2013年3月26日 星期二

Army Tests New Energy-Saving Tents With Solar Power

Here’s one indication of just how quickly Army is moving toward an energy-efficient future: last year we got all excited about an energy-saving base camp demonstration project at Fort Devens in Massachusetts, and now our friends over at the DoD Energy Blog have just tipped us to another pair of energy projects at Fort Benning, Georgia and Fort Bliss, Texas. Together, the two projects are designed to push the Army energy efficiency envelope by comparing the existing “Force Provider” tents with an even more advanced generation of energy-saving tents built with rigid walls instead of flexible material.

The new “tents” don’t actually look like tents, they look more like shipping containers made of rigid but extremely lightweight walls. That design approach seems a little counter-intuitive in terms of saving energy, but one key element is an insulation R-Value of about 12. That stacks up pretty well against conventional tents, which come in at about 4 (R-Value refers to the heat resistance of an insulating material).

According to an Army article about the new tents, the other energy-saving features include LED lighting and motion-detecting switches. Water conservation features also figure prominently in the system, including low-water efficient laundry systems, low-water latrines and shower heads, waterless urinals, rain water collection systems and shower water reuse systems.

Rounding out the resource conservation picture is an energy-scavenging feature in the form of solar power canopies. In hot climates they also serve to shade the shelters, which helps to reduce cooling load.

The overall energy needs of the system are supplied by a smart microgrid that includes battery storage. It is capable of seamlessly integrating energy from a variety of sources including renewables.

The rigid-wall system could also lead to additional savings, since it enables shelters to pull double duty as platforms for other elements of a base camp. The development team is currently working on a kit that would enable fighting positions to be built on top of a shelter.

That’s all well and good but for now the bottom line is that the new tents enable energy and water savings of 35 to 75 percent, which reduces the need for risking Soldiers on fuel and water convoys (to say nothing of the expense, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms).

If the new rigid-walled system is going to achieve greater savings than the Force Provider system, it’s got some work to do. The Force Provider “Temper Tents” look somewhat like conventional tents in that their walls are made of flexible material, but the design integrates air-filled supporting “beams” and other technological advances.

Force Provider was originally developed in response to lessons learned during Desert Storm in 1991. The goal was to design portable shelters that could be set up quickly while providing Soldiers with climate control and other basic physical comforts that help maintain force effectiveness and improve overall well-being.

Cutting down on resource consumption was another important goal, and in its current iteration Force Provider does a pretty fair job. One highlight is a graywater recycling system that captures about 3.3 million gallons out of the 4.4 million gallons typically used in a 600-person camp annually.

All things being equal, though, the rigid-walled system still has a couple of other advantages. Word so far is that the interior is significantly more comfortable, and there is no need for the site prep typically demanded of the Force Provider system.

The Fort Benning and Fort Bliss installations are only Step One, by the way. The Army is already planning further sustainability improvements for two additional test set-ups. One will be at Fort Devens, where it will be compared directly with the Force Provider system. Another test is will take place in Australia, with the aim of measuring the system’s performance in a “completely different” environment.

The Patriots for scouting expertise

What if Massachusetts devoted the same resources to scouting the next generation of entrepreneurs as NFL teams devote to finding their next great wide receiver? (The Patriots alone have 21 employees focused solely on identifying and cultivating future players.) Entrepreneurs, after all, can have a far bigger impact on the local economy than football stars, no matter how many seats they fill or jerseys they sell.

I’ve been brainstorming lately about how a scouting program might operate, soliciting input from entrepreneurs who got their educations here, as well as start-up coaches like Katie Rae of TechStars Boston and Jeffrey Bussgang of Flybridge Capital Partners. Here’s how we might identify high-potential future founders, and also what we’d do once we identified them.

Put those students into a database, and send each one a nice fleece with the logo of the new Massachusetts Founders League embroidered on the back. The MFL would enable students to connect with one another. It would help them meet successful Massachusetts entrepreneurs and investors who might provide seed funding for their ideas. It would try to open doors in all sorts of ways, from finding free, short-term office space to getting pro bono legal advice to ironing out visa issues for foreign students.

MFL members would be chosen at the start of each calendar year (giving all the nominators the first three or four months of the school year to do their scouting), and they’d be welcomed into the group with a State House reception hosted by Governor Deval Patrick. Other events throughout the year might feature well-known entrepreneurs sitting down to share experiences: people like Constant Contact founder Gail Goodman, Staples founder Tom Stemberg, or restaurateur Barbara Lynch.

Venture capitalists and angel investors could sponsor bowling nights to get to know the group. Members would get free admission to any seminar or conference planned by the 10 trade groups making nominations for the MFL. Over the summers, group members might have an opportunity to “shadow” local founders, assisting them in exchange for office space and time to develop their own start-up ideas.

As long as MFL members remained enrolled as students, and for one year afterward, they’d be invited to attend MFL events; after that, they would go “emeritus,” but still have access to a network that provided assistance and connections.

Who would coordinate all this? One idea is to have the 10 trade groups dedicate one staffer’s time on a rotating basis. I expect you could run the MFL with one staffer dedicating one day a week to maintaining the member database and planning events. At the end of a year, the responsibility would shift to the next group.

There are several great initiatives that already exist in this vein, but nothing that works as a comprehensive, statewide scouting system. The Cambridge venture capital firm Flagship Ventures runs a summer “fellows program” for entrepreneurially oriented scientists and engineers, inviting them to help transform laboratory insights into real companies. Flybridge runs a program called Stay in MA that offers college students “scholarships” to local workshops and conferences that cost $100 or less.

One of the initiatives that has had the biggest impact is the Summer@Highland program, run by the Cambridge venture capital firm Highland Capital Partners. It invites collegiate entrepreneurs to apply for a 10-week program that offers office space, an $18,000 stipend, and access to a network of mentors.

The Babson College-educated founders of Gemvara, who were planning a move to Los Angeles, participated in 2008; the online jewelry site they created now employs 80 people, most of them in Boston. Two Boston University undergraduates founded ByteLight, a 2011 participant, which is designing an LED light bulb that can transmit data to mobile phones (directions to finding a product in a large store, for example). So far, ByteLight's founders have raised $1.25 million and brought on five full-time employees.

“People constantly say that the economy today is about a competition for the greatest talent,” says Bussgang, the venture capitalist at Flybridge Capital Partners. “Well, the greatest talent shows up on our doorstep and spends two to four years here. But we don’t compete for them and we don’t market to them. It makes no sense.”