Interesting report about amazing strides in renewable energy technology in the U.S. military taking place as Congress stalls on the civilian effort. Doesn't address emissions or climate issues or budgetary/macroeconomic impacts.

This was exceptionally well-sourced. The reporter had quoted remarks from experts and cited facts with hypertext links to prior NYTimes stories Better yet, many other experts and evidence was cited via stories external to the NYTimes, specifically, from *.mil statements, reports, press releases etc. And they were drawn from all branches of the Armed Services: Navy, Army, Marines, DoD research as well as non-military sources.

Yes, this is good journalism, for it goes beyond the headlines to describe a profound strategic change with broad significance. Recent attacks on fuel convoys heading through Pakistan into Afghanistan are very much in the headlines. A quieter bit of news from last week: a company of Marines has taken solar energy into the battle zone. This story places the need for fuel in a broader strategic context, both the fact that both protecting fuel convoys and protecting sources of fossil fuels cost military lives. The article focuses on the first stages of implementation of a strategic solution, with implications that spread beyond the military to civilian life.

This story gives us vital information for a growing concern in todays military, the over usage and loss of fossil fuels through attacks on routes such as the recent attacks in Karachi, Pakistan. This article shows us the information that the military is doing to lessen their usage of fossil fuels by using solar panels, renewable bio-fuels, and other forms of eco-friendly energy sources. This article is very well written though the story could be more in depth in its research as in which companies are working with the military to create these "green" military vehicles and devices.