“Net Zero” for the U.S. Military
This is a headline that stopped me completely:
Reflecting on the US Army's constant need for energy, I think that solar power makes complete sense. But so do fuel cells and wind power! Imagine the tactical advantage of NOT having to truck in tankers of gasoline. Imagine what you could do with tanks that ran on hydrogen fuel cells.
It makes strategic sense to look for sustainable energy sources in a world where some sources of energy could be limited. I'm sure that tacticians have nightmares over what might happen if our sources of hydrocarbons were suddenly out of reach. It doesn't take a battlefield genius to figure out which is best - a plentiful and renewable energy source versus one that is comparatively scarce and difficult to attain.
But the biggest headache for the Pentagon is the cost of maintaining a standing military force through all times. That's why all branches have launched "net zero" programs throughout their operations: with zero net energy consumption and zero carbon emissions annually.
The military, as with civilian buildings, consume 40% of the total fossil fuel energy in the US. Buildings are also significant contributors of greenhouse gases. A "net zero" policy serves reduce carbon emissions and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.