Nolan on 2010 USMC Expeditionary Energy Symposium

Here's Sabot 6's Dan Nolan again, this time with some laudatory commentary on the recent USMC Expeditionary Energy Symposium:

The Marines executed another flawless amphibious landing, coming ashore in New Orleans to conduct the USMC Expeditionary Energy Symposium. From 25 to 27 January, the Corps’ senior energy officer, the Commandant, GEN James Conway led the assemblage of DOD and industry leaders through the rapidly evolving plan to increase expeditionary capability and reduce reliance on length supply lines. Briefings and panel discussions focused on operational mobility and infrastructure. Concurrently, GEN Conway conducted a senior leadership conference and took the opportunity to bring those leaders into the conference so they could get his intent first hand. There were no stunning revelations; however, the briefings on the Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB) helped industry better understand how to participate in this important effort. The intent of the ExFOB is to identity mature, relevant technologies that can be “proofed” rapidly and then deployed to forward areas to help Marines reduce their logistical footprint. COL Charrette, the new appointed head of the Expeditionary Energy Office helped put this process in perspective for industry attendees. COL T. C. Moore briefed the results of the Marine Energy Assessment Team and personally led several Bourbon Street sorties.

One of the most innovative events at the symposium was the “Pitch a Capability” session. Industry representatives were given the opportunity to provide ten minute presentations on their technologies or services to groups of USMC acquisition and operational leadership. Over the course of the symposium, they reviewed dozens of presentations and provided meaningful feedback to participants.

Having recently returned from Afghanistan and Qatar as part of the USAF Energy Assessment Team (more to follow as information is cleared), I was again heartened to see Service senior leadership stepping up to focus on this critical issue. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are present for duty. Unfortunately, the Army ... [HORN SOUNDS].

Sorry Dan, that's all we have time for today. Stay tuned for Dan's incisive analysis of Air Force energy audits in Afghanistan and to find out how he really feels about the Army's leadership energy leadership.

QDR 2010 Directly Addresses DOD's Operational and Facilities Energy Issues

I admit it: back in June of 2009 I had my doubts. But the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is finally out, and energy got its due - approximately one page out of one hundred twenty eight. Not bad, when you consider previous QDRs never considered the topic. Starting on page 84 of the report, I've captured and reprinted the 4 energy specific paragraphs here and will break it down, with the points I consider most important / helpful highlighted in yellow.

First, I like that they take a stab at defining energy security, and when they do it's kept short and sweet:

Energy security for the Department means having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs.

There's a lot they leave out that others try to cram in. I say: good job. Re: the definition - just want to make sure we don't spend so much time and energy on the protect and deliver parts that we significantly impair our ability to prosecute war ... or whatever else it is our troops are told to accomplish. The QDR addresses that concern in the next sentence:

Energy efficiency can serve as a force multiplier, because it increases the range and endurance of forces in the field and can reduce the number of combat forces diverted to protect energy supply lines, which are vulnerable to both asymmetric and conventional attacks and disruptions.

... and points out additional benefits to fielding a leaner, meaner force. So how's this goodness going to come about? By baking better energy thinking in right up front the way it's already been told to do by congress, and the way two Defense Science Boards and the GAO have already recommended:

DoD must incorporate geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes. To address these challenges, DoD will fully implement the statutory requirement for the energy efficiency Key Performance Parameter and fully burdened cost of fuel set forth in the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.

Who's going to make this happen? Why the DOD Energy Boss, of course. The QDR language makes it sound like a fait accompli:

The Department will also investigate alternative concepts for improving operational energy use, including the creation of an innovation fund administered by the new Director of Operational Energy to enable components to compete for funding on projects that advance integrated energy solutions.

Sounds good, but I've got the feeling they're being a little too optimistic on this one. See here.

I like everything in this next two paragraphs, but I'm going to let them ride without comment and just a few highlights:

The Department is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand to improve operational effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives, and protect the Department from energy price fluctuations. The Military Departments have invested in noncarbon power sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy at domestic installations and in vehicles powered by alternative fuels, including hybrid power, electricity, hydrogen, and compressed national gas. Solving military challenges—through such innovations as more efficient generators, better batteries, lighter materials, and tactically deployed energy sources—has the potential to yield spin-off technologies that benefit the civilian community as well. DoD will partner with academia, other U.S. agencies, and international partners to research, develop, test, and evaluate new sustainable energy technologies.

Indeed, the following examples demonstrate the broad range of Service energy innovations. By 2016, the Air Force will be postured to cost-competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel via an alternative fuel blend that is greener than conventional petroleum fuel. Further, Air Force testing and standard-setting in this arena paves the way for the much larger commercial aviation sector to follow. The Army is in the midst of a significant transformation of its fleet of 70,000 non-tactical vehicles (NTVs), including the current deployment of more than 500 hybrids and the acquisition of 4,000 low-speed electric vehicles at domestic installations to help cut fossil fuel usage. The Army is also exploring ways to exploit the opportunities for renewable power generation to support operational needs: for instance, the Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System (REPPS). The Navy commissioned the USS Makin Island, its first electric-drive surface combatant, and tested an F/A-18 engine on camelina-based biofuel in 2009—two key steps toward the vision of deploying a “green” carrier strike group using biofuel and nuclear power by 2016. The Marine Corps has created an Expeditionary Energy Office to address operational energy risk, and its Energy Assessment Team has identified ways to achieve efficiencies in today’s highly energy-intensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to reduce logistics and related force protection requirements.

Finally, the last paragraph brings it all home with the intent to address the brittle grid problem.

To address energy security while simultaneously enhancing mission assurance at domestic facilities, the Department is focusing on making them more resilient. U.S. forces at home and abroad rely on support from installations in the United States. DoD will conduct a coordinated energy assessment, prioritize critical assets, and promote investments in energy efficiency to ensure that critical installations are adequately prepared for prolonged outages caused by natural disasters, accidents, or attacks. At the same time, the Department will also take steps to balance energy production and transmission with the requirement to preserve the test and training ranges and the operating areas that are needed to maintain readiness.

They covered all the bases (no pun intended) as far as I'm concerned. There's another two-hundred or more pages of detail I would have like to have seen included on energy, but if they had, given all the other challenges facing the department at this time, it wouldn't be a QDR.

I'll pursue the usual path from this point on: reminding the Department that this is what it's told itself it needs to do on energy matters, and nudging it to move faster when it looks like other challenges, or more likely, mind-numbing bureaucratic inertia, tribal squabbling and/or status quo thinking get in the way of desperately needed progress.

Photo Credit: abnskyshark / Andrew Michael Smith @ Flickr

Ministry of Defense Implementing Sustainability

Lest you think that the DOD is the only military org moving out on energy matters, here's the DOD Energy Blog's first guest post from "across the pond". There's a heck of a lot to sink your teeth into in this mega-post, and you'll note that climate change issues seem to be a bigger driver for the Brits than they are here in the US. Nevertheless, whether it's climate change or the mission enhancements that come from reduced reliance on fossil fuels, it all points us in the same direction. Big thanks to Elizabeth Quintana of the UK-based defense think tank RUSI for this most comprehensive introduction to energy work underway by our closet ally. Enjoy:

In 2007, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) published its Sustainable Development Action Plan, which outlined its road map to help meet ambitious government targets for 2010 and 2020. 2009 saw the publication of the Climate Change Strategy (PDF). This document looked at the impact of Climate Change on the military, described the MoD’s carbon footprint and explained in more detail what the department would need to do to meet the UK government’s carbon targets for 2010 and 2020.

Estates
The UK Defence Estate is the largest landowner in the country, owning approximately 1% of the UK across some 4000 sites. It produces just over half of the MoD’s carbon emissions and 70% of all carbon emissions across the government estate. It goes without saying that if the MoD fails to meet its targets, so does the rest of the government. The government’s targets for Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate (SOGE) state that the UK government will:

• Reduce carbon emissions by 12.5% by 2010 and 30% by 2020, relative to 1999
• Increase energy efficiency per meter squared by 15% by 2010 and 30% by 2020 relative to 1999
• Source a minimum of 10 % electricity from renewable sources by 2010
• Source a minimum of 15% electricity from combined heat and power by 2010

Targets for 2010 were met at the back end of last year and were largely achieved through efforts on the Defence Estate, however, most of the low hanging fruit have already been picked and there is a long way to go before the 2020 targets begin to look achievable. Sub-metering is being rolled out across the country to better identify areas of waste but the biggest problems at the moment are dealing with the legacy buildings and existing contracts that do not incentivise prime contractors to manage their portion of the estate in a sustainable manner. These contracts will run for another 3 years. In contrast to the US, there is no desire at present for any of the bases to be completely independent of the national grid and as smart grids are still a way off in the UK, there is less concern over cyber attack, although a number of the IT security firms like Detica are already warning both the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Environment and Climate Change of potential problems with the adoption of this technology.

Energy in Theatre (taken from evidence given to the House of Commons Defence Committee)
The Expeditionary Campaign Infrastructure Team in the MoD’s Defence Equipment and Support organisation (DE&S) is already implementing measures to improve energy efficiency on Forward Operating Bases (FOBs). This work is focused on acquiring a better understanding of energy use and demand, with the aim of maximising efficiency. This includes: thermally lining tents & adding sun shades to reduce cooling loads; using Military Accommodation Bunkers as they are thermally dense and do not require air conditioning; installing power meters to identify where energy is being consumed; optimising power generator settings to match load and energy production. For planning purposes, the team has set an internal target to reduce energy consumption in operational accommodation by 50% per capita by 2013.

In addition, the MOD research programme, under the Science Innovation & Technology’s Capability Vision initiative, includes work to explore options for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Phase 1 of this work, launched in May 09, places special emphasis on Forward Operating Bases and is exploring options for generating power by sustainable means and reducing energy consumption through the use of more efficient infrastructure. Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) technology is unsuitable for use in the harsh operating conditions of Afghanistan. This work is, therefore, looking at adapting or developing existing technologies to meet our needs. 10 research contracts have so far been placed (with more in the pipeline) covering such topics as: next generation solar collectors; portable and robust solar cells; portable and deployable wind turbines (noting that these would need to be effective in the light winds experienced in Afghanistan); advanced thermoelectric generators; and advanced energy storage devices.

Phase 2 of this work, which is scheduled for 2010/11, proposes a field trial of these technologies in a challenging environment, designed to simulate actual operating conditions. The trial also has potential for international collaboration as several NATO allies, including Canada, France and the US, have expressed interest in taking part and bringing their technology for trial.

Alternative Fuels
Concerns over Peak Oil, the price of fuel and energy security have prompted the MoD to look into alternative forms of jet fuel. The Royal Air Force doesn’t have as much buying power compared to the USAF (it uses about 1% UK’s aviation fuel as opposed to USAF, which uses approximately 10% all aviation fuel in the US) and so there is little perceived benefit in spending its resources in developing its own bio- or synfuel. The Defence Fuels Group has, however, kept a close eye on work done by the US Defence Energy Support Centre and the civil aviation community and has already developed standards for alternative fuels so that a replacement fuel could be dropped in if it was desirable.

Sustainable Procurement
While various environmental and safety standards have been in place for several years, the Sustainable Procurement office has only been open for business for the last 3 years. Led by Iain Brooks, an SP Strategy has been launched and is now mandated as part of the procurement process, an MoU has been signed with all prime contractors and the SP Office is working with the Carbon Disclosure Project to map the carbon footprint of the entire defence supply chain. It is also reaching out overseas to understand how other countries have organised themselves and exchange best practice.

Interested in finding out more?
These programmes and others will be presented at the RUSI International Initiatives in Alternative Energy and Sustainability for the Military conference on 16-17 February in London. If you can’t make the trip, the conference will be broadcast securely over the web. For more information or to register for your ticket or e-ticket, please visit www.rusi.org/AEconference10

Photo Credit (Solar powered runway equipment in Afghanistan): UK MOD

Time for a Leader: Who'll take the Reins in DOD Industry Energy Reform?

The 4Q09 edition of the journal Defense Concepts published by the journal of Center for Advanced Defense Studies (CADS) has a nice energy chicken-or-the-egg piece. Titled, "Defense Industry Energy Reform: Incentives and Capabilities," it examines the roles of DOD and the Aerospace & Defense industry as potential catalysts in bringing new approaches to energy to DOD and its warfighters.

Written and and researched by Benjamin Power and Steve Rotchtin, this paper does a good job of unpacking the business case (or mission case) for changing course on energy, both within the DOD and among its tech and services suppliers. Power and Rotchkin note that neither side is taking the lead so far:

The DOD has yet to institute comprehensively the type of structural changes that are necessary to address the military’s strategic energy vulnerability. Following the DOD’s lead, defense contractors have not yet made a clearly defined shift in the type of equipment that they produce. There are some indications of interest in energy efficient military technology from industry leaders like General Electric and Lockheed Martin, but these companies have been reluctant to invest heavily in this technology without a demonstrable accompanying shift in preference at the DOD. With legal constraints restraining sales of technology to certain customers, private industry’s development and investment in this field has mirrored that of the DOD.

Clearly, it's the military's role to specify what it needs to industry, not the other way around, though industry, by showing what's possible, might get DOD thinking differently about what's possible.

Written before the nomination of Sharon Burke for the DOD Director of Operational Energy, perhaps we'll see DOD move out more assertively in the near future. Though the case can be made for not holding your breath ... who knows if and when she'll get the actual nod from this very distracted Congress.

Click here for this issue of Defense Concepts. Energy article begins on page 33.

Photo Credit: Mary Clark on Flickr

Federal Energy Dynamic Duo: Navy and Ag Team on Energy Efficiency and Renewables

2009 was the year things really started to percolate, and though it's still January, DOD energy activities are off to a fast start. We'll be getting another energy audit update from Afghanistan soon, this time time focusing on Air Force ops and facilities.

Meanwhile, the Navy keeps up its leadership and momentum with an innovate partnership with one of the large Federal organizations that's most forward thinking on energy matters: the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Today Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) committing their folks to cooperation and collaboration on a number of fronts, including:

1. Share technical, program management, and financial expertise in actions undertaken by the Parties in support of renewable energy projects, pilots, and programs
2. Cooperate in developing a mutually reinforcing strategy and plans to implement renewable energy programs, pilots, and initiatives
3. Collaborate on funding and execution of applicable elements to projects, to the extent permitted by existing regulations and authorities
4. Support establishment of evaluation and implementation venues which develop advanced biofuels and renewable energy processes that are sustainable from an economic, social, as well as environmental perspective

It will be fascinating to watch what comes out of this unique relationship. Will be keeping an eye on it and will share updates as they become available.

Photo Credit: USN's 2nd Class Kevin S. O'Brien

2010 DOD Energy Planning Brief: Natural Gas Looking Good

We've talked about natural gas before, primarily to point out that the world is going to have access to a lot more of the stuff in the coming years thanks mainly to new discoveries and extraction methods. Here's an early 2010 natgas intro and update from guest blogger and Navy energy contractor, Vince Marshall.

1/19/01 "There's no such thing as a free lunch" Update: In the case of one of the new New York fields, a skirmish is brewing over possible extraction-related groundwater contamination. Here's an excerpt from oil & gas newspaper, Upstream:

At issue is the controversial process of shale gas extraction known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," in which a combination of chemicals, sand and water are blasted through rock to free trapped gas. Fracking is exempted from regulation under the US Clean Water Act. The natural gas industry argues that drilling poses no risk to drinking water, saying the chemicals are injected through layers of steel and concrete thousands of feet below aquifers. But opponents argue that toxic fracking chemicals are contaminating drinking water, citing numerous reports of private wells near gas installations having water that is discolored, foul tasting, or even flammable because of methane that has escaped from drilling operations.

-------Original Post Below----------

Natural gas is a preferred fuel for heating and power plant operations at many DOD locations worldwide. It is clean, comparatively simple to bring to process, and for the most part, readily accessible. As such, fluctuations in the supply and demand of this commodity severely impact operational budgets. For the next few years, there are strong market drivers that should help keep average gas prices relatively low. The first is Hydraulic Fracturing.

Hydraulic Fracturing, also referred to as “fracking”, is a process that injects high pressure fluids into shale and existing gas fields. This breaks up the underground rock and allows gas to be removed that otherwise would stay in the ground. The process increases production from fields that otherwise would be considered depleted. More on fracing here. Fracing is not a brand new technology but is increasingly being used to breathe new life into older gas fields. It does have a downside, though: groundwater contamination has prompted some local governments or prohibit its use.

Another development of note is the discovery of very large natural gas fields in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and elsewhere have substantially increased US gas inventories. In 2010, current gas inventories are approximately 15% higher than the rolling five year average. More on this here.

Of course, climate change legislation that would tax coal or fuel oil would drive consumers to natural gas and likely cause gas prices to increase. So far, coal and petroleum lobby groups have been effective in avoiding significant changes in their taxes and liability. From an early 2010 vantage, this is unlikely to change in the near future and will help keep natural gas prices low.

Perhaps this biggest short term driver has been the recent reduction in demand, which has increased inventories and helped keep prices low. New electrical generation from gas fired combustion turbines requires a long lead time and takes years to build and permit. It is believed that increases in demand will be more than offset by increases in gas production.

In sum, DOD personnel responsible for making long term energy decisions, like DLA's DESC, can look at today’s environment and plan with some certainty that natural gas prices will stay reasonably low over the next few years.

Photo Credit: sidewalk flying / Seth Sawyers @ Flickr

Conference Alert: 5th Annual Military Energy Alternatives

Hard to believe the marcusevans conference folks had the foresight to be at this topic for so long, but it's true. Some great folks speaking at this one, and some pretty sweet workshops too. Here's your 4 Ws and an H:

• What: 3 day conference on alt fuels for DOD
• Where: Four Points Sheraton, Downtown DC
• When: 19-21 January, 2010
• Why: Driven by a huge surge in awareness last year related to fuel-convoy-related casualties, "The Pentagon, which traditionally has not made saving energy much of a priority, has launched initiatives to find alternative fuel sources, and currently has a diverse energy portfolio."
• How: Register here

Sorry for the short notice. Thanks to Vince Marshall of the USN for bringing this to my attention. For more info, follow this link.

Photo Credit: Sheraton