Geiss on Air Force Energy Progress - Sep 2013 Update

Hat tip to OSD's Ollie Fritz again (and again).

Straight up, here are highlights from an interview with Dr Kevin Geiss, DASAF for Energy, from a recent article: "A more fuel-efficient Air Force"

Eighty-four percent of the Air Force’s annual $9 billion energy budget pays for jet fuel, and of that 60 percent is for 900 mobility flights per day moving cargo and people.

Even though the service has no control over fuel costs or the missions it is called to serve, it aims to “get better [energy efficiency] at every flight,” says Kevin Geiss, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for energy.

Dr. Geiss outlined some of the service’s energy-saving efforts in a recent interview:

A New TET Offensive: Navy Transportation Efficiency Breakthrough

Thanks to OSD's Ollie Fritz for flagging this. With help from the forward looking Office of Naval Research (ONR), this new rather low-tech energy saving breakthrough is called the Transportation Exploitation Tool or TET for short.

Here's an example of how it works:

Imagine a scenario where a U.S. Navy ship in a foreign port urgently needs a particular engine part to complete its mission. TET allows the user to simply enter what cargo needs to be shipped and where it’s going, and then provides the planner with all available space on transports across military and commercial sectors, with recommendations for the most efficient routes. 

Previously, planners had to search multiple databases to access all civilian and military space availability, which could require hours or even days. In the worst cases, separate flights had to be chartered.

You can read the full piece HERE.

Photo credit: Marines.mil

Energy Security Conference Alert: IAGS' Target Energy 2013

What is IAGS you say? I'll answer briskly: the Institute for the Analysis of of Global Security. Teaming with NATO's Energy Security Center of Excellence, IAGS is hosting a conference called Target Energy that includes but goes well beyond cybersecurity and the grid.

For those DOD Energy Blog readers whose professional lives are circumscribed by US military energy matters only, this is a chance to stretch a bit. Here's how the organizers describe the focus:

The cost of securing energy supplies is increasing due to threats from terrorists, hackers, activists and hostile nations. What is the impact of attacks against energy, and how can companies, organizations, and governments work with NATO to increase security?

Amateur Tactics and Professional Logistics: The NSN and Secure LOCs

Sara Moore with the Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System had a great article on a new northern supply route into Afghanistan. The Defense Logistics Agency felt that they could open a route from Germany that would move supplies in 30 to 50 days. Two trucks carrying two 20 ft containers each drove from German to Bagram, Afghanistan. This was intended to provide relief in the event that either of the two routes from Pakistan were to be closed. Again. The recent closing of the Torkham crossing caused great consternation. There even appears to be some concern that the Pakistani routes will be abandoned altogether. It was reopened recently. In an unrelated article, the U.S. just approved $2.29 billion in military aid to Pakistan.

The good news about the northern route was the reduction in travel time. The bad news is that the Taliban is reading the newspaper in Pakistan. A recent increase in attacks against the Northern Distribution Network (NSN) has been noted by NATO. On the Pakistan route we had to worry about Pakistan. On the NDN we will have to worry about Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan. We do not have to worry about the Russians. They have already refused rights to move military material across their land.

Redundant lines of communications are a must in any military operation. But if 70% of what we are hauling overland is bulk fluids and, as the Marines have found, there is the possibility to reduce the water burden by using local supplies that do not impact the local population, then we need to focus on reducing the fuel burden. Unless we produce certified biofuels locally, we will still have to haul in our mobility fuel. The focus must be on demand reduction and then, renewable energy for power production at our forward operating bases, again as the Marines have done with India Company, 3rd of the 5th Marines. The challenge there is the agility of the acquisition agencies. The tools for demand reduction are there and in use; the RE is in short supply. We heard loud and clear last week from the policy side of the house. We now must turn words into action.

The Association of the United States Army is meeting for their Winter Convention this week in Washington. The associated tradeshow is a cornucopia of military capability. What COMDEX is to wireheads, AUSA is for warheads (yours truly included). I will attend and report back on energy trends for installations and FOBs. The pickings have been slim in recent shows as regards energy; it will be interesting to see what the professionals are thinking now. Whether it is potential or kinetic, it is all about energy. Dan Nolan

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

National Defense President Nails It

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. 

No, all of those solid reasons have never been nearly enough to change DOD behavior. Farrell begins, "When it comes to military energy priorities, we must get beyond the traditional cost-benefit analysis that inevitably is tied to the price of oil." He points out that insulating tents yields huge financial savings, but follows that with the fact that it also takes 13 tanker trucks off the road every day. See, it's not the oil money, it's the logistical burden inherent in reliance on oil that's the killer, literally and figuratively. According to Farrell, 

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.  

You hear that Hoss? More teeth, less tail. As it turns out, in-theatre DOD energy security is largely independent of where oil comes from or how much it costs per barrel on any given day. Farrell concludes:

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.

I'll keep beating my drum. This is why rapid departmental adoption of the Energy Efficiency Key Performance Parameter (KPP) is a must. Related to (but untethered from) life cycle expenditures, it better accounts for the most important costs of future systems and forces.

Iraq supply convoy photo: Army.mil @ Flickr

FedEx Schooling for DOD

Great article here on the Cleantech Blog.

OK, there are no missiles, tanks or fighters in FedEx. But allowing for some core differences in mission, there are a heck of a lot of similarities, logistically speaking, between delivery giant FedEx and the DOD.

Both use jet fuel and gasoline at prodigious rates as part and parcel (pun alert) of getting the job done. Both are experimenting with efficiency technologies across the enterprise, including hybrid ground vehicles and process improvements like shutting down jet engines whenever possible (and only on the ground) to conserve fuel. On the facilities side you'll find a few solar and geothermal sites. Sound familiar?

I think there's a lot to be learned here, and hopefully, AF and other leaders are taking good notes.