Operational Base Energy Smarts Finally Emerging - Bigtime

I few weeks ago I posted on "Hybrid Hopes for Greatly Reducing Operational Base Fuel Requirements"

Since then, two more things have come my way.  One was a note from DOD Energy friend and guru Scott Sklar of the DC-based Stella Group, who wrote thusly: 

I asked energy integrator MILSPRAY to bring the unit (mentioned in the post above) to Arlington two weeks ago for the military folks from the different services to 'kick the tires'.  This unit powered the corrosion facility (MCRF) in Quantico, VA from July - October (14 weeks) last year and the fuel savings versus a standard generator was 78.6% (wow), and the the same set-up at 29 Palms, CA. I am beginning to see better-engineered systems that can stand-alone or interact with on-site diesel generators seamlessly.

This is heavy duty news coming from Scott.

Also just received the DOE's Smart and Green Energy (SAGE) for Basecamps final report and it aligns quite nicely with the observations from the previous post. You can read the full document HERE, but just below you'll find the most important bits in summary form.

Hybrid Hopes for Greatly Reducing Operational Base Fuel Requirements

Sounds like a microgrid disguised as a generator.  See what you think:

Today, the U.S. military powers its operating bases with diesel generators that run continuously. The problem is that it’s difficult to match the generating capacity with the actual power load from air conditioners, electronics, and other gear, which fluctuates during the day and in different seasons. And when the demand for power is lower than the generator’s full capacity, the fuel efficiency drops off dramatically and the maintenance increases.

...

Earl Energy’s FlexGen “hybrid generator” is wired to a diesel generator running at full capacity, which is how it's most efficient. When there is excess power, the diesel generator charges the batteries. If the batteries have enough stored energy to meet the demand for electricity, then the generator shuts off. In tests in Afghanistan, the Earl Energy system allowed the generators to run three to six hours a day, compared with around the clock before it was installed, says Doug Moorehead, the CEO of Earl Energy.

Often in stories like these there's a rub.  But if those real-world results from Afghanistan were achieved without any many compromises, then this is clearly a big win in an area we've made almost no progress for decades.  Will be keeping an eye on Moorehead and Earl Energy for sure.

Full IEEE Spectrum article: HERE.

How to Make a Microgrid

I've been reading about, sometimes writing about, and occasionally extolling the many virtues of microgrids for some time now.  I even remember when, shortly after starting this blog, I was at a DOD energy gathering at NDU in 2008 or 2009 I think.

This perky bald guy in the row behind me said, kind of like in the movie The Graduate: "the future is microgrids." I could be wrong, but I believe that hairless wonder was Army O-6 and future DOD Energy Blogger Dan Nolan himself.  (I'll get my fact checker on that just in case.)

Since then we've copiously covered the SPIDERS program, as well as the great secure microgrid work at Naval District Washington.

Flash forward to yesterday when I came across Stuart McCafferty's "Top 6 Things to Consider When Developing Microgrids." The title says 6 but altogether it's more like 50 or 60 questions - born of his hands-on project management experience - you need to answer before moving forward.

Out of all of them the first two resonate the strongest with me:

Mission: What is the organization’s mission? How will a Microgrid help support the mission?

If your reasons for building a microgrid aren't directly related to supporting the mission, then what the heck are you doing?  Everyone's free to build their own microgrid after work on their own dime, but if you're building one at a DOD installation, then the connection to mission support has got to be a solid and not a dotted line.

After that the rest of the questions are about everything you need to think about beforehand to do it right.  For the full article click HERE.

And by the way, here's a piece on an early stage USMC microgrid project at Miramar Air Station in San Diego, where energy assurance is the major mission driver.

Image courtesy of National Defense Magazine

RFI Alert: USMC Tactical Energy Generation

We've posted on the great work of the Marines exFOB many times before, and I'm happy to be doing so once again to kick off 2014.

There's an RFI out for submissions on "Tactical Energy Harvesting," but rather than siphoning off watts from dormant humans encased in glass cocoons, the Marines want to leverage a fraction of the energy already generated by able bodied soldiers in motion. And there's another element related to capturing waste heat from generators.

Response due date is 21 February 2014.  I'd expect the good folks down the street from me in Natick to have some ideas up their sleeves on this, but I know there are many other sources for thinking along these lines as well.

For more details on this solicitation click HERE.

Photo credit: Extremetech.com

The Energy Future Starting to Show Up

This is a very short post that may portend something big.  Energy storage has been the Holy Grail for the renewables sector some time now, and likely will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless ...

Apparently, a Maryland-based company has teamed to produce the "first renewable energy storage system in the U.S. capable of not only storing generation when the sun's not shining, but also delivering power to the local electric grid."

Brief article is HERE.  And re: operational energy and FOBs ... note how transportable this thing looks.

We Needed it but Didn't Have it. Now it's 2013: Is Better Field Generation for DOD Here Yet?

Since this blog's inception, we've been calling for accelerating the work to improve the efficiency of field generators.  In the context of rising assaults (and many successful attacks) on fuel convoys in Afghanistan, here's a DEB post from 2009, referencing a similarly aligned point of view at NDIA, pleading for speed.

Now Federal News Radio covers a recent announcement that the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is getting closer to fielding a practical 10 kilowatt fuel cell generator.  Cumbersomely designated: "Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell Tactical Electrical Power Unit" the benefits jump right out are you:

• Require approximately half the fuel to generate the same output
• Much quieter
• Smaller - easier to transport

Drawbacks in include a longer start-up time, and almost certainly until production ramps up, higher acquisition costs.

But for sure, using the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) metric will show these units are massively more cost effective over the full lifecycle.  And they'll save lives by requiring fewer and/or smaller convoys and by being harder to detect.

Unfortunately, despite the optimism from ONR, sounds to me like deployment may still be years off. I wonder if they can be better marketed to the private sector, hungry for better disaster preparedness and resiliency solutions in the wake of hurricanes Katrina, Sandy and others.  That kind of market demand would could be a real expediter.  ... and perhaps a different name :)

Here's the full article.

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.)

Signs of the Apocalypse: Operations, Training, and ACQ on same page in AZ

I have just returned from Phoenix,  Arizona where I believe I was witness to a portend of biblical proportions, “Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria!” (Thank you, Dr. Venkman).   In an auditorium of a satellite campus of Arizona State University, I observed a Colonel of Operations, who actually knew the first name of a Colonel of Acquisition!  Those of you who understand the previously chasm between operations, training and doctrine, and the acquisition community will appreciate the implications of this sea change.  Where previously these two communities threw things over the wall to each other, it now appears that they are executing Manning –like (Eli, not Peyton) handoffs. Perhaps rapid equipping has come of age. This hastily arranged, low cost meeting, not without its warts, set the standard for energy conferences. 

The Army, Academia, and Industry gathered to conduct a series of briefings on processes and technologies.  The doyenne of operational energy, Sharon Burke, opened the conference entitled, “Net Zero at the Tactical Edge”.  Despite being harangued for not getting her Operational Energy implementation plan out in a timely manner and for failing to get the new SecDef to include energy in his priorities, she set a positive tone for the conference.  Anybody who can reference Jane Austen and Carl von Clausewitz in the same sentence gets a little latitude.  In her defense, the relatively new SecDef may not get it ... yet. 

The hand on the tiller for this ship was the director of the Rapid Equipping Force, Colonel Pete Newell.  I interviewed Newell previously about the role of the REF in operational energy.   Newell looks and sounds like a warfighter and he understands the complexity of the Requirements and Acquisition processes.  His take is that OE is nothing special, just another challenge commanders face on the battlefield and that it is his organization’s mission:  to find the technology solutions.  What is different is his recognition of the need to bring together the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the Program Managers so that requirements can be expedited and the PMs can satisfy those requirements. This is the path to long term, secure OE.   

The team is together, but TRADOC has yet to produce the Capability Development Document necessary for the PMs to begin their acquisition process.   This is still on the shoulders of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (sorry to classmate, Keith), Combat Arms Support Command (CASCOM) and TRADOC Capabilities Manager, Soldier.  These organizations are responsible for describing the requirements for operational energy from the individual soldier to the Forward Operating Base level. 

The speakers' materials were superb, although they all prepared PC PowerPoint briefings that were butchered by the Macintosh computer used to display them.   The information they provided on the four different venues and four different processes for bringing technologies into the Army’s experimentation effort was a bit mind numbing.   I challenged COL Newell on this, and, in a surprisingly glass half full way, he pointed out that they should be thought of as four paths to success.  The REF’s Bill Garland promised to publish a simple document helping industry understand what path would suit them best.  Will let you know when and where that is available.

The best aspect of the conference was the fifteen minute meetings that industry could schedule with program managers and the REF.  The chance to sit down one on one and present technologies and receive advice in a small, dare I say, intimate setting was unparalleled.   More on this, the pathways, and advice to conference hosts in the next post.  Dan Nolan

US Commander in Afghanistan Says it Short and Sweet re: Operational Energy

Hat tip to Ollie for this. In a recent one-page memo on energy to all servicemen and servicewomen in theater, General Allen, USFOR-A, not the first and likely not the last Marine general to completely "get" energy, summed it up this way:

"Operational energy equates exactly to operational capability." 

Hard to miss his meaning. Supporting points included:

• "A military force that reduces its fuel consumption becomes more agile and insulates itself from logistics disruptions."
• "I expect commanders to improve fuel accountability ...."
• "[Operation energy] is about increasing our forces' endurance, becoming more lethal, and reducing the number of men and women risking their lives moving fuel."

You can read the memo HERE.

Image credit (and Gen Allen bio): Wikipedia

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.

INSS Comes to Defense of DOD Energy Plan: "Next Piece Won't be Vague"

This just in.....DOD publishes DOD Energy Strategy. National Defense University declares that criticism is unjust. They are hopeful.

"Hopefully the implementation plan will address the criticisms voiced about the vagueness of the strategy”, says Dr. Richard Andres.

The Institute for National Strategic Studies lauds the ASD, OEPP for getting a “first piece in the overall energy plan” published just two years after being directed to form by Congress in 2009. Of course the speed with which DOD was able to place a nominee before Congress should have given a clue in that the confirmation hearing did not occur until early 2010.

Not sure what Dr. Andres feels is unjust. The Energy Security Strategic Plan published by the DOD Energy Security Task Force in 2008 was a comprehensive and directive document. Many of its authors work in the office of the ASD/OEPP. I guess my lack of patience is that most of the work had been done; the challenge should have just been in re-coordinating. 

But the fact is, the Services hold all the cards. The only one that Ms. Burke holds is the ability to certify the energy budget for Services against the DOD plan. The longer we wait for the plan, the less time the Services have to ensure their budgets are compliant. Of course, I am not sure what happens if a budget is not certified. Maybe they get another 90 days and a do over. Dan Nolan

DOD/Army Leadership Steps out on Operational Energy: The Lab Is Open

Since the demise of the Power Surety Task Force, the Army has not had an agency focused on evaluating and deploying operational energy technology. Deficiency resolved, apparently.

This past week, Sharon Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Operational Energy Plans and Programs and Katherine Hammack, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment oversaw the opening of the Army’s new Base Camp Systems Integration Lab (SIL) at Fort Devens, MA.

The SIL is under the direction of the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support. It is composed of two, 150 person base camps, one configured for current capabilities and one to assess new technologies.

“Instrumentation on the SIL will measure water, fuel and power usage to help increase energy efficiency and base camp commonality.” The decision for the 150 person size is related to the “Force Provider” base camp in a box. Actually, it fits nicely in a single C-17, not a box.

This is a great way to get at the operational needs surrounding energy. The two sites will allow the evaluation of off the shelf technologies AND the development of next generation tech. The Force Provider is intend to be emplaced rapidly (four hours), support 150 people indefinitely and then go back into the box for use elsewhere. If the SIL focuses on just Force Provider requirements, it will miss the huge energy sinks that are the follow-ons to the expeditionary life support provided by FP, the more enduring Forward Operating Bases. We hope the lessons from the SIL will inform the contracting process that supports these Forward Operating Bases. I am sure they thought of that, but if it has not come up, here is another tidbit from NPR that helps crystallize the challenge. Dan Nolan

The Ultimate Operator on Operational Energy: Petraeus Speaks

The Commander, International Security Assistance Force/U.S. Forces – Afghanistan, and soon to be CIA Director, came up on the net about operational energy this month. On 7 July GEN David H. Petraeus signed a memo directing commanders throughout his organization to make energy informed, risk based decisions on aviation and vehicle operations, base camp design, power and water generation and distribution. They are also charged with rapid technology transition of new fuel savings methods and the pursuit of existing, proven alternative energy options that reduce the use and transport of fuel (Power Surety Task Force Mission!). Finally commanders must ensure energy is considered in requirements and oversight of contracts.

To assist in this process, General Petraeus is establishing an office charged with improving operational capabilities through changes in how Coalition forces use energy. This means that changes in energy use will be required of all the partners in the Coalition. If anyone is using energy more profligately than the Yanks, I will be stunned.

General Petraeus is the first person in uniform, in contact, above the grade of BG (sorry, Steve) to publicly recognize the impact of energy on operations. The Services have all spoken up (more or less), but now the Warfighters, as part of a Coalition and a Combatant Command, have issued direction. If commanders are being given the responsibility then, presumably, they will be given the authorities (resources). The only thing left to do is establish the accountability process and, again, presumably, the office GEN Petraeus is establishing will do that. We will continue to watch for developments. 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

Operational Energy Strategy: Bumper Stickers for All

The Department of Defense rolled out its Operational Energy Strategy yesterday with all the impact of a low velocity marshmallow. The Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms sets forth standard US military and associated terminology to encompass the joint activity of the Armed Forces of the United States. This document defines strategy ”as a prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives”. It would be expected that a strategy published by DoD would conform to this characterization. This document does not.

What was released yesterday was a rehash of recent military energy history and bumper stickers. It was due to Congress on 21 December 2010. Six month later we get a missive signed by the DepSecDef (guess the SecDef was still on the farewell tour) that the National Journal summed up by saying, “Right now, the energy strategy consists of a new office, a new way of thinking about energy, and a three-point plan laid out in an 11-point memo that’s full of slogans but short on specifics”

The strategy promises an implementation plan within 90 days that ”will include specific targets and timelines for achieving this strategy in the near-, mid-, and long-term”. The strategy and implementation plan will be updated annually and will serve as the basis for the ASDOEPP’s annual certification of Service operational energy budgets. So, what are the “set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives”? The three bumper stickers read: More fight, less fuel; More options, less risk; and More capability, less cost. Let’s take a closer look at what the strategy requires of the Services..

The first Strategic Goal is to “reduce the demand for energy in military operations”. The strategy requires the Services to:

• Document actual and projected energy consumption in current and planned military operations
• Accelerate and adopt technological and management innovations from across the “DOTMLPF” spectrum to reduce demand and improve efficiency

The second Strategic Goal is to “diversifying and securing military energy supplies (in order to) improve the ability of our forces to get the energy they require to perform their missions”. The strategy requires the Services to:

• Diversify and develop new energy sources suitable for expeditionary use, to include efforts aimed at developing the capacity of partner nations in support of U.S. strategic goals
• Assure reliable energy supply for critical operational missions at fixed installations

Finally, the third Strategic Goal is to ensure that “energy consumption and the associated costs and logistics challenges are taken into account in all decisions about strategic planning, structuring, equipping, and posturing the force. The strategy requires the Services to:

• Analyze and report the primary “lessons learned” from current operations to inform future planning, to include the tactical, operational, and strategic consequences
• Apply those lessons to future military force development
• Demonstrate civilian and military leadership commitment to incorporating energy analysis and planning

The strategy consists of telling the Services to figure out how they are using energy and then use less; get more sources (types?) of energy and plan for energy in force development. In the entire document there is only one mention of the fully burdened cost of energy and no mention of energy as a key performance parameter. Both of these are required by law but with caveats.

The promise of the implementation plan is tantalizing. Targets and timelines are not enough; the Department has those and each Service has their own. What are required are measureable objectives for each goal with associated authorities (resources) and a belly button for each objective so that there is someone to be held accountable. Then, when the ASDOEPP provides their annual report to Congress on Service budget certification for operational energy, they will have a set of measurable objectives against which to measure. Responsibility, Authority and Accountability: my bumper sticker. Dan Nolan

It's Here

This just in, hot off the presses from Sharon Burke and crew (from the office of the ASD of Operational Energy Plans and Programs - there's no more DOEPP). Titled: "Energy for the Warfighter: Operational Energy Strategy", it's a first-of-its-kind document.

I'm sure Dan's going to have a thing or two to say about this report, but wanted to get it in front of DOD Energy Blog readers asap so you can form your own opinions.

You can download it by clicking on the cover image or by clicking HERE. Enjoy.

And in case you were wondering ... yes, I am trying to win the 2011 blog post title brevity award with this. Let's see if someone dares to try a shorter one.

DOEPP Deal: DOD Assessment of Services Budgets for Operational Energy

The long awaited report from the Assistant Secretary of the Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (ASDOEPP) hit the streets late last week. As part of her statutory duties, Ms. Burke is required to:

review the DoD Components' proposed budgets and not later than January 31 of the preceding fiscal year for which the budgets are proposed, provide the Secretary of Defense a report containing the Director's analysis, comments, and findings of operational energy aspects of the proposed budgets as well as the certification of the Director regarding whether the proposed budget is adequate for implementation of the operational energy strategy.

The report evaluates the Services’ FY2011 budgets for operational energy in regard to their own stated strategy. In the coming years that assessment will be against the DOD Operational Energy Strategy, but since that had not been published by the due date of this report, the ASD used the Components’ own plans as the point of comparison. This is a gut check: are you walking the walk or just talking the talk.

Across the board, the Services proposed FY 2011 budgets were certified as “adequate for implementation of the operational energy aspects of their energy strategy”, with the following caveats.

1. DOD doesn’t know how energy is being consumed at the point of use. They know how much was delivered, but how it was used is unclear. What did that truck do? What was that generator powering? Was that air craft doing close support, logistics or recce?

2. Significant opportunities to improve energy efficiency in legacy mobility assets are believed to exist, but have not been identified and, therefore, not adequately funded.

3. 58% percent (down from 62% in the original version of the report) of the budget goes to research, development, technology and engineering. There are mature, shovel ready technologies on the commercial shelf, ready to go and more funds should be allocated to those efforts, rather than the long term, routine, science and technology acquisition path.

4. Energy costs are underestimated in acquisition analysis. Operational energy concerns are not addressed in models and simulations. The fully burdened cost of energy and energy as a key performance parameter were supposed to solve this. Use them.

We will provide an analysis of the report’s assessment of each of the Services. I think you will see that the ASD, OEPP was grading on a curve this year. The long awaited DOD operational energy strategy will be rolled out this week by DepSecDef Lynn and Ms. Burke. More to follow on that as it develops. Dan Nolan

Operational Energy Launches its Web Site

http://energy.defense.gov/

The times they continue to change. Three years after the release of the 2nd DSB report on energy, we've not only got an ASD for Operational Energy, but the organization has a web site and Twitter account.

There's not much "there" there yet, but the existence of a site with links to the social media world means a heck of a lot as DOD moves out on energy strategy issues.

And in case you don't choose to visit the site yet, want to make sure you see the excellent statement it features from Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen:

Energy Security needs to be one of the first things we think about, before we deploy another soldier, before we build another ship or plane, and before we buy or fill another rucksack.

Amen.

Clean Energy Deeds Done Dirty Cheap: Foam Done Right

In 2007 an Army study determined that the application of spray polyurethane foam (SPF) to the exterior of temporary structures (tents, SWA huts, etc.) would reduce energy requirements by 80% for power generation at forward operating bases. The picture above is what it looks like when it is done right. The structures are warmer, cooler, sound dampening (important for night shift folks) and are healthier (less dust in the interior). The work done to date in the AOR has saved over a billion of dollars. The cured SPF is nontoxic, fire-resistant and waterproof. The contracting officer must specify the contract according to standard, the contractor must be a professional of demonstrated ability and the contracting officer's technical representative must inspect the work to assure standards are met. Just like the FARs say.

At an Air Force energy conference in Orlando a couple of weeks ago, I heard government folks, who appeared not to have spent a day under canvas, disparage SPF. Since they worked in the R&D field for shelters, I dismissed it as the normal practice of finding fault with the current technology to promote their products. Then I received an article about a presentation Ms. Sharon Burke, ASD, Operational Energy Plans and Policy, presented at Harvard on operational energy with a continuation of the big lie.

I told you this story in order to tell you the next. Read on to the previous post.

Late Breaking News: Hammack is Army Operational AND Installation Energy Guru

Responsibility Assumed: Just got off the phone with Ms Katherine Hammack, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Environment and Energy. Ms. Hammack conducted a phone interview with several bloggers as part of the DOD Live Bloggers forum. During the course of the interview, I asked her who was responsible for Operational Energy in the Army and she forthrightly declared that it was she. Question asked and answered. Well done, Ms. Hammack and welcome to the fight! - Dan Nolan

Opening the Gates: Fuel to Begin Flowing to Afghanistan

As the Pentagon prepares to observe energy awareness week as part of the DOD Energy Awareness Month, Pakistan has announced that they will reopen the Torkham border crossing. The pictures of the back up at that crossing site show that it is happening none too soon. According to folks in theater, there has not been a noticeable impact on operations or quality of life, but the troops are asking questions. They want to know what the options are and what we would do if we dipped too deep into our days of supply. The answer is, well, we would apologize.

Unfortunately, energy solutions take a bit more than 30 days to implement so that was really the only option. Demand reduction technologies such as spray foam on temporary structures like tents have been available for a couple of years and have shown great results in Iraq, but have had less traction in Afghanistan. Alternative and renewable power production is still treated as experimental. But, when coupled with storage solutions like lithium ion and deployable flow batteries these renewable sources become a proven, nonintermittent power source that gives our forward operating bases the energy security they require from logistics interruptions. One can bet that the amount of world attention garnered by the fuel tanker attacks was not lost on our adversaries – they will be back for more.

We dodged a bullet this time, but next time we may not be so fortunate. For the Army, this should provide the operational need necessary to create a REQUIREMENT. For those who are not TRADOCIANS, a requirement from the Training and Doctrine Command is what is necessary for the acquisition community to go to work to find the material solution. The Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) led by LTG Michael Vane, is just the organization to lead the charge.

LTG Vane has demonstrated his understanding of the issues with the publication of a white paper regarding Power and Energy Strategy. This paper, jointly signed by Vane, LTG Mitch Stevenson, Army G4 and MG Nick Justice, Commander of the Research and Development Command, lays out three challenges: 1. Help Soldiers Manage Power and Energy, 2. Reduce Demand, and 3. “Build resilience and flexibility into force capabilities to continue operating in the face of energy disruption.” The recent activities (or lack thereof) at Torkham and similar attacks enroute to the Chaman Gate demonstrate the need for this final “challenge” in spades. The paper goes on to detail seven strategies for meeting these challenges. The requirements listed in the paper ought to provide the acquisition community the necessary impetus to start cranking out the necessary technology, but who is in charge of operational energy? Sharon Burke has the rose at DoD, but who has it at the Service level?

So, what is next? TRADOC will have to publish an Initial Capabilities Document to identify energy capability gaps and solutions. This would be followed by a Tactical Fuel and Energy Implementation Plan; and a roadmap that spells out the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities activities required to execute the Army's Operational Energy Strategy. It would seem that LTG Vane would have the responsibility for tracking the management of these tasks, but who has overall responsibility for the Operational Energy Strategy? To whom do the Soldiers turn when the border closes again? COL Brutus Charette is shouldering the responsibility for the USMC. We look forward to meeting his Army counterpart.

Late Breaking News: Just got off the phone with Ms Katherine Hammack, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Environment and Energy. Ms. Hammack conducted a phone interview with several bloggers as part of the DOD Live Bloggers forum. During the course of the interview, I asked her who was responsible for Operational Energy in the Army and she forthrightly declared that it was she. Question asked and answered. Well done, Ms. Hammack and welcome to the fight! - Dan Nolan