Military Going Green... But Chugging Oil
The Wall Street Journal takes a tour today of the Pentagon's clean energy plans. It's a fair and balanced piece -- in the old, pre-Murdoch sense of the term. And it throws some needed cold water on a (slightly over-) enthusiastic essay I wrote for the current issue of Good magazine. In it, I get all rosy-glasses, counting off the military's alt-power projects:
In September 2005, the federal government decreed that 7.5 percent of its power should come from renewable sources by 2013. The Pentagon is already there [and is headed towards 25 percent renewables by 2025]... In sunny San Diego, California, Naval Base Coronado's solar power is saving the annual equivalent of 6,000 barrels of oil. Wind turbines help Warren Air Force Base in gusty Wyoming, keeping 4,866 tons of carbon dioxide emissions from escaping into the atmosphere per year. Then there are the nine military bases that are powered geothermally, by the heat of the earth. California's Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake kicks off 270 megawatts of electricity, keeping lights turned on as far away as Los Angeles.
True, true. But while clean power is nice, the Journal notes, it's small potatoes compared to the oil, gas, and jet fuel the Defense Department guzles:
In the past 20 years, [the military] has cut energy use at facilities 28%. Still, oil accounts for roughly 75% of total energy use. The military's focus has been on saving power -- also a laudable goal, critics say, but not an answer to dependence on oil...
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have increased military fuel use by as much as 56,000 barrels a day. In addition, the military's improved ability to deploy troops to battlefields comes at the cost of increased fuel use: today, more than half of the fuel consumed in combat theaters is used not by front-line soldiers but by supply convoy... The military uses fuel at twice the rate it did in the first Persian Gulf War and four times the rate it did in the Second World War.
Bottom line: It ain't easy, getting to green.
UPDATE 5:10 PM: "The Air Force last month successfully demonstrated how hydrogen fuel cells could one day be used for generating power at forward operating bases and remote locations to help reduce the dependence of U.S. forces on local energy sources and foreign oil," Inside Defense reports.
During the Dec. 14 test, officials from the service’s Advanced Power Technology Office studied how well a newly developed hydrogen fuel cell called the “Multipurpose Electric Power System†could provide electricity to halogen lights, comparing the results to the performance of a diesel generator now used in theater...
The demonstration was the latest in a series of tests under the office’s “tent city†initiative, which examines new alternative energy technologies that may one day help U.S. forces in theater power equipment more efficiently.
UPDATE 01/10/07 11:38 AM: Last week, Defense News had an even deeper look at the military's alt-fuel and alt-power conundrum.
With fuel prices escalating, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., is urging the Navy to go all-nuclear.
For now, only submarines and aircraft carriers are propelled by nuclear power. That’s about 80 of the Navy’s 286 ships. But Bartlett, who chaired the House Armed Services projection forces subcommittee, says it’s time for the nuclear Navy to grow. “The line has already been crossed for big-deck amphibious ships,†Bartlett said.
When oil hit $60 a barrel, it became more expensive to operate amphibs on oil than it would be on nuclear power, he said.
“And we will shortly cross the line for cruisers,†Bartlett said.
The Navy calculates that nuclear power becomes economical for cruisers after oil costs $80 a barrel, and for destroyers when oil costs about $205 a barrel.
But...cost is a major roadblock for nuclear-powered ships... Nuclear propulsion systems would add “several hundred million dollars†to each ship. The timing is not good. Congress is already distressed about escalating shipbuilding costs. “Once they see the numbers, it will be very hard to convince them†to go all-nuclear, he said...
[In the meantime,] the Navy also taking [smaller] steps to reduce energy consumption. It has installed bulbous bows and stern flaps on some of its ships. Each of these increases fuel efficiency by a few percentage points, according to John Young, the Pentagon’s director of research and engineering.
The Navy also is considering applying coatings to ship propellers to “potentially get 4 or 5 percent savings in fuel efficiency and possibly some reductions in maintenance,†Young told the House Armed Services Committee in September. “It looks like it pays for itself in no more than about a year.â€
Do NOT be fooled by the publicity stunt that is the Air Force's testing of F-T-derived jet fuel in the B-52. If the USAF was really serious about saving fuel it would hav taken Boeing up on its offer to replace the 4 gas-hawg 1962-era TF-33 turbofans with 4 nice new lete-model airliner engines. The entire B-52 fleet could have been burning 40% less fuel for at least the last 10 years now. Why didn't the AF do this? Because making aircraft more fuel-efficient is absolutley a zero-priority issue...they want to take their money and buy golf-pated weapons systemsto re-fight the Cold War or in the hope (sick) of fighting a war with China, but which are as useless as tits on a boar for fighting the stateless terrorism threat. Trust me, fine concerned taxpayers, those couple of windmills and solarpanels and the odd geothermal installation or two are PR showpieces...the vast majority of miltary base infrastructure and weapons systems are unbelievably energy-inefficent, and they could do the same job just as well with some smart investment in more more fuel-efficient engines and in more high-fidelity distributed simulation training. While airlines milk every last drop of JET-A fuel for work (flying precise climb-out and descent profiles, taxing out to the hold line with one engine, etc), military pilots fly around with not one care in the world about conserving jet fuel...they act as if it is free, and to them, it is! With the Cold War, followed by the Global War on Terror (GWOT), yhe military can demand any budget it wants and spend it willy-nilly and woe be to any Congressman who dares question the efficiency or necessity of dollar-one of any of this budget, lest they be pilloried into submission bu the neocon chicken hawks and called 'weak on defense' and accused of 'not supporting the troops'. If the miliary and Congress had any brainsabout them, they would prepare for the astronomical price of ol in the near future by replacing all Ticonderoga-class cruisers and all Aleigh-Burke-class destroyers in the Navy with new, nuclear-powered ships. All the big Landing Assault ships (basically small carriers for amphibious assault) need to be replaced by nuclear versions as well. The cost would be high up-front investment of dollars, but during the 50+ years lifespan of these ships the savings in fuel oil to power our fleet would be incredible! Does our Presidential and Congressional leadership wish to actually lead by example on energy efficiency, or just mouth the words now and then...write your Congresmen and hold their feet to the fire...demand action now!
Posted by: DA at May 3, 2007 12:22 PM