Lessons for DOD: Walmart Boosts Fleet Truck Efficiency by 25%

Wal-Mart's focus on energy efficiency and energy innovation is mentioned prominently in what continues to be my favorite DOD energy document, the DSB Energy Task Force Report on Energy published one year ago. Guess what? The same company that set ambitious energy efficiency goals several years ago is now meeting them. With this announcement, Wal-Mart signals it has reached the halfway point to its goal of a 50% energy reduction in its trucking fleet by 2015.  

Similar to the challenges facing the 4 Services, TRANSCOM and the other parts of DOD charged with moving men and materials, Wal-Mart's solutions are part technology and part process.

Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) played a big role in getting Wal-Mart this far this fast. RMI leads the way in much of the energy innovation going on today. And speaking of leadership, as goes Wal-Mart, so goes the rest of the rest of the trucking industry that has to keep up or move out. Let's hope DOD, in addition to being a great leader in many areas, is also a fast follower where it can leverage lessons learned by other leaders.

Photo: RMI

Fuel Cells Light Up Gear While Lightening Soldiers' Loads

Back in October I noted that fuel cells thumped the competition at the Wearable Power competition held at  Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA. Though it was not the winner, California-based UltraCell Corp. competed in and successfully completed the DOD’s $1 million Wearable Power Prize, where they were one of only five companies to finish the Prize. In fact, the UltraCell team chose to compete with an already proven design and didn't do custom mods to reduce weight. That decision meant they came in heavier than the winner, but it also meant theirs was the closest to a field-able product.

Heavy batteries are currently being used in Iraq and Afghanistan to power everything from sensors to comm and computer gear and DOD knows it needs a light-weight alternative. Many soldiers hump 20-30 pounds worth of batteries alone. This is unacceptable. According to UltraCell, this technology weighs less than 3 pounds and offers a 70% weight savings for an average 72-hour mission in the field. DARPA, Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center (CERDEC) and the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) are all playing a role. Sometimes the best things come in small packages.

Photo: An XX25 fuel cell powering an iRobot robot courtesy of Ultracell

Army Moves Out Strong in 2009 on Energy Policy

What makes this news stand out? Well for one thing, it's not about facilities; it's about weapon systems. Army Acquisition Exec Dean Popps just signed an important a new Army energy document ... a memo with a distribution list, as you'll see, that includes every Army senior in every significant org (at least I think so). And it's not just the address list, it's what it says that's amazing:

All new Army acquisition programs, to include new program starts and new increments, with end items that consume energy shall include the fully burdened cost of energy needed to operate the system in their total ownership cost analysis. This direction applies to all acquisition category level programs, including information systems.

Excellent. And to keep this post from going too long, I'll single out one more gem though there are many more. An objective listed under the heading "Energy Productivity" states:

Our goal is to reduce the risks associated with energy supply and demand while maintaining needed operational capabilities.

Not surprisingly, the Army is proud of what it is accomplishing and shows a lot of its work here. You can say what you want about how long it's taking energy strategy to be implemented in DOD, but this document, released to kick off the new year, has me very excited about what to expect next from the Army. OSD, USAF, USN ... you paying attention ?!?

Reader Response on DOD Fuel Tail Vulnerability

When I started this blog last summer I decided I wanted to limit it to one voice: mine. Some readers have discussed the merits (or lack thereof) of individual posts with me via email and that's been great. But we're at the point now where the frequency and quality of the back-channel comments has me considering turning comments on as an experiment. Here's one worth sharing on yesterday's post re: fuel and logistics issues, base closure in Kyrgzstan and our Afghanistan operations:

We need to include the risk of our logistics tail to war gaming and campaign analysis per [the DSB Task Force on Energy reports] and should be doing everything we can to reduce the size of that tail (or at least make informed decisions relative to the capabilities of systems). Combine this with the likely closure of the Manas base and you have the reason why FBCF and the associated EEKPP are about capability, not merely "efficiency."

Bingo. Weighting energy considerations appropriately in all aspects of DOD planning is not mainly about saving money (though it does), or limiting carbon emissions (though it will), or reducing US/DOD's dependence on foreign and finite oil (it does that too), it's first and foremost about tilting the odds in our favor ... and keeping the success and safety of our Soldiers, Marines and Airmen front and center.

Be Concerned About Russia Week: Part II

Actually, I won't likely post on Russia for a bit after this. But a recent article in DefenseTech caught my attention as it relates to my day job in cyber security. When Putin, Medvedev & co. aren't turning off their natural gas pipelines or taking out journalists, they're stealthily unleashing cyber attacks on their former USSR neighbors. This time is was Kyrgzstan, home to one of the most important air strips in the world used by the DOD. Well, that was the case until maybe today. Loss of that base would add tremendous additional burdens on DOD fuel and other logistics requirements related to Afghanistan. There's lots more going on than here than offensive cyberwar, but it's clearly part of the overall package of threats Russia holds over its much weaker neighbors.

Back at home, the DHS classifies the US national grid and the large power generating facilities as critical national infrastructure. Considerations of energy security from a DOD and national perspective have to consider the vulnerability of our power generation and transmission systems to cyber attack. And while we talk about this, Russia sure is getting a lot of hands-on practice. Oh yeah, and China too (see: Titan Rain).

Putin's Energy Weapons

We've hit this topic many times before and we'll touch it again no doubt: from a DOD and US perspective, energy security is partly about becoming less reliant on foreign sources because energy can become a weapon used against us and its allies. When Putin ordered the natural gas flow through the Ukrainian pipelines cut off last month, it was about economics ... and a whole lot more. The might Russia used to project with its military arsenal is now conveyed with its control over some of the largest supplies of oil and gas in the world. On Putin and energy in WSJ last week:

"I would describe it as very much his personal project,” said Clifford G. Gaddy, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and an expert in Russia’s energy policy. “It is the heart of what he has done from the very beginning.” Indeed, from his earliest days in power in 2000, Mr. Putin, who left the presidency in 2008 and became prime minister, decided natural resource exports and energy in particular would not only finance the country’s economic rebirth but also help restore Russia’s lost greatness after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Fine. But the logical response of countries held hostage by Russia's manipulation would be to wean themselves, as rapidly as possible, off the substance that binds and threatens them, right?

As they did two years ago after a similar supply disruption, European officials have promised in the wake of the Ukraine dispute to take steps to diversify the Continent’s sources of gas to end its reliance on Russia, which supplies nearly 30 percent of the total. European dependence is expected to grow as North Sea gas fields decline.

So while logic would dictate a brisk move away from Russian supplies, other factors will play a bigger role, and likely keep Europe and the former Soviet Union in Russia's energy grip for the foreseeable future. Lest we feel superior, however, very similar forces have been at work between OPEC and the US for decades. Only now are we beginning to move in the right direction. Let's move quickly.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

No Go for Air Force Coal-to-Liquid at Malmstrom

The Air Force is betting the house it can find non-oil forms of liquid fuel to power its planes, manned and unmanned. As you're probably well aware, over the past 18 months it has been busy certifying that the entire inventory is OK running on a mix of 50/50 JP8 and synthetic fuel derived from natgas. Having our planes be able to run on other other fuels is one thing, having enough of the alternate fuel to make a difference is quite another.

To that end, the Air Force had been trying to stand-up a plant to test the feasibility of turning coal into liquid fuel in high volume. Unfortunately, it appears that initiative is dead, at least for now. Here are the reasons the AF gave for why they decided to kill it, according to this Air Force Link article: 

• 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 I'd like to know is: other than these issues, was the plant going to work? How much fuel was it going to make and how much would it have cost per gallon when all the costs of construction and operation were factored in? The reasons given for termination mask information on what the Air Force thought of the utility of this proposed facility. It's not a good sign.