Why The U.S. Military Is Pursuing Energy Efficiency, Renewables And Net-Zero Energy Initiatives

Posted on  

"Why The U.S. Military Is Pursuing Energy Efficiency, Renewables And Net-Zero Energy Initiatives"

The military has begun a transition to efficient and renewable energy. The Army is proceeding with its “Net Zero Energy” initiative, which means that they will aim to produce as much energy (and water, and waste) as they use. Cost and reliability are the primary reasons, but cutting carbon pollution is one of the outcomes.

Last month, the head of U.S. forces in the Pacific said that climate change was the most likely issue to concern the military. Two recent discussions shed some light on the efforts currently underway to allow the military to use less carbon-based fuels, and the explicit and implicit reasons behind those efforts.

Fueling the combat theater

Yesterday afternoon, Mike Breen, Executive Director of the Truman Project, hosted a conversation with Sharon E. Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs at the Department of Defense. Entitled “Clean and Mean: DoD’s Tactical and Operational Energy Innovations,” it covered some of the tactics the military uses to more efficiently carry out its mission on the front lines.

Sharon Burke being briefed on solar power platforms used by tactical military units. (Photo: Summer Barkley)

Breen, a former U.S. Army infantry officer who served in Iraq, recalled the status quo at forward operating bases dependent on fossil fuel. Loud, inefficient generators burning gasoline. Unsealed tents that allowed air conditioning systems to cool the desert (racking up a $20 billion a year utility bill). Transmission and supply lines that began to feel more like a ball and chain weighing down mission-ready units.

The U.S. military is the largest single consumer of energy and oil on the planet. Assistant Secretary Burke explained how the DoD is dealing with a different frame of war with distributed operations all over the globe, from disaster relief to deterrence, fighting terrorism to peacekeeping. The military has to move fuel through long supply lines and sometimes contested areas. “It’s a challenge for us,” she said.

Burke has noted that “a $1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates to approximately $130 million over the course of a year.” It’s not just money at stake — fuel resupply endangers the lives of our men and women in uniform. Delivering fuel via truck over dangerous roads has led to heavy-lift helicopters often being used to deliver fuel to bases in Afghanistan.

To cut inefficient use of, and therefore dependence on, fossil fuels in the combat theater, the military has been doing things like adding solar panels to tents and backpacks and sealing tents with an insulating coating so cooled air does not leak. Mortar pits can be powered by the sun instead of an idling Humvee. Radio towers are getting electricity from solar panels instead of a generator that drinks gasoline, requiring resupply. The DoD now dispatches energy teams to these forward operating bases with deep policy knowledge of how renewable energy systems can be used, and they can work with soldiers on the ground to ascertain the best practical implementation. This leaves an experienced Chief Warrant Officer behind who can support the unit with these systems. As Ms. Burke said, it “doesn’t sound very exotic, but it adds up.”

This is about “mission capability,” she said, and “what energy innovation can bring to the mission.” Though some scoffed at the idea of solar panels at first, many grew to love the fact that they ran “without a hitch” and made no noise. Others loved the fact that flexible solar panels could recharge batteries, making it less necessary to carry the 18 pounds of batteries usually required to power things like night vision scopes. As with the rest of the solar industry, Burke said efficiency was the ultimate goal:

“What we do, we do to meet military needs…. With those solar panels, we are very interested in getting higher and higher efficiencies.”

Renewable energy could allow the American military in combat zones to go farther, longer, and more quietly. Climate change was not a first or second reason given for the embrace of any of these renewable energy innovations, but they still reduce CO2 emissions

Electric vehicles on domestic military bases

Last month, the Pew Project on National Security, Energy, and Climate hosted an event focused on efforts by the U.S. military to deploy clean energy technologies that enhance security and improve operational effectiveness.

The panelists all said that the impetus for these renewable energy efforts started with statutory requirements, including “specific Executive Orders” and legislation. The goal, however, reflected a different kind of sustainability: As Dr. Camron Gorguinpour put it, “ultimately we’re looking for things that make good financial sense.”

(Photo credit: NREL)

Dr. Gorguinpour is the Director of Strategic Initiatives in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and Logistics. He detailed the many reasons that the DoD began a plug-in electric vehicle initiative two years ago. This concerns a non-tactical fleet of 200,000, meaning support cars and trucks on domestic bases. When looking at transitioning the fleet to efficient hybrid or electric vehicles, and installing charging stations, the DoD considered many options. There is currently a pilot program underway to try out all-electric vehicles on six bases in five different states:

“What is vehicle-to-grid? It’s the idea that the battery is now an asset that is really primarily for energy. So if you consider the car you normally drive throughout your day, it’s really a poorly-used asset. You’re talking about maybe something that is functioning 3-5 percent of its useful life. The rest of the time it’s parked in the parking lot while you’re at work or at home. You only really drive your vehicle maybe a couple hours a day. So if you have a vehicle that can plug into the grid and provide services back to the grid, then all of a sudden your asset utilization rate is now 95 to 97 percent. It’s really only not being used either as an energy source or a mobility resource when you’re getting it fixed for repairs or maintenance. So the different types of things you can do with these batteries are significant.”

Vehicle-to-grid resources also allow utilities to draw on and dump on a network of batteries to help address frequency regulation. This is when the grid needs help smoothing the minute-to-minute demand variations caused by thousands of consumers flipping switches on and off. When a network of electric vehicles provides this service, it earns valuable revenue. “How much value?” says Dr. Gorguinpour. “Kind of a lot.” Enough to earn far more each month than a monthly lease for an all-electric Nissan Leaf. This is important because he said that cost concerns were the main priority with this program, with mission concerns a very close second.

The Army goes net zero energy

The Army’s “Net Zero Energy” initiative, which started in 2010, is not imposed on individual bases from the top down. One hundred installations responded that they wanted to be net-zero, and the Department of Defense selected 17 for a nationwide pilot program. A site specific assessment helps to tailor any changes to current processes, while ensuring that mission requirements are not compromised while reducing cost. Geothermal electric and solar PV can be expected to start coming online in 2014, along with heat pumps. As Director of the Army Sustainability Office Kristine Kingrey put it:

“One of the things we tried to do with our program was look at the endpoint, look at the goals…. But again, as with the other services, it’s got to be cost-effective.”

Captain Kerry Gilpin, the Director of the 1 Gigawatt Task Force and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Government, asked why the military was pursuing net-zero energy initiatives in the first place:

“The real reason we’re doing this is very simple. Secretary Mabus has set two priorities: energy security and energy independence. … Basically we don’t like having vulnerable supply lines … that are not difficult to disrupt. All threats, right? Natural disasters, manmade — anything that could threaten our ability to do our critical missions presents a problem for us.

He said that military bases used to have their own traditional power plants in the middle of last century, and then switched to being dependent on the civilian grid. Now, through solar arrays, wind farms, and waste-to-energy generating turbines, “the pendulum is swinging the other way.” Captain Gilpin also made the case that a smart microgrid would help integrate renewable energy into a full electric grid:

“That’s really where we’re going. It matters because … a lot of the things that cause the commercial grid to be unreliable are things that we can’t predict: natural disasters, manmade events. Thankfully we haven’t had any of the latter, but certainly we’ve had many of the former and they appear to be increasing in frequency and duration and so on.”

Climate Change

Former Senator John Warner Senator said that when he was Secretary of the Navy, “we never gave a moment’s thought to the question of energy, and if anyone had said ‘are you a Gigawatt Captain,’ he’d have been court-martialed.”

While some of those in the military do explicitly support directly addressing climate change through legislation, it wasn’t clear exactly how these experts considered climate change in the context of all their renewable energy efforts. During the Q&A, one brave soul asked the panel how climate change factors into the decisions they all were making. The responses were hesitant:

Captain Gilpin: “Speaking for the Department, as I must, that’s not really the main purpose we’re doing this. We do have greenhouse gas legislated goals that they certainly will help to attain. So in that regard, they’re absolutely a part of our planning and a part of our calculations on the projects we’re trying to develop. So, it’s legislated, it is important to us, it has meaning and merit. Still, I would say it’s not the primary reason for doing these projects.

Dr. Gorguinpour: “I think part of the challenge with those types of challenges is it’s hard to quantify. So you’re trying to build a business case, an operational case, you can’t really put it in numbers when people compare one against another.”

Despite pushback from GOP members in Congress, many in the military are transitioning to renewable fuels that do not burn carbon dioxide. Although some aren’t doing it explicitly because of climate change, ultimately the U.S. military will have to deal with climate migration, energy resource conflicts, and extreme weather disaster response.

« »

38 Responses to Why The U.S. Military Is Pursuing Energy Efficiency, Renewables And Net-Zero Energy Initiatives

  1. fj says:

    Net-zero design tends to be highly agile, resilient, efficient and positively disruptive providing the considerable discipline to make things that work very well with minimal impact on the environment and one of the most effective tools addressing accelerating climate change.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      The US military making ‘…things that work very well with minimal impact on the environment’, like depleted uranium, DIME munitions, cluster-bombs, and hundreds and hundreds of thermo-nuclear weapons, I suppose. The degree that a reflex militarism is inculcated into even the ‘progressive’ American consciousness is remarkable. It must have something to do with not being ‘Shocked and Awed’ yourselves, not having your country invaded by brutal foreigners and not having your patriots who resist slaughtered as ‘insurgents’, and the collaborators praised by the invaders as ‘democrats’.

      • fj says:

        Absolutely correct except the connection to net zero design.

        Civilization remains both actively and passively (structurally) violent where world military expenditures far exceed social expenditures which would be very effective eliminating the need for large military expenditures greatly reducing emissions.

        • Joan Savage says:

          The “how” of transition to a peace time economy has been a challenge for decades.

          Decision makers in the Cold War made sure nearly every US congressional district had an employment dependence on some aspect of MIC.

          The military itself has protested from time to time that it doesn’t need some equipment that Congress continued/continues to appropriate money for.

      • fj says:

        Yes, having a large military is a really bad, terribly inefficient, wasteful, destructive way to design for the future.

        Good design for the future:

        Profound use of natural where human capital is the most important component.

      • fj says:

        Large military expenditure is the most overt offense on the reasonable design of civilization.

      • fj says:

        Poverty eradication, universal healthcare, rapidly advancing universal educational systems, and net zero transportation reduce the active and structural violence of civilzation while having the potential of profoundly reducing its environmental footprint.

      • fj says:

        The big question might be:

        Is nature forcing us to behave ourselves and cleanup our rooms?

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          ‘Mature’ does not give a stuff whether we live or die. That’s up to us, entirely.

          • fj says:

            No kidding!

            Substitute reality or any other word that makes you feel better (or worse), since I know at least one person who’s happiest when he’s miserable.

  2. Leif says:

    Now if the military would just start to utilize GREEN as an offensive tactic and not just help in the defense mode, humanity wold get some true value out on our military $$$.

    Think about it for a moment. Military efforts to bring renewable energy to the third world people. Clean water. Sanitation. Perma-culture. Internet access and cell service. modern health care. The list is long.

    Go green, resistance is fatal to Earth’s life support systems. Green energy brings profits to the people, not the polluters and exploiters. The Talaban will be shunned by the local people, Not by the Drones. Violence begets violence. Love begets love.

  3. psher grant says:

    This is good news! Such a positive and professional approach to making things better. This can show the private sector, that smart energy is better and it works.

  4. fj says:

    As we become more tightly coupled with eco systems and we overcome our inner demons such as dominance we may start to move to net positive methods tightly coupled with the fundamental nature of life.

  5. fj says:

    And one of the major advances of life on this planet.

  6. fj says:

    Since intelligence is essentially evolution on steroids this can happen very quickly as the efficiencies and benefits would be extraordinary.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      What is the point of ‘intelligence’ if it only leads us to self-destruction? What is ‘intelligence’ without understanding and morality but hubris and self-delusion?

      • fj says:

        Do you ever get the feeling at times that you might spontaneously combust?

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          Too late! I vapourise every time I watch the daily lie-fest falsely labeled the ‘News’. By the by, we need a little pessimism to leaven the debate, don’t you think, given the situation? Besides, I am not 100% convinced that we will not, somehow, save ourselves yet, but I’m convinced that my basic understanding, that we certainly will not do so unless we recognise the truth that capitalism and the parasites who benefit from it are the root causes of the catastrophe (it is, already, a catastrophe), is important.

        • fj says:

          Ah ha! There’s your problem.

          Stop immediately, immersing yourself in lie-fests.

          Take two aspirins and seek out one of many noble causes with the potential to propel us forward in the great transition to come.

          For starters perhaps, try Poor People First.

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

            I have reconsidered my position and now realise that what I do when confronted by the lie-machine is sublimate, transmuting from a solid mass into an ethereal substance of no fixed property. The wretched truth is that I am addicted to experiencing lies, in all their glorious variety and invention, because, without my daily fix, I might actually return to my childish belief that all people are good, even if it is only ‘somewhere, deep down’.

        • fj says:

          Try bottom of the pyramid . . .

          Capitalism at the Crossroads: The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the World’s Most Difficult Problems by Stuart Hart

          http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Crossroads-Unlimited-Opportunities-Difficult/dp/0131439871

  7. fj says:

    Perhaps, some our most encouraging work in biology, medicine and cognitive science are already using these ideas.

  8. Joan Savage says:

    Let’s not forget the “why” in the title.
    This move is primarily for military strategy and logistics.
    It happens to reduce one form of GHG, a solid objective from several points of view, as the military are alert to global destabilization from climate change, as well as the more immediate vulnerability of their supply lines and personnel.

    Even so, the military is a big user and emitter of other pollutants.
    Consider military air conditioning.

    In 2011 the military spent over $20 billion on AC in Afghanistan alone.
    http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning

    HFCs in air conditioners are persistent and powerful greenhouse gases.

    The CO2 reduction is good, but it does not exonerate the military-industrial complex in general from a far longer list of damages – a list longer than Mulga’s.

    • fj says:

      True, choose your battles.

      None of the plowshare advances justify a military-industrial complex, but when the military validates these advances by using them it accelerates deployment.

      Something is not impossible if it already exists.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      That list is longer then mine!!? Drat!

  9. fj says:

    Developing and deploying net-zero transport and transit systems capable of moving millions per hour in places like New York City, smart grids with storage, and advanced communications systems not only have great civilian value but would help stabilize failing and failed states and mitigate threats to our security at a small fraction of the cost of the conventional methods and apparatus of war.

  10. In Afghanistan, the transport of fuel by trucks is more than just an expensive distraction. The WAPO reported that the Taliban gets a lot of its funding from protection rackets on fuel convoys.

  11. Tami Kennedy says:

    A good thing that seriousness is basically acknowledged by this program. And military may be best to take a serious first step. Drag the rest of government kicking and screaming forward. Let’s see if efficiency hurdle can be breached.

    • fj says:

      When stuff starts hitting the fan, command-and-control will go into effect with the military would likely playing a pivotal part since we’d be terribly vulnerable on all fronts.

      This might happen in a region or nationwide.

    • fj says:

      The smart thing to do would be to build a huge reserve fpr rapid deployment sufficient cover the damage of another Sandy.

      • fj says:

        The reserves would include solar, smart grids, materials and designs for rapid restoration of homes to include hazard mitigation and energy retrofits sufficient to bring buildings at least to 90% net zero.

      • fj says:

        Net-zero transportation and transit could include bikes, electric bikes, recumbent bikes/trikes, rapid deploy elevated velo ways.

        Design and development of high performance rapid deploy complete distributed on-demand feather-weight vehicle transport and transit systems with human, electric and electric linear induction power with or without low cost permanent magnet maglev capability.

      • fj says:

        Rapid deploy communication systems and whatever else is necessary to restore a large region as fast as possible with minimum downtime with sufficient hazard mitigation in the rebuild makeing the area much more resilient, energy efficient and sustainable.

      • fj says:

        NYC Rapid Repairs restored of 20,000 homes which was great.

        Continuous improvement for next time would create much more long-term solutions costing much less in dollars, environment, and emissions.

  12. Larry Gilman says:

    Why do we keep having to pretend that the US military has any relevance to the world energy future? Its efficiency and renewables efforts, just like its nuclear power technologies on submarines and aircraft carriers, are motivated solely by tactical concerns and totally unconstrained by market costs (the US military sucks up approximately half the planet’s military spending). Those efforts have therefore always been, are now, and will forever be basically irrelevant to transforming the world energy economy. At best, there will be the occasional “spinoff,” i.e., some accidental benefit to civilian life produced at a cost orders of magnitude higher than would have been required for development under directed, non-military research. So frankly, I don’t give two shakes of a dead rat’s ass — maybe just half a shake, there you go –for the military’s gold-plated, self-trumpeted energy leadership. And besides, what will they do with all that green? Aggress, imprison, oppress? Guantanamo has wind turbines, for God’s sake! ( http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=31070 ) So, you know those lights they leave on 24-7 to ruin the minds of people they’ve been holding for a decade without charge or trail on the say-so of some bounty-collecting tribesman in rural Pakistan? They’re _sustainable_! Bucket, please. If anything, I would like my country’s military to have shorter reach, less sustained occupation capability, less technical ability to operate freely in the hinterlands of countries we’ve invaded on the other side of the world . . .

    http://www.larrygilman.net

  13. fj says:

    War is much worse.

    And, it is totally inconceivable that we will go to war with a lot of countries, maybe most, and maybe all in the not too distant future.

    What efficiency; and what a civilization!

    And a huge military unnecessary, or a prison industrial complex, or transportation systems based on cars . .