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:

Beating Swords into Plowshares….For Fuel: 60 Year Old Defense Production Act Back in Vogue

Interesting reporting in Greenwire by Annie Snider (worth the few pennies a day to subscribe). The level of discussion of biofuel is moving beyond the concern for the price of corn; the Federal government is recognizing our dependence on a commodity we do not control. The President is considering invoking the provisions of the Defense Production Act.

The Act, passed in 1950, gives the President the authority to order business to sign contracts or fulfill orders determined to be necessary to national defense. It also allows the President to issue orders allocating materials, services and facilities to promote national defense. Finally, it allows the President to requisition property, force industry to expand production and the supply of basic resources, impose wage and price controls, settle labor disputes, control consumer and real estate credit, establish contractual priorities, and allocate raw materials to aid the national defense. The President will have to declare the technology to produce biofuels (which one(s)??) as critical to the national defense. If you are a fan of small government, you will love this! Sounds a little scary; but, then the days around the Korean War were a scary time.

According to the Department of Agriculture press release, the Navy and the DOE and will design a program to provide in the neighborhood of $500M to the biofuels industry to try to bring production facilities up to commercial scale. The provisions of the Act are administered by the Department of Commerce. The intent of the Act is to provide the military the critical material necessary for the national defense.

Normally, I am a fan of market forces and sink or swim in the economic area. Biofuels are a special case. If unusual efforts are not undertaken, biofuels will never get to a commercially competitive range. In case you have not heard, the top five companies for 2011 in America according to Fortune Magazine are:

1. Wal-Mart Stores
2. Exxon Mobil
3. Chevron
4. ConocoPhillips
5. Fannie Mae

You may note that 2, 3, and 4 happen to be oil companies. I would surmise that they probably have the cash reserves to beat biofuels on price for a very long time.

The other argument you often hear against this is that the government shouldn’t pick winners. If you think that is the case, go talk to a contracting officer. The government picks winners all the time! Usually, in free and open competition. Presumably this program will select among the various contenders for performance (JP8 identical), sustainability (not food!), price, etc.

The bottomline is that we and our trading partners are vulnerable to oil depletion or denial. Biofuels are a step on the path to the final revolution in transportation…..flying cars! Or electric. Or whatever sustainable energy source can provide us the mobility we require without the vulnerability. Dan Nolan

Fuel for Thought: Rand on Military Biofuels

The use of biofuels by the Military has been a hot button for some time. Now CNN and many other sources are reporting on a RAND Corps study that says that there is no direct military benefit from alternative fuels research. The Congressionally mandated study says that "There is no direct benefit to the Department of Defense or the services from using alternative fuels rather than petroleum-derived fuels,"

The study directed by SecDef and required by the NDAA 2010 looked at several topics:

• Opportunities to produce alternative fuels in a way that reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, including the use of clean energy alternatives such as nuclear, solar, and wind energies for powering the conversion processes.
• The military utility of concepts for production of alternative fuels in or close to the theater of military operations compared to domestic production.
• The goals and progress of research, testing, and certification efforts by the Department of Defense related to the use of alternative fuels in military vehicles and aircraft.
• The prospects for commercial production of non-petroleum military fuel

The study found that the most promising near term option was Fischer-Tropsch fuels, but that they provided significant challenge in their production of green house gases. It also questioned whether “appreciable amounts of hydrotreated renewable oils can be affordably and cleanly produced within the United States or abroad”. The FT method was developed by the Germans and exploited by South Africa, not because they were concerned about green house gases, but because they could not secure their supply of oil.

It allowed that if we had electric or hydrogen driven vehicles, we could use nuclear, wind and solar energy sources. This is kind of like say, “We could have ham and eggs, if we had ham……or eggs”. Finally, they found that the U.S. military producing fuel forward using compact fuel production systems is not a good idea. Of course, not producing fuel is already U.S military policy. As the Air Force has said, we buy fuel, not make it. That being said, if one of the countries in the ‘Stans was making a DOD certified biofuel I assume we might buy that. Nice economic boost for those supporting the U.S. efforts.

Rand concluded that, “Defense Department goals for alternative fuels in tactical weapon systems should be based on potential national benefits, since the use of alternative, rather than petroleum-derived, fuels offers no direct military benefits”. Essential, they are saying that DOD should be involved in biofuels for strategic reasons, not tactical. They laud the efforts of the Services in testing and certifying fuels. DOD efforts far outpace what the commercial world is doing.

The Navy has already found exception with the study. “Unfortunately, we were not engaged by the authors of this report,” said Thomas W. Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of energy for the Navy. “We don’t believe they adequately engaged the market,” he said, adding, “This is not up to RAND’s standards.” They have been actively engaged with the industry and see the potential for domestic use. The Navy Secretary’s goal of 8 million barrels of biofuels by 2020 may shape that perspective, but someone has to think big!

I agree that this is a strategic effort. If a component of energy security is access to oil, then home grown solutions are a step along the way. Just as ethanol was a step, drop in replacement fuels are a step that should lead us to the final alternative forms of locomotion for our transportation sector. Whether that is electricity or hydrogen, the market will tell, but by developing the certification processes, DOD will shape the commercial effort that can help fossil fuel poor nations around the world. Petro dictators, beware!

Is it Time for DOD to Believe in Biofuels?

Even though the DSB ETF 2008 report (my energy bible) calls fuel availability issues DOD's #1 energy security issue, I've never been able to muster much enthusiasm for alternative fuels. Doesn't seem to matter whether they're synthetic fuels derived from coal or nat gas, or bio fuels born of algae, switch grass, sugar cane or bacon. To date the trade-offs they've required in terms of manufacturing costs, use limitations or low production scale have made them less than interesting. Still, as with other early stage technologies, they're worth keeping an eye on because a big-enough breakthrough could change the game.

Here's Boeing's Billy Glover on how perceptions and expectations have changed each year:

Five years ago, drop-in biofuel for aviation was impossible. Four years ago it was unlikely. Three years ago we thought 'maybe there's something here', but now we've got through most of the technical barriers. We are really ahead of where anybody could have predicted.

Military and now commercial aircraft engines are being certified to run on things other than pure jet fuel, and the nascent industry seems set to ... uh ... well ... take off.

Here's a start up example, Accelergy, that's working with DOD right now and has a process that it claims can beat the energy density of petroleum (can anything do that?). According to CEO Tom Vail:

Our target is the section 526 regulations, which require 80 percent of the emissions, that is 20 percent below petroleum. Our initial work is with the Air Force. We are one of only a few that can produce 100 percent synthetic fuels that can reach that 80 percent threshold– and have a 30 percent better energy density than petroleum derived fuels.

Will this stuff mature to the point where it really does provide a significant portion of the Air Force's or Army's or Navy's fuel supply? Despite all the promise, and promises, it's still too early to tell.  But it does feel like we're past the first and second hype cycles and perhaps now drawing closer to something real. Click here and here for more info.

Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson at Flickr.com

Algae Biofuels as Force Multipliers

We've looked at synth fuels and biofuels several times in the past (including here). Now here's a short and timely from DOD Energy Blog guest blogger and Navy energy contractor, Vince Marshall.

Fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel and JP-5 have numerous advantages to military commanders. They are very dense in terms of energy per volume and robust in terms of handling and storage. Military supply systems are set up to handle liquid fuels and we have many decades of experience with them. It is difficult to picture an M-1 battle tank or Air Force C-17 with massive battery banks in place of fuel tanks in the near future. Why? Because batteries don’t currently have nearly the same energy density as liquid fossil fuels.

However, some of the issues with liquid fossil fuels are:

• Where the fuel comes from. Countries unfriendly to the US have lots of oil resources and at present we're more dependent on them than we'd ever want to be
• Fuel prices and availability are volatile. It is difficult to budget for cartel manipulation of supply
• Fossil fuels have been locked underground for millions of years. They have to be located, brought to the surface, cleaned, treated and then lit on fire to drive our vehicles. This releases carbon into the atmosphere, which is generally not a good thing these days
• There is a finite supply. At some point we will run dry

Algae based biofuels retain the advantages of existing fossil fuels without most of the downsides. They mimic fossil fuels performance without price and supply volatility. They don’t compete with food crops such as corn based ethanol products and they sequester pollutants such Nitrates and Phosphorus from the water.

This article in the UK's Guardian paints a promising picture. DARPA has been on the leading edge of Algae based biofuel research and has recently set short term price targets of $3.00 per gallon with ultimate goals of delivering fuels at $1.50/ Gal or less. DARPA is predicting large scale production to begin in 2013-2014. Producing our own cost-effective liquid fuels will be a force multiplier not only for the US Military, but for our entire country.

Ministry of Defense Implementing Sustainability

Lest you think that the DOD is the only military org moving out on energy matters, here's the DOD Energy Blog's first guest post from "across the pond". There's a heck of a lot to sink your teeth into in this mega-post, and you'll note that climate change issues seem to be a bigger driver for the Brits than they are here in the US. Nevertheless, whether it's climate change or the mission enhancements that come from reduced reliance on fossil fuels, it all points us in the same direction. Big thanks to Elizabeth Quintana of the UK-based defense think tank RUSI for this most comprehensive introduction to energy work underway by our closet ally. Enjoy:

In 2007, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) published its Sustainable Development Action Plan, which outlined its road map to help meet ambitious government targets for 2010 and 2020. 2009 saw the publication of the Climate Change Strategy (PDF). This document looked at the impact of Climate Change on the military, described the MoD’s carbon footprint and explained in more detail what the department would need to do to meet the UK government’s carbon targets for 2010 and 2020.

Estates
The UK Defence Estate is the largest landowner in the country, owning approximately 1% of the UK across some 4000 sites. It produces just over half of the MoD’s carbon emissions and 70% of all carbon emissions across the government estate. It goes without saying that if the MoD fails to meet its targets, so does the rest of the government. The government’s targets for Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate (SOGE) state that the UK government will:

• Reduce carbon emissions by 12.5% by 2010 and 30% by 2020, relative to 1999
• Increase energy efficiency per meter squared by 15% by 2010 and 30% by 2020 relative to 1999
• Source a minimum of 10 % electricity from renewable sources by 2010
• Source a minimum of 15% electricity from combined heat and power by 2010

Targets for 2010 were met at the back end of last year and were largely achieved through efforts on the Defence Estate, however, most of the low hanging fruit have already been picked and there is a long way to go before the 2020 targets begin to look achievable. Sub-metering is being rolled out across the country to better identify areas of waste but the biggest problems at the moment are dealing with the legacy buildings and existing contracts that do not incentivise prime contractors to manage their portion of the estate in a sustainable manner. These contracts will run for another 3 years. In contrast to the US, there is no desire at present for any of the bases to be completely independent of the national grid and as smart grids are still a way off in the UK, there is less concern over cyber attack, although a number of the IT security firms like Detica are already warning both the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Environment and Climate Change of potential problems with the adoption of this technology.

Energy in Theatre (taken from evidence given to the House of Commons Defence Committee)
The Expeditionary Campaign Infrastructure Team in the MoD’s Defence Equipment and Support organisation (DE&S) is already implementing measures to improve energy efficiency on Forward Operating Bases (FOBs). This work is focused on acquiring a better understanding of energy use and demand, with the aim of maximising efficiency. This includes: thermally lining tents & adding sun shades to reduce cooling loads; using Military Accommodation Bunkers as they are thermally dense and do not require air conditioning; installing power meters to identify where energy is being consumed; optimising power generator settings to match load and energy production. For planning purposes, the team has set an internal target to reduce energy consumption in operational accommodation by 50% per capita by 2013.

In addition, the MOD research programme, under the Science Innovation & Technology’s Capability Vision initiative, includes work to explore options for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Phase 1 of this work, launched in May 09, places special emphasis on Forward Operating Bases and is exploring options for generating power by sustainable means and reducing energy consumption through the use of more efficient infrastructure. Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) technology is unsuitable for use in the harsh operating conditions of Afghanistan. This work is, therefore, looking at adapting or developing existing technologies to meet our needs. 10 research contracts have so far been placed (with more in the pipeline) covering such topics as: next generation solar collectors; portable and robust solar cells; portable and deployable wind turbines (noting that these would need to be effective in the light winds experienced in Afghanistan); advanced thermoelectric generators; and advanced energy storage devices.

Phase 2 of this work, which is scheduled for 2010/11, proposes a field trial of these technologies in a challenging environment, designed to simulate actual operating conditions. The trial also has potential for international collaboration as several NATO allies, including Canada, France and the US, have expressed interest in taking part and bringing their technology for trial.

Alternative Fuels
Concerns over Peak Oil, the price of fuel and energy security have prompted the MoD to look into alternative forms of jet fuel. The Royal Air Force doesn’t have as much buying power compared to the USAF (it uses about 1% UK’s aviation fuel as opposed to USAF, which uses approximately 10% all aviation fuel in the US) and so there is little perceived benefit in spending its resources in developing its own bio- or synfuel. The Defence Fuels Group has, however, kept a close eye on work done by the US Defence Energy Support Centre and the civil aviation community and has already developed standards for alternative fuels so that a replacement fuel could be dropped in if it was desirable.

Sustainable Procurement
While various environmental and safety standards have been in place for several years, the Sustainable Procurement office has only been open for business for the last 3 years. Led by Iain Brooks, an SP Strategy has been launched and is now mandated as part of the procurement process, an MoU has been signed with all prime contractors and the SP Office is working with the Carbon Disclosure Project to map the carbon footprint of the entire defence supply chain. It is also reaching out overseas to understand how other countries have organised themselves and exchange best practice.

Interested in finding out more?
These programmes and others will be presented at the RUSI International Initiatives in Alternative Energy and Sustainability for the Military conference on 16-17 February in London. If you can’t make the trip, the conference will be broadcast securely over the web. For more information or to register for your ticket or e-ticket, please visit www.rusi.org/AEconference10

Photo Credit (Solar powered runway equipment in Afghanistan): UK MOD

Conference Alert: 5th Annual Military Energy Alternatives

Hard to believe the marcusevans conference folks had the foresight to be at this topic for so long, but it's true. Some great folks speaking at this one, and some pretty sweet workshops too. Here's your 4 Ws and an H:

• What: 3 day conference on alt fuels for DOD
• Where: Four Points Sheraton, Downtown DC
• When: 19-21 January, 2010
• Why: Driven by a huge surge in awareness last year related to fuel-convoy-related casualties, "The Pentagon, which traditionally has not made saving energy much of a priority, has launched initiatives to find alternative fuel sources, and currently has a diverse energy portfolio."
• How: Register here

Sorry for the short notice. Thanks to Vince Marshall of the USN for bringing this to my attention. For more info, follow this link.

Photo Credit: Sheraton

These are Still the Early Days for Aviation Biofuels

Will keep this one short and sweet. Seems like balanced coverage is the order of the day. Compare the realistic tone and details of this short article in PhysOrg.com with the rah-rah tone of some of last year's Air Force's messaging on testing and certifying all of its planes on a 50/50 blend of J-P8 and synthetic fuel derived from natural gas. If I'm a betting person, I'm betting that biofuels are not going to make a dent in Naval Aviation's petroleum-based demand any time soon.

On the other hand, I'd want them to keep working on improving biofuels and to collaborate with USAF and everyone else for that matter. A significant breakthrough or two in this domain could really change the game.

Photo: US Navy

DOD & Aviation Biofuels Mid 2009 Update

Dr. Karbuz (as usual) offers an excellent status update on biofuels research from aviation and DOD perspectives. You'll get educated, but once he's taken you through all the milestones and anecdotes of recent progress, it's his first and last words words that drive home the enormity of this challenge:

First ...

Commercial Jet fuel has stringent requirements. Alternatives are expected to perform exactly like kerosene so that aircraft do not have to be modified. They are expected to be environmentally sustainable and cost effective. 

Last ...

All these are good news, at least the cost side. But the scale of required production still remains a problem. By the way, who will invest in biofuels production without having any purchase guarantee or government subsidies?

Here's the full post. And here's a release from SAIC on its algae work for DARPA.

Photo: Reuters

Upbeat Biofuels Report Retorts Previous Gloomy Post

Last week this post cast a pall over the prospects of the biofuels industry ever playing a significant role in offsetting DOD's fossil fuel needs. This week there's better sounding news coming from the same conference, this time focusing on a better, non-food source crop called "energy cane" and highlighting the progress of a co. previously covered on this blog, LS-9.

Still, until evidence proves otherwise, you have to be skeptical about biofuels reaching the SCALE where they could be considered an energy security game changer for DOD.

Photo: North Queensland Register

Biofuel Industry Malaise

Renewables, energy efficiency measures and the smart grid are all important parts of the facilities energy solution, but what's going to help vehicles? The Army recently contracted for thousands of low speed electric vehicles, and hybrid electrics are improving every year, but for most transportation requirements, fuel remains the fuel of choice (sorry).

Hence, it's unfortunate that current efforts to create non fossil based fuels are foundering.  This dispatch is from a recent gathering of biofuels experts in San Francisco:

Many at the conference expressed concern and discouragement. Companies that were once darlings of Wall Street have gone bankrupt. Dozens of ethanol plants have closed as oil prices dropped. Many promising second generation plants cannot get built due to lack of project financing. People with the money see the risk as too high. There continue to be zero commercial scale (20-million gallon per year and bigger) cellulosic ethanol plants, despite past glowing press releases that declared that they would now be running.

All I can say is: Go DARPA. Go DOE/NREL-Chevron CRADA. Go MIT et al. Don't give up on this please.

Military Making Fuels Markets - No Takers So Far

As this recent National Defense article describes, you can lead a nascent industry to a fleet of ready vehicles, but you cannot make it make their fuel. This is DOD's experience to date with both land based vehicles as well as aircraft. The Army has tens of thousands of vehicles ready to run on flex fuels, and the Air Force recently completed synth fuel (natural gas/JP-8 blend) certification activities across its entire inventory. Yet today less than half of the Army's ready vehicles and non of the USAF planes have ready suppliers for alternative fuels.

Next up for USAF is the selection of one or two leading bio fuels candidates and the resumption of inventory certification processes. If someone's going to respond with scalable offerings, now might be a good time to let DOD know. Otherwise, there are a few more important energy security objectives it can pursue.

2009 Pentagon Energy Priority: Save Soldiers' Lives

Saving money is one thing; saving soldiers' lives is quite another. This article from today's WAPO provides a rundown of the Pentagon is spending stimulus money and other funds to reduce convoy traffic in war zones via a wide variety of approaches. According to the Post, citing OSD's Al Shaffer and Army BG Steven Anderson, while a number of benefits will likely accrue from this work, there's one that trumps them all:

By some estimates, about half of the U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to attacks with improvised explosive devices on convoys, many of which are carrying fuel. As of March 20, 3,426 service members had been killed by hostile fire in Iraq, 1,823 of them victims of IEDs. "Every time you bring a gallon of fuel forward, you have to send a convoy," said Alan R. Shaffer, director of defense research and engineering at the Pentagon. "That puts people's lives at risk." "The honest-to-God truth, the most compelling reason to do it is it saves lives," said Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson, director of operations and logistics for the Army. "It takes drivers off the road."

Perhaps the protection of troops will succeed in altering DOD behavior where money savings and mission assurance has not.

Small Co Pushes Biofuel Flight Envelope

Tiny, Florida-based Green Flight International is a working a fuel problem the military in general, and the Air Force in particular, hope they can solve. With scrutiny and approval from the FAA and some support from Lockheed, Green Flight has just flown a 1960's-era single-engine Czechoslovakian training jet coast-to-coast on a nutritious 50-50 blend of JP8, soy and animal fat.

While the Air Force is currently certifying its inventory to fly on a mixture of JP8 and fuel derived from coal, the benefits of that process seem limited at present. Certainly, fuel from coal is a big energy security gain (the US owns a heck of a lot of coal). But it comes at high economic and environmental costs. So the next generation synthetic fuels in the Air Force's road map include biofuels derived from multiple potential sources. 

Green Flights' demonstrated ability to fly its jet on various types of fuels ... and its upcoming flight test of an algae-based biodiesel, is identifying some options the Air Force might do well to explore in greater depth. More details are in this Scientific American article from last year.

Photo: Green Flight International

Boeing Going to Biofuels Within 3 Years

It's hard to separate truth from fiction on this one, but apparently: 

Biofuel-powered aircraft could be carrying millions of passengers around the world within three years, according to Boeing. Darrin Morgan, an environmental expert at the US jet manufacturer, said the group was expecting official approval of biofuel use in the near future. "The certification will happen much sooner than anybody thought," he said. "We are thinking that within three to five years we are going to see approval for commercial use of biofuels - and possibly sooner."

Seems similar to the the Air Force's recent certification activities across the entire USAF inventory approving its planes to fly on blended JP8 and synth fuels derived from coal and other sources. As the article points out, the trick for Boeing, Lockheed, EADS and the rest of the aircraft manufacturing and operating ecosystem is not about finding fuels that work with existing engines - they do. It's about making the new fuels, economically and in volomes that might begin to make a difference. So far, they don't.

Photo courtesy of Boeing

Event Announcement: Army Energy Security Forum

You may have been encouraged to learn just how proactive the Army is being with Energy Security from this post a couple of days ago. If you want to build on that and learn in person what the Army is up to in energy, across the board, I recommend you get to the registration site pronto. It's cheap for regular folks ($150) but open to government folks by invite only.

Details

Date: Nov 17 (one day session)

Location: Landsdowne Resort, Landsdowne VA 
Working Groups on:

• Solar
  
• Wind
  
• Geothermal
  
• Biomass
  
• Nuclear
  
• Conventional Fuels
  
• Investment and Contracting
  
• Regulations and Laws and Policies
  
• Grids (includes microgrids, mini grids, etc.)
  
• Improving Vehicle Fuel Efficiency through Management and Technology
  
• New Technologies for Energy Efficiency/Demand Reduction
  

I'd like to be there, but will be getting ready for the 4th Annual Conference on Clean Energy in Boston. But for those of you who can make it to Landsdowne: Go and get smart.