Second part of Annie Snider's excellent piece on Energy Security is here. Annie continues the discussion of energy security haves and have nots. Lots more have nots than haves, but, once again, the Devil Dogs of the USMC have it about right. If the utility controls a renewable source inside the gates, guns and guards, it is NOT energy security. If the commander owns the switch, it is energy security. Class dismissed. I will have a report out soonest on the Army's Net Zero Installation Conference and the Navy/USMC (or so it seemed) Operational Energy symposium.
I also had an opportunity to sit in on a vendor meeting with the Army's Energy Initiative Task Force. TF members were well informed, insightful and helpful. If you (industry) intend to engage with the Army on large, renewable energy projects, get signed up now. Contact them here to set up a one hour session. They will brief you on the program, listen to your pitch and provide guidance on next steps. Worth the effort. I sure hope someone is doing this for energy efficiency projects!!! Dan Nolan
5 comments:
A trusted source working government sales for an innovative solar technology firm informed me that, after requesting a meeting over two months ago, the AESTF has yet to schedule a time to meet with the solar company.
Bottom line: Be prepared to wait for an unknown amount of time; however, great that the AESTF is reaching out.
If it ain't baseload energy, it ain't providing energy security.
Its great to know that AESTF are making ways to somehow amend the situation
can't read the article (not a subscriber) but would like to ask the Devil Dogs how they value energy security. I'm working with four USMC bases and they aren't allowed to include any value for energy security as part of the SIR calculation for a 1391.
HI...
I have read your article about USMC bases.really nice post and i am waiting for your next post.
Post a Comment