FBCF Gets a Boost from Above

At last month's CNA report release event, new DOD Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Deputy Director Ashton Carter said a lot of good things, including:

We must measure the fully burdened cost of energy.

Amen. He also said that even if he weren't naturally inclined to be working on energy issues for DOD right now, the intense level of focus on energy coming out of the White House and the National Security Council is so high that it would behoove him to work energy issues from a career standpoint alone. That may be true for an increasing number in DOD (and elsewhere in Fed gov) who never previously considered energy as part of their day job.

This short memo from Sandra Irwin sets the stage.

Photo: Boston.com

EULogy for Installation Energy Problems - The Benefits of the Enhanced Use Lease (EUL)

As you'll see, Sabot 6 CEO and DOD Energy Blog guest blogger Dan Nolan has been busy lately. First, the intro, from the Army's Enhanced Use Leasing Page:

With the expanded authority of Title 10 USC § 2667, each of the Services within the Departments of Defense have the authority and incentive to obtain a broad range of financial and in-kind considerations for leasing opportunities. The changes to Section 2667 expand the purposes for which lease proceeds may be used, and augment the types of in-kind consideration which may be accepted for leases. These changes maximize the utility and value of installation real property and provide additional tools for managing the installation's assets to achieve business efficiencies. 

Now here's Dan with notes from front lines of DOD renewable energy development:

I just returned from the oral defense of a proposal to build a minimum of 500 megawatts of solar power generation at Fort Irwin, California. The sites that Fort Irwin identified have the potential for over a gigawatt of power generation, essentially a new  nuclear plant. It will cost the Army nothing. In fact, the installation has the opportunity to receive secure power produced on post (only a fraction of the produced power), at fair market value PLUS in kind services from the commercial entity or the equivalent in cash for the lease. The in kind services (road building, etc.) would be of direct benefit to the installation. The business entity that wins this contract will be able to sell the excess power into the California, Nevada and New Mexico markets that are desperate for new power generation. If we were to utilize the millions of acre of "buffer zones", the land surrounding military installations separating them from the civilian communities, to produce power from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass (you name it!), we could begin to substantially reduce our requirements for coal fired power plants. It is just good business ... and business is very interested.

The Defense Science Board identified the vulnerability of installations due to being tied to a fragile power grid. Dollars for installations continue to shrink. Clean, renewable energy becomes cost competitive as demand for the technology increases. The process is time consuming and sometimes onerous, but has so many upsides that it needs to be a national movement. Every installation commander should be pursuing these opportunities. It won't all happen on their watch, but their children will thank them. 

Russia's Pipeline Plans are Europe's Energy Security Hell

How'd you like to be in Europe's shoes? I wouldn't:

The EU currently relies on Russia for a quarter of its total gas supplies. Of the bloc's 27 member states, seven are almost totally dependent on Russian gas.

If I were Europe, I'd be doing every conceivable thing to get free of Russia's noose ... before it tightens again in Winter. This written from the perspective of another country dependent on less-than-friendly energy suppliers. Maybe it's easier to see how crazy this situation is when it's not your own country ... although I'm not sure why.

Then again, short term ... are there any truly viable options?

Map Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

DOD Energy Policy: A Study in Stasis

As much as I love to celebrate progress (or what seem like indicators of progress), every once in a while I get a slap in the face that reminds me we're largely treading water. A recent and very well timed timed slap, delivered by a gentleman who's been working DOD energy from the inside and outside for a long time, is one I hope you take some time to consider. It's essentially a call and response referencing excerpts from yet another good article by Sandra Irwin in the most recent National Defense: "Prolonged Wars Tax Military Capacity to Deploy Electricity ".

Some of the comments (below in bold) are purely mine, some are the contributer's, all are meant to be constructive, but you'll see they're all pointing in the same direction:

The Defense Department “still lacks an effective approach to fuel demand at forward-deployed locations,” said William M. Solis, director of defense capabilities at GAO. He spoke at a hearing of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee.

Who in DOD sees the problems created by the fuel demand policy vacuum and is working non-stop to find a fix?

"Managing fuel at forward-deployed locations has not been a priority …. and reduction efforts have not been well coordinated or comprehensive,” said Solis.

Why, exactly, is that?

One reason why the Pentagon is having difficulties managing energy consumption at forward locations is the absence of data about fuel demand, said Solis. “We found that the information on fuel demand management strategies and reduction efforts is not shared among locations, military services, and across the department in a consistent manner.”

Why not? And who's taking the steps to make sure this problem is remedied stat?

The Army’s current generators are rugged enough for combat use but they are fuel hogs. The service is now testing a militarized generator — called the “advanced mobile power system” — that is expected to consume 10 to 20 percent less fuel. (AB note: this system is most often called AMMPS, as in "Advanced Medium-sized Mobile Power Source".)  A forward-deployed battalion typically requires about 24 60-kilowatt generators. The experimental generator is made by Cummins Corp., based in Minnesota. The company will ship prototypes to the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in June so they can be tested for at least a year before they are shipped to deployed forces possibly by 2010, [DDRE's Al] Shaffer said. “It’s not as fast as we would like to go, but we don’t want to field systems before we are sure that they won’t cause additional problems.” If the tests are successful, the Army plans to buy up to 67,000 of the advanced mobile generators in 2010 and 2011.

This has been going on for 3 or 4 years. Still another year to go just to test?

The Army also launched an energy-management experiment called “hybrid intelligent power generator,” or HI-Power.

Does anyone in the field know about this? Is leadership holding anyone accountable to get this technology into the field the instant it's ready to start helping?

The Pentagon should consider offering commanders financial incentives to consume less fuel, he said. GAO investigators at Camp Lemonier — a U.S. naval base in the Horn of Africa — found that base commanders had identified a number of ways to curtail fuel demand, but they saw little return on the investment because they would not be able to apply the savings toward camp improvements.

Again, what's the policy solution being worked here? Who's got the lead on this initiative?

Until more efficient generators and mobile grids become available, the Pentagon is seeking to drop fuel consumption in the field via common-sense techniques. One of the most successful has been to spray insulating foam on military tents.

This is activity we trot out every time ... what's next ???

Shaffer said it is difficult to establish “metrics” for energy consumption at forward bases because every operation is different and each confronts unique circumstances that may drive energy use up or down. “Deploying to Iraq, and air-conditioning tents in summer takes a lot more energy than deploying to some place where it’s a temperate region,” Shaffer told the subcommittee. “So I’d like to tell you we have good metrics. We do not. We probably need to get better metrics. But we don’t have specified goals other than down.”

Another recurring refrain: "metrics are difficult." Understood. But that doesn't justify complete stasis. Maybe something is going on somewhere. But I've asked around and found nothing. Where are the version 1.0 energy metrics we can learn from and build on going forward? What's being used in the JLTV program? What about you Air Force? Navy? Bueller?

A New Climate for DOD Climate Discussions

Until now this blog has stayed clear of climate and global warming issues. Haven't viewed that space as particularly helpful (or necessary) for furthering the DOD energy thinking.Well, the climate discussion, replete with pointers to relevant energy vectors, is happening in DOD just the same.

Hat tip to SM at CNA for this link to a great post at Good Blogs that sums up DOD's evolving take on climate issues. This part will give you a feel for where it's coming from ... and where it's going:

This is not, for the sake of this conversation, an environmental issue to be fretted over by effete, knuckle-knawing, liberal arts-educated, coastal types. Rather, it’s a security issue, and you’re going to be talking about war and intelligence and the military and terrorism. (And, by the way, here’s what not to mention: Al Gore, polar bears, Europe, and any celebrity or politician who didn’t play a Terminator.) You can make these arguments because the Pentagon, the CIA, and a veritable cavalcade of other national security experts have already made them for you.

I may not come back to climate again for a while or at all, depending on the role it comes to play in the Department's future energy plans and policy. But it's good to see it's being given some thought by leadership.

Getting More Granular re: the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel

Thank you Scott Sklar of the Stella Group for pointing me to Steve Siegel's work. Granted, little's going to happen until the Director of Operational Energy get's named and installed, and all eyes are on the first real test case for FBCF and the energy efficiency KPP: the JLTV. 

But for now, Google for "Steve Siegel" and FBCF and you get a FBCF goldmine, part of which includes documents from the FBCF workshop held at NDU last year. See here.

Put Your Head Between Your Knees - another Volley of Oil Volatility is Underway

Call it a yo-yo (I have many times), or a roller coaster (to better convey the anxiety), but whatever terms you use, oil is on the verge of doubling in price since reaching the 30's a few months ago. This link to a recent Mckinsey report on oil futures requires a paid membership. This article from the Times of London's Liam Halligan is free, and does as good a job as any at laying out many of the moving parts that make forecasting the price of a barrel of oil a ridiculous, though necessary, undertaking.