponics Made Easy DVD 12 minute version. The full length, 90 minute DVD can be obtained from www.PracticalAquaponics.com |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RminZFgqenk http://www.geifuelcells.com 1-810-610-2816 Global Energy Innovations (GEI) has developed a fuel cell capable of changing the way we process energy world wide. The unit is reputed to even be able to convert human waste into energy. Don't be surprised if in the next few years homes are completely disconnected from the power grid. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:22:03 -0700 | Tyler: In terms of water treatment, a nuclear reactor lends itself to this task. It is power intensive and the load is always high, especially when personnel consuming a lot of water (tropical regions, deserts.) Maybe not practical for every place, but we may want to consider it. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:46:07 -0700 | Seahawk91: I think that we can work on most of these issues but food generation may be abridge too far as most Navy bases are constrained in the amount of open land that they have available. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:48:12 -0700 | gm_tyler: True. However, the Navy once relied more heavily on organic supply chains.. e.g. USNA used to have it's own dairy farm, not on the Yard, but closeby in MD. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:48:35 -0700 | gm_tyler: True. However, the Navy once relied more heavily on organic supply chains.. e.g. USNA used to have it's own dairy farm, not on the Yard, but closeby in MD. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 08:49:31 -0700 | Tyler: I have to agree with Seahawk91 on this one, as far as food goes. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:11:01 -0700 | Tyler: As far as the steel processing and a "blacksmith rate", maybe for the particularly large installations, but this obviously wouldn't be practical for every base the USN has. Though I think additional machinists and mechanics would be on every base. That way at least the repair work and replacement components can be readily made. Steel industry in the US and Canada can do the actual processing from recycled components. As long as sufficient stocks are available, the larger bases should then be able to construct any components needed. (Obviously electronics and the like would be beyond their capability, but repairing them shouldn't be.) |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:23:18 -0700 | wryan34: What is the need to have steel processing capabilities? Are we talking just repairs or the actual building of ships and vehicles? |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:47:09 -0700 | gm_tyler: I would think Navy bases which currently have repair activities, such as PHNSY or IMF, would be able to fabricate sufficient replacements. Shipbuilding would stay in the shipyards, but a "vital" pump component, for instance, may need to be manufactured on base in the case of an attack on our normal supply chains. |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:05:16 -0700 | wryan34: I don't see really how that improves the concept of energy efficiency or energy security. That seems more of a resource security issue. |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:22:18 -0700 | Wonton: The scope of this project is quite all-encompassing. Maybe we should decide if we want this base to be truly self-sustaining, or if we should focus on energy and support (ie. repairs). If it is truly self-sustaining, then we do need to consider food, and think of it more as a small village. Is this one small village that then supports other offshore platforms/bases? |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:39:15 -0700 | Tyler: I agree that bases should not be building ships, I know that was in no way my intention. The pump component example is perfect to display the level of capability I was thinking. As far as being self-sustaining, only power and in a small way repair really improves efficiency in my opinion. A small village, complete with farms and the like, is not going to be as efficient. It may be more secure in some regards, but it is in no way more efficient. |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:11:04 -0700 | gm_jayd: You all might want to look at Action plan #21. Talks about DOD base self sustainment by building Thorium Based Power generation plants on bases. Useful in event of terrorist threat/emergency. Plants would be inside a security barrier, easier to continue keeping critical national security bases operating without being beholden to the national grid. |
| 12 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:55:25 -0700 | maplevt: Good link to overview of Thorium Based LFTR reactor: http://thoriumsingapore.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=37 |
| 13 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:25:25 -0700 | gm_Matt: I just posted an interesting video about fuel cells that are powered by human waste, check it out! |
Action Plan 20 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGAzt-8minI How to get an 80' rig through the 65' bridges of the Intracoastal Waterway using two tons of water. The balls get swung out with an initial turn to port or stbd. The tendency then is for the roll to continue by itself, but is controlled by letting the bags out slowly with a line made off to each bag and running through necessary tackle to a cockpit winch. |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu2NyD-kux8 kayak sailing ... and more ... |
| 3 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_YyHmXqthc Auxiliary wind propulsion for merchant ships, Sail Freight Int'l, Inc., White Plains, NY. This is the only wind-assist system in the world that ever proved itself to be completely cost effect. Each sq. meter of sail area generates 1 HP when the apparent wind is 15 knots. More wind means more horse power and the ships speed only adds to the apparent wind. The Sail Freight system can be retro-fit onto most all vessels. |
| 4 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq2DATxcft0 Yachts in space? Maybe, if NASA's plans to use photons from the sun to power a small satellite prove successful. Jorge Ribas sets sail. |
| 5 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFPcZZR7oa8 Next generation cargo ship with 50m high sails uses 30% less fuel http://www.diginfo.tv/v/12-0066-r-en.php DigInfo TV - http://diginfo.tv 19/4/2012 SEA JAPAN 2012 The University of Tokyo Wind Challenger Project |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:44:33 -0700 | gm_pat: There were many card threads that discussed sailing vessels. This Action Plan is intended to consolidate the various threads. Authors from the disparate threads have all been invited to contribute to this action plan.invited most of the posting authors to |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:04:21 -0700 | prof: Also the potential for clandestine ISR missions. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:05:09 -0700 | rcamp004: I'm not familiar with the acronym ISR. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:05:48 -0700 | prof: As pointed out above, some merchant vessels already do this in mid-ocean transit. Use existing technologies. Also rigid wing technologies can be effective for increasing speed and fuel efficiency. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:12:14 -0700 | monstermariner: great candidate for aux ships. if anything its a great way to reduce propulsion requirement while in long transits. Do they need to have a reduced signature or would CONOPs only be when not on combat posture? |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:14:16 -0700 | gm_tyler: ISR, or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, missions, are largely performed by assets other than surface ships. It would be less likely that a submarine would benefit from sail propulsion |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:19:58 -0700 | prof: On the ISR front, I am thinking of actual sailboats. See the photo I have attached. Also potential for detecting subs, as sailboats underway make very little actual surface noise. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:21:28 -0700 | prof: Occam's razor anyone? |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:23:40 -0700 | monstermariner: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/05/navy_fuel_053109w/ He has no direct involvement in Sky Sails BUT he said it |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:36:51 -0700 | skipper: Very interesting. Something to keep in mind is that there is a certain amount of sail area that is needed to move a ship forward, which makes me question the kite idea. However, a nice spinnaker for the bow of a destroyer or cruiser might work. Remember USS Intrepid, which "sailed" back to Pearl Harbor after taking a hit to the rudder with the use of a makeshift sail up forward. Potential issues: 1. A spinnaker or kite could get in the way of a VLS launch, making it very bad in the event of surprise attack 2. Kites and spinnakers, depending on the material, could greatly increase radar signature and could block radar from the ship itself. 3. A ship would have to carry enough sails to actually move it forward. To reach top speed, USS Constitution of about 2000 tons fully loaded had to carry more than an acre of sail. |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:42:49 -0700 | gardener: Sails vs kites: Sails operate in winds deep in the boundary layer, typically slower than winds above the boundary layer (surface friction). Sails are easy to rig, kites require a lot more "rigging" than say a spinnaker. A kite doesn't have to be made of materials that contribute to radar signature, though it does contribute to visual signature. About sails: Constitution and that class of sailboat relied on drag -- being pushed along, though a bit of lift-based sailing occurs. It's not a slam dunk, sails vs kites, but kites are claimed to provide more thrust when they are operating in stronger winds. |
| 11 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:45:20 -0700 | skipper: Constitution and other square riggers cannot rely on drag, as that slows the ship down rather than speeds it up. Please clarify. |
| 12 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:47:45 -0700 | skipper: In addition, fore and aft rigging from the ship's mast could provide a good place to put staysails for when the wind is coming from abeam. They do require a keel, so maybe warships could have a kind of centerboard system for non-tactical transit. |
| 13 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:57:15 -0700 | skipper: See the pictures I just added |
| 14 | Wed, 23 May 2012 11:58:07 -0700 | skipper: FYI kites are very similar to Spinnakers, and spinnakers are often nicknamed kites |
| 15 | Wed, 23 May 2012 15:56:46 -0700 | nory: Gaft rigged Schooners used to carry cargo transatlantic. I'm posting a picture of one |
| 16 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:00:11 -0700 | nory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaff_rig |
| 17 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:04:50 -0700 | nory: Also posted video demonstrating how boat balls can allow a vessel to slide under a bridge without stepping the mast. Retired Naval Engineer developed them. |
| 18 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:20:06 -0700 | nory: Added link to Sky Sail which in 2008 developed a kite-powered cargo ship that hit the high seas on the first transatlantic voyage from Bremershaven (Hamburg), Germany to Guanta, Venezuela. The 160m2 SkySail kite wafting over the cargo at the bow of the 132m Multi Purpose Heavy Lift Carrier MS Beluga SkySails" is a beautiful sight. |
| 19 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:21:12 -0700 | nory: http://www.skysails.info/index.php?id=23&L=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=96&tx_ttnews[backPid]=34&cHash=983e9beb9e sorry forgot the link to their website |
| 20 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:39:32 -0700 | gm_pat: ISR = Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance. |
| 21 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:41:40 -0700 | Hokieman78: Here is an older patent for a moveable, rigid vertical airfoil sail suitable for larger commercial craft. http://www.google.com/patents/US4561374?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false |
| 22 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:44:43 -0700 | Hokieman78: A technical research paper describing the performance of kite sails as a means of auxiliary propulsion for merchant vessels. http://www.icmrt07.unina.it/Proceedings/Papers/c/26.pdf |
| 23 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:48:42 -0700 | Hokieman78: I feel that auxiliary ships such as oilers and replenishment ships are the most feasible candidates for the use of such supplemental wind propulsion. Their operational requirements and superstructure construction make them relatively straightforward for the retrofitting of airfoil sail masts. |
| 24 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:52:17 -0700 | dolfin719: Skipper, for the most part a square rigged ship relies on the thrust (not drag) generated by the wind pushing nearly orthogonally to the surface of the sail. This means that their best point of sail is running (wind dead astern or nearly so) and they cannot sail very close to the wind (most cannot sail with the wind more than a couple of points forward of the beam). Fore-and-aft rigs (nearly all pleasure sailboats) can rely on wind pressure like square riggers (normally called running wing-on-wing or dead downwind) but normally use their sails more like an airfoil to generate lift through the wind. Therefore, they tend to sail best on beam reaches (wind on or just abaft the beam) and some can sail very well with the wind only 1-2 points off the bow. |
| 25 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:24:54 -0700 | monstermariner: I watched a documentary years around on a japanese merchant vessel that used a giant metal sheet ( sail ). you could certainly trim that to many angles to catch different angles with respect to your course. could even angle parts of it and use low signature material increasing likelihood some combatant ships could find scenarios to use. |
| 26 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:36:52 -0700 | dolfin719: Wikipedia has an article on Sailing faster than the wind. The first couple of paragraphs are woth checking out, the rest is a fair bit of vector math and not likely to be of interest to non-racing sailors. Also posted a picture of USA 17 (2010 America's Cup winner) with a rigid foresail. She averaged anywhere from 1.4 to 3.35 times windspeed during the 3 races of the cup. That's nearly 27 knots boat speed in 7-8 knots of wind, depending on point of sail. |
| 27 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:42:15 -0700 | NavyMIT: There would definitely be some interesting naval architecture challenges for this Action Plan. I've also seen some conceptual sketches for large-displacement vessels (tankers / oilers) using sails and kites, but we would have to adopt a non-traditional superstructure for this to happen. Composite materials (as being discussed in another Action Plan) will be useful, but the Navy will have to make all of its T-A-XX vessels more aerodynamic (as well as hydrodynamic). The cruise ship industry is already experimenting with streamlined superstructures, so it would be interesting to integrate this concept with very large, efficient sails. For warships, are we still willing to consider the feasibility? I would have some major questions: Can we really travel faster than the critical hull speed? Would sails pass necessary survivability requirements (large sails in bad sea-states)? Can we support the extra top-side weight and moments induced by much larger sail-areas? Overall stability for sail-powered warships would be the most significant concern. Tankers can hold a lot of weight / cargo low in the vessel, but warships don't really have the same variable ballast (or low VCG, for that matter). All high-performance sailboats have large, heavy keels that extend well below the baseline of the vessel. If we have a large sail-area, how much weight will we have to have lower in the ship? Will this improve / reduce our efficiency? Just thinking out loud, but let me know. |
| 28 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:52:03 -0700 | skipper: You really know your ships, dolfin. I think it's important that we can be able to move the ship with the wind coming from any direction (except in front). |
| 29 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:33:17 -0700 | nory: Valid points about the keel length NavyMT - the draw would have to be considered for any ship that plans on getting into shallow depth coastal waters. |
| 30 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:50:21 -0700 | chewy66: if this was implemented it would also increase the life of current ships propulsion systems. As the ship sails via sail a better standard of maintence can be done due to the inability to perform this maintence while the current oil driven system is active. |
| 31 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:06:25 -0700 | gardener: Maybe I can add a comment now. Third try's the charm, they say. Yes, a kite is like a spinnaker, though the kite interacts with stronger winds. In terms of drag, perhaps I misspoke and confused. Square rigged sails remind of the old water pumper windmills, which are very dense in blades close together. That provides high torque in moderate winds to pump a lot of water, but must be shut down in high winds. Compare to modern wind harvesters with high aspect ratio blades, and, more importantly, high tip speed ratios: ratio between the moving blade and the wind speed, which translates to more lift (thrust in a sailboat). |
| 32 | Thu, 24 May 2012 04:18:47 -0700 | KNOWLEDGE: I found a video of a cargo ship using a sky sail for propulsion: http://current.com/groups/on-current-tv/88797790_sky-sail-propulsion.htm |
| 33 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:30:09 -0700 | prof: I added a supplemental video of a freighter with auxiliary sail propulsion. Could possibly be retrofitted to some existing platforms, both freighter and combatant ships for transit. |
| 34 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:06:59 -0700 | gm_balaji: Intersting Wind Challenger Project (participated by University of Tokoyo) that has modelled 50m high sails using 30% less energy -- http://www.diginfo.tv/v/12-0066-r-en.php |
| 35 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:33:40 -0700 | evdansully: Sorry for coming in late, but this could be a good application for RORO's. Also, would need to be careful of Bridge heights, unless the masts were somehow able to be lowered when not in use. |
| 36 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:37:46 -0700 | evdansully: What would a large mast and sail do to radar signal? |
| 37 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:54:04 -0700 | nory: @ evdansully - masts can indeed be lowered when not in use (that is unless the ship is designed to use Ship Balls to cant it). |
| 38 | Thu, 24 May 2012 13:46:08 -0700 | prof: evdansully, radar signature need not be dramatically affected, due to composite mast construction. |
| 39 | Thu, 24 May 2012 15:16:43 -0700 | KNOWLEDGE: Kite sails would not require a mast. |
| 40 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:09:35 -0700 | evdansully: I know it is late, but is there any desire to expand on the kite concept by adding an airborne wind turbine to the design? See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine They have a nice pic that could be added to the Image tab. |
| 41 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:46:23 -0700 | dolfin719: NavyMIT: I agree with your comments about stability and the ability to carry sail. As skipper mentioned, CONSTITUTION was about 2000 tons and carried 40K+ sq ft of sail (about an acre). For a large auxiliary of maybe 80000 (40x bigger) it might require a million or more sq ft of sail to get the same 8-10 knots. Now, we're using kevlar and even more advance sails rather than canvas (much lighter). We're using more advanced sail designs (should lead to less area for greater speed). But there are still the forces that will be placed on the ship that need to be dealt with. I'd love to see some modeling done to find out what order of magnitude we are talking about in increased draft and weight for stability. |
Action Plan 21 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY READ! I added this video for a project regarding Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, watch and enjoy. [Edited with the YouTube Video Editor ( http://www.youtube.com/editor)] Here is a petition for those interested in the US, take a look. http://thoriumpetition.com/ Here is a petition for the UK, please sign! http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32346 It won't take long. Also, because so many people have asked: The main downsides/negatives to this technology, are basically politics, corrosion and being scared of nuclear radiation. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors were created 50 years ago by an American chap called Alvin Weinberg, but the American Government realised you can't weaponise the by-products and so they weren't interested. Another point, yes it WAS corrosive, but these tests of this reactor were 50 years ago, our technology has definately improved since then so a leap to create this reactor shouldn't be too hard. And nuclear fear is extremely common in the average person, rather irrational though it may be. More people have died from fossil fuels and even hydroelectric power than nuclear power. Thanks for watching. And please, please share this video with as many people as you can. The more that know about this, the greater chance of change. R. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 09:45:12 -0700 | Tyler: Thorium has a lot of advantages, but the near-term creation of a practical reactor is not realistic. I agree, however, that research into it is money well spent. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:09:50 -0700 | gm_jayd: Read a comment on the internet (not sure how valid), but it said China will have one in 5 years. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:29:38 -0700 | Wildcat: Local services outside the base are critical for the base to operate. Should think about being able to time in the surrounding community in time of need. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:33:17 -0700 | gm_jayd: If enough power was produced, excess power could be sold back to the grid and it would help offset the cost of the base operation. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:15:34 -0700 | gm_maier: maybe Throium is a good long-term plan, in the short-term we can switch facilities onto the SMART Grid system to encourage individual units to save |
| 6 | Thu, 24 May 2012 05:10:22 -0700 | gm_jayd: Have private companies develop/build and run Thorium LFTR reactors on the bases. Good partnership because the company has secure area for plant, safe from terrorist activities/sabotage, and company can provide reliable power to base and also sell excess power outside the base. This will help offset cost of base operations, a win-win for Navy and private corporations. |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:47:07 -0700 | SSGenergy: Agree with the SMART/MICRO-Grid idea in conjunction with the Thorium reactor. It gives bases islandable power that hardens their defenses and limits the effects of cyber incursion from adversaries. Not sure if I agree with an outside /private company supplying power, if the military base doesn t provide higher security than a civilian entity, a larger problem may exist |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 18:30:01 -0700 | Tyler: I think the private company, if it is an issue at all, is one which can and must be overcome. The Navy already incorporates civilian technicians for upkeep and repair to certain complicated systems and other specific hardware. A similar process of vetting and security protocols could be worked out for this situation. |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:53:59 -0700 | gm_Matt: Check out the 5 minute video I just uploaded on LFTR, pretty cool! |
| 10 | Fri, 25 May 2012 08:06:06 -0700 | marxwj: It would seem to be logical to look into retrofitting nuclear vessels with this technology too. |
Action Plan 22 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li5a6iuPkNc John Kansas created a way to run an engine on saltwater while trying to cure cancer. Read more about it here: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/14/saltwater.fire/index.html |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEX1YFXYTdI Woah, I couldn't believe it myself, until I watched this! |
| 3 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu32Y6hDk6k Describe this video here |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:23:30 -0700 | PotentialFutures: test test/// |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:23:35 -0700 | PotentialFutures: test test |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:23:55 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Does this communicate field work? test test... |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:25:31 -0700 | PotentialFutures: test test |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:28:29 -0700 | PotentialFutures: test test |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:28:41 -0700 | PotentialFutures: test test |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:04:52 -0700 | PotentialFutures: test |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 10:47:46 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Ok, I'm in. Have 3 action plans now and must step away for one hour shortly, but will return. I assume this is waiting for someone to fill in the initial blanks above, yes? |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:22:50 -0700 | nory: Some of the 'green groups' already have lists of small solutions to reduce carbon footprint that could easily be adapted to Naval use with little/no R&D costs. Analysis would be needed to match up solutions to issues relative to the military needs. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:28:25 -0700 | Podge: Running out of time - I will add more later... |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:41:57 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Glad to see you guys have joined! I had trouble all day accessing the game, so could not make much headway on this, although spent the time researching. Nory, lets try to get a list of the solutions you know of together into one place; I will collect the ones that have been made in this game. Prodge, thanks for continuing to add yours as well. Would be great to include links. ALSO...do we have a tool in this interface that would allow us to all write on the same list--sort of a Google docs equivalent? If not, maybe we can co-opt one of the fields above temporarily. Once we have a list of solutions, we can begin to A. match them to naval needs B. Recommend them in areas where the navy may not have yet thought of them C. Find out which departments of the Navy are responsible for implementing various solutions so they can be cited in this action report. So great you guys are here! Thanks for filling out above. I'll add some more to the field too. Cheers! |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:47:29 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Podge, Nory, do you think we should treat this as two action items: 1 for Podge's "An internal program that tracks, evaluates, and assesses...." And one for specific recommendations for maximizing energy use across multiple small-scale measures? |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:14:00 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Never mind re: the two action-item question. These two will converge nicely into a single action plan.... Podge's plan for a program to identify opportunities for "small measures" and the broader action of offering concrete recommendations that we know of now. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:25:07 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Our "Talk It Over Function" does not appear to be working |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:27:36 -0700 | PotentialFutures: The Map Function also does not appear to be working |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:04:38 -0700 | PotentialFutures: The more I look at what other people are doing for action items, the more I think that your idea, Podge, deserves its own AI. And, any other specific actions we know of--borrowed from "green groups" or wherever, should have their own A.I.s individually. For example, somebody has launched A.I.s for harnessing kinetic energy from gym equipment to power local generators and another exploring recycling ship & base waste into fuel. It would have been so much easier on us to have everything in one place, but likely easier for the Game Runners to have it broken down. Tell me what you guys think--separate or together? |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:20:33 -0700 | PotentialFutures: @Podge-- the people in A.I. #11, have wandered into a similar idea as yours in the comment section--they have strayed a little from the orginal AI focus, but it seems that maybe You, Dynamite and NavyMIT should get your heads together either here or there. They are talking about a similar type of feedback program, but one that is online, which seems reasonable. |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:49:24 -0700 | PotentialFutures: HI Podge, Ok, I have not heard back from you since yesterday, so don t know if you are still engaged in this A.I. For now, I am going to paste your content here, and we can put it back into the fields above once the plan is completed, if you like? Have you thought about making your system a web-based one? For now, I d like to go back to the original plan for this A.I., which is to provide a list of small-scale solutions requiring little to no additional R&D , that can be scaled across naval bases/ships to produce a cumulative return on Energy savings. Ok? |
| 12 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:50:40 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Podge's Content Re: Internal Feedback System ________WHO IS INVOLVED: Industry officials; enlisted sailors; officers; Navy research divisions (NAVSEA, etc), Departments of Public Works; Navy Installations, ___________WHAT IS IT: Establish an internal program that tracks, evaluates, and assesses component usage (shipboard, shore facilites, etc.). This evaluation can be broken down into useful data to determine optimal operating patterns. ___________WHAT WILL IT TAKE: A conversation between industry and enlisted sailors, as well as research and developments being on-board with new ways of looking at things. R&D doesn't have to be creating new technology alone, but new ways of combining existing systems. 1) Start by tracking usage of all equipment and systems. This can be done by log-taking by the user of that equipment (more challenging for shore facilities). 2) Once sufficient data is obtained, identify operating patterns, such as: navigation radar operates 24 hours per day... 3) With these known operating patterns, we can start to look at ways to improve the efficiency. 4) Some equipment is not needed to operate at all times during a typical day - reducing their operating time based on need and employment will require detailed knowledge of the system and its interrelationships with other systems. ___________HOW WILL IT WORK: 1) Start by tracking usage of all equipment and systems. This can be done by log-taking by the user of that equipment (more challenging for shore facilities). 2) Once sufficient data is obtained, identify operating patterns, such as: navigation radar operates 24 hours per day... 3) With these known operating patterns, we can start to look at ways to improve the efficiency. |
| 13 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:47:36 -0700 | dynamite: How will it work: create an online system that allows personnel to inform Command COs of energy savings they see in their jobs or departments. CO's that are able to implement changes receive some type of incentive or commendation. How will it change the situation?: Instead of energy savings being decided by people theorizing the savings, the savings are generated by people that have the first hand experience with whatever activity they are doing. |
| 14 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:47:50 -0700 | dynamite: How will it work: create an online system that allows personnel to inform Command COs of energy savings they see in their jobs or departments. CO's that are able to implement changes receive some type of incentive or commendation. How will it change the situation?: Instead of energy savings being decided by people theorizing the savings, the savings are generated by people that have the first hand experience with whatever activity they are doing. |
| 15 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:47:59 -0700 | dynamite: How will it work: create an online system that allows personnel to inform Command COs of energy savings they see in their jobs or departments. CO's that are able to implement changes receive some type of incentive or commendation. How will it change the situation?: Instead of energy savings being decided by people theorizing the savings, the savings are generated by people that have the first hand experience with whatever activity they are doing. |
| 16 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:49:34 -0700 | dynamite: How will it work: create an online system that allows personnel to inform Command COs of energy savings they see in their jobs or departments. CO's that are able to implement changes receive some type of incentive or commendation. How will it change the situation?: Instead of energy savings being decided by people theorizing the savings, the savings are generated by people that have the first hand experience with whatever activity they are doing. |
| 17 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:49:43 -0700 | dynamite: How will it work: create an online system that allows personnel to inform Command COs of energy savings they see in their jobs or departments. CO's that are able to implement changes receive some type of incentive or commendation. How will it change the situation?: Instead of energy savings being decided by people theorizing the savings, the savings are generated by people that have the first hand experience with whatever activity they are doing. |
| 18 | Thu, 24 May 2012 18:24:16 -0700 | Tyler: I think getting people involved who used the systems is a good idea for sure. Engaging people who have hands on experience with the system you are trying to reform has long been seen as the way to get good and real results. |
| 19 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:17:07 -0700 | nory: Documenting process flows and having others review them often revels redundancies and extraneous steps that someone seeped in the process might miss. So I agree with Tyler's comment but want to add the step of letting fresh eyes look at it afterwards. |
| 20 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:19:19 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I have been adding images with links to articles as well as videos to flesh out various small-solution applications. Please feel free to add, and request to join group if interested. Thank you! |
| 21 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:41:51 -0700 | Tyler: nory- I think that is a good addition. In some ways it has parallels with this project/game. We are all from different areas and our work and comments will later be reviewed and looked over by analysts. On a separate note, it was mentioned in another Action Plan to incorporate some version of an X-Prize competition, a way to entice involvement. This seems like a good place for that to be implemented once problems were identified. These problems could have a sort of crowd-sourced suggestion process. The Navy would get a lot of solutions, cheap. It wouldn't cost much, even if it yielded little sometimes. |
| 22 | Thu, 24 May 2012 20:23:45 -0700 | nory: The Myth Busters video illustrates a small scale solution of recycling used cooking oil for diesel by filtering it. I had to laugh because after Hurricane Ike came through my neighbor did exactly that with oil from his restaurant. It disposed of several problems at once and a perfect example of how creative minds can use small changes to create synergy towards larger ones. |
| 23 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:12:41 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Regarding comments from Nory & Tyler on gaining feedback from system users: we have split that concept off into a new Action Item #34 "Online Feedback and Social Networking." |
Action Plan 23 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/CIA-DG-BIOT.jpg/478px-CIA-DG-BIOT.jpg |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:24:46 -0700 | Janiz98: Hi, I would like to expand upon the idea of power islands. Because the reach of the US military is so large and it takes a long while to establish some of these relationships, it may help to build a mobile power station on a barge. We can set it up in the middle of the ocean with collection devices that gather wave energy (like a constellation). |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:26:49 -0700 | warpaw: Hello |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:27:27 -0700 | Janiz98: Hi Monstermariner - my only worry is that once we have established those investments our strategic geographical area will have shifted again. Eventually people in other countries will stop taking our promises seriously because we may have to leave before the project is done. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:22:31 -0700 | monstermariner: what if we made sizeable investments in the energy grids of allied nations that give us access. imagine re investing in the infratructure of subic bay? reducing the energy burden of EVERYTHING associated with forward operating, tremendous tactical reach. great locations that would favor from this, central asia, phillipines, camron bay vietnam, are there other easy ones? |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:31:26 -0700 | Janiz98: Hi MonsterMariner - my main worry about that level of investment is that our strategic geographic location can change in a short period of time. If we had to pull out quickly from that region before all of our projects are complete it would be hard to sell ourselves as a nation that keeps its promises. Also there may be factions who prevent us from completing these civil engineering projects within those countries, tying up our manpower and resources for decades. I'm wondering if we can look at a mobile power solution in addition to maintaining our relationships with our allies. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:32:04 -0700 | Janiz98: Hi MonsterMariner - my main worry about that level of investment is that our strategic geographic location can change in a short period of time. If we had to pull out quickly from that region before all of our projects are complete it would be hard to sell ourselves as a nation that keeps its promises. Also there may be factions who prevent us from completing these civil engineering projects within those countries, tying up our manpower and resources for decades. I'm wondering if we can look at a mobile power solution in addition to maintaining our relationships with our allies. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:32:30 -0700 | Janiz98: sorry for adding twice - having major issues with the website... |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:36:30 -0700 | warpaw: I hear you on the issues... the action plan interface seems like it is overloaded, and the chat function is limited (non-existent) |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:43:58 -0700 | warpaw: I have placed pins in the map for seaways of economic importance. Should we pin current facilities? |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:45:52 -0700 | Janiz98: Gotcha. I'll work on another one and come back. I'm looking at a power barge solution not unlike this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powership It can use the wave power generation arranged like a cluster around the ship and located a certain distance away from the ship so they won't interfere with ships arriving and departing for fuel. It looks like the wave power technology is progressing to the point where we can start looking at this more realistically and less sci-fi. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/05/wave-glider-crosses-pacific/ Also by locating these items close to a powership/barge it will reduce the length of pipes / lines back to shore which is the limiting factors for many of these designs for coastal communities. |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:56:44 -0700 | warpaw: If we are looking to expand home-ports, what other facilites/space are required to support fleets? |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:09:40 -0700 | Janiz98: I saw this on another thread: https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html ....Lots of possibilities with SSTAR - Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Argonne national laboratories are designing a self-contained nuclear reactor with tamper-resistant features. Called SSTAR (small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor), this next-generation reactor will produce 10 to 100 megawatts electric and can be safely transported on ship or by a heavy-haul transport truck. In this schematic of one conceptual design being considered, the reactor is enclosed in a transportation cask. |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:10:37 -0700 | Janiz98: When it is upright, SSTAR will be about 15 meters high and 3 meters wide, and its total weight will not exceed 500 tons. This compact size will allow the nuclear reactor to be transported on a ship and by a heavy-haul transport truck. |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 00:41:23 -0700 | prof: localized energy generation is a key component. Is there a way to develop/leverage indigenous energy generation aside from hauling nuclear reactors with us all over the world? There may be some ramifications of bringing a nuke plant to some forward/deployed bases with host countries. |
| 12 | Thu, 24 May 2012 20:15:12 -0700 | nory: @Prof the United Nations sponsors several organizations that help develop low maintenance energy sources for developing nations. Universities here (IIT, MIT, Cal-Tech as examples) contribute to that development. Might want to leverage some of that work and adapt it for the naval needs. |
| 13 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:24:32 -0700 | monstermariner: example the USCG Facility that makes NG from landfill in baltimore |
Action Plan 24 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1SEWDY7kV0 SAN DIEGO, California, USA. THE US NAVY IS GOING GREEN...The Makin Island just got commissioned in the Port of San Diego. Its the first ever military hybrid ship. When sailing at speeds above 12 knots it uses regular gas but at lower speeds (75% of the time) it runs off the ships electric grid. An innovation which should allow the US Navy to save up to $250 million over the ships life. The electric engine requires less maintenance, it is less noisy, and can be monitored through the ships centalized computer system. According to Navy officials this ship is ushering in a new era for the military...meanwhile, in the civilian world the hybrid technology has been in use for over twenty years. Another green innovation onboard the Makin Island is the reverse osmosis system through which 100s of thousands of gallons of drinkable water are produced daily, without the use of a single chemical... |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 13:18:13 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: This Action Plan may be similar to Action Plan 4. Please see the content there. It may be better to join that plan rather than starting a new plan on the same topic. Go to Action Plan 4 and select "Interested in Participating." |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 14:55:45 -0700 | gm_balaji: I agree with gm_LCDR STEVE. We can consolidate this plan with AP 4. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 15:08:20 -0700 | wryan34: Is this plan still going on? |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 15:53:46 -0700 | wryan34: I think this can apply to more than just vehicles that AP4 refers to. Hybrid technology could apply to power sources at expeditionay FOBs too. Instead of just JP-8 burning gensets, couple them with energy storage and renewable generation and you've reduced fuel supply chains significantly. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:00:29 -0700 | wryan34: I think this can apply to more than just vehicles that AP4 refers to. Hybrid technology could apply to power sources at expeditionay FOBs too. Instead of just JP-8 burning gensets, couple them with energy storage and renewable generation and you've reduced fuel supply chains significantly. |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:44:43 -0700 | prof: Concur. Power management and access is more than just hybrid technology for one end-user. This is an important intermediate step for an energy independent Navy. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:03:07 -0700 | monstermariner: are we still live? |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:47:13 -0700 | wryan34: Yes this is still going. Although there have been a lot of glitches and slow downs in the system. |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 00:37:15 -0700 | prof: in re, "How will it work", I think we may also want to look past the concept of "constant phasing" as it may be peceived here. Paralysis by analysis of phased events may cause a loss of interest/emphasis by decision makes whose tours are only 2/3 years in length. |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 04:50:01 -0700 | gm_balaji: JAYAre posted some sites using Expand card http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA531583http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA552204 Hybrid Ship Propulsion: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA540385 |
Action Plan 25 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
|
| 2 |  |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFGl4xJNao http://airboyd.tv Courtesy: Naval Air Systems Command/NAVAIR Steve Naylor, an aerospace engineer at Patuxent River, Md., shows you how the manned flight simulator increases flight test efficiency. |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqIvG8rpt48 This is a video of the Billings, MT Fire Department using FLAME-SIM to train fireground communications and decision making for the IC and company officers. Each avatar in this video represents a "company" of firefighters (size of the company depends upon the apparatus). The firefighters in this video had not trained on this scenario before and did not know what they would have until the first in arrived on scene. This is a great example of how FLAME-SIM is currently being used to train firefighters across the country. |
| 3 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3JO9CVcBaY Behind the scenes of the Army's helicopter training program. |
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 22:50:28 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: I think the use of simulators has a great deal of potential. Starting out with reducing the number of training flights is great and I hope we would not limit ourselves with that since we can also do the same with ship crews and maybe reduce the need for ships to be sailing so much. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:09:53 -0700 | gm_mark: Simulator training can be robust and very useful. The airlines use simulators to qualify their new pilots and annually requalify their established pilots. The first "flight" in an actual airliner for a new pilot is with passenger aboard. Great idea and one that is WAY over due. |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:11:07 -0700 | nory: simulators can be expanded to provide other training in a non-lethal way. From 'Kobayashi Maru' scenarios through rescue and recovery - there are games out there already that can help keep the edge sharp in an enjoyable manner. |
| 3 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:28:53 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: This is a very good idea. Expand the use of simulators to also link up with those stateside. So that you can do multiple crew and ship training regardless of whether at sea or in port. |
| 4 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:36:10 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: Another aspect is to build whole ship smulators at each port. These virtual and constructive simulations would cover all aspects of ship operations. Not everyone would have to use them at the same time, scenarios could be done in segments and then be put together or analyzed individually and then redone. Would also recommend making the simulators modular so they can be reconfigured for multiple stations. The Army does something like this at Fort Eustis, VA, where we have ship simulators, ship firefighting simulators, crane simulators, etc., all linked together. We have also linked these simulators with other simulators in California so they could practice together. |
| 5 | Thu, 24 May 2012 17:14:35 -0700 | nory: Posted a fire simulation system that illustrated modular design and ability to vary scenarios to keep people involved. |
| 6 | Thu, 24 May 2012 17:18:41 -0700 | nory: http://military.discovery.com/videos/at-sea-training-simulation.html Navy using gimble technology to create simulations for sub emergencies. |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 20:29:35 -0700 | mrsfist: Similators already exist and are used for training purposes. Lemoore has them for their F-18 pilots. There has been advances in them so that G-suits can be attached so they feel like they are actually pulling Gs. This is a huge plus because Gs play a huge factors in a pilots ability to react. There are still draw backs when it comes to motion and the size of the similator. These things are huge and have to be kept cold rooms. So we are talking about taking up space on ships and adding to energy consumtion to not just run the simulators but cool the rooms they are kept in. I don't know how you would implement a full motion sim. You have to keep in mind that flying with no environmental conditions changes the game massively. |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:03:35 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: I think increasing the use of simulators is a very good idea. Full motion simulators will be expensive to build, but for other aspects of sailors' jobs, simulators can be built fairly cheaply to help train them on their job tasks. I will never believe that (unless you have a real holo-deck from star trek) you can ever fully replicate doing the job while at sea. However, you can maximize the training value by getting key tasks understood and trained prior to shipping out. |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:05:57 -0700 | mrsfist: unfortunately I can not upload the video on the 4d sim by Raytheon. CNN did a story on it http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/business/2011/06/23/boulden.paris.military.simulator.cnn#/video/business/2011/06/23/boulden.paris.military.simulator.cnn |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:13:19 -0700 | mrsfist: It has been proven that simultors increase a personsability to pass test and to perform a job. I have no arugment with that. The question is where is the line drawn and on what? The main reason we are talking aviation is the hope to save fuel from training flights. I agree that practice is great in the sim but there will still need to be some training flights performed. |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:29:19 -0700 | Royalelk: I'm not an author, but Is there any chance of linking simulators, so aviators could fight each other? Providing incentives for winning would motivate pilots to work harder and hone their skills. Currently, training flights, when they have combat, are heavily mocked up, (Practicing getting lock on, etc) and have very strict rules. Simulators would give pilots a feel of what they can do in actual combat. In addition, there is a possibility of using the simulators to train pilots to use multiple planes with a high level of proficiency (not sure how feasible), possibly cutting down on pilots needed. |
| 12 | Thu, 24 May 2012 22:47:28 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: Over the past decade a great deal of work has been doneto improve and standardize virtual and constuctive simulations. It has taken a great deal of time, but DoD continues to move toward common standards in their simulations. OneSAF is an example of this initiative. Once the simulations all use a common language, their ability to interact will be limited only by the capacity of the network operating it. Do not limit ourselves to aviation flights for saving fuel; the use of simulations could also reduce the number of days needed to be at sea to maintain and develop operator skills. The use of simulations across the Navy could reduce the need for the number of fleet exercises or the length of fleet exercises. |
| 13 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:32:38 -0700 | mrsfist: Agree. Royalelk: Yes the sims can be linked for such things. The issue would be the sims on the ship. Communication uplinks between the fleet is not the quickest. Current 'bandwidth' for ships would not suffice for this type of sim. |
| 14 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:58:27 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: Agree withMrsFist. The bandwidth will be very hard to overcome, especially with the way we currently do IT aqcuisition. More innovation will be needed in this area. Another problem area will be doing full range simulations on a ship that is rolling and pitching. Currently the simulators are located on land and do not have to compensate for those movements. This will take some time and probably be costly (at the beginning). However, if oil is going to be THAT expensive and scarce, we will have little option but to have a holodeck on every ship. |
Action Plan 26 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvyi1QsG8uk See a day in the life of a Navy Nuclear Reactors Engineer who is responsible for designing, maintaining and operating the worlds most advanced reactor plants. Http://navy.com/nuclear |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rIajql5LNI "Mini nukes:" They're not something out of a spy thriller, they're a new generation of nuclear reactors that can power several thousand homes and might be safer than large reactors. The promising new technology could make this carbon-free energy cheaper, safer, and easier to build. It's deceptively simple - "just a reactor inside of a stainless steel thermos bottle, underwater, underground." In "Mini Nuke Reactors, " special correspondent Daniel Sieberg visits two different types: a scale model of one that could provide electricity to a small town and another proposed project that would recycle nuclear waste from the Cold War. Daniel looks at how they work, unique safety features and how they can grow to meet the changing energy needs of communities. Engineers at the plants explain why so-called small modular reactors could be the next big part of America's energy future. |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:01:23 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Hey folks, I've created this action plan to act as a central discussion platform for all participants who have weighed in on this topic (many individuals across multiple idea cards). We'll attempt to refer to this action plan all future idea card authors who make submissions on this same topic. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:03:22 -0700 | Royalelk: One possibility is since the Fukushima disaster, many countries have been closing down their nuclear programs. It could be possible to take advantage of these experienced engineers to work on the next class of nuclear powered ships, or to at least start an R and D on the next generation |
| 3 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:25:31 -0700 | GrendelPrime: I don't think an all nuclear navy is a good plan actually. Did any one here read my SeaTrain (for lack of a better name) idea? The locomotive is Nuclear and all the cars are more conventional. |
| 4 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:26:51 -0700 | GrendelPrime: Also, the off-shore mooring/mobile power-stations are a great idea for local patrols |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:00:20 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Hey folks, I've created this action plan to act as a central discussion platform for all participants who have weighed in on this topic (many individuals across multiple idea cards). We'll attempt to refer to this action plan all future idea card authors who make submissions on this same topic. |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:16:37 -0700 | gm_rachel: Search function in the upper right of this page shows that there are currently 118 cards that contain the word 'nuclear'...definitely a lot of potential collaborators there! |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:16:52 -0700 | gm_rachel: Search function in the upper right of this page shows that there are currently 118 cards that contain the word 'nuclear'...definitely a lot of potential collaborators there! |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:20:25 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: Rachel, we're right on the same track. I'm in the process of identifying all the participants who submitted idea cards re: nuclear and inviting them to this action plan. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:25:55 -0700 | prof: Conversation can continue around use of existing plant designs for surface combatants. Among the issues to be worked through (as I see them) include retrofitting existing hull forms to accommodate reactor plants, development of new plants, and home-porting issues for refueling. |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 16:56:54 -0700 | Gface89: Lets not forget training (annual/initial) for those NF's, which brings us to another issue all together. That's a whole lot of smart people. How do you entice them to work not only for the classicly average naval wages but also in the belly of the beast where as I'm told by my former MM(N) buddy, "If you're not sleeping or eating you're studying" instead of going into the fast paced glamorous world of private nuclear physics. Haha. It will require a vigorous ad campaign (and or expensive workshops) to fire up the teen population. That said I think this is THE first step toward the end goal. |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:13:10 -0700 | skipper: DDG shipyards like the Bath Iron Works are really good at coming up with creative solutions. Considering the miracle they performed in the repair of USS Samuel B. Roberts in 1988 (take out the damaged hull section, replace it with a brand new one), maybe they could come up with a way to put nuclear reactors in the Burkes that they built. Thoughts? |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:13:48 -0700 | dolfin719: The biggest competition for surface nuke Sailors will (and always has been) the Submarine Force. The civilian side has much tougher requirements for someone without a degree to meet because they expect operators to be at the senior level (EOOW, EWS, PPWO, PPWS, Eng qualified) as soon as they stand their first watch. The Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program takes folks and trains them to that level over the course of several years. I wouldn't worry about the civilian nuclear power industry taking people away from the Navy. Now, since surface nukes eat their young ... the Submarine Force will always get first pick :) In all honesty, though, with the amount of signing bonus, reenlistment bonus, pro-pay, and rapid advancement (E-4 right out of A-school, E-5 STAR reenlistment at 3 yrs, E-6 off the test at 5-6, and CPO by 10) I don't think that we'll have a huge problem getting the people to fill the seats at NNPS. |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:15:45 -0700 | Tyler: Being from the Bath area and a family of Bath Engineers, I can say that they are good at coming up with fixes and solutions. As for a reactor in a Burke, the hull just isn't quite big enough for a completely nuclear powered ship. Either a new, more compact reactor, reduced cruise speed, or a partial solution is needed. You could potentially use nuclear power for cruising and electrical needs, with gas turbines for sprints (albeit with very limited fuel for such a sprint.) |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:20:08 -0700 | dolfin719: Skipper, been kicking the retrofitting issue around with prof in another thread. It has some potential, but the shielding requirements and the potential effect on ship's stability and sea keeping ability in high sea state would be my biggest concerns. The amount of shielding required is a lot of weight because we're talking about FEET of lead, steel, water, & poly on all sides and top of the Reactor Compartment and a lesser amount around the Engineering Spaces. One reason the Soviet boats were faster than US SSNs, back in the day, was due to the reduced amount of shielding they had compared to our boats. I guess if the crew glows it allows you to save money on lightbulbs... prof had an idea for taking a decoming DDG/CG and retrofit that as a proof-of-concept. I think that (even if it didn't have a live core installed) some smart NARCs could test the stability concerns and navigational draft impacts on the hull design. |
| 11 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:23:52 -0700 | dolfin719: Tyler, I'm not sure how efficient a CONAG system would be for a DDG/CG. CODAG is used widely throughout the world (and even other navies) to provide efficient crusing speed ("slow speed" diesels) with the additional sprint capability of gas turbines for combat. As far as converting a BURKE, I think you would have to redesign and build from the ground up (possibly using the same hull form) as a nuclear plant. I don't remember enough of my NARC classes to be able to say for sure, and all of my shipyard time has been on submarines. |
| 12 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:39:26 -0700 | Tyler: The problem is the hull form. The Burke hull is just too narrow for existing reactors. A couple Submarine reactors (2 S9G at 40,000 SHP) don't give you the same HP as a Burke today (4 LM2500 31,000 SHP each, for about 120,000 SHP for the NEWEST Burkes, closer to 100,000 SHP on the older ones) The gas turbine sprint capability wasn't ever really very practical. I am a big fan of nuclear propulsion, the Burke hull form just isn't a good candidate. I'm guessing the opinions on the DDG1000 probably aren't very high, but that is my bet for a current hull form to be equipped with a reactor. It's newer, already has electric drive, and is a good deal bigger to handle the displacement. |
| 13 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:03:18 -0700 | Janiz98: Hi, I saw this in one of the other action plans (SSTAR) - if the fleet were powered by electricity and this was located on a platform or a barge in the theater of interest would this be useful? .... https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html ... |
| 14 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:05:20 -0700 | Janiz98: Info on all-electric ships: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2007/November/Pages/All-Electric2453.aspx |
| 15 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:19:34 -0700 | prof: Tyler, good call on the DDG 1000's. CGN's are a valid possibility for retrofit, I believe. |
| 16 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:26:46 -0700 | dolfin719: Another thought would be to use A4W plants on some new AOs and use the huge amount of power (much more than necessary for propulsion alone) to operate large electrolysis plants to generate H2 to refuel the small boys running on fuel cells. DDG and smaller should be much easier to convert to H2 fuel cell propulsion than nuclear, and AOs have plenty of space for a nuclear plant. So the fleet Auxiliaries, CVNs, and other big decks could be nuclear while the small boys are fuel cell. |
| 17 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:13:23 -0700 | Royalelk: Hello. I have some ideas for this class, that would potentially push them beyond the mere power plant stage, and add to fleet operations outside of that: These ships would supply energy for motors, and electrical devices to ships functioning in a fleet. The energy would be supplied to the other ships in the fleet through means of the conductivity of water, or some other means. I have no knowledge of the mechanics of how to transport the electricity, and I'm not going to pretend that I know how. During combat, these generator ships would hold back, possibly providing data support, or energy to the other ships of the fleet. Other ships in the fleet would carry batteries, and oil reserves, for use during combat in case of the destruction, or disabling, of the generator ships. This would be the prime purpose of the generator ships. In addition, these ships could function in some other ways, to provide support other than electricity. One of these ways is through having dedicated satellite uplink. Being a generator ship, they could devote large amounts of power to their uplink, and the uplink could be much larger and more powerful, giving larger data capacity. This data capacity could be fanned out to the other ships of the fleet, giving ability to free up data for other uses, or have the ability to use more advanced drones, which could take in more, and do more thanks to almost no data limit. The strain upon satellites would be lessened as well, since there would only be the necessity of maintaining only one link. As with the power requirement, all ships would have backup links, although these would be less powerful, in case of battle damage. With the increased data, and space on these ships there are possibilities of moving current ideas such as 4g lte coverage onto these ships, which could supply it to the rest of the fleet. A third possibility for these ships is also the installation of large radars on the ships, to provide early warning to the others in the fleet. They could supplement the job currently done by AWACS birds, saving on aviation fuel. This would give a in-combat job to do, and they could function to supplement aircraft carriers aviation and flight-control capabilities. They could also cut down on time taken to share data between air and naval units. These ships would be able to solve two major problems, first the consumption of oil by naval units, and secondly would provide greater communications, to supply the fleet of the future. The major drawback would be in that these ships would almost be useless outside of a fleet, although there are possibilities of docking these by bases, to provide movable communications and power to remote bases, without needing the establishment of permanent facilities in bases that may have to be abandoned due to changing world conditions. I'm just a student and I won't pretend to know anything about these topics, but those are some ideas for the applications and use of the ships. |
| 18 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:30:21 -0700 | mrsfist: Tactics issue. If you take out one of these power/com ships how does it effect communications in the fleet? How much time can a ship run on a reserve fuel supply? Is this to much technology? Are we setting are selves up for failure on a communications/ power grid scale? |
| 19 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:40:41 -0700 | mrsfist: I know I am playing catch up here. As part of adding the reactor to a ship, reactor design should be taken into consideration. There are some cards out there that talk about alternate nuclear power sources as well as smaller plants. The easiest way to get more bang though is to use the excess heat that is given off from the reactor. This is waisted energy. As far as training people. I do not see that being an issue. Keeping people is a bigger issues. Even the nukes on carriers are leaving for the civil sector. At some point you would think this would balance out. We also must think about international relations and bases. The current policyies we have in place to park one of our carriers in Japan is out of this world. I deal with this directly (including the Fukishima incident). Our relationship is ran on a tight rope with our fingers crossed that no one messes up. |
| 20 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:42:20 -0700 | mrsfist: I know I am playing catch up here. As part of adding the reactor to a ship, reactor design should be taken into consideration. There are some cards out there that talk about alternate nuclear power sources as well as smaller plants. The easiest way to get more bang though is to use the excess heat that is given off from the reactor. This is waisted energy. As far as training people. I do not see that being an issue. Keeping people is a bigger issues. Even the nukes on carriers are leaving for the civil sector. At some point you would think this would balance out. We also must think about international relations and bases. The current policyies we have in place to park one of our carriers in Japan is out of this world. I deal with this directly (including the Fukishima incident). Our relationship is ran on a tight rope with our fingers crossed that no one messes up. |
| 21 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:44:39 -0700 | chewy66: at the same time of building this nuclear fleet the current oil driven fleet would need to be phased out. if its not we would run into the problem of more ships than sailors to run them |
| 22 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:54:06 -0700 | mrsfist: Another thought is how does this effect the support infrastructure needed to run these vessels. Here is some bas info. Currently all carrier and submarine radiation programs have to send there monotoring devices to specific locations to be read out. Those facilities have only been doing this program for 6 years and there are still huge speed bumps. They are also maxed out on the abilities to keep up with current business. In addition to personnel monitoring we add more environmental and work are monitoring required by states and federal guidelines. Oh yes and international guidlines. By the end of the year a facility will be seen by NAVSEA, BUMED, state officials, local officals,and international officals. This is for subs and carriers at 5 naval bases. How do we expand that. |
| 23 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:01:44 -0700 | Royalelk: The idea in using them as power/com ships is that they primarily function in non-combat situations, in a fleet. Most fleets are composed of aircraft carriers, and in combination with the striking distance provided by them, as well as the existing doctrine and the ships protecting them, it should be difficult to destroy the power/com ships. In addition, an important part of the plan is in the fact that all ships will still contain secondary systems, especially for power in combat. These secondary systems would be able to handle the load, just that the power/com ships will reduce consumption, and improve capabilities when they are around. Especially in current warfare, where the navy is fighting inferior forces, but ones that can do damage (Suicide runs...) or on-shore installations, the greatest concern in terms of damaging the boats should be in missiles or other ranged attacks, which most fleets can handle. These ships are by no means the sole method for anything in the fleet, but instead are a way of supplementing the fleet and increasing the capabilities. |
| 24 | Wed, 23 May 2012 22:17:35 -0700 | redivan32: Mrsfist- it seems that much of what is at the heart of these issues is lack of manpower. I am aware that the Navy is currently trying very hard to recruit new nuclear engineers and crewmen, but from what I hear from local recruiters is that the Navy loses a ton of them to the private sector after there terms are expired. The question is, how do we make staying in the Navy more attractive than moving elsewhere? Maybe the Navy should offer more perks and incentives for nukes? Increased compensation is also nice. This issue I believe lies at the core for why nuclear technology is not taking off as a power source. |
| 25 | Wed, 23 May 2012 22:22:09 -0700 | Royalelk: I think one of the greatest possibilites to attract engineers is greater freedom in design and implementation, and less bureaucracy. One of the attractions of civilian work, is that you get a chance to innovate and change your models, change what you do day to day. In the navy however, a good day is one where the routine never changes. Cutting down on bureaucracy, and giving more chances for engineers to innovate would help attract manpower. A possibility would be a rotation upon a test ship? Or a lab, for all engineers that wish to. This gives the benefit of having innovative smart engineers in the ships, instead of just the labs, and having people who know the conditions aboard ship in the labs. Coupling this with greater incentives should go a long way towards attracting engineers and crewmen. |
| 26 | Wed, 23 May 2012 23:49:17 -0700 | Secil: After reading some some of these comments I appear to be very under qualified for this but I will try and add what I can. |
| 27 | Thu, 24 May 2012 00:04:19 -0700 | Secil: I've seen lots of comments about problems fitting the reactors into the existing fleet. I think an important question is with an increased interest from the navy in nuclear reactors for their ships what kind of advances and miniaturizations can we expect. I know a few years ago that there was talk of miniature reactors the size of a hot tub or shed. gen4energy was developing that kind of thing but has moved to larger design which might be useful for powering bases if not ships. So though current reactors might not fit in the hull what about future ones. |
| 28 | Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:01 -0700 | nory: Part of the action plan might need to at least acknowledge the necessity of educating the general public on the benefits and safety of atomic energy use. Other than few places like Groton CT the use of atomic energy has become a bug boo in some eyes. The wonders and benefits of atomic energy need some brushing off and major PR work again. |
| 29 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:17:03 -0700 | Tyler: Secil- You're right a lot of problems with fitting existing hulls with a reactor. Indeed, the Navy looked at fitting 1/2 of a Ford-class carrier reactor plant to a DDG-1000 hull and found it to be too narrow to support the reactor. It comes down to deciding if the strategy should be to design new reactors to fit existing hulls, new hulls to fit existing reactors, or a combination of both. The Navy and analysts would have to figure out the optimal mix. Personally I feel that fitting the ships we have with the reactors we have, while optimizing new reactors to new (and more efficient) hull forms that could be constructed in the near future. |
| 30 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:42:40 -0700 | mrsfist: Nory I agree. One thing I have learned is that the public is more concerned with the waste and the safety of nuclear power than the actual power. The panick that insued on the west coast after Japan was astonishing. We are talking about people who live and work with or around nuclear power on a daily basis. Waste issues will improve with time. We recently found the signature for plutonium which will allow us to determine reuse or disposal techniques for RAD waste. Safety is a whole other issue. Everyone looks at Chernobyl and Japan and thinks it WILL happen here. We learn from that and improve are systems. The only actual deaths related to radiation in Japan where workers who took the risk to try and fix the situation. What most people don't realize is no mater what the source of energy there are always inherent dangers. |
| 31 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:29:28 -0700 | prof: mrsfist, I concur. In educating the public we must look at immediate radiation concerns that folks have and increase awareness of unsustainable fossil fuel use by the surface fleet, not to mention the carbon footprint that a deployed Carrier Strike Group has in transit as well as while in theater. With more R&D comes higher tolerances, greater safety margins and a longer-lived and sustainable surface fleet. |
| 32 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:39:47 -0700 | prof: We need to be able to contain and alleviate concerns which will rise because of things like this: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/05/24/seven-injured-when-nuclear-submarine-uss-miami-catches-fire-portsmouth-naval-shipyard/uF1TYBtPFSkWERLzPWNkrK/story.html |
| 33 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:46:06 -0700 | Wildcat: An nuclear related idea that has been offered in other parts of the game is worth adding to this action plan. The thought is that it might be a bridge to far to expect a switch to an all nuclear navy. However, if one nuclear fuels processing and storage ship was added to a strike group, it might provide the liquid fuels for the rest of the group. This ship would process seawater, extracting H2 and CO2, and processing it into marine diesel and jp5. This would have the same effect on severing the fuel supply chain and may end up being more affordable than changing all ships over to nukes. Such a ship might also offer plug in power for hadr missions. |
| 34 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:48:09 -0700 | prof: USS Truxton anyone? We should be able to build on lessons learned. |
| 35 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:54:06 -0700 | SSGenergy: What about changing the reactor to Thorium? Safer, easy to change fuel, and we have plenty of it. |
| 36 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:38:12 -0700 | Tyler: Thorium is a potential long range plan, but it isn't anywhere near mature enough to think about short term implementation. Another Action Plan I am involved with is discussing thorium reactors and advancing them. Once this system is a little more mature, I think it would be a great direction to go in. |
| 37 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:42:19 -0700 | Tyler: prof: I am curious as to which lessons learned you were looking to pull from Truxton? I think the entire list of US nuclear powered combatants of that era are worth looking at for lessons learned (like leaving space to modify, the older ones were retired partially due to their inability to easily take the new VLS), but what drew you to that one specifically? |
| 38 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:43:42 -0700 | GrendelPrime: So There's a lot here to catch up on: Retrofitting's is like fixing up an old mustang with a different engine type, sounds good at first until you start to realize the floor is rotting and the suspension is all wrong for the weight distribution. Considering the long term nature of this implementation, I would suggest purpose built hulls. |
| 39 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:53:04 -0700 | GrendelPrime: I also think the type of reactor is irrelevant in this situation, the navy has not lost one to mishap yet. Though I do like the Pebble Bed Reactor designs. Also proliferation of naval nuclear reactors retired from active ships in to civilian power applications instead of scrapping them would help national power/infrastructure issues as well as make career opportunities for ex-nuc's post enlistment. |
| 40 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:55:05 -0700 | Tyler: I think retrofitting has some, albeit limited, promise. I think the Navy's plan to use LPD-17s hull form with 1/2 of the Ford-class reactor plant, giving her all the power she needs to carry a big BMD radar (on the order of 21'-28') and the future weaponry (heavy in power needs). But for smaller combatants, I do think a new hull is needed, not a retrofit, there's just too much baggage and the work required would be too much compromise. |
| 41 | Thu, 24 May 2012 10:37:49 -0700 | gm_aerik: Yes, the issue with Thorium is the lack of infrastructure in our country. We can get there but it would be a relatively long road. |
| 42 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:51:58 -0700 | dolfin719: Sorry, been teaching all day so have to catch up a bit. MrsFist, you mentioned that you see nuclear Sailors leave for the civilian side daily and I agree. We are able to get them into the program because we have an amazing track record of taking high school graduates and getting them through a nuclear power training and certification program successfully. We get the first enlistment Sailors, train them, get them qualified, burn them out, and then they leave for the civilian side. Based on those I know who have transitioned to the civilian nuclear power industry, about half to 2/3 of all civilian Senior Reactor Operators are former Navy nucs. We have to figure out a way to retain these Sailors beyond their first enlistment. However, I really do think that we will be able to continue getting enough first term Sailors to be able to man a much larger nuclear fleet. |
| 43 | Thu, 24 May 2012 13:14:13 -0700 | dolfin719: Regarding dosimetry processing, up until about 3 years ago, nuclear powered ships read their own dosimeters every month (or more frequently when necessary) for nuclear trained personnel and visitors. We went to a centralized processing facility for LiF dosimeters in an effort to save money. I won t even go into the issues associated with shifting us from CaF to LiF dosimetry and the scam of the repercussions of it all. |
| 44 | Thu, 24 May 2012 13:15:38 -0700 | dolfin719: Incentives for retaining nuclear trained Sailors are already insanely high. A fully qualified Sailor with about 6 years of service (E-5 or E-6) can reenlist for an additional 6 years for about $100K (half up front, the other half divided into annual bonus payments) . A nuclear trained Submarine Officer (starting at 5 years service, O-3) can sign a contract for $30K per year for 3-5 years and continue to do so through the end of his (or now her) command tour (about 18-20 years of service). |
| 45 | Thu, 24 May 2012 13:16:43 -0700 | dolfin719: The folks that run the ships are not the same folks that do the design work. Nuclear trained Sailors and Officers run the plants at sea, man most of the repair and support facilities ashore, and run the training commands. The design work is done by civilians and a few Limited Duty Officers at Naval Reactors (NAVSEA 08) or by civilian engineers at the shipyards. |
| 46 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:25:41 -0700 | mrsfist: some of my post did not make it on here from earlier. Dolfin: Retention I agree is key. I have no clue how to keep them. The only thing I can figure is that the civil sector will fill at which point they will not have that option. LiF was implemented 6 years ago with fleet implementation completion 3 years ago. Trust me on this. It is my life. I fully understand the advantages and disadvantages to the two programs. I get to quote them to BUMED and NAVSEA every year on a test. (I think it is one of those things if you say it enough you will believe it). HARSHAW is in process of trying to make a shipboard system but it is far out given there current system is heated with nitrogen. |
| 47 | Thu, 24 May 2012 21:31:56 -0700 | mrsfist: One of the post missing is the following link. It includes all subs and chips (military and commercial) with reactor and some base information on them. With this many reactors out there shouldn't we be looking for the right reactor to fit on the ship not the ship to fit around the reactor. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=550&terms=reactor%20on%20subs |
| 48 | Thu, 24 May 2012 22:11:06 -0700 | gm_ying: Link to the discussion around the cards #478,#483,#486,#489 (marinemagnet) |
| 49 | Thu, 24 May 2012 23:09:39 -0700 | Green_is_the_New_Navy: Although this solution may be controversial (thanks to the recent issues in the civilian world), it is by far the most obvious and most practical until fusion reactors are perfected. As for designing ships around powerplants or vice-versa, I think you try to do an iterative process of matching design with powerplants. Designing new reactors will be costly and take a LONG time. |
| 50 | Fri, 25 May 2012 00:52:11 -0700 | Secil: Yes fusion would be a wonderful alternative. unfortunately by the time we have reactors small and light enough to fit on a ship seagoing navies might be a thing of the past. |
| 51 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:34:30 -0700 | dolfin719: mrsfist: I think that the new TLDs work fine and I don't even have much of a problem sending them off to be read (except for the apparent waste of time/money); it's the reporting methods we use that I have an issue with. For example, subtracting "background" from a nuclear trained offficer who stands watch aft and gets about 1/4 of what I got as a JO doing the same stuff? As an XO during a post-refulening testing program (8-12 hours a day in the engineroom) I was getting the same on a new TLD as I did while sitting in drydock for a month? All because we now subtract "background". Opening ourselves for lawsuits in the far future to save a few bucks today. |
| 52 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:54:32 -0700 | gm_aerik: One of the keys for safe and efficient nuclear fission reactors is standardization. That is why small modular reactors (SMR's) are becoming more popular. You can add them in series to each other to produce as much power as you want. A similiar approach could be used to power our ocean-going Navy. One SMR for a sub, 4 for a carrier, etc. There are also lower footprints (consideration for shore-based power generation) and good safety characteristics. Both from a reactor accident standpoint as well as a non-proliferation standpoint. |
| 53 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:13:17 -0700 | Tyler: Standardization of the reactors completely may indeed be the way to go, but I think it would require some cost trade-off work. There is a huge difference in the amount of power that a carrier needs vs a submarine and I am not sure that just adding more reactors (even SMRs) is the way to achieve this. Common parts and a scalable design may be better, I just don't know. The SMR approach should at least work for submarines and shore installations, as well as smaller (currently fossil fuel-powered) combatants. We just want to avoid another F-35 debacle (too common, for three too different aircraft.) |
| 54 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:16:09 -0700 | Royalelk: I think that whats needed is standardization in practices and maintenance, so that there can be greater man-power transfer over, and lower training costs, but I think it's too much to ask for different ships to be able to use the same reactors. In addition, while you may be able to string together smaller reactors, keep in mind the fact that there is greater efficiency (usually) with larger reactors. What happened to the idea of one ship in the fleet that would use the nuclear power to power the other ships? I think that creation of the power ship will first of all still be able to give a huge benefit in energy savings, and secondly will require less nuke personal, something we have all decided will be hard to come by and retain. |
Action Plan 27 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCuPx9shWT0&feature=related Describe this video here |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:14:44 -0700 | Podge: To make this program effective, we need to evaluate what needs to be done to change the inhabitants' behavior. The tenants in Navy housing are typically affected most by the money in their pockets... |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:18:36 -0700 | nory: Giving a household a utility rat and then letting them pay for their utilities out of that might be a good start. Certainly adds an incentive for them to save on energy consumption as any overage comes out of their pockets, and savings go into them. Carrot hiding the end of the stick very good for behavior modification. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:19:15 -0700 | nory: Giving a household a utility rat and then letting them pay for their utilities out of that might be a good start. Certainly adds an incentive for them to save on energy consumption as any overage comes out of their pockets, and savings go into them. Carrot hiding the end of the stick very good for behavior modification. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:19:43 -0700 | nory: Sorry for double post - lag demon attacks here again tonight. |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:00:58 -0700 | warpaw: What other influence does the Navy have over on base facilites? Can appliances (Laundry) be scheduled to reduce to use during peak times? |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:15:09 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Here are two articles regarding new Navy energy conservation programs that may have bearing on this Action Item and help determine what is already being done and by whom: "Resident Energy Conservation Program to Launch Navy-wide" http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=66699 AND "Resident Energy Conservation Program to Launch Navy-wide" " http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=66699 |
| 7 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:16:54 -0700 | nory: Good articles there Potential Futures |
| 8 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:23:07 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Sorry, Nory...I *had* two separate articles, but this lag is just killing me. I did not mean to post the same one twice, and am trying to relocate the other one, again, now. |
| 9 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:05:24 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Ok, the other article is gone, lost in the wilds of deep search, but the one cited (twice) is helpful. |
| 10 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:23:45 -0700 | wryan34: Demand response appliances (washing machine, dryer, dishwasher, AC units) can help here. The circuits they are hooked up to don't allow them to be used during peak times or reduce their power draw during those periods. |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 03:15:23 -0700 | UKPolSci: Hello. Would the allowance make any account for family need/size? secondly, there are some cyber security and privacy concerns about smart-grids, given that they allow both fine grain monitoring of individual household energy use, but also potentially telling aggregate data on use patterns. The action plans should include something on how to reassure tenants and administrators about these concerns Thirdly, you could anticipate some resistance from tenants to the change in funding model. Might need a supporting guidance/information campaign. Finally, would households be allowed to install their own alternative energy generating technology (solar panels, wind turbines) and feed back into the grid - I think smart grid technologies allow for this, but can anybody forsee any problems with this in a Navy context? |
| 12 | Thu, 24 May 2012 03:38:50 -0700 | Seahawk91: Hosuing is usually allocated based on family size so for the plan to work the monthly allocation would have to take into account both the larger size of the house and the larger family. Something like this program is being tried in Hawaii and while there has been pushback from tenants it does seem to be working. Since almost all Navy housing is now privatized, we will need to include the various companies running housing in the "Who is involved". |
| 13 | Thu, 24 May 2012 05:56:40 -0700 | nory: Problem with allowing 'plug and play' alternative energy generating devices on the grid is that a family might be having to try and sell their investment in same to the next tenant at relo time and there would be huge pushback on this from non-naval spouses who already have a huge burden on them during relos. |
| 14 | Thu, 24 May 2012 06:23:13 -0700 | rmmckeon: I think we're still overlooking a fundamental issue with the billing piece. For average consumers (read-as: civilians) individuals and families have a say in their living situation. For servicemembers and dependents, hosuing is assigned. Fact is, there is still a lot of bad base housing across the services, even as theyre being replaced through public-private partnerships. So how do you tell an E4 and his/her spouse and two kids "here is your inefficient 30 year old house and your whopping electric bill but we'll throw some money to you for the util's"? Conservation is a partnership and mil families tend to connect the fact that their energy usage directly contributes to our country's need to defend its energy interests around the world. Isn't that the message to send before we head down the rabbit hole of forcing a one-sized fits all billing system onto a series of unequitable housing situations? |
| 15 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:19:13 -0700 | rcamp004: What about providing subsidies and incentives to have these mil families upgrade the housing? It can be as simple as providing modern insulation (heating and cooling tend to be the main energy expenditures in housing). Also, helping them help themselves by giving them outreach resources to get communities involved in Green energy updates (a community pool for solar or wind) to help them slow the run of the meter or turn it back altogether, might be an idea? |
| 16 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:37:27 -0700 | gm_jason560: When it came to "Smart Grid" housing, I was thinking more on a housing complex reliant on a computer smart grid that helped the occupants by powering down on unused devices/turn off chargers when not in use/power cords/televisions that take draw even when not on, ect..... |
| 17 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:14:14 -0700 | gm_jason560: Click on the video button to see a more advanced version of a smart building. |
| 18 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:19:57 -0700 | Seahawk91: To address rmmckeon concern below, to be fair when metrics are developed to decide how much a family should be allocated for their energy allowance consideration will have to be given for the quality of their current housing and what is the typical climate of the location where they are based. Someone based in Newport, RI should not get the sam eamount as someone in Hawaii. |
| 19 | Fri, 25 May 2012 09:38:15 -0700 | rcamp004: @gm_jason560 Smart grid has come to mean many things from the original use: A grid capable of preventing cascading failure during outages and power peak usage intelligently and automatically. For a house, turning on lights can be controlled with Xebee's: programmable radio receivers. RFID's which power lights or appliances on or off when the users carry rfid tags as they enter or exit rooms. |
| 20 | Fri, 25 May 2012 11:52:38 -0700 | nory: http://greatlifehawaii.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1199&Itemid=546 Navy pilot program RECP |
Action Plan 28 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/green-house/2010/08/30/greengymsx-wide-community.jpg |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-wVuEkk2E Understandably, this is not going to save the planet or signifigantly reduce your electric bill but it will give you really intense workout. It just seemed to make good sense that an alternator would work well since it is already voltage-regulated and cheap & easy to obtain. It is important to get the alternator spinning before you energize the rotating field or it will be very hard to get it up to speed. The amount of power you can get depends on how strong your legs are and the size of the inverter you use. I doubt the alternator could be maxed out with human power. Of course, you could modify the alternator if you wanted to. I've gotten 160 amps before out of a modified Delcotron. This one puts out 35 amps. Now, I realize some people would ask whats the point of all this. Well, whats the point of a stationary bike anyways? You expend energy for nothing as it goes nowhere. At least you could run a TV, stereo, lights, or whatever while you're at your exercise routine. Some of you auto electric experts might want to point out the seemingly high voltage and say "Hey, it should be no more than 13.8 volts" but this is a $3.50 volt meter! |
| 1 | Wed, 23 May 2012 17:45:04 -0700 | gm_sharma: So your average person can generate 250 watts while riding a bicycle. If they were to ride for 30 minutes, that would be .125 kW/h generated per person. For a 250 ppl crew, if say we required each crewmember to ride for 30 minutes a day (as an example), then that would generate 31.25 kw/H. As perspective, the average 1-bedroom apartment generates between 7-15 kW/h every day, so with that power you could give a decent amount of power to the grid. All rough estimates (based on crew fitness, time riding, and the idea that crew is "required" to participate). Thoughts? |
| 2 | Wed, 23 May 2012 18:45:36 -0700 | gm_maier: also have to factor into estimates when crew cannot participate such as rough seas/general quarters/sea&anchor detail, but what about installing more batteries on board to store the energy when crew is able to excercise. Or, charging batteries when attached to pier on off-peak hours. |
| 3 | Wed, 23 May 2012 19:10:53 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Perhaps participation is not a requirement, per se. People are riding the bikes anyway. But, one might consider offering incentives to do so? My sister is in the Navy and says everyone is offered 1.5 hours off per week to spend in physical training, and there is also the regular PT tests one must take. Pride typically dictates that people pass these with "Excellent" ratings, so maybe incentive is not needed to exercise, but getting people to bike or treadmill for electricity instead of running outside, might be something that could be encouraged via incentives. |
| 4 | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:24:32 -0700 | nory: Perhaps an additional half hour off a week if people ride more than an average of 35 minutes a day. That gives them each another 35 minutes of bike time and stores up extra to counter the rough sea off days? |
| 5 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:00:22 -0700 | PotentialFutures: gm sharma....well done coming up with stats! Perhaps for this action plan, we should figure out (roughly) how many people are on bases (we know all bases have gyms), and extrapolate your math to that number, perhaps allotting only 30min/week per person for this proposal. We would need to know what it costs to generate that same .125kw/H with traditional electricity to determine if there is a cost-savings. The number of kw/H that could be produced per base, on average, through this scheme AND the cost savings should go at the top of this action plan. Also, we need to factor in the cost of whatever is required to put this generation platform in place. What is needed? And, can the energy feed directly into the base grid, or would it be charging generators? What does it take to do that and at what cost? Also, can you post a link to the source for your estimates, please? We might also want to find illustrating articles or videos to add to the supplement information sections (I will do this). How long do we have to complete these plans, just through tomorrow? Ack! |
| 6 | Wed, 23 May 2012 21:41:14 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I apologize, I did not take note that this A.I. is speaking of deploying this strategy on ships rather than bases. Nonetheless, here is an article that questions the economics of bikes to produce electricity and may provide some guidelines: http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/conservation/these-exercise-machines-turn-your-sweat-into-electricity/0 So we have to figure out how many people are on ships riding bikes anyway and for how long / per week and then run the math I mentioned below. Who feels like doing this research? It can be divvied up between people: 1-- How many people on ships (or bases) riding for how long? 2-- cost of bikes or conversion of existing bikes? 3-- cost to generate same amount of electricity through existing system (for comparison) |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 07:44:16 -0700 | zero: A great way to get sailors to participate is if they directly benefit from the electricity produced. Maybe this electricity is used for personal lighting or air conditioning for berths. The squadrons that produce the most electricity have the greatest avaliability for hot showers, aircondiiton and non essential lighting. |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:19:53 -0700 | gm_aerik: On my first submarine, of a crew of about 150 or so, at any given time about 3 people would be working out hard (of their own volition). This is 2%. With encouragement, I think a number that could be conservatively extrapolated would be 5% of a crew. Aircraft carriers (5000 people with an air wing attached): this would work out to be 250 people at a time (if there was enough room :)). Submarines (average of 150 people/crew): this is 7 to 8 people at a time. |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:27:18 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Hi Guys, we have about 12 or 15 hours or so left before we must complete the A.I. Where are we at? Has anyone done any of the research for the following bits of info: 1-- How many people on ships (or bases) 2-- cost of bikes or conversion of existing bikes? 3-- cost to generate same amount of electricity through existing system (for comparison)? 4-- Cost for generators 5-- means by which to feed the electricity back into the grid or specific applications if the energy will remain at the generator level. ----- Claim something, and I will take one that is left. (except #5; I think I will not have time for that one.) Cheers! |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:39:42 -0700 | gm_aerik: I gave some numbers for aircraft carriers and subs....there are some good websites on the subject. The key seems to be to get enough people involved. A comparsion that was made was that someone riding an exercise bike would be producing about the amount of energy needed to power the ceiling fan above their head. The websites also say that conversion is, obviously, more feasible and less expensive. When new exercise equipment is purchased this may be a factor to consider in the purchase. The bikes already being produced for energy production produce electricity to charge batteries. When the batteries are charged they "discharge" to the grid. To turn DC (from a battery) into AC requires an inverter to produce stepped AC. To produce a kw*hour of energy using other sources is hard to nail down because of the infrastructure costs. Someone else take that on....not hard to find. |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:02:55 -0700 | PotentialFutures: That's great stuff, gm_aerik. Thank you. --- You are right about difficulty of nailing down kw*hour cost; I don't know how electricity is produced on ships currently, and shore facilities, I assume, are tied into the local grid. But, here is a comparison chart of cents per kWh for various fuel sources: http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour |
| 12 | Thu, 24 May 2012 19:23:26 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Hi. I added an image and article to the images tab. |
| 13 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:57:39 -0700 | gm_aerik: Shipboard electricity is produced in various ways (we have back-up systems) but the preferred method is a turbine generator of some sort (depending on the type of ship). |
Action Plan 29 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watch?v=JdDRPUHyMZE Describe this video here |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzksOTvmm3Q tomatogeek@gmail.com DIY hydroponic garden. This is my vertical garden. Started with the idea of getting the most production out of a small space. By growing in the vertical styrofoam pots, you insulate the roots of the plant keeping them warm in winter and cool in the summer. By planting in coco coir, you have a completely nutreal media free of alkanlinity and PH; coco coir is necessary when using these vertical pots. Currently, I have 120 Florida 91 tomato plants (please google Florida 91 to learn more about this remarkable heat and disease resistant tomato developed by the University of Florida). Each plant has produced almost 10 pound of tomatos since the end of December 2008 and are still producing tomatos expected to go through the summer. We have seedlings available to ship to you within the US only. Please email me at tomatogeek@gmail.com and let me know how many you want and I will send you a quote. Seeds are also available. You can go to ebay and bid or buy there or you can just email me at tomatogeek@gmail.com with the amount of seeds you would like; payment is accepted through paypal only at this time. If you want pots or coco coir, I can also send you a quote just let me know how many you would like again at tomatogeek@gmail.com ; this can be shipped worldwide. Hydroponics is not a new development. Has been around almost since the beginning of history. That wonder of the ancient world known as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon was an exercise in hydroponics and rice has been grown hydroponically for centuries. Today, hydroponics is used in a variety of settings. Whenever the soil is unavailable, hydroponic gardening seems to appear. Wildcatters offshore oil rigs grow their own tomatoes. Chefs of nuclear submarines hydroponically grow vegetables for use in the meals of the crew there. At present, the plants grown in space stations in orbit, without a single grain of soil. This video is a summary of equipment and the necessary steps to build your own hydroponic garden. More info and DIY hydroponics instructions can be obtained by placing a comment and leaving your email address and we will contact you; thanks. DIY hydroponic garden. Hydroponics is not a new development. Has been around almost since the beginning of history. That wonder of the ancient world known as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon was an exercise in hydroponics and rice has been grown hydroponically for centuries. Today, hydroponics is used in a variety of settings. Whenever the soil is unavailable, hydroponic gardening seems to appear. Wildcatters offshore oilrigs grow their own tomatoes. Chefs of nuclear submarines hydroponically grow vegetables for use in the meals of the crew there. At present, the plants grown in space stations in orbit, without a single grain of soil. This video is a summary of equipment and the necessary steps to build your own hydroponic garden. More info and DIY hydroponics instructions can by placing a comment and leaving your email address and we will contact you; thanks. |
| 3 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjNdwQoMC9c Using real NASA clips and artist renditions - Hydroponics is the Logical Solution. "Reanimation" Soundtrack by The Space Lounge Syndicate: http://cdbaby.com/cd/slsyndicatehttp://www.myspace.com/SpaceLoungeMusic Visit Our Store: http://www.igshydro.com |
| 4 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK_4XFLoTow Get Aquaponics Training here http://tinyurl.com/LearnAquaponics If you really wanted to grow and breed magnificent tilapia or some other freshwater beauty, why in the world would you turn to a hybrid method that combines traditional aquaculture and hydroponics ? First, let's look at what happens when you run a conventional aquaculture setup. This style of farming can be advantageous for gardeners and farmers. If you have ever spent all day watering plants outside, you know what a pain it can be. With aquaponic farming, you'll never have to water your plants, because the pump system does this for you. No weeding is involved, because there is no soil in an aquaponics system. You'll never have to fertilize your plants, because the fish provide that for you. Fish waste carries ammonia, which is converted into nitrates to feed your plants. If you build an aquaponics system indoors, you can grow food all year round, and never worry about insects and animals! If you wish to learn more about Aquaponics, visit http://tinyurl.com/LearnAquaponics |
| 5 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkwbJJpeiVs To make room for nature, farms of the future may have to move off the land and into skyscrapers. Dickson Despommier explains his idea. |
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:01:11 -0700 | nory: Let's gather all the relevant cards and start sorting this great mass of bio fueled thinking |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:03:35 -0700 | gm_sara: will do some of that. there are many counters to this idea. good to push thinking |
| 3 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:04:49 -0700 | gm_sara: check out the chain started by card 31https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy/1_16/#65_31 |
| 4 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:05:42 -0700 | gm_sara: and 1471 https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy/1_16/#65_1471 |
| 5 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:06:27 -0700 | gm_sara: and 749 https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy/1_16/#65_749 |
| 6 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:13:16 -0700 | gm_sara: card #162 from NavyMIT: Ship size limitations restrict the feasibility of this idea. Shore-side, such agricultural solutions may be more appropriate. |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:15:55 -0700 | gm_sara: Also, check out action plan 19, which includes similar ideas: https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy/1_16/#69_19 |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:25:25 -0700 | gm_sara: check out this incredibly interesting chain started with card 1019 : https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy#65_1019 |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:27:35 -0700 | gardener: Hello? |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:38:24 -0700 | kenhub: This sites interface is bouncing all over the place right now. Difficult to enter data without wiping out previous data. |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:23 -0700 | Helios33: I think the core idea is to make naval forces as aoutonmous as posinle. We should include this as th central point of the plan |
| 12 | Thu, 24 May 2012 15:21:08 -0700 | Helios33: I left an idea in the plan for consideration, changed where you see fit. |
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:02:33 -0700 | nory: We need someone to go prune out the relevant cards from several threads and paste them here (talk it over is still not functioning) so we can sort and prioritize our discussion points. Volunteers? |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:11:21 -0700 | gardener: Yee haw! The Gods have blessed this quest! The chat room has never worked. What a concept! |
| 3 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:24:02 -0700 | nory: Save a lot while editing - system is fragile again today |
| 4 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:26:19 -0700 | kenhub: Cannot save (heck, it clears out the action fields while typing). |
| 5 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:26:25 -0700 | gm_sara: Are my chats visible to everyone else? Have been harvesting cards/chains |
| 6 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:26:58 -0700 | nory: First chat we saw - refresh is having problems again today. |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:28:10 -0700 | nory: Kenhub email your edits to me and I will update - saving sometimes needs head held sideways :) |
| 8 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:28:28 -0700 | gardener: I suspect the server is having morning sickness again. It's failing to upload videos and images I tried to add here. Chat room is different (it says "new") but I see nothing there. Sigh... |
| 9 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:31:53 -0700 | nory: The database interface does not do a complete lock on updates and threads get lost. We had similar problems on previous MMOWGLIs and they were talking then about a rebuild. |
| 10 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:34:21 -0700 | gm_sara: Anyways...if you are looking for good reading, here are some cards that lead to interesting chains on the topic: card 1019https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy#65_1019 ; 749 https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy/1_16/#65_749 ; 1471 https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy/1_16/#65_1471 ; card 31https://mmowgli.nps.edu/energy/1_16/#65_31; also, action plan 19 |
| 11 | Thu, 24 May 2012 08:41:02 -0700 | kenhub: Thanks Sara, finally got a few entries to take - typed in text editor and pasted then quick save (whew!) |
| 12 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:22:31 -0700 | gardener: The rebooted. All my previous comments failed. This is a test. |
| 13 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:23:14 -0700 | gardener: I see that none of the videos I uploaded or the images have taken hold. |
| 14 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:25:53 -0700 | gardener: Looks like editing the plan fields above is now working. |
| 15 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:59:25 -0700 | gardener: Another test. The system is not taking any of my game cards now. Has the game ended? |
| 16 | Thu, 24 May 2012 13:32:35 -0700 | gardener: Just a thought. Who will become angered by the statement that "there is significant underutilization of space onboard" ? Seems to me they work their butts off to optimize space utilization. |
| 17 | Thu, 24 May 2012 18:00:17 -0700 | nory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics a discussion on an integrated system that raises aquatic animals and edible plants in a small space. |
| 18 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:10:39 -0700 | gardener: The query "aquaponics forum" returns sufficient hits to suggest that aquaponics is a "hot" topic. Surfing some of those hits may yield a number of contributions to this forum. Actually, an entire card deck could be spawned just on aquaponics. |
Action Plan 30 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 16:52:38 -0700 | nory: The Department of Energy has a good beginning write up on various alternative fuels and advanced vehicles with their emissions etc. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/emissions_natural_gas.html |
Action Plan 31 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
| 1 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:08:12 -0700 | gm_pat: The article and image show the importance of voyage planning, and especailly limiting high speed ops. |
| 2 | Fri, 25 May 2012 07:11:23 -0700 | gm_pat: Excellent recent article: Integrated probabilistic design of marine propulsors to minimize lifetime fuel consumption by Michael R. Motley, Mayer Nelson, Yin L. Young, from Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA In Elsevier Journal "Ocean Engineering" Available online 22 February 2012. Editor-in-Chief: A.I. Incecik |
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 11:10:22 -0700 | gm_maier: What would the method of measuring the conservation effort? |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:37:34 -0700 | Podge: We need to establish standardized metrics to compare units performance. For example, for a ship, we could use a metric of average gallons of fuel consumed per operational day. This way, it is a standard unit of measure and prevents skewing results for those ships that are in port for extended periods of time. |
| 3 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:38:00 -0700 | Podge: We need to establish standardized metrics to compare units performance. For example, for a ship, we could use a metric of average gallons of fuel consumed per operational day. This way, it is a standard unit of measure and prevents skewing results for those ships that are in port for extended periods of time. |
| 4 | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:42:08 -0700 | Podge: None of my additions above are saving for some reason... |
| 5 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:46:22 -0700 | gm_pat: This captures the essence of culture change. |
| 6 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:55:56 -0700 | gm_pat: Excellent recent article: Integrated probabilistic design of marine propulsors to minimize lifetime fuel consumption by Michael R. Motley, Mayer Nelson, Yin L. Young, from Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA In Elsevier Journal "Ocean Engineering" Available online 22 February 2012. Editor-in-Chief: A.I. Incecik |
Action Plan 32 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
http://www.nyu.edu/its/pubs/connect/fall06/images/gibbons2.jpg |
| 2 |  |
http://engatech.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/objet30-vero.jpg?w=510 |
| 3 |  |
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 17:02:02 -0700 | SystematicOppression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing |
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 14:54:53 -0700 | gm_pat: Need some text to populate this action plan |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 17:06:08 -0700 | SystematicOppression: This is only basic information that I found using google and wiki. |
| 3 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:54:11 -0700 | NavyMIT: We'll still need contractors for large parts (reduction gears, etc.), but this is an excellent idea for smaller ship-board equipment. Having 3D printers on-board will save energy by reducing manufacturing and transportation / distribution losses. This will also provide a means to stimulate hands-on STEM education to better prepare future sailors / better support the Fleet. |
| 4 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:35:27 -0700 | rcamp004: I recently devised a system of 3d scanners and printers for use between Earth and a Mars base for a 120 day simulation in Hawaii. The main sticking point with 3d printing is the food aspect just isn't there yet. All you can do is reform the food material. The real power right now is in the ability to fabricate parts for plumbing from polymers, support bars, small gears, etc. With an engineering lab on the shore broken parts can be scanned via a 3d scanner on the ship, emailed, analysed for failure, redesigned and then emailed back to the ship. Making the most of email with 3d printing amplifies the usefulness of this tech. |
Action Plan 33 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvV2sSMnyKU A fly-through of the various processes undertaken to transform crude oil into usable output. |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk0WrtA8_T8 Since I stumbled on Project Kaisei, and they were talking about cracking the plastics for diesel fuel... time to post this. |
| 1 | Thu, 24 May 2012 15:22:32 -0700 | PotentialFutures: I thought about this while watching the scenario regarding the blockage of the Bering Strait. I have read projections that 1/4 of the world's undiscovered oil lies under the arctic ocean. If we are drilling for oil there, we should refine it there, as well. A lack of energy seems the less likely reason we would be unable to defend the Strait. I understand that the lack of a fleet of ice-faring ships is the largest limiting factor. (Note: Please, take more attentive steps than have been taken by the commercial oil industry and don't despoil the arctic in the process. Also, as a secondary thought not entirely related to this game-- there is a "looming global water crisis" as cited by the DOD, World Bank, UN, CIA among other organizations. 68% of the world's water is trapped in the ice, and is being released through climate-related melting. If we are going to build an infrastructure to capture and deliver oil from the arctic, let us *please* make that infrastructure dual-use, so that we can capture and deliver water as well. There will be need for a global water industry in the next decades; it will be profitable. Harvesting fresh water through an arctic infrastructure may be more cost-effective than desalination and purification techniques. Besides, who really wants to drink purified sludge? Oil and water *can* mix. Thanks!) |
| 2 | Thu, 24 May 2012 15:44:15 -0700 | nory: Interesting concept being explore by Exxon Mobil as well there. Check out the CIDS and use of floating oil refinery. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/news_pub_poc_arctic.pdf |
| 3 | Thu, 24 May 2012 15:49:19 -0700 | nory: http://www.joconl.com/article/id30906 an example of the technology (and costs) of arctic drilling rigs. Navy would need to look perhaps at a streamlined version or plan on getting heavy partnership on this one. |
| 4 | Thu, 24 May 2012 16:06:30 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: This idea would realize greater economies of scale (i.e., greater demand and lower costs) if it were opened to all military services and the Coast Guard. This would also increase the talent pool available to man the facilities. |
| 5 | Thu, 24 May 2012 16:11:54 -0700 | nory: Agreed LCDR Steve about economies of scale. President Bush did some thinking on this as well http://www.ogj.com/articles/2005/04/bush-seeks-refineries-on-old-military-bases.html |
| 6 | Thu, 24 May 2012 16:23:59 -0700 | nory: Relative to talent pool - oil refineries use traveling specialists for refits and major maintaining jobs. There are several companies that provide this service. Here in Texas they move from plant to plant. Actual operations are run by oil company staff. |
| 7 | Thu, 24 May 2012 18:54:25 -0700 | gm_maier: Delta Airlines already thought of the idea; check this out: http://crankyflier.com/2012/05/03/deltas-oil-refinery-purchase-is-either-brilliant-or-insane-or-both/ |
| 8 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:32:15 -0700 | nory: So it is not that far fetched to consider buying one - although I would have thought they might have bought one of the ones that BP has on the market. |
Action Plan 34 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 | Fri, 25 May 2012 04:10:31 -0700 | gm_LCDR STEVE: How can the potential energy savings from this technique be quantified? Can its success be shown from other examples in similar industries/organizations? |
| 2 | Fri, 25 May 2012 04:19:41 -0700 | NavyMIT: I think the blog / social networking website will have to be supplemented by a few programs, spreadsheets, or online calculators. I envision a simple electronic calculator that asks the following: How much power does your idea use? How much power does the system that it's replacing use? How often is your system going to be operated? What is the operating profile? The system you're replacing? ... By answering some of these questions (as numeric inputs in the online calculator), you can get a rough, first-cut estimate on % energy savings, or at least that's how I envision a basic tool. If you wanted something more robust, this sound like an excellent Master's thesis or PhD thesis for several EE or computer science students (at either NPS or another university). There might already be case-studies out there to benchmark energy efficiency / cost savings from adopting new philosophies (e.g. the VA-class IPPD design philosophy emerged from analysis of Toyota's efforts). I'm not sure if any corporations use social networks, but definitely worth looking into. |
| 3 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:17:59 -0700 | gm_pat: I agree with the concept, but it won't be "simple". |
| 4 | Fri, 25 May 2012 05:59:05 -0700 | PotentialFutures: Here is information Podge Developed on this theme in another thread. I think the GMs may have removed it: Podge's Content Re: Internal Feedback System ________WHO IS INVOLVED: Industry officials; enlisted sailors; officers; Navy research divisions (NAVSEA, etc), Departments of Public Works; Navy Installations, ___________WHAT IS IT: Establish an internal program that tracks, evaluates, and assesses component usage (shipboard, shore facilites, etc.). This evaluation can be broken down into useful data to determine optimal operating patterns. ___________WHAT WILL IT TAKE: A conversation between industry and enlisted sailors, as well as research and developments being on-board with new ways of looking at things. R&D doesn't have to be creating new technology alone, but new ways of combining existing systems. 1) Start by tracking usage of all equipment and systems. This can be done by log-taking by the user of that equipment (more challenging for shore facilities). 2) Once sufficient data is obtained, identify operating patterns, such as: navigation radar operates 24 hours per day... 3) With these known operating patterns, we can start to look at ways to improve the efficiency. 4) Some equipment is not needed to operate at all times during a typical day - reducing their operating time based on need and employment will require detailed knowledge of the system and its interrelationships with other systems. ___________HOW WILL IT WORK: 1) Start by tracking usage of all equipment and systems. This can be done by log-taking by the user of that equipment (more challenging for shore facilities). 2) Once sufficient data is obtained, identify operating patterns, such as: navigation radar operates 24 hours per day... 3) With these known operating patterns, we can start to look at ways to improve the efficiency. |
| 5 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:01:24 -0700 | PotentialFutures: And, here is input Dynamite added to this idea, also in another thread (incidentally, the GMs did not remove Podge's comments, they had just not loaded when I last looked):----- dynamite Thu, 24 May 2012 11:49:34 PDT How will it work: create an online system that allows personnel to inform Command COs of energy savings they see in their jobs or departments. CO's that are able to implement changes receive some type of incentive or commendation. How will it change the situation?: Instead of energy savings being decided by people theorizing the savings, the savings are generated by people that have the first hand experience with whatever activity they are doing. |
| 6 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:02:50 -0700 | nory: Potential savings can be demonstrated using a program that has tables of energy costs per unit of various fuels/methods etc. Put in 'as is' information and it calculates and stores current energy costs and then put in 'to be' information for it to calculate, compare and contrast. Reward with praise everyone and store both failed and succeeded cost comparisons in database to augment information. Send extracts, reports of positive possibilities on to be reviewed by appropriate area. Green Industry already has information for calculations on this for cars, trucks, buses, fleets etc. under US Dept of Energy. Housing and ship information plus logistics are also out there under other groups. |
| 7 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:10:33 -0700 | nory: http://www.acord.org/Pages/default.aspx ACORD is a global standards organization that utilizes think tank agile processes using volunteers from within the finance community to decide and publish XML standards for data transmissions and storage from place to place. Data standards = huge efficiancies in work cost, indirect energy costs, protection from bad data financial ramifications etc. It is a proven example of how people working together can create standards that benefit a community as a whole. Whether we are talking data or electricity, or water it only takes a few good minds working in unison to change the world. ACORD (Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development) is a global, nonprofit standards development organization serving the insurance industry and related financial services industries. ACORD s mission is to facilitate the development of open consensus data standards and standard forms. ACORD members include hundreds of insurance and reinsurance companies, agents and brokers, software providers, and industry associations worldwide. ACORD works with these organizations towards a goal of improved data communication across diverse platforms through implementation of standards. ACORD maintains offices in New York and London. ACORD is a member-driven organization whose members work together to improve the flow of insurance information between systems and partners. ACORD Standards and services improve data quality and transparency, resulting in greater efficiency and expanded market reach. |
| 8 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:13:01 -0700 | nory: Last comment was for LCDR Steve's question on if there were sucessful examples of collaborative processes creating winning scenarios. |
| 9 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:18:59 -0700 | nory: http://www.midwestgt.net/index.php/toolbox.html A great Green Companies set of tools for measuring savings on changes to energy consumption. Provides example of programs out there for calculating energy use and comparing and contrasting them. |
| 10 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:21:26 -0700 | nory: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=industry.bus_industry government website with tools Benchmarks also available there |
| 11 | Fri, 25 May 2012 06:26:23 -0700 | nory: One can take the freely offered tootls and forumulas and populate a database to be used for a collaborative online entry system that can be offered to the forces at large with very little effort. A good DBA and webform specialist could get a alpha version up in less than a week that could be sent out to a traget group to bug hunt and offer refinement on. The larger costs are in establishing the finished product within your security framework and infrastructure. |
Action Plan 35 |
|
|
energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end
|
| 1 |  |
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0812/lvertical_1222.jpg |
| 2 |  |
| 1 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8O_St95tV8 There are emerging radical technologies that have the potential to change the way we live. This animation on vertical farming is part of a series for a session at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas exploring the contribution of enabling bio- and nano- technologies and their associated socio-cultural, health, safety and environmental impacts. We ask what excites you about this? What frightens you? And explore how they may change the way we live. See more at http://adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au/three-technologies-that-will-change-the-way-we-live/ Transcript can be found here: http://technyou.edu.au/fun-stuff/videos/video-transcripts/ Presented by RiAus and Bridge8 for the National Enabling Technologies Strategy Expert Forum and the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. |
| 2 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nfcat6jXBo UW Ph.D. candidate Nate Storey describes his hydroponic tower system that uses fish to provide nutrients for his main product -- vegetables. He tied for first in the 2011 Wyoming $10K Entrepreneurship Competition through the UW College of Business this past spring |
| 3 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83f_q_9yW5k The World Health Organization warns that overpopulation and a lack of arable land contribute to global food insecurity. So scientists are developing new farming technology to offset potential food shortages. Jason Strother reports for VOA that Researchers in South Korea are experimenting with vertical farms; gardens that go straight up, instead of spreading out. |
| 1 | Fri, 25 May 2012 10:37:43 -0700 | gardener: I like rain capture, but am interested in issues related to water storage onship. |
| 2 | Fri, 25 May 2012 10:50:03 -0700 | nory: Vertical farming techniques could increase the edible yield on small footprints. |
| 3 | Fri, 25 May 2012 10:59:19 -0700 | nory: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1865974,00.html Article on urban farming and links to some of the current concepts being used. this technology crosses terrains and environment well as it is not ground dependent. |
| 4 | Fri, 25 May 2012 11:33:59 -0700 | nory: http://www.innovateus.net/content/multi-level-farming and note the link the the vertical farm project that took this idea from theory into proven practice. |
| 5 | Fri, 25 May 2012 11:35:09 -0700 | nory: Per Innovate US "Producing food indoors is not a new concept, farmers / growers have done it for ages in their 'green houses'. What makes multi-level farming or vertical farming a novel or unique concept is the scale at which it is being designed / proposed along with the use of emerging technologies that enable efficient use of sunlight, recycling of farm waste to produce energy, water treatment and recycling, solar cell coated transparent walls to generate electricity, and roof tops harnessing wind power for pumping water from the ground level to the top floor." |
| 6 | Fri, 25 May 2012 11:36:12 -0700 | MOD: Recycled grey water to grow algae (hydroponically) in urban environments, such as commercial business parks which have storage facilities, located near refineries? Richmond, CA and Long Beach, CA are optimal locations. Close enough to refineries for mass production and carbon footprint reduction. Use of CAD would produce optimal design of facility and increase output/production of raw materials needed. |
| 7 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:19:08 -0700 | gardener: @MOD, there are several cards playing the recycling grey water theme on ships. |
| 8 | Fri, 25 May 2012 12:22:48 -0700 | MOD: gardener: Ships yes. Now...we are talk about algae farms. Or at least I am. Based on location (which everyone knows is important), both locations are situated near refineries. |
License, Terms and Conditions |
|
This data corpus is published under the Creative Commons 3.0 "By Attribution - Share Alike" license for open-source content.
You are free toUnder the following conditions
- Share: to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- Remix: to adapt the work
- make commercial use of the work
With further understandings listed in the license.
- Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
- Share Alike: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Notice: For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is by providing a link to the license page above.
Prior to contributing, MMOWGLI players agree to follow the Terms and Conditions of the game, which include the Informed Consent to Participate in Research and the Department of Defense Social Media User Agreement.
The official language of the MMOWGLI game is English. We do not support other languages during this version of the game in order to ensure that player postings are appropriate.
No classified or sensitive information can be posted to the game. Violation of this policy may lead to serious consequences.
All players must acknowledge and accept these requirements prior to user registration and game play. No exceptions are permitted.
Contact |
|
Questions, suggestions and comments about these game products are welcome. Please submit a Trouble Report or send them to mmowgli-trouble at movesInstitute.org.
Additional information is available online for the energyMMOWGLI Action Plans 25 May 2012 noon, at official game end and the MMOWGLI project.
Official disclaimer: "Material contained herein is made available for the purpose of peer review and discussion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Navy or the Department of Defense."
