"New 'wearable' electronic devices will jam the signals used to set off IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan"

"Zogby Poll Says Many in Middle Eastern Countries View US Science and Technology Favorably"

• An armored division uses 600,000 gallons of fuel a day
• An M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank uses three gallons of fuel per mile, but burns most of its fuel sitting idle in order to power its generators which provide electricity for the tank
• The Army spends $200-million a year on fuel but pays $3.2-billion a year to transport it
• The Air Force's air-to-air refueling costs $18 a gallon

Pudas says that DoD is pursuing alternatives such as advanced batteries and hybrid systems. Renewables such as ethanol should be considered as well. One of the problems is simply vehicle-weight. The Abrams, the Paladin 155-mm howitzer, and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle are legacy tracked-vehicles designed for the Cold War. The armor is steel and magnesium and it is heavy. Scientists and engineers at the Army Research Laboratory are developing lighter polymer which can be more effective than current armor.

To make things even more complicated on a tactical level, the Abrams tank's turbine engines run extra hot giving off a tremendous amount of heat from the rear--this makes it difficult for infantry soldiers to ride on or follow behind the tank in urban combat.

Increase Logistical Supply Train Capabilities
?Improve Strategic Airlift and Sealift for Intercontinental Troop Movement
-Devise Ways to Acquire C-17?s and C-5?s and C-130s from US
-Also Acquire Cargo Aircraft from EADS?Lease or Acquire Air-to-Air Refueling Aircraft
?Combat Support and Combat Service Support MUST Be Deployable and Able to Sustain Operations for 365-Day Tours

"Kazakhstan Is Also One Of United States' Top Partners in Central Asia"

"The total amount of biomass harvested in this country could comprise up to 40% of the U.S. demand for liquid fuels,? -MIT Chemical Engineer

I caught a podcast of a recent seminar from the MIT School of Engineering "Science and Technology for a Clean Energy Future." On the last post, I discussed the value of multidisciplinary research, but I didn't get into details about what they are actually working on at MIT. The real heavy-hitter was Dr. Greg Stephanopolous' work on Biofuels. How about 35-40% of annual US liquid fuel coming from ethanol? Dr. Stephanopolous says it could be possible in 5-7 years. The idea is to first take agricultural residue from cellulosic crops like switch grass and residue from paper mills. This is made up of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose. These elements will break down to simple sugars (hexoses, pentoses) and then a fermentation or hydrolysis process leads to ethanol.

OK, but this has been going on with corn in the US and the Brazilians have been doing this conversion to ethanol with sugar cane--what's new? Stephanopolous' group is using metabolic engineering to produce microorganisms which convert the biomass hydrolysis into fuels. The use of cellulose and microorganisms is getting cheaper ($1/gallon to $.10/gallon). The cellulosic ethanol burns clean and reduces greenhouse emissions. The cost of this process is dropping, but the research on cellulosic ethanol is still relatively new, although a few manufacturers are producing it in North America.

Policy makers have been embracing ethanol for years and everyone from President Bush to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has called for its use. Careful though, alternative fuels are important, but their development is just one part of the remedy. Reducing personal fuel consumption is also part of the equation. That's the bitter medicine nobody likes and the part policy makers try to avoid. Advances in ethanol production are a welcome addition as long as they don't give anyone a false sense of security and as long as people remember the need to conserve.

I caught a recent seminar from the MIT Energy Research Council on "Science and Technology for a Clean Energy Future" webcast by MIT World. The mantra that I heard there and have heard before is the need to take a multi-disciplinary approach to solving the energy problem. MIT's got it right, but we need to get more universities on board. In academia, multi-disciplinary means partnerships among researchers from many different fields of study. This collaboratory research is often more value-added and productive. We need interdisciplinary energy research from mechanical, chemical, nuclear, and electrical engineers along with physicists, chemists, biologists, and materials scientists. But not just hard scientists, also social scientists--economists, political scientists, sociologists, historians, etc. Anybody with a PhD should have some ideas on energy--whether it is full-blown research projects or sketches on a napkin. The resulting synergy from multi-disciplinary collaboration yields even more new ideas. Multi-disciplinary research teams should be sharing these energy innovations in conferences and in publications, looking for ways to get funding from the private and public sector, and teaching and mentoring young people on energy solutions.
In 1962, John F. Kennedy said, "we choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." This inspired a new generation to use science and math to solve urgent problems facing America. We need policy makers to make these difficult choices, set the standard, and inspire new generations in this fashion.
Members of Congress, you can start by holding higher education's feet to the fire. Public research institutions and land grant universities should be held accountable. Next time you go back to your home district, take a tour of a public university and demand to see their research results on clean energy or alternative fuels. What exactly is on their research agenda? Demand to see their research--it better have something to do with energy and it should be multi-disciplinary. If they need more resources, listen and try to help. But if their resources are being misallocated, for instance, on frivolities such as a new climbing wall or a new coffee shop in the library, or on more serious examples of fraud, waste, and abuse, then demand answers. If oil executives can be hauled into hearings, then college presidents can certainly be made to testify as well.
Be like JFK and choose the hard right over the easy wrong and let's make sure our tax dollars at public universities are put to good use with research that solves 21st century problems.