No Blood for... Solar Power?
Last Thursday, the Christian Science Monitor reported on an unusual memo from the staff of Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, the highest-ranking Marine officer in Iraq’s troubled Anbar Province. According to the Monitor, and to more comprehensive treatments in Inside Defense and Defense Industry Daily, Zilmer asked the Pentagon to find a way to get "solar panels and wind turbines" into the hands of his troops. Without access to renewable energy solutions, Zilmer expects to see "continued casualty accumulation [which] exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success."
Say what?
The article in the Monitor suggests two different ways in which solar- and wind-powered generators for isolated outposts would reduce U.S. casualties. The first is that "despite desert temperatures, the hot 'thermal signature' of a diesel generator can call enemy attention to U.S. outposts." How, exactly, an array of solar panels and wind turbines would make U.S. troops less conspicuous in a country bristling with diesel generators is left unclear.
The second argument holds more water. As hard as it is to believe, diesel and other refined petroleum products are actually imported into Iraq by truck, largely from Turkey. And fuel convoys – not to mention the U.S. troops riding in them – are some of the most tempting targets to insurgents: in August 2005, for example, the Army 1st Corps Support Command alone was reporting 30 IED attacks a week.
All that fuel convoyin' costs not only lives, but money, too. Military estimates for the cost of one gallon of generator fuel delivered to a unit at a forward position range from $100 to $400. This is a problem.
(If you’re curious to know how they get those types of numbers for a single gallon of fuel, take a gander at this LMI presentation, from 2004, which cranks out an estimate of $3 per kilowatt-frickin'-hour – or about $120 per gallon of fuel consumed – on the battlefield, compared to $0.40/kWh ($16/gallon) to run those same generators stateside. If this stateside number seems high, too, remember that the number represents all costs associated with turning that gallon of fuel into useful energy, including personnel costs, equipment depreciation, and so on.)
So, what can be done?
Right now, there’s no easy answer. Arlington, Va.-based SkyBuilt Power offers a containerized, deployable solar-/wind-powered generating station which has gotten a lot of press, but the system, which produces "0.5 kW to 150 kW or more," is reported by the Monitor to go for a neat $100,000.
Still, that price tag looks a lot less scary when you keep in mind the absurd cost of running a diesel generator on the battlefield. According to the Monitor, Zilmer’s memo estimated that a system like SkyBuilt’s would pay for itself in three to five years.
That, of course, is probably why In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s own venture-cap firm, is one of SkyBuilt’s big backers.
Part of the logistics crunch which is feeding those convoy casualty rates has more to do with inept planning than with a lack of available technology. In February 2006, the engineering journal IEEE Spectrum published a must-read article describing how diesel fuel is trucked in from Turkey to power Baghdad’s main power station, even while the natural gas which could power the same turbines, if the appropriate equipment were installed, is flared off as waste at an oilfield across the street.
Obviously, renewable energy isn't going to solve problems on the scale of Iraq's FUBARed power grid, nor will it solve problems that are really about planning, and not technology. And just as obviously, there's no mature technology out there ready to take the place of every diesel generator and internal combustion engine in the U.S. armory.
But as I wrote almost a year ago, the Department of Defense can't afford to sit around and wait for someone else to mature those technologies: "the mature renewable-energy and fuel-efficient technology of the future may never appear in reality until it appears among DARPA's 'Areas of Interest.'"
Since I wrote those words, I'm glad to say that there's been all sorts of movement on this front. And the publicity garnered by Zilmer’s memo can only help matters along.
So next time you hear about a company that’s developing better solar cells, or more efficient wind turbines, pay attention. They’re not just Mother Nature’s best friends – they may well be a jarhead's best friend.
-- Haninah Levine
Aside from it being against the Geneva Convention to target civilian infrastructure, Iraq was intermittently bombed by the US from 1992 to May 2002 when the pre-war campaign began in earnest.
(http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm)
It should be noted that this bombing campaign was initiated well before the Oct. 11 2002 congressional authorization, and that a ruse of Iraqi aggression was utilized to destroy communications, power and other services considered vital to conducting a defense to the planned invasion.
As for destroying the infrastructure, that was part of the economic plan whereby American companies (like Halliburton) would be paid to rebuild Iraq (to our specs) out of Iraqi oil revenue.
As events in Lebanon have so clearly pointed out (as if it needed pointing out), the one who destroys your infrastructure is your enemy. When you've spent more than a decade doing that I guess it takes you to another level entirely.
Posted by: Noah (the other one) at September 12, 2006 9:08 PM