DOD Energy Tech Advance: NRL's Seawater-to-Fuel Alchemy

Sorry, it's been a while, but this news echoed something a Navy friend in Idaho told me earlier this week and I was compelled to post. It's not about transmutation of lead into gold, it's not water into wine, rather it's something far more important to US and DOD operational energy assurance: a process to turn seawater into fuel for ships and aerial vehicles.

Here's a blurb from DOD's science blog (bet you didn't know DOD had a science blog):

The potential payoff, according to the Navy, is the ability to produce fuel stock at sea or in remote locations. Aside from being convenient – utilizing resources around you for an immediate need is a benefit that speaks for itself – this will reduce the logistics tail on fuel delivery with no environmental burden. This also increases the Navy’s energy security and independence.

Vice Admiral Phil Cullom, no stranger to the DOD Energy Blog comments on what drives research like this:

We need to reinvent how we create energy, how we value energy and how we consume energy.

Seems to me the NRL researchers are turning Cullom's aspirational words into a near-term reality.  Great stuff. You can read the full post, including videos, HERE.

Image credit: "The Alchemist" by David Teniers the Younger on Wikipaintings.org

USN: "Save Energy Unless You Can't"

Hat tip to CAPT Jim Goudreau, Dir Navy Energy Coordination Office, for the heads-up on this brief article and apologies for the latency in getting it posted.

The Navy continues to be active in tuning its policies to more fully account for the operational constraints of fuel dependency and the wins that can be derived from more energy efficient systems and energy conserving behaviors.

From the official "Navy Live" blog:

The key ... is that energy-saving practices must evolve from “Save energy when you can” to “Save energy unless you can’t.” Institutionalizing and codifying energy savings throughout the fleet will enable us to continue meeting our national defense mission and fulfilling combatant commander requirements, while conserving vital energy resources and conserving scarce defense dollars that the Navy can apply to other priorities, such as maintenance and modernization.

Short, sweet, and comprehensively applicable to all manner of lifecycle and strategy considerations. You can read the whole post HERE.

The Energy Future on which so much Depends for DOD ... and Everyone Else

Click for larger version

This chart, created by energy futurist Dr. Eric Martinot depicts predictions of the global rate of renewables deployment with the different slopes representing faster and slower rates of adoption.

I had the good fortune of catching Eric's presentation last week at MIT and was thinking how DOD energy planners would benefit from exposure to his work.

So much depends on how this plays out, you know?  National security, global economics, US economics, climate change / severe weather factors, DOD missions and DOD energy assurance. Not a list to be sneezed at.

2011 Energy Security Book List

There are two new books out in the last few months I want you to know about. Whether you have time to read them, even if I am successful in getting you worked up about them, well, that's another story. So again, it's only two books, which is probably one or two more than you'll be able to get to given your current workload. But here's why you should give them a shot.

The first one is by former Austin Energy CIO Andres Carvallo, called The Advanced Smart Grid: Edge Power Driving Sustainability. Co-authored with frequent technology writer John Cooper, this book is relatively short at ~200 well illustrated pages, and is a pleasure to read. I'm going to re-use some of the laudatory words I recently posted in an Amazon review.

Before they invite you to travel with them into the future, Carvallo and Cooper do a solid job of orienting the reader with concise summaries of where the grid came from, how it's evolved over time, and as accurately as possible, how it's doing in its current state. For the many immigrants who've recently moved to energy from other sectors (like me), this is a great grounding.

The authors then look past the current climate of activity, much of it initially fueled with government grants, to a phase where business drivers alone dictate what gets deployed next. Ultimately, they begin to unveil for us a blurry but emerging vision of "the advanced Smart Grid", that's predicated on pervasive IP networking, tons and tons of data, microgrids, EVs, virtual power plants, new business models and more. For me, it was well worth the time, and depending on your background and/or day job, it might be for you too.

Book number two is from one of the (if not, THE) true giants of global energy thinking over the past decades, Daniel Yergin. Best known (to me, anyway) for his biblical telling of the history and future of the oil industry in The Prize, his new book, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World, expands in scope to consider all energy sources. Recently reviewed in the NYT, this excerpt seems apropos:

When it comes to assessing the world’s energy future Mr. Yergin is a Churchillian. He argues that we should consider all possible energy sources, the way Winston Churchill considered oil when he spoke to the British Parliament  in 1913. “On no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent,” Churchill said. “Safety and security in oil lie in variety and variety alone.”

... and one more thing, for which the a smarter grid is the essential precursor:

One of Mr. Yergin’s closing arguments focuses on the importance of thinking seriously about one energy source that “has the potential to have the biggest impact of all.” That source is efficiency. It’s a simple idea, he points out, but one that is oddly “the hardest to wrap one’s mind around.” More efficient buildings, cars, airplanes, computers and other products have the potential to change our world.

Sounds great, right? Well, the bad news for you travelers is that, from a weight perspective, is that it tops 800 pages, though if you get the ebook version it's as light as can be. Now reading it, or the majority of it, that's another story. If it's too much for you to consider, maybe you can wait and hope for a movie version. But I wouldn't count on it.

Happy reading!

Photo credit: Miamism on Flickr.com
(Cross-posted from the Smart Grid Security Blog)

R. James Woolsey on Fads and Charlatans

I recently took exception to an opinion in the WSJ, expressed by a former admiral regarding DOD's clean energy efforts. I have been joined in this by two gentlemen with much more impressive credentials, credibility and understanding of the topic than I. Amory Lovins posted his response on the WSJ and now former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, R. James Woolsey has added his comments to our humble blog. I highly recommend you read his comments, posted in full below.

I have worked on both energy and national security issues for a number of years. "Of Mustard Fuel and Marines" by R.Adm. Robert James (ret.) in the Wall Street Journal of August 2 is both tendentious and inaccurate to an extraordinary degree. Our fighting men and women and Rocky Mountain Institute Chairman Amory Lovins, who often advises them on energy issues (and has posted a detailed reply under James’s oped), should be proud that a former oil company executive (VP of Mobil, economist at Continental Oil) should have to descend to such distortions in order to attack their efforts to move our military forces as quickly as possible away from dangerous oil dependence. 

What motivates the military to work hard at this? "Fads" says James and "political correctness". He misrepresents Lovins as advocating the use of land appropriate for food crops to produce alternative fuels when in fact for decades the scientist has rather been a leading advocate of the use of feedstocks such as agricultural waste, prairie grass, and trash. James also ignores the innovative efforts by the Navy, his own military service, to use algae that require no land (just underground steel tanks) to make aviation fuel out of cheap sugar, as well as other types of algae that use very small amounts of land. 

James ridicules "inventing cars that get 125 mpg". But my family already drives two that come near that: a plug-in Prius and a Chevy Volt. He also mocks the Marines, because of land-use issues, for experimenting with a truck-based plant that turns poppies into biofuels. But poppies are not known for their nutrition.

His strangest strawman is a mythical Marine unit commander, fanatically green, whom James feels he must caution not to endanger his unit by erecting a three-story windmill that discloses its position to the enemy. I have known a number of Marines over the years. This argument of James's is like the 13th chime of a clock – it is not only bizarre in and of itself, it calls into question everything that issues from the same source.

R. James Woolsey is Chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a venture partner with Lux Capital, and a former Under Secretary of the Navy and Director of Central Intelligence.

I see your Sec 526 and raise you Sec 844: House Tinkers with DOD Energy

In the middle of the last decade, the USAF toyed with the idea of making fuel. Specifically, they considered building a plant to convert coal to liquid fuel which would be mixed 50/50 with JP8. The plant was planned for Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. In early 2009 the plan was scrubbed because an “Air Force review cited possible conflicts with the wing's mission, including degradation of security in the vicinity of weapons storage area; interference with existing missile transportation operations; and issues with explosive safety arcs and operational flight safety.”. What really killed the program was Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This section of the act requires any fuel used by the federal government to be no more carbon-intensive in processing than gas and oil. Because the methods used to convert natural gas and coal to fuel are much more carbon intensive than current conventional refining methods, those fuels got the ax. But, not so fast.

The current National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, under consideration by Congress (H.R. 1540) contains Section 844 which exempts the U.S. Military from Section 526 of EISA 2007. This exemption is to encourage the inclusion of carbon intense synthetic fuels in the Military’s mix of fuel alternatives. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review determined that climate change is an “accelerant of instability.” It concluded that the military must “develop enterprise-wide climate change and energy strategies.” Congress would now be giving the Military permission to act contrary to its own best interest. Hopefully, having the ability to do a dumb thing and actually doing it are separate events. This effort has been seen as an attempt to slow the Military March to Green.

LTG(R) Norm Seips, USAF has come up on the net regarding this in a recent post. General Seips, former commander of the 12th Air Force can speak authoritatively on fuel use. As a command pilot with over 4,500 hours with a jet strapped to his back, he is a voice to which one should listen. His comments:

Just as the DOD's recent Quadrennial Defense Review predicted, the military's expansion into alternative fuels is stimulating interest and investment from the private sector. Young companies with promising technologies are looking to the military as a possible first customer. Their products could be in high demand on the global market as well, and could make a big difference in our trade balance.

This is a great opportunity for the military and the government to serve as a catalyst for a new age of innovation that could do wonders for reviving our economy, improving our national security and reducing global warming.

On the other hand, repealing Section 526 will sidetrack the process already underway at the Pentagon and simultaneously shatter any semblance of certainty in the commercial marketplace. Repeal would discourage innovation and force the military in to a deepening dependence on dirty fossil fuels with a giant price tag in lives and treasure.

Many are calling for the Military to be the catalyst for the growth of a “green economy”. The Military is engaged in this arena because it makes good sense from a security, economic and environmental perspective. The Military buys fuel; it does not make it. It should buy fuel that serves it well. That means locally procured at market prices. If that fuel decreases security, is too expense or has a negative environmental impact it should be off the menu. I agree with LTG Seips. Dan Nolan

Is it Time for DOD to Believe in Biofuels?

Even though the DSB ETF 2008 report (my energy bible) calls fuel availability issues DOD's #1 energy security issue, I've never been able to muster much enthusiasm for alternative fuels. Doesn't seem to matter whether they're synthetic fuels derived from coal or nat gas, or bio fuels born of algae, switch grass, sugar cane or bacon. To date the trade-offs they've required in terms of manufacturing costs, use limitations or low production scale have made them less than interesting. Still, as with other early stage technologies, they're worth keeping an eye on because a big-enough breakthrough could change the game.

Here's Boeing's Billy Glover on how perceptions and expectations have changed each year:

Five years ago, drop-in biofuel for aviation was impossible. Four years ago it was unlikely. Three years ago we thought 'maybe there's something here', but now we've got through most of the technical barriers. We are really ahead of where anybody could have predicted.

Military and now commercial aircraft engines are being certified to run on things other than pure jet fuel, and the nascent industry seems set to ... uh ... well ... take off.

Here's a start up example, Accelergy, that's working with DOD right now and has a process that it claims can beat the energy density of petroleum (can anything do that?). According to CEO Tom Vail:

Our target is the section 526 regulations, which require 80 percent of the emissions, that is 20 percent below petroleum. Our initial work is with the Air Force. We are one of only a few that can produce 100 percent synthetic fuels that can reach that 80 percent threshold– and have a 30 percent better energy density than petroleum derived fuels.

Will this stuff mature to the point where it really does provide a significant portion of the Air Force's or Army's or Navy's fuel supply? Despite all the promise, and promises, it's still too early to tell.  But it does feel like we're past the first and second hype cycles and perhaps now drawing closer to something real. Click here and here for more info.

Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson at Flickr.com

Important (and Promising) Defense Energy Leadership Announcement

DLA's loss is the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC's) gain, or perhaps it's no loss at all. One look at RADM Kurt Kunkel's resume and it's clear he's massively qualified to do this job, steeped as he is in logistics and operational energy matters. Challenges of the day include supporting fuel procurement and delivery to one of the most logistically remote parts of the planet: Afghanistan, as well as dealing with fuels price volatility and a DOD increasingly intent on reducing its dependence on fossil sources.

For those unfamiliar with DESC, it handles all fuels matters for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). And though it's headcount is modest, it's footprint is ginormous. As GlobalSecurity.org puts it:

The Center purchases more light refined petroleum product than any other single organization or company in the world. With a $3.5 billion annual budget, DESC procures nearly 110 million barrels of petroleum products each year. That’s enough fuel for 1,000 cars to drive around the world 4,620 times—or 115.5 trillion miles. products. The Center manages jet fuels, aviation gasoline, automotive gasoline, heating oils, power generation, naval propulsion fuels, lubricants, natural gas and coal. The key military fuels procured are: JP-5, a kerosene-based jet fuel primarily used for Navy carrier-based aircraft; JP-8, a kerosene-based fuel similar to Jet A-1, a commercial jet fuel; and F-76, a U.S. naval diesel similar to marine gas oil.

Excerpted press release here:

"Kunkel named next energy support center commander", by Dianne Ryder, 1/4/2010

Defense Logistics Agency Chief of Staff Navy Rear Adm. Kurt Kunkel hasbeen named the next commander of the Defense Energy Support Center. In his role as DESC commander, Kunkel will be responsible for providing the Department of Defense and other government agencies with comprehensive energy solutions and ensuring continuous worldwide energy support to America's warfighters. Prior to becoming DLA's chief of staff, Kunkel served as the deputy director for Operational Logistics, director of Logistics (J4), on the Joint Staff.

Photo Credit: Defense Logistics Agency

Nextgen Generators Needed ... Stat !!!

Another great article from NDIA's National Defense Magazine, which seems to have more and better energy coverage than ever before. This one describes the enormous challenge of delivering tons of fuel overland to the remote, mountainous regions of Afghanistan, and the scarcity of generators to consume it, and the great gains we'd make if only we could field some more tough, efficient generators. Nat Defense's Sandra Irwin:

The gargantuan demand for generators is straining the military’s already overburdened logistics support system, said officials. Transporting fuel on dangerous mine-infested roads also creates additional hazards for troops and contractors.

Soldiers in the field are suffering from senior DOD leadership's lack of operational energy vision and strategy. According to the GAO:

The Defense Department “still lacks an effective approach to fuel demand at forward-deployed locations.” The U.S. military currently operates several hundred bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008, the Defense Department supplied more than 68 million gallons of fuel each month on average to support those installations. “Fuel demands for these operations is higher than for any war in history."

Calling anyone in industry or academia who could help ... even a little. More energy efficient generators, while not as glamorous a technology as say, solar, wind or fuel cells, would have immediate, life saving consequences for our troops in Afghanistan.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Saying it Without Saying it: New Navy Energy Strategy Forming

In this article with excerpts from a December meeting of Naval Engineers, Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles, Naval Sea Systems Command's Deputy CC for Ship Design, Integration and Engineering, perfectly describes the need to use the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) and an Energy Efficiency Key Performance Parameter (KPP) without actually using either term.

Isn't this a great description for platform design processes pre Energy Efficiency KPP: 

Eccles cited the Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as a hypothetical example of how fuel economy could be weighed against capability in the development process. The fleet of 55 LCSs the Navy plans "will drink a lot more fuel per ton" than other surface ships, Eccles said. "If you want something that's going to do 45 or more knots ... that comes at some fuel costs ....  I ask myself, for the combat capability, is that a price we ought to be paying?"

Add to that this direct (yet indirect) way of defining the FBCF:

[Eccles said] that the cost of that fuel consumption should not just be considered as just the fuel itself, but also the cost of getting [it] to the fleet.

Too bad that the LCS' high level of fuel consumption is already baked in. But very glad to hear these sentiments described so bluntly. Now all the Navy has to do is take the last few steps, as required by CJCSI 3170.01 and DoDI 5000.02, and strongly recommended by two DSB Energy Task Forces, is to use the right words. Someday, with luck, we'll all be speaking the same language and making major energy security strides in the US Navy and across the DOD.

Photo: USN

Essential Knowledge: Jet Fuel and other Hydrocarbons

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:

• C1 (one carbon atom fuel - methane)
  
• C2 (two carbon atom fuel - ethane) 
  
• C3 (three carbon atom fuel - propane)
  

Banging more carbon atoms into these molecules gets you more energetic fuels:

• C7-C10 (gasoline) 
  
• C10-C16 (jet fuel/JP8)

And when the carbon combines with air during combustion, you get a C02 molecule for every carbon atom ... hence the problem with fossil fuel emissions ... and the potential of Carbon Sciences' approach.

Photo of F-22 inflight refueling: DOE EERE

Air Force Renewables Dream: Carbon Dioxide to Jet Fuel

As an F-15 hurtles skyward, hydrocarbon jet fuel converts to energy, heat and CO2 at a rate of dozens of gallons of JP8 per minute. Fuel moves our aircraft, ground vehicles and most of our ships, but often comes from less-than-reliable places at more than affordable prices, and creates CO2 when it's combusted. One company in Santa Barbara, CA is developing a means to reverse that process by combining water and CO2 to get fuel.

Carbon Sciences' first prototype is set to run early in early 2009. Some will argue that the end result of this process is CO2 when the jet flies again so that's more greenhouse gas production. But on the other hand, if this works as planned, and the fuel is made from CO2, which everyone is trying to figure out to limit or sequester from a climate change perspective, then we've got a CO2 loop with net zero production.

As this blog concerns itself with energy security, economics and climate issues in that order, this is a potential huge win. Carbon Sciences is just getting started, but their claims that this process will scale could make them a very interesting player in the Air Force's next generation fuels efforts.

UAVs' Unknown (But Potentially Enormous) Impact on DOD Energy Demand

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. 

And guess what that means? We're going to make more of these aircraft, train more ground-pilots, and keep UAVs in the air more often. I need to find out how much fuel these planes use per hour and how long a typical mission is. And how many are in the air at any one time. And how many will be in the air in a year. And will sensor and comm (if not weapon) systems be miniaturized enough for them to be carried on lightweight versions powered in part, or in full by solar/fuel cell/battery/etc. 

While the comparison is far from perfect, here's a taste of how much JP8 some of their manned counterparts consume from Dr. Karbuz's most recent paper:

• B1-B bomber: 59 gallons per minute
  
• B-52 bomber: 54 gallons per minute
  
• KC-135 tanker: 35 gallons per minute
  
• F-16 fighter: 13 gallons per minute
  

I wonder if someone at the Pentagon is keeping track of this and thinking about what this trend might do to AF and Army energy budgets and logistics?  

Lastly, it's not just the US that's learning how effective they can be, see the cautionary note the conclusion of the Slate piece about how other countries are becoming enamored of UAVs as well. And not just our friends.

Photo courtesy of Mike Hawes @ Flickr

Army Energy Strategy Disruptive to Stovepipes

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:

• Army Secretary Pete Geren recently appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Partnerships Paul Bollinger to "build a team that will work across the Army and try to break down the stovepipes."
• Geren approved the creation of the Army Senior Energy Council on Sept. 26
• Comprised of more than two dozen senior civilian and uniformed leaders, the body is co-chaired by Gen. Pete Chiarelli, the Army's vice chief of staff, and Keith Eastin, the service's assistant secretary for installations and environment

Stovepipes, it turns out, burn more oil than all the tanks, planes and ships in the arsenal combined. The full article is here at Army.mil/News. 

Photo courtesy of US Army's Soldiers Media Center on Flickr

Troubling Tanker Talk

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.

And this time put fuel efficiency at the top of the requirements list. It's disturbing that leadership is so easily swayed by day-to-day fluctuations in the price of energy, when the overall price trends are clearly pointing up, and at risk of spiking on a moment's notice. Haven't we learned anything from the recent several years of energy-induced budget shock? It's not just the high price, it's the volatility that's beating up DOD budgeting and procurement. See posts here, here, here and here.

KC-135 Photo (from inside F-15) courtsy of USAF & James Gordon

Be There or Be Square: Military Energy & Fuels Conference Next Week

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: 

• Mr. Wayne Arny - Deputy Under Secretary, Installations and Environment, USD/AT
  
• Mr. Chris DiPetto - Deputy Director, Systems and Software Engineering, OUSD/AT
• Mr. Don Juhasz - Chief, Army Energy and Utility Programs, ACSIM
• Mr. Dan Mathis - Deputy Division Head, Mission Assurance, NSWC
• Ms. Pamela Serino - Chief, Product Technology and Standardization, DESC/DLA

I would go if I could, but I probably won't be there.  For everyone's sake, hopefully in this case, what happens in Vegas re: DOD Energy won't stay in Vegas.

Photo courtesy of Jon Sullivan @ pdphoto.org

Gearing Up for Jet Fuel Savings

As noted previously, the Air Force is proving its planes will fly on a half JP-8/half synth fuel blend. This is good news because the synthetic fuel half is derived from non-oil sources, which also means less foreign oil required to keep USAF jets in the air. The bad news is it appears it takes a hell of a lot of energy to make that synth fuel out its various sources, including natural gas, and especially coal.

As Dr. Sohbet Karbuz explains repeatedly on his energy blog, the primary key for DOD is not in switching fuels, but rather, in reducing the amount of fuel that's needed.

Enter the Pratt & Whitney PW8000 turbofan engine. Long in development, its novel use of gears allows it to use 10% less fuel and it brings other costs savings as well. I'm not saying the Air Force's approach is bad. In fact, in an energy security scenario where the US is cut off from its foreign suppliers, it's essential prep work. But there's no debating the merits of more efficient planes (like the 787) and more efficient engines. We've got to keep pushing the efficiency (and conservation) buttons because synth fuels alone are energy intensive to make, and dollar intensive to buy.

Scope & Setting the Stage

I'll open with a few posts related to a Defense Science Board (DSB)'s Feb 2008 report. Here is their characterization of DOD energy scope as of EOY 2007, in DSB's own words:

• DOD is the largest single consumer of energy in the US
• In 2006, it spent $13.6 billion to buy 110 million barrels of petroleum fuel (about 300,000 barrels of oil each day), and 3.8 billion kWh of electricity
• This represents about 0.8% of total U.S. energy consumption and 78% of energy consumption by the Federal government
• Buildings and facilities account for about 25% of the Department’s total energy use
• DoD occupies over 577,000 buildings and structures worth $712 billion comprising more than 5,300 sites
• In 2006, the Department spent over $3.5 billion for energy to power fixed installations, and just over $10 billion on fuel for combat and combat related systems
  

These figures exclude energy used by some contractors that performed “outsourced” DoD functions, but are as accurate as current accounting systems permit

So that's the baseline. It's big, spread out, and consumes a huge amount oil to do the job. It's always been that way, since we phased out horse drawn cannon. And it's going to be this way until we can come up with some better approaches. As you'll see in ensuing posts, DSB has already generated some solid new ideas.