Dr. Geiss Provides Best Definition of Energy Security

Air Force DAS Energy's Kevin Geiss, in a recent panel discussion, made the case for improved and continued partnerships on energy with all of the DOD services.

Along the way, he took a turn at defining the most eternally-difficult-to-define term in our business:

Energy security is having the power when and where you need and in sufficient amounts to do the job and the ability to protect that and recover from any disruption. It's not just having the power but recognizing that there are risks.

If I may use the word zeitgeist here, Geiss is in tune with our current one. In cyber security circles in 2013, when we weren't talking about Snowden and NSA, we were talking about resilience, and that's the special sauce he adds that makes it, in my mind, the strongest, most succinct definition yet.

Knowing that despite best plans and intentions, things are still going to go wrong and orgs need to be ready to respond and recover. And learn.

Article HERE.  And thanks for the hundredth time to OSD's Ollie Fritz (must buy him another beer at Miracle of Science someday).

DOD Energy Follies Part 2: Middies, Zoomies, and Toilets in the Desert

Inside the Middie Dome

OK, I don't want to spend much more time on follies. Would much rather accentuate the positive. But based on feedback to the previous follies post, looks like one more is in order.

The most glaring contribution this week, pun intended, came from the Navy again, which for some reason decided to keep its stadium lights all the way on for Saturday's game vs USAFA. In the face of sequestration and the teeth of the partial government shutdown, the Air Force barely had the funds to get its folks to Annapolis.  The Navy, it seems, had money (and watts) to burn.

Conference Alert: Defense Energy Summit

You've got plenty of time for this one, but want to get it on your calendar early.  Here's the Joe Friday "just the facts, ma'am":

• Who: Headliner will be Sharon Burke,  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs
• What: a 3-day conference and expo covering operational and installation energy issues
• When: 11-13 November, 2013
• Where: Austin, TX (venue is TBD)
• Why: GovEnergy is gone. The sequester has landed. This is a good chance for like-minded leaders and doers to get together and chart a course together for 2014 and beyond.

Also until August 8th you can submit proposals for the annual Defense Energy Challenge (DETC), which matches new energy solutions for DOD with testing and procurement opportunities.

--------

Conference URL
http://www.defenseenergy.com/

Photo credit: Knowsphotos on Flickr (and yes, that's a Stevie Ray Vaughan statue in the foreground. RIP.)

Air Force Accelerates Energy Culture Change for Airmen

USAF's just-released energy culture plan is drawing some praise from folks in the right places. Here's what Jerry Dion of DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division has to say:

I am particularly impressed with their segmentation of the target audiences by AF job clusters and tailoring of messages/actions. That they have avoided the usual defaults of asking individuals to turn off lights and computers when not in use, and have really looked at the full scope of the AF enterprise in terms of people and what they do individually and as work groups is evidence of a very serious approach. The plan includes reaching out to the other services to share what they have done - more of that is needed.

You can see the Air Force's new Energy Culture plan HERE. 

I also note the prominence of metrics in this doc. Granted, much of it is fuzzy, but the impulse to measure is clearly there, and metrics can always be refined over time. On the DOD Energy Blog we promoted metrics in Operational Energy way back in 2009 in this NDU paper.

BTW, Dion is also leading the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)'s Institutional Change activities as well, and says they've reached a point where they want more visibility after developing the foundation for engaging with agencies. You can reach him thusly: jerry.dion@ee.doe.gov.

Photo credit: www.airlinebuzz.com

USA/USAF Energy Forum, Day 0.5: Leadership, Technology and Empty Barrels

The first day of the first bi-Service Energy Forum is in the books and it was an impressive first. That the Army and Air Force where able to coordinate schedules and allow hundreds of government, industry, academic and media bubbas to assemble, mingle and learn was a first. As Dr. Kevin Geiss , Air Force Deputy Assistant Sec for Energy pointed out, by holding a joint conference, they eliminated one set of air travel, hotel bills and conference fees (not to mention bar bills), allowing us all to stretch our budgets, reduce our travel related GHG footprint and juxtapose Service agendas. The downside was an agenda so packed with simultaneous breakout sessions that it became almost impossible to choose where to be. That being said, themes began to emerge quickly.

After opening remarks by respective Assistant Secs for installations, energy, environment, logistics and what have you , the first plenary session kicked off with the White House Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Under Secs from the Air Force and Army extolling the virtues of DOD involvement in energy security. “DOD has a history of leadership, DOD helps get technology launched, DOD can get it done” was the chorus and all were singing. The first sour note began to creep in when Mr. Westphal (Army) let slip that, oh, by the way, we don’t have any big money to do this and it is going to get tougher. You could hear the collective sucking of teeth by all the industry folks. Of course this is really not news. All of the government folks have been telling us that they cannot achieve their lofty goals without third party involvement and their industry partners. Still, many of the folks who were there hoping to dig into the supposed barrels of DOD money for energy, were shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover the barrel is bare.

This was followed by the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. Dr. Chu is the funniest, Nobel Prize winning, experimental physicist I know. At one point, when describing the Energy Innovation Hub concept, he said that while working in a previous job a couple of years ago, he had tried to get DOE interested in the concept, with little luck. “The current administration has been more receptive to my ideas.” And then he told us, that that was the joke. We laughed. Sometimes we forget that Nobel Prize winners who have done remarkable work on cooling lasers and have the vision to predict a glucose based economy (vice carbon) are just plain folks. I am seriously in awe of this man and his ideas. I would also like to have a beer with him.

Dr. Chu went on to discuss the multitude of projects in which DOE is engaged, many in support of DOD. He reminded the audience that DOE has an extensive history in working with explosives (see Manhattan Project) and is helping DOD look at IED resistant vehicles. SecEn went on to talk about what DOD could do to its 2.2 BILLION square feet of buildings to reduce their energy impact and closed by showing where other nations ranked in developing Clean Energy for Security and Prosperity as a percentage of their GDP. For a guy with such awesome technology at his finger tips, you would have thought he could have come up with a slide format that would have allowed him to show where the U.S. ranked on that scale. Unfortunately he could only list the top sixteen countries. What do China and Brazil know that we don’t?

I will break here so that Andy Bochman doesn’t yell at me for writing another book instead of a blog, but lots more to follow on the themes of DOD leadership, technical innovation and bare bank account. Tomorrow will have observations on the first day breakout panels and the most impressive presentation of the day. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t from DOD.

For all of you who came up to me and expressed your appreciation for what Andy and I have tried to do in this space, thank you. As much as I pick at DOD on energy, it is only because I am impatient. We are the nation that electrified the world in the first half of the last century and computerized it in the second half. What should we be doing in the first half of this century? Ask Dr. Chu. He will tell you we should be developing Clean Energy for Security and Prosperity. Hear, Hear. Dan Nolan

Transparency in the DOD Energy Effort: Zoomies Set the Standard

The Air Force just concluded their Renewable Energy Symposium at Ventana Canyon, Tucson, Arizona. Over the course of the two day discussion, the group discussed Corporate Energy, Congressional Energy Perspective (from Rep. Giffords’ office), industry trends and technology, technology, technology. For those of you, like me, who did not attend, the AF has made most of the information available. The same day as the conference closed. Very impressive. As a former information operator I understand the impact of timely information. One way to tamp down uncertainty is to provide knowledge as quickly and as succinctly as possible.

The Air Force, specifically, the Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency, had the website up and the information out within hours of COL David Uselman and COL Patrick Kumashiro’s closing remarks. In a market place where information has been slow to be shared (or created), the USAF has set the standard in transparency. As far as the substance, that will take a little time to review.

The next opportunity to excel will be the Air Force & Army Energy Forum 19-20 July in DC. Again, for those who are not able to attend but have questions you would like asked, please add them to the comment section and I will take them with me. All in good taste, of course! Dan Nolan

DOEPP Deal Part 3: DOD Assessment of Services Budgets for Operational Energy

We wrote earlier about the long awaited report from the Assistant Secretary of the Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (ASDOEPP) certifying the Services budgets as regards Operational Energy. As previously, mentioned all Service budgets were certified against their own strategies. The last post covered the Army's certification. The following is a synopsis of the findings by Component for the Navy, Marines and Air Force.

The Air Forces’ plan is different from the other Services in that they seek “other than Materiel solutions such as changes in Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities as the means to attain their goals. They are using techniques such as: optimizing aircraft centers of gravity, diplomatic cleared routing, European routing, and aircraft crew ratios which should provide $59M in savings in 2012. The use of simulators garners a whopping $368M. The USAF hopes to save a total of $494M over FY2012. A half a billion dollars in savings will turn heads, even in the Pentagon. What the Air Force knows is that the cheapest, cleanest, most secure electron is the one you don’t use.

As for their plan to purchase 50% of their domestic aviation fuel via alternative fuel blend at cost competitive rates, the only thing lacking is alternative fuel blend at cost competitive rates. If Solazyme or Amyris has to compete with Shell Aviation, Texaco or Chevron I am not sure of their chances. And if I am a big fuel provider, how much loss can I take before the other guy breaks? The Air Force has done a great job of certifying their aircraft, but getting alternative fuels that can compete on cost maybe a stretch. As long as all fuels are receiving subsidies, to include fossil fuels, the playing field is not level. Of course if the price of oil continues to go up, all bets are off!

The Air Force is green on Increasing Supply and Expeditionary Base Efforts. Reducing Demand gets a yellow rating due to challenges in monitoring and measuring efforts and work on improving legacy systems. Their budget for FY2012 is certified.

This annual report has the potential to provide a guiding hand for the Services in a way that is not intrusive or dictatorial. What is not clear is what would happen if a Service budget is not certified in accordance with a DoD strategy? If the forthcoming DoD Operational Energy strategy assigns responsibilities, and provides authorities (resources) then this report will serve as the accountability mechanism. If there is no penalty for failure to certify, then all they will have is hard feelings or a report that is all rosy. Neither outcome is useful. Dan Nolan

Conference Alert: Joint Operations for Energy

The Army and Air Force are joining together for this year's energy forums. Scheduled for 19-20 July at the Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, Arlington, VA, registration is now open here.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Kevin Geiss points out that this effort shows the Services coming together to share resources and knowledge. The joint session will also cut down the travel requirements for those who usually attend both forums. They will also be able to bring in speakers from DOE, the White House and Congress with out double tapping those busy folks for separate events. Draft agenda is online now. The Navy will have their forum in October.

Of course, there is no free lunch and the cost for this event is about $500 for non government attendees. If, like many small businesses, the price tag for travel, fee and hotel are outside your budget, feel free to pass your questions to us here and we will try to get answers for you and publish them in a follow up blog. For those who can attend, see you there! Dan Nolan

Mar 16 Update: DOD Moving Out on Japan Relief Operations

Mar 16: Here come the Marines! Further coverage in Journal today.

------------------------

This article from the Wall Street Journal does a good job describing our initial rapid response with strong representation from the 7th Fleet (Navy) and Kadena Air Base in Okinawa and Washington states' Lewis-McChord (Air Force) so far.

Photo credit: DVIDSHUB on Flickr.com.

p.s. While this picture was taken during happier times, the Flickr site listed here already has some great shots of our folks in action, helping out in Japan right now. Recommend you check it out.

Old Program, New Rules: Robyn Untethers ECIP

Nice piece in the Jan/Feb 2011 issue of Air Force Facilities Energy Center Newsletter (COE and NAVFAC, please send link to yours!). The only programmed money the Services have specifically for energy projects is the DOD Energy Conservation Investment Program, part of the Military Construction Budget. The Services submit a wish list for projects that DOD then racks and stacks according to their savings to investment (SIR) ratio. This has been the sole criteria. The lowest ratio on the FY 2011 list was .99 with the average being 2.77. The requirement for at least a 1 to 1 SIR meant no high risk projects need apply. Once the Congress allocates the resources, DOD draws a line and above the line gets funded and below the line tries again. But apparently, all that is changing.

According to the article, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) Dr. Dorothy Robyn is taking the bureaucratic shackles off the program. In a memo last December, Dr. Robyn said that she wants to change the program from “one of funding the Services' routine energy projects to one of leveraging their now-larger investments in ways that will produce "game-changing" improvements in energy consumption, costs and/or security”. The memo lists six examples of new candidates:

1. Dramatically change the energy consumption at an individual or joint installation, for example, by fundamentally improving the performance of the power or steam plant;
2. Implement across multiple installations a technology validated in a demonstration program sponsored by DoD (e.g., the Installation Energy Test Bed Initiative) or the Department of Energy;
3. Integrate multiple energy savings, monitoring, and renewable energy technologies to realize synergistic benefits;
4. Integrate distributed generation and storage to improve supply resiliency for critical loads;
5. Implement an energy security plan, especially at an installation where such an investment would leverage a partnership with the Department of Energy; and,
6. Maximize performance towards meeting the energy conservation and renewable energy goals of the Department's Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan.

The memo recognizes that the opportunities afforded by Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utilities Energy Services Contracts should not be the focus of ECIP funds. Nor should O&M projects be submitted for ECIP. The ECIP budget for FY2011 was $120 million, or enough for a single 24 megawatt solar plant. Unfortunately, those funds were distributed across 22 Army, 10 Navy/USMC, 19 USAF, 4 DeCA, 2 DIA, 3 DLA, 4 TMA and 1 OSD projects. Average expenditure: $1.8 million. Let’s hope FY2012 puts a little more money in commanders’ hands for the energy security projects they need to meet the mandates set. $250M seems reasonable.

Hats off to the USAF and AFCESA for an informative and interesting newsletter. Worth reading the whole think.

Air Force's Latest Thinking on Energy

Recent DOD Energy Blog posts have shown that the Army is working to bring energy considerations to the forefront of its thinking in operations and installations. The Navy and Marines too, are trying to find ways to run much tighter ships where fuel demand is concerned. But as the tighter ship metaphor probably doesn't work for AF types, here's a new term that's just landed from AFRL: "energy optimized aircraft" (thanks to Steve Iden via Ollie). The goals of the EOA program are to bring more efficient systems to planes and in-so-doing, reduce both fuel requirements and heat signatures in future systems. Nice!

Meanwhile, the Air Force seems to be making progress in the present as well, with some good sounds coming from new Undersecretary Conaton, and leaders past and present, at USTRANSCOM. All of these statements come from "Air Force: to save Fuel, we must change how we Fly" in the July edition of National Defense.

First, Erin C. Conaton, Undersecretary of the Air Force:

We realize it’s ambitious, but it’s incredibly important to set specific goals for reducing demand.

Air Force General Duncan J. McNabb, CC USTRANSCOM points to comparative cost as a major driver for the process-change actions described in the article:

It costs 10 times as much to move stuff by air as it does by surface. Transportation Command has spent nearly $80 million on computerized systems that help plan transportation routes more efficiently. What you have to do is marry the technology with the concept of operations.

And here's an eye opener for you, from McNabb's predecessor, retired Air Force General John Handy:

Moving cargo by sea takes longer but is far less expensive. A single “roll-on roll-off” military cargo ship can carry 300 C-17 aircraft’s sorties worth of equipment.

Numerically speaking, Duncan's 10 to 1 is a major attention getter. But Handy's 300 to 1 is a mind blower. Often, the equations and metrics used to illustrate DOD's energy demand challenges are complex and hard to translate for regular folks. In these statements at least, Conaton, McNabb and Handy make it clear to everyone why the Air Force has fuel on its mind.

Hat tip to USAFA classmate, now USAF BG Ian Dickinson for forwarding this article.

Photo Credit: David Brewster@ Flickr.com

Improved Posture: Services Increasingly Speaking with One Voice on Energy Priorities

Trickle up has become trickle down as calls for more attention to energy issues from low-to-mid ranking voices in the operational wilderness are now Service "posture statements" issued by the most senior of senior leaders.

The FY 11 Service Secretary posture statements are issued after the budget is presented to Congress by the President. Each is a 25-30 page statement of “needs” or “hot button” priority items that the Service Secretaries want Congress to know about the DOD budget.

What follows are the energy excerpts from each service's posture statement. While the Air Force has had energy language for a couple of years, this appear to be the first time all the services had something to say on energy. You'll note some interesting parallels and alignment, among them.

Army

Energy security is a key component of Army installations, weapons systems, and operations. The Army has developed a comprehensive energy security strategy, and is acting now to implement initiatives to make us less dependent on foreign sources of fuel and better stewards of our nation’s energy resources. In support of these goals, we fielded the largest hybrid vehicle fleet within the Department of Defense. Energy will continue to be a key consideration in all Army activities in order to reduce demand, increase efficiency, seek alternative sources, and create a culture of energy accountability, while sustaining or enhancing operational capabilities.

Navy

In order to meet our readiness challenges, the Department is working to develop greater energy independence and conservation ashore and afloat. Energy costs siphon resources away from vital areas. The potential for disruption and the possible vulnerability of energy supplies could threaten our ability to perform on the battlefield. The Department of the Navy has made good progress in increasing energy efficiency, reducing energy consumption, and capitalizing on renewable energy sources. We are the Department of Defense lead for solar, geothermal, and ocean energy, and today, 17% of our total energy requirements are provided through alternative or renewable sources. The Navy and Marine Corps can, and should, do more. As we continue to increase conservation and develop alternative energy options, the Department of the Navy can mitigate the impact of energy volatility, use energy as a strategic resource for operational advantage, and become a leader in environmental stewardship.

Air Force

As part of our institutional effort to consider energy management in all that we do, the Air Force requests $250 million for energy and water conservation projects in FY11. This investment will ensure we meet the President’s efficiency goals by 2015. In FY10, the Air Force finalized an energy plan that directs the development and use of reliable alternative energy resources, and reduces the life-cycle costs of acquisition programs. Additionally, the plan recognizes that aviation operations account for over 80 percent of the energy used by the Air Force each year, and directs Airmen and mission planners to continue managing aviation fuel as an increasingly scarce resource.

It's great to see the emerging awareness that smarter energy strategies can be a mission enhancing advantage:

• Army - "... create a culture of energy accountability, while sustaining or enhancing operational capabilities."
• Navy - "... use energy as a strategic resource for operational advantage."

Big thanks to Mike Aimone for making this post possible.

Air Force Fusing Operational and Facilities Energy Strategies in 2010

Other than pondering the potential future energy demand impact of a having a squillion UAVs in the air 24/7, you may have noticed the Air Force hasn't had much of a presence on this blog for a while. Well, seems like they've been hunkered down getting their ducks lined up cause now all of a sudden, they've leapt to a DOD-leading position on energy.

When you really think about it, we wouldn't have any CONUS bases if "facilities" were not essential for accomplishing "the mission". Energy actions by DOD orgs not in service of the mission are not sustainable, and we've been picking up multiple signals lately that USAF senior leadership sees integrated, enterprise-wide energy management as integral to the Air Force mission, not just feel-good window dressing.

Setting the Stage: DASD Robyn's Testimony on Energy Role in Mission Assurance
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations & Environment, Dorothy Robyn, had this to say to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) in February of this year. First, acknowledging the "brittle grid" problem facing bases:

Installation energy management is key to mission assurance. According to the Defense Science Board, DOD’s reliance on a fragile commercial grid to deliver electricity to its installations places the continuity of critical missions at serious and growing risk. Most installations lack the ability to manage their demand for and supply of electrical power and are thus vulnerable to intermittent and/or prolonged power disruption due to natural disasters, cyberattacks and sheer overload of the grid.

... and this calling for moving from a compliance-driven slow march to an empowered mindset of continual improvement targeting real mission assurance actions:

Over the last five years, the Department has steadily reduced energy consumption per square foot at our permanent installations, largely in response to statutory and regulatory goals. While continuing that very positive trend, it is time for us to adapt our approach to installation energy management from one that is primarily focused on compliance to one that is focused on long-term ... mission assurance.

Long term mission assurance - you've got to love that. The Air Force now seems to be moving in that direction.

2010 AF Posture Statement

Here are the most senior seniors in the Department saying what they're going to do. See page 19 of this doc: it doesn't get any more simple or sweeping than this:

The Air Force as an institution will make an "institutional effort to consider energy management in all that we do"].

Back to the mission point, though. And it's that "all we do" is about the mission and the mission only.

2011 USAF Budget

It's always been a reliable axiom that if you want to know what's really going on, follow the money. To that end, you can see energy policy achieving much more prominence in the Air Force's budget documents for the coming year (see pages 67-68). I note this statement in particular:

Energy use in the battlespace drives monetary costs and operational risks; therefore, it is essential to ensure it is appropriately considered from a systems and concept of operations viewpoint.

You'll see it also comes right out and says the AF is making energy-related KPPs and FBCF factors central to how it does business. Saying it is one thing; implementing it is another, but there's no doubt this is encouraging.

The USAF Energy Forum III
All of this goodness will be showcased in USAF's next big energy event, and I've got just two things to say about this forum, coming up fast on May 27 and 28 in DC. First, its strategy of focusing on Major Command (MAJCOM) energy efforts means that while we're still in the early days, energy management is truly being "operationalized". That says a lot of about the effectiveness of the AF's culture change strategy.

Second, as the brochure says, the theme is "Energy as an Operations Enabler." But then note in the list of topics to be covered there is no distinction between operational and non-operational. What's implied, then, is that if it's not about the mission, then it's not something the AF is working on. This may be a subtle point, but to me it speaks volumes about the maturation of USAF's energy policy development. Click here for more info on the Forum including how to register.

Photo Credit: Lance Cheung on Flickr

Another Energy Implications Update from the Air Force UAV Files

I don't have numbers that describe drone fuel demand, but we can assume that being smaller, lighter and slower, they get many more MPG than F-15s, F-16s and A/F-18s. However, you also want to factor in the fact that a UAV typical sortie can be five times as long as a fighter sortie, so that may serve to balance things out a bit.

You'll have to sort through some of the variables in your head to imagine future fuel demand implications ... things like:

• how many concurrent, continuous global UAV sorties (40 is the number today)
• how big and heavy are some UAVs going to become
• at what speeds and altitudes will they fly
• will the DOD UAV inventory be counted in the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands ... or even higher
• will jet fuel remain the primary fuel source
• will new airframe efficiencies (like those described briefly in the previous post) bring a significant reduction in fuel demand per vehicle

This recent article in the Washington Post paints the UAV's future with a bit more resolution, even as it joins the chorus questioning the viability of the Air Force as an independent service. In this excerpt, the author is referencing some of the different UAV use cases and deployment configurations developed by Colonel Eric Mathewson, principal author of last years's "USAF Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan, 2009-2047":

The plan that Mathewson produced for the Air Force envisions unmanned planes not only providing surveillance and striking targets, but also hauling cargo around the world. Instead of flying just one plane, a single pilot would probably control as many as four or five planes simultaneously. "If I am doing a surveillance mission where the plane is literally just staring at the ground or at a road for eight or ten hours, I don't need a pilot actively controlling the plane," he said. "So maybe I have a squadron of 40 aircraft but I only have four or five people monitoring them." The Air Force and Mathewson have already demonstrated in training that one pilot can fly as many as four Predators.

There are a lot of organizational culture issues in the Post article, and how they play out may be as important in predicting the future as are the technology factors. With so many variables, it's still too early for me to imagine the energy demand consequences. But it's necessary (and a little fun) to think about it now.

Photo Credit: Zach Tumin on Flickr

Year in Review: Top 10 DOD Energy Events of 2009

Not sure if you'll agree, but from my vantage point, this was the first year that merits a DOD Energy top ten. Folks who've been at this enterprise a long time, like Tom Morehouse and Chris DiPetto at OSD (and a small handful of others in the Services), have been doing energy grunt work without a heck of a lot of support or credit (that's my take, not theirs). Over the past decade there have been isolated wins and signs of improvement, but nothing sustained.

But this year something changed, and I have to give credit to the increasing strength of the convoy connection. It's finally shown everyone that being smart and proactive on energy issues isn't the domain of Birkenstock wearing, granola eating, tree hugging peace-nicks. The clear (and easy to understand and communicate) link between fuel convoys and 1) causalities, 2) costs, and 3) mission degradation.

I'm sure I'm leaving a lot out (that's a good thing). But without further adieu, here's the list for the year, in no particular order:

1. Gigantic Army solar installation off the ground at Fort Irwin in California's Mojave Desert to advance conversation beyond Nellis. Score - Fort Irwin: 500+ Megawatts, Nellis AFB: 14 Megawatts
2. Boeing's high tech, super efficient 787 Dreamliner finally flew. Basis for future tanker/transport? 
3. Convoy lessons brought the concept of proactive energy planning fully out of its Birkenstock phase ... for everyone.
4. Energy audits in Afghanistan commence with Marines. It's called MEAT, for Marine Energy Assessment Team, see here and here. 
5. Like DARPA to advance US space tech post Sputnik, ARPA-E's mission is to turbocharge US competitiveness in energy tech (ET).
6. 3 of the 4 Services hold major confs exclsively on energy issues. The Navy version in particular generated a huge amount of great info.
7. The first Military Operational Research Society (MORS) workshop on power and energy brought analysts together to advance thinking on energy security and energy metrics in requirements and logistics planning process. We're expecting some out-brief artifacts soon.
8. Energy war games all over the place, including NDU and GovEnergy and more.
9. Candidate to fill the long-open Director for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (DOEPP) position finally nominated.
10. Self promotion alert: my paper on operational energy metrics got published by NDU/JFQ.

I believe we've got the Mo now, and 2010 promises to build on 2009 with international conferences on military energy with the UK's MOD and others, more energy audits and tactical renewables deployments in theater, and a DOEPP approved and up and running, connecting DOD energy islands by providing leadership and strategy from the center. I'm looking forward to seeing this play out, and will cover it all here ... after a short break. Happy Holidays to all !!!

Air Force Academy Charts a Clean Tech Energy Future

I attended the Air Force's premier institution of higher learning in 1980's and remember the modernist buildings and breathtaking landscape (breathtaking in part, due to the scarcity of O2 at 7,500 feet above sea level). In between countless push ups and keeping my chin in, I remember wondering in the long winter hours how much they spend to they heat the place given all that glass.

Well, as this energy plan summarizes, senior leaders and facilities managers at USAFA have been thinking about how to turn some of their current energy liabilities into advantages by making the most of MILCON energy efficiency-related construction programs, as well as the decent solar, wind and hydro characteristics of the sprawling, front range Colorado Springs campus.

Here's how they say it:

The Air Force Academy is positioned to lead the charge in energy conservation, conversion away from fossil fuels, and research into new, innovative renewable energy technologies. We have 18,500 acres of natural resources including forests, water, solar, wind, geothermal, kinetics and biomass. Our team includes committed leadership, talented research scientists and engineers, dedicated energy management professionals and a base populace that understands the importance of energy independence.

This plan delves into the Air Force Academy’s goal to be a “Net-Zero” electricity installation and to reduce our carbon footprint from facility and transportation sources. Our broad objectives are challenging, yet achievable:

• Become a “Net-Zero” electricity installation by the end of calendar year 2015
• Meet all federal energy reduction mandates
• Play a leading role in renewable energy research
• Embody each cadet with an understanding that energy must be a consideration in all we do

Some great projects with tons of potential for cadet learning and culture change. All of which should impact the AF more broadly as the grads move out into leadership positions in the "Real Air Force". Here's the full plan for your review ... it's pretty ambitious ... looking forward to watching them pull this off.

DOD Solar Facilities Build Out Beginning in Sunny Places

Its solar wall notwithstanding, Alaska's Elmendorf AFB going to have to wait for large scale solar thermal or photovoltaics. Going well beyond current LEED sustainability standards, the Navy is pushing the envelope on net zero buildings and communities in Hawaii. Follow this DOE link to read about a significant DOD housing implementation called Forest City in Honolulu.

As for the Air Force, not one to rest on its 14 MW Nevada/Nellis AFB laurels, up next is 6 more MWs in Arizona at Davis-Monthan AFB.

Meanwhile, as you should know by now, the Army is making progress on its whopper (500 MW - 1 GW) of a solar deployment in the Mojave desert at Fort Irwin in CA.

Photo Credit: DOE EERE

Deloitte Weighs in on Current DOD Energy Situation

Ollie F, and now Karen A have made it plain: this Deloitte energy security report needs its 15 minutes of DOD Energy Blog fame and it needs it now.

I don't want to steal its thunder, but to help you better prioritize your time, here are some of its main focal points:

• Rising Energy Use in Warfare
• Global Oil Supply & Demand
• DOD Energy Consumption
• Potential Threats to Global Oil Infra
• Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) "in Blood and Money"
• Opportunities for Change: Fuel Optimization, Mobility Platform Fuel Optimization, Alternative Fuels & Power Generation

It's all good, and the FBCF part is particularly compelling. Recommend you give it a look.

Afghanistan Convoy Photo Credit: Deloitte

Fuel Efficient Future Fighters

As is increasingly the case, thanks to Ollie keeping his finger on the quickening pulse of energy innovation in DOD. Sometimes having separate services field overlapping or redundant capabilities is an organizational efficiency buzz kill. Other times, sibling rivalry drives them further/faster than they might otherwise go.

Here are recent announcements from the Navy on its ambitious F/A-18 Green Hornet biofuel fighter program and the Air Force looking at bringing ADVENT efficient jet engine technology to the F-35. Maybe they Army has something up its sleeve with helo's?

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Future Aircraft Technology: Reviewed, Considered, Critiqued

Thanks to Ollie for pointing this one out. Personally, I'm less concerned about the aviation industry's ability to comply with emissions targets, and more interested in how evolving policy and technology will impact how the Air Force does its job. We've talked about blended wing body and other future concepts here before. This recent article in MIT's Technology Review reminds us of the incremental nature (and limitations) of many of the technologies now on the table.

With these limitations in mind, by 2020, new technologies could make aircraft about 20 percent to 35 percent more efficient, on average, than planes today. Fuselage coatings and adjustable wings, among other things, could reduce drag. Engines that run hotter and at higher pressures would use less fuel, as would engines that use gears to optimize the speeds of different parts of a turbine, and open-rotor designs that resemble and have some of the efficiency advantages of turboprops.

And they're not even beginning to address potentially massive new fuel burdens from ubiquitous and perpetual UAV deployments. We better hope there's a breakthrough in either Star Trek transporter technology or Harry Potter flue powder, because evolving-but-traditional jet planes simply aren't keeping up with the future.

Image: Gizmodo