Alternative Energy and the DOD Battlefield of the Future

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs, Sharon Burke shared a few mid 2013 insights in an interview published last week.  Here's an excerpt that signals more of the same ... and a subtle shift:

Status Quo

Though alternative energy use is increasing, the military will continue to depend heavily on petroleum.  "We do expect that we will continue to be a very petroleum-dependent force. Petroleum has an energy density and a universal availability that's very, very important for a military force," Burke said. "We have equipment in our arsenals that's designed to use liquid fuels that are going to be around for many decades." 

New Deal

But because energy diversity guidelines were added into the requirements and acquisition processes, Burke said she anticipates an increase in the implementation of tactical solar panels, fuel cells, flywheels, more efficient batteries and other energy-saving measures and practices in the future.

You can follow Ms. Burke on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/sharon.e.burke

---------------------------------

URL for Fed News Radio article:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/394/3375799/Alternative-energy-key-to-DoDs-battlefield-strategy

Photo credit: Treehugger.com

Technology Focus: Storage Storage Storage

If this was the DOD IT Blog, the title might be referring to next gen holographic optical storage capable of storing 100 Terabytes of data in a device as big as a red blood cell. But it's not.

Of course the title refers to energy storage, considered by many to be the key enabling technology for grid-scale intermittent renewables like wind and solar. But storage also has important roles to play in smaller form factors, namely vehicles and man-portables.

To wit, here are three recent nuggets, culled from this week's traffic, for your consideration:

1. Energy Storage Challenge - "Energy storage is a particular concern for defence departments around the world for their bases, vehicles, vessels and soldiers in the field. So while we might all be able to benefit from the hard work of innovators working in this space, we note that the defence sector has traditionally been an early adopter of breakthrough technologies due to its unique needs and ability to explore emerging innovations, even if they are not cost competitive yet." We are happy to announce that ONR and ONRG of the US Navy have agreed to sponsor the winning prize for the winner of this 1st challenge with a $250K grant award. We thank ONR and ONRG for their vision and commitment to spur innovation in the energy storage field." Web site is still under construction but for more info contact "Simon Schneider at: schneider@energystoragechallenge.com
2. Lithium Ion batteries for DOD platforms - " Li-ion battery technology for non-hybrid vehicles for engine starting, lighting, ignition and silent-watch applications." Full article here
3. Fuel cell for mobile gadget charging - In new tech, sometimes the military leads, sometimes it follows, but most often it adopts stuff from the commercial sector and adapts accordingly. Such may be the case with new products such as this.

You may also be interested in this recent post on the fully burdened cost of batteries (FBCF).

Photo credit: Dean Johnson on Flickr

Announcing the FBCB: The Fully Burdened Cost of ... Batteries

This blog has covered energy metrics before plenty of times (don't worry - I won't do that annoying "here" and "here" and "here" thing; you can search for yourself). Over time, we've seen the 7-step Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) methodology genericized by the Army into the Fully Burdened Cost of Energy (FBCE), and now, thanks to an enterprising group of DOD energy specialists at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in Monterrey, it's morphed into the Fully Burdened Cost of Batteries (FBCB).

In their brand-new paper and presentation "Batteries on the Battlefield: Developing a Methodology to Estimate the Fully Burdened Cost of Batteries in the Department of Defense" Marine Major Troy Kiper, Army Major Anthony Hughley, and Army Major Mark McClellan build on work already underway in OSD and the Army for the fuels supply chain, and modify it to reflect the particularities of the battery world.

For one thing, as Major Kiper points, there's a huge difference because whereas fuels just burn up, the FBCB is a double supply chain, with energized batteries going in, and depleted batteries coming out of the combat zone. It's nice that they develop both CONUS and operational scenarios, as some previous studies have taken the easy way out and only focused on peacetime ops at home.

For me, the biggest things to get at are less about dollar costs and more about mission enhancement or impairment. This report does the job for the supply chain/convoy/force protection concerns. But in the recommendations section, it also notes that further goodness could be derived by examining the effects of battery weights on soldiers. I hope these guys get a chance to go after this info in detail, but can tell you already, even from this ivory tower, that reducing battery loads on troops will produce more effective, less exhausted fighters every time.

Photo credit: Defenseindustrydaily.com

Better Batteries Brewing at Argonne

Energy security takes many forms. In this case, a disparate group of small US researchers and would-be manufacturing co's are banding together to build a better battery. The site they've chosen is the Argonne National Lab in Illinois, a huge DOE facility famous for its role in the Manhattan Project. This excerpt from last week's press release says it all:

Lithium ion batteries are anticipated to replace gasoline as the principal source of energy in future cars and military vehicles. Today, United States automobile manufacturers and defense contractors depend upon foreign suppliers — increasingly concentrated in Asia — for lithium ion battery cells.

I wish these guys a lot of luck for several reasons. The full release is here.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Wearable Power Prize Competition is On !!!

This is about new, small and survivable storage technology. Before I say more about this competition, I'll begin with my favorite Q&A from the  FAQ sheet:

Question: Are human-powered systems eligible?

Answer: No, the intent of this prize program is to supply power to the warfighter and not extract power from the warfighter.

Pretty funny for technical FAQ, don't you think? The final competition and live tests are happening right now.  Here are the details:

• Sponsor: Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E)
  
• Total # of teams competing: 48 finalists from 15 countries
• Venue: Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA
• Prize money at stake: $1 million for first prize (plus smaller 2nd and 3rd place awards)
• Objective: To address the Defense Department’s need for long-endurance, lighter weight power systems for dismounted warfighters.
  
• Tech challenge: DoD launched the Wearable Power Prize in July, 2007 offering a one million dollar first prize for a wearable system that provides 20 Watts (avg) of electrical power for 96 hours, weighs less than 4 kilograms (8.8 pounds), attaches to a standard military vest, and operates autonomously.
• Sep 28 - Competition Begins: Competitors power-up their systems for a 92-hour power-production bench test in outdoor conditions
• Oct 4 - Final Competition: Teams surviving the bench test go head-to-head in the final 4-hour field test competition. Team members wear their prototypes as they power surrogate equipment in the final trial of the competition.