GETTING MILITARY ABOUT NEW ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Riding a Wave of Culture Change, DOD Strives to Trim Energy Demand
Jessica Leber, July 20, 2009 (NY Times)
and
Army measures GHGs at U.S. bases
Jessica Leber, July 20, 2009 (E&E Publishing)

SUMMARY
Environmentalists think Energy Efficiency is important; military leaders think it is a matter of life or death.

The U.S. military purchased 110 million barrels of oil and 3.8 billion kilowatts of electricity in 2006, more than 1% of U.S. energy, making it the nation's single biggest energy consumer.

By 2008, the military’s spending for energy was $20+ billion, 80% of U.S. federal energy spending and almost twice 2006’s $10.9 billion energy bill. Much of the increase was from the spiking oil price, enriching people who fund the terrorists who place roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan that kill and maim U.S. troops running fuel resupply convoys and other missions.

click to enlarge

The military uses 20 times more energy in wartime than in peacetime. Much of that is due to tankers delivering fuel to combat theaters. 90% of in-theater gas supply goes to deliver (and protect) the other 10% to deployed troops. Almost 75% of what Afghanistan convoys carry is fuel or water. Infantry on 24-hour foot missions carry 30-to-40 pounds of batteries. That weight slows them and exposes them.

The darkest days of the Iraq war in 2005-06 inspired efforts to change the Department of Defense (DOD) assumptions that energy and water are abundant and free and to remake how the military uses energy to power operations and missions. As the war dragged on, leaders noticed that gas delivered to the battlefield from an aircraft tanker was costing more than $40 a gallon in 2006.

Then causalities from insurgents targeting fuel resupply convoys got so bad that Major General Richard Zilmer, U.S. commander in Al Anbar province, put out an urgent request for New Energy power supplies. A call like that from the front lines tends to get attention.

click to enlarge

DOD now factors the full cost of fuel into its acquisition decisions. It is not yet clear how much the military is willing to spend on its new enthusiasm. An upcoming 150,000-Humvee purchase to replace the Army’s current fleet, when the Pentagon will have the opoortunity to spend an extra $20,000 per vehicle for a 10-to-20% miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency improvement, will be a marker.

Meanwhile, if Energy Efficiency is low hanging fruit, it is nevertheless challenging to get the message across to field commanders. Military people are not going to be satisfied with winning a reputation as tree huggers. Programs have therefore been developed to let field leaders see the results of New Energy savings. Seeing results has improved cooperation. The added benefit is that such programs stand as larger proof of the safety and efficacy of New Energy and Energy Efficiency, turning the military and civilians alike into tree huggers.

The Pentagon is now funding plug-in hybrid electric field operations vehicles and pilot projects with algae-based jet biofuels, hoping to drive New Energy and Energy Efficiency technologies to commercial scales.

click to enlarge

Since the Obama administration took over in Washington, it has instituted rules to support those at the Pentagon seeking to create change. President Obama issued a presidential order requiring federal departments to improve Energy Efficiency, reduce water wastage and increase the use of New Energy.

Congress recently mandated a military reconsideration of its long-term planning with respect to its greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs). A DOD strategic energy security plan to factor fuel demand into purchasing, acquisition and long-term research and development decisions is under way in response.

Following the successful 2008 profiling of emissions at the Fort Carson, Colo., military installation, a real-time GhG-tracker is being deployed at 12 bases to study more broadly the military’s emissions.

Some military leaders have realized energy efficiency can save soldier’s lives. But changing the military’s ways is no small undertaking.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
Interesting story: When Captain John Hickey, commanding officer of the U.S. Coast Guard Integrated Support Command at Honolulu, was told by his base data server manager the data center machines would not be adapted for improved efficiency until the last drop of oil was pumped from Alaska, Captain Hickey told the man he was going to war over the issue. Hickey called Pentagon superiors, who understood his priorities. The data server manager lost the war.

The military’s annual energy consumption is as much as a full day of world energy use.

click to enlarge

Reviewing events of the first Gulf War in the late 1990s led a few farsighted DOD leaders to start thinking about energy use during combat. A resulting Defense Science Board report showed that if the Abrams tanks used in Operation Desert Shield had been 50% more fuel efficient, the buildup to invasion might have been done in 5 months instead of 6. The report stimulated thinking. Planners began to realize a solider driving a fuel truck is one less with a rifle and the price of moving and protecting supply lines (convoys, soldiers, equipment) could be cut.

click to enlarge

But after September 11, 2001, the report was put on the shelf. The Pentagon wasn’t thinking about efficiency - until the dark days in Iraq showed that efficiency can save more than time and money. It can save lives.

Preliminary results at the Fort Carson, Colo., military installation showed 200,000-to-220,000 metric tons of GhGs from operations, including those from tactical vehicles, helicopters and aircraft. That's about average for an installation of the Fort Carson facility's size and mission.

But the U.S. military does not aim for average.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Tad Davis, deputy assistant secretary for environment, safety and occupational health, U.S. Army: "For so many years, energy and water were free commodities…What we can't allow us to become is a bunch of well-meaning, well-intended, well-educated environmental folks sitting around the fireplace singing 'Kumbaya,'…If we are really going to be successful [at cutting energy use and GhGs], it has to be embedded in our mission."

click to enlarge

- Maureen Sullivan, environmental management director to the deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, DOD: "We need an accountability system and ownership of data at the facility level…"
- Lawrence Goldenhersh, president/CEO, Enviance: "What we were really trying to build at Fort Carson was a replicable, scalable and standardized system…I think the experiment at Fort Carson and with the Army proves that even though it's complex, it is manageable."
- Retired Admiral John Nathman, former vice chief of naval operations and member, Center for Naval Analyses' Military Advisory Board: "Part of this is that leadership needs to explain it in the right way…I think the military has a way to rapidly turn around a lot of these ideas and proof them for the country, and do it in a away that's safe."
- Captain Chip Cotton, director of the Energy Coordination Office, U.S. Navy: "The chief of naval operations has been very clear that we are not going to sacrifice mission…We're not going to maintain 12 knots when we should be going 40 knots."
- Sherri Goodman, former deputy undersecretary of defense for environmental security, DOD: "In the past, they felt oppressed by the coverage they received, by the image of being big polluters…Now there is starting to be a shift -- that they can lead on this issue and provide hope for change…"