My guess is it's going to take a few billion R&D dollars pumped into Lockheed and Boeing before their first Santa-less flight, but these guys may be the renewable solution the Air Force has been seeking. Not for fighters of course, but maybe for transport. 
Energy security takes many forms. In this case, a disparate group of small US researchers and would-be manufacturing co's are banding together to build a better battery. The site they've chosen is the Argonne National Lab in Illinois, a huge DOE facility famous for its role in the Manhattan Project. This excerpt from last week's press release says it all:Lithium ion batteries are anticipated to replace gasoline as the principal source of energy in future cars and military vehicles. Today, United States automobile manufacturers and defense contractors depend upon foreign suppliers — increasingly concentrated in Asia — for lithium ion battery cells.I wish these guys a lot of luck for several reasons. The full release is here.
Here's another post coming out of the recent NDU Admiral Moorer Military Energy Conference. This is a different way of looking at the world, wouln't you say? And it's worthwhile noting that while 85% of reserves were available to the major International Oil Companies (IOCs like ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, etc.) as recently as the 1970's, widespread nationalization of oil assets since that time now means the IOCs are left to fight over less than 10% of the world's oil.
Morning update: on further reflection, what is said below for the Navy would of course hold true for the other services. Aircraft and heavy ground vehicle engineers, when asked to comment on what future fuels will propel their vehicles for the next 1/2 century, are in the exact same position. Looking out from 2008, there is simply no viable substitute for oil on the horizon.The surface U.S. Navy will remain dependent on fossil fuels for at least the next 40 to 50 years.That's what the engineers said. And barring enormous, unexpected innovations in ship propulsion, it's probably a conservative estimate. But still, it's kind of spooky. Today's $40 oil may make it seem like a benign forecast, but the ripple effects of low oil prices make it clear that the next economic cycle will witness global economies competing for far less oil than was available when prices spiked this summer. The implications for future prices are sobering.
"Oil is the umbilical cord and lifeline of the crusader community." These are the words of Al Qaeda.More than anyone else who's ascended to our highest office, Obama understands that energy is a national security issue, that "the Achilles heel of the most powerful country on Earth is the oil we cannot live without." This man will soon be the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, and I for one am eager to see how the DOD responds to real energy leadership.
"Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off." These are the words Osama bin Laden.
Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare.
Lawrence Farrell has written on energy before, but never better than just now in the December edition of National Defense Magazine. Farrell, a former 3 star USAF general (a Zoomie, I might add) and President of NDIA's National Defense, makes a powerful and succinct case that the DOD needs to get off oil post haste. And not just because some of it comes from messed up or outright hostile countries, meaning it's unreliable and purchase of it funds corrupt regimes and terror networks. Seventy percent of the convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan are for fuel and water. These convoys are at risk from roadside bombs and snipers. Just moving fuel entails great danger to US troops.... If we could cut the amount of convoys in half, the logistics tail would be significantly reduced. The result would be drastic improvements in the ratio of shooters-to-support personnel.
The problem with [current DOD energy strategy] is that it dictates a halt in the development of alternative technologies as soon as the price of oil falls.... This inevitable knee-jerk response to [oil price fluctuations] has got to go.
In an upcoming edition of Foreign Affairs journal, Gates has penned an article titled "A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age". And though energy issues are not discussed directly in the piece, Gates' vision for what the department needs to work on provides a contextual framework for energy security decisions in the coming years. His argument for balance is comprised of three main components:
"Between trying to prevail in current conflicts and preparing for other contingencies"
"Between institutionalizing capabilities such as counterinsurgency and foreign military assistance and maintaining the United States' existing conventional and strategic technological edge against other military forces", and ...
"Between retaining those cultural traits that have made the U.S. armed forces successful and shedding those that hamper their ability to do what needs to be done”
Clearly, the lack of energy efficiency as a KPP in systems requirements formulation fits best in Gates’ category 3: a trait that has hampered our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will continue to impair our capabilities in other theaters if not addressed. Ultimately, the DOD's acknowledgement in NDAA 2009 that energy issues are a major factor in systems requirements, operational effectiveness and budgeting will color each of Gates' three "balance" components. In some cases energy will limit us; in others it will present new opportunities for the US to gain the advantage. But either way, it is here to stay as a permanent part of the way we determine our priorities and options in armed conflict, and in the way DOD prepares for its next big assignments.
This job just keeps getting better and better. I was fortunate enough to be invited and represent the blogosphere at the 3rd Annual Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Military Energy Security Forum held today at the National Defense University in Washington. The conference organizers broadened the scope this year to give more attention to technology and include some stakeholders from outside DOD. Speakers included senior DOD leaders involved in the formulation and implementation of the Department's energy strategy, as well as executives from oil co's, renewable energy co's, and energy security thought leaders from academia and other Federal agencies. 
Attended my first DC Energy Conversation tonight in person, and it was well worth the wait. The featured presentation was given by IBM Managing Director Todd Ramsey and outlined several key sectors in which IBM is bringing creative thought leadership to energy issues related to the government and commercial sectors. Topics included:
OK, now that the previous post gave a skeleton outline of Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) founder and energy visionary since the 1970's, I'll drill down a bit more on Tuesday night's conversation in Cambridge. Here are a couple of the more pointed comments I captured that night:
As noted previously in this blog, Marines often seem more inclined than members of the other 3 service branches to think about energy security in crystal clear, no BS ways. President Obama's new National Security Advisor (NSA), picked to replace the outgoing NSA Stephen Hadley, is retired Marine Corps General James Jones, Jr. Jones, who once worked for John McCain as the Marine liaison to the US Senate, has had a distinguished military career. He is also remarkable for some of the post-retirement positions he's held:Jim is focused on the threats of today and the future. He understands the connection between energy and national security and has worked on the front lines of global instability, from Kosovo to northern Iraq to Afghanistan.
Yesterday I posted on Carbon Sciences' approach for turning CO2 into useful fuels, including jet fuel. While I was on their site, I noticed some good, nuts-and-bolts details I missed when I passed up Organic Chemistry in college: "The fuels we use today, such as gasoline and jet fuel, are made up of chains of hydrogen and carbon atoms aptly called hydrocarbons." Duh. On low end of the scale, you've got molecules (familiar gases) with only a few carbon atoms:
Tiny, Florida-based Green Flight International is a working a fuel problem the military in general, and the Air Force in particular, hope they can solve. With scrutiny and approval from the FAA and some support from Lockheed, Green Flight has just flown a 1960's-era single-engine Czechoslovakian training jet coast-to-coast on a nutritious 50-50 blend of JP8, soy and animal fat.
Thanks to feedback I got from a smart DOD Energy Blog reader over the weekend, I'd like to revise the Army vs. Big 3 comparison made in the previous post. My claim was that the Army was out ahead of GM in renewables and fuel efficiency R&D, and that this demonstrated commendable thinking on the Army's part. And that this was a sure sign of GM's (and Ford & Chrysler's) continuing neglect of an important new market segment.
Recent DOD Energy Blog posts like this one have show strong trend lines towards greater use of UAVs by the US military. Much greater, in fact. Now this Slate article makes it clear that our Predator drones are doing a great job in Afghanistan, military and politically. The purpose of the Energy Awareness Program is to publicize the goals, strategies, successes and lessons learned of the Navy Energy Program, produce an annual Secretary of Navy awards ceremony, increase Naval military and civilian employees’ knowledge of energy efficiency and conservation, develop products that will change the behavior of Navy personnel resulting in decreased energy use, develop and transfer technical and program management information to the DON community, and assist Naval activities in meeting energy reduction goals through awareness education.
Recent oil project delays announced by several companies could spark a supply crunch by 2010, Birol warned.So the same economic conditions that are keeping price down today are also scuttling exploration and development projects that could increase supply in the future. And even accounting for the current global economic slowdown, expected increases in demand mean a shortfall is looming:
The IEA ... forecast that extra oil production of 45 million barrels per day was needed by 2030 to offset declining oilfield output. That [is] more than four times the current capacity of Saudi Arabia, which is the world’s biggest oil producer.
... today, would probably work about as well as the Tin Man at the start of the Wizard of Oz. In fact, in the movie, the only thing that puts him back in motion is oil.It is precisely the long acquisition lead times of these petroleum-fueled weapon systems [e.g., F-22A Raptor], in conjunction with their decades-long life cycles [e.g, the 45-year-old B-52 fleet], that will uniquely force the DoD to be the first government agency to address an approaching global oil peak.I also like the boldness of Chapter 3 - Creating an Assured Energy Strategy, which includes a "Three Stage Approach" as follows:
When it comes to energy, if you're a status quo-loving logistician for the Army, your days are numbered. A recent convening of Army leadership revealed the very forward thinking that has been going on in Army energy circles of late. The kind of thinking that has correctly identified institutional interia as the enemy, and is taking bold steps to defeat it:Energy availability and cost has direction implications on DOD requirements, operations and costs.... National security strategy may need to be changed. Roles and missions of the services may be affected as well.
It is a pity that most of the Pentagon's efforts are concentrated on generating electricity, which accounts for less than 12 percent of military energy consumption, and not on oil, which accounts for more than 75 percent.Hopefully with the advent of the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) initiative in the 2009 NDAA, we'll start to see a change. But it's got to come fast, to an institution that's often averse to change. It will be decades before the the systems designed today are fielded. Do you the next planes and ships are being designed with fuel efficiency or new fuels in mind?
... and oil is right in the middle of it. Iraq and Afghanistan have been no walk in the park, and both will demand serious attention and consume substantial DOD resources for years. But if DNI is correct, things may only get busier for DOD in the coming two decades:I think he's being overly conservative using the term "the perception." In the 20th century we saw oil play a strategic role in economic and military success. In the 21st century there are already clear sigals that oil and gas price and availability are key leverage points for Russia and OPEC. The pressure will come not just from the supply side, but from countries jockeying for what they see as their rightful part of the supply. As we move further into this century, McConnell sees that:Territorial expansion and military rivalries are not likely, but cannot be ruled out, and the perception that oil is scarce could trigger conflicts between states.
By 2025, China is likely to have the world's second largest economy and to have emerged as a major military power, the largest importer of natural resources and the largest contributor to world pollution.It's all about energy security: the more we can move DOD and the rest of the economy off the oil standard, the less vulnerabile the US will be to the turmoil McConnell and many others see coming. Those working the problem today know it's a tough, tough problem. They need all the help we can give them.
I learned one thing doing source selections at Hanscom AFB in the 1980's in an environment where every award was protested: don't change the rules mid-course. A recent article from Aerospace Daily & Defense Report comments on the position of Pentagon acquisition chief John Young on the ongoing tanker replacement saga:Lifecycle cost would be too thorny because of fluctuations in areas outside the Pentagon's control. For example, the price of oil recently dropped, dramatically reducing the lifecycle cost of both aircraft. However, fuel efficiency of the two bids were different, and given the challenge of projecting such costs in the future, Young says the simplest way of conducting a price competition is to focus solely on the up-front price associated with developing and buying the first aircraft.I wanted to make the case that this procurement, more than any other, should take into account the DOD's own new policy on including the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) in its lifecycle and logistic projections for new systems. But adding that on here mid-course would just be adding to the folly. USAF either needs to award this contract based on the criteria it published when it released the RFP, or it needs to kill this acquisition and start fresh. I'd go with the latter of course.
It's hard to separate truth from fiction on this one, but apparently: Biofuel-powered aircraft could be carrying millions of passengers around the world within three years, according to Boeing. Darrin Morgan, an environmental expert at the US jet manufacturer, said the group was expecting official approval of biofuel use in the near future. "The certification will happen much sooner than anybody thought," he said. "We are thinking that within three to five years we are going to see approval for commercial use of biofuels - and possibly sooner."
Based on a recent article culled from Miltary.com, this post falls into the brainteaser category. I don't know whether the advent and widespread adoption of UAVs is going to be a net positive or net negative from a fuel usage point of view, but I do know the answer will have a big impact on DOD planning and budgeting activities. I've looked around and can't find any published research which maps out typical fuel consumption rates of manned aircraft used to perform similar surveillance (and occasional air-to-ground) missions. You'd think someone in SAF/AQ would be working on this, and if they didn't do it on their own initiative, that somebody else at OSD would be hammering on them for this type of info. The urgent push for more drone pilots has been spurred by blunt demands from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He has criticized the Air Force's failure to move more quickly to meet war commanders' needs. And he set up a task force in April to find more innovative ways to get the aircraft to the battlefield more quickly.
A senior Air Force officer told The Associated Press that by the end of September 2011, the goal is to have 50 unmanned combat air patrols operating 24 hours a day, largely over Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently there are 30.
To generate the pilots for the increased flights, the Air Force hopes to create separate pilot pipelines for its manned and unmanned aircraft, said Col. Curt Sheldon, assistant to the director of air operations for unmanned aircraft issues.
I don't know that you could ever get (a drone) to everybody who wants one," Sheldon said. "I believe it is virtually insatiable. We are pedaling fast, we are working hard to meet that need."
You may have been encouraged to learn just how proactive the Army is being with Energy Security from this post a couple of days ago. If you want to build on that and learn in person what the Army is up to in energy, across the board, I recommend you get to the registration site pronto. It's cheap for regular folks ($150) but open to government folks by invite only.It is now the fossil fuels that have increasingly uncertain prices attached to them (and prices that are trending upward), and it is the renewables that have increasingly certain prices attached to them (and prices that are trending downward).And you can take that to the bank. Strategic take away: the more DOD can factor in reduced fuel consumption via improved fuel efficiency and fuel management practices, and the faster it can supplement and (sometimes replace) fossil fuels with renewables, the sooner this (budget) hostage situation will be over.
I wasn't there, so didn't hear the narrative that accompanied this Army Energy Security deck presented earlier in October. But Mr. Paul Bollinger, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, put together a great presentation that includes a slide that communicates very clearly with numbers. I'm not sure what period it's covering, but "Tactical Fuel Protection & Logistics" speaks pretty plainly all by itself:
Not long ago, technology broke the power of another strategic commodity. Until around the end of the nineteenth century salt had such a position because it was the only means of preserving meat. Odd as it seems today, salt mines conferred national power and wars were even fought over control of them. Today, no nation sways history because it has salt mines. Salt is still a useful commodity for a range of purposes. We import some salt, so if one defines independence as autarky we are not “salt independent”. But to most of us there is no “salt dependence” problem at all — because electricity and refrigeration decisively ended salt’s monopoly of meat preservation, and thus its strategic importance.Unfortunately, oil prices are not dropping today because newer forms of energy have replaced it, but rather because the global economy is taking two steps back. Some are celebrating, but on a DOD Round Table telecon yesterday, DDR&E's Mindy Montgomery noted it's not just high energy prices that cause problems, but also the havoc extreme price volatility plays with the DOD budgeting process. Who reading this post in Oct 2008 would care to predict the price of a barrel of oil this time next year? What if your job/military/country depended on it? The sooner folks like Ms. Montgomery, OSD and the rest of DOD help new energy technology turn oil into salt, the better off we'll be.
The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a comprehensive technical and operational risk assessment of the risks posed to mission critical installations, facilities, and activitiesof the Department of Defense by extended power outages resulting from failure of the commercial electricity supply or grid and related infrastructure.
A friend of mine from Draper Labs in Cambridge just mailed me the brochure for this. I realize this is short notice if you haven't heard of it yet, but it appears an excellent DOD Energy conference is slated for next week in Las Vegas on Oct 23-24. Perhaps you were going to be there anyway to catch up on some reading? I definitely recognize a number of participating panelists from the oft-cited DSB Energy Task Force, including: 
If you've read this blog a few times during its relatively short existence, you may have noticed I keep coming back to the Feb 2008, Defense Science Board Task Force report on Energy and the DOD. One of the two main problems the task force calls out had to do with energy security related to the enormous amount of fuel DOD needs to operate. The other has to do with how totally dependent DOD bases are on getting electricity from the grid. According to DOD and DOE senior leaders I've had a chance to talk with recently, solving both of these problems is considered absolutely critical.