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

Living with the Enemy: US Convoys through the Taliban's Eyes

Mid September Update: sorry folks, but while the link to this piece the CNAS site still works, the video it introduces has gone dead. Perhaps the video is live elsewhere, but we've all likely got bigger, more urgent fish to fry.

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

The Center for New American Security (CNAS) featured THIS embedded Youtube video today, of an embedded Western journalist who wins the Taliban's trust and then films them as they go about their lives, including domestic scenes which humanize them, and battle scenes which show mountain ridge attacks on American convoys.

As this blog (and its featured JFQ articles) often discuss the heavy burden fuel convoys place on our war fighters, thought this might give readers a fuller (i.e., much less abstract) appreciation of the threat we're facing getting fuel delivered in Afghanistan.

Photo credit: The National Guard on Flickr.com

Marines Battlefield Solar Ready for Action?

What a difference 18 months makes. Back in the middle of 2007, the Joint Staff said "no way" to the concept of deploying solar or wind resources in theater. However, according to accounts like this, we're awfully close to seeing suitcase solar in Afghanistan as a first strike (albeit a modest one) against convoys. This system was fast tracked through the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and field tested at the Navy Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) in Bethesda, MD.

Dubbed GREENS, for Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy System, the system consists of stackable 1600-watt solar arrays combined with rechargeable batteries to yield 300 watts of continuous power.

One thing I'd like to know is has it reached Afghanistan yet, and if so, how are the Marines liking it? And if it's not there yet, when will it first arrive and in what kind of numbers?

Photo Credit: Defense.gov

Seeking Lessons from the September 3rd Taliban Tanker Incident in Kunduz

The news cycle had come and gone on this report of Taliban-hijacked fuel tankers and NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) attack on them which destroyed them, plus the hijackers, plus a large number of civilians gathered to get a share of the fuel provided by the oh-so-generous Taliban who "only have Afghan peoples' best interests in mind." Actually, it's still in the headlines as a NY Times reporter seeking to cover the aftermath was just taken hostage and rescued.

Of course, this incident is about energy, but it's also about so much more. I couldn't figure out how to tackle it until I received this missive from a friend in DOD who is tuned in to such matters:

Talk about a potpourri of issues ... vulnerable energy supply lines, likely third country nationals owning the original fuel trucks, close air support rules of engagement, host country populations needing energy, and now civilian casualties. 

Now ISAF is going to investigate how this all unfolded, with particular attention to the civilian casualties. Takes the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) to a whole new level, wouldn't you say?

Convoy-Free Electricity Ready for Prime Time?

I'm not saying this company's solutions are ready to put old-fashioned field generators out of business. But I am suggesting that, for some applications, its mobile "Titan" and "Mojo," in individual and tandem configurations, begin to offer commanders a path away from the current, convoy-dependent status quo. Actually, with these solutions, unless the equipment is airlifted, one convoy is required to deliver the systems to station. But the beauty is, once it's on the job, it requires zero diesel or J-P8 to operate.

Had the chance to speak with an executive at mobile energy provider, White Door, and learned about the company's offerings and what these guys are up to. Founded 7 years ago to make self powered sensor platforms, mobile energy generation on a larger scale is now their goal ... and their offerings show they're beginning to reach it. Not only do these integrated wind, solar, battery and fuel cell systems provide reliable, nearly silent, low-heat signature power, they have a new unit that generates as much as 30 KW.

One potential weakness that would immediately give DOD planners pause would be the systems' dependency on intermittent energy sources. Well, it appears that White Door has tackled that problem. The executive said they purposely "over-engineer" each systems' energy storage, providing 5+ days of back-up capacity should the wind cease to blow and the sun cease to shine for that long. There's also an option for a fuel cell back-up should the 5-day capacity still cause concern.

The Marines are field testing these units right now. More info is available here.

Citation Series from CNA's "Powering America's Defense" Report & Conference

From former Admiral, Space Shuttle Commander and NREL Director Richard Truly this time:

We've put very inefficient systems deep into [Iraq and Afghanistan]. As a result we end up with long lines of fuel trucks driving in. And we have to protect those trucks with soldiers and with other vehicles. [This problem] is well recognized by a lot of the troops. They've seen their friends getting hurt because of poor energy choices we've made in the past.

Re: Truly, it's amazing how much some individuals are capable of accomplishing in one lifetime. Maybe we could help pay him back a little by delivering policy and technology solutions to the above stated challenge. Now.

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.

Energy Cold War

Michael G. Frodl writing in this month's National Defense Magazine calls it what it is: an "Energy Cold War" that crosses many fronts. His is a fairly comprehensive listing of the many battlefields (some hot, some not) where energy resources are being contested today. One of them is no surprise:

Fuel supplies intended for U.S. troops in Afghanistan ... are creating a security risk. More than 90 percent of the fuel and materiel destined to U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan go through Pakistan. The Taliban and other Islamist forces in Pakistan have been attacking supply convoys in transit. 

IMHO, whether by land, sea or air, the opportunities for disrupting fuel supply lines are always greater than or equal to the number of supply lines. Someday maybe Star Trek-like transporter tech will allow us to bypass these modes and we'll have moved on to dilithium crystals. You don't even want to ask what that supply route looks like!

2 Words: Solar Tents

By now you should already know about how spray foam insulation on tents in Iraq and Afghanistan has saved many millions of dollars, reduced fuel convoy size and frequency, and most importantly, saved many soldiers' lives.

What you should also know is that several new co's, including Massachusetts-based Konarka, are perfecting thin-film solar technology to the point where it can be built into fabrics ... like tents. The FOB applications are many, and include not just tents, but essentially any structure, parked vehicle or space that lends itself to being partially or fully covered.

With tents that retain 50% more energy, with micro-grid and energy management systems that save 20-25%, and with tents and other surfaces creating new solar sources of FOB energy, it's plain to see that Army field units, in deserts anyway, may not need fuel convoys much longer. Food and ammo, yes. Fuel, no.

Photo courtesy of Konarka

National Defense President Nails It

Lawrence Farrell has written on energy before, but never better than just now in the December edition of National Defense Magazine. Farrell, a former 3 star USAF general (a Zoomie, I might add) and President of NDIA's National Defense, makes a powerful and succinct case that the DOD needs to get off oil post haste. And not just because some of it comes from messed up or outright hostile countries, meaning it's unreliable and purchase of it funds corrupt regimes and terror networks. 

No, all of those solid reasons have never been nearly enough to change DOD behavior. Farrell begins, "When it comes to military energy priorities, we must get beyond the traditional cost-benefit analysis that inevitably is tied to the price of oil." He points out that insulating tents yields huge financial savings, but follows that with the fact that it also takes 13 tanker trucks off the road every day. See, it's not the oil money, it's the logistical burden inherent in reliance on oil that's the killer, literally and figuratively. According to Farrell, 

Seventy percent of the convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan are for fuel and water. These convoys are at risk from roadside bombs and snipers. Just moving fuel entails great danger to US troops.... If we could cut the amount of convoys in half, the logistics tail would be significantly reduced. The result would be drastic improvements in the ratio of shooters-to-support personnel.  

You hear that Hoss? More teeth, less tail. As it turns out, in-theatre DOD energy security is largely independent of where oil comes from or how much it costs per barrel on any given day. Farrell concludes:

The problem with [current DOD energy strategy] is that it dictates a halt in the development of alternative technologies as soon as the price of oil falls.... This inevitable knee-jerk response to [oil price fluctuations] has got to go.

I'll keep beating my drum. This is why rapid departmental adoption of the Energy Efficiency Key Performance Parameter (KPP) is a must. Related to (but untethered from) life cycle expenditures, it better accounts for the most important costs of future systems and forces.

Iraq supply convoy photo: Army.mil @ Flickr

Reducing Army Fuel Convoys = Saving Soldiers

I wasn't there, so didn't hear the narrative that accompanied this Army Energy Security deck presented earlier in October. But Mr. Paul Bollinger, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, put together a great presentation that includes a slide that communicates very clearly with numbers. I'm not sure what period it's covering, but "Tactical Fuel Protection & Logistics" speaks pretty plainly all by itself:

• Kuwait Fuel to FOB: 431 millions of gallons
• Fuel trucks needed: 140,075
• Convoys needed: 9,332
• Soldiers per convoy trip (Fuel trucks, protection, other support): 120
• Soldier trips: 644,360
• Each 1% Fuel Savings: 6,444 Fewer Soldier trips (my italics)
  

Remember, each of these trips puts our soldiers in harm's way and keeps them out of other roles where they might be, well, more "proactive" with adversaries. So it's not a stretch to say that reducing demand for fuel at the FOBs (via process changes and/or energy efficiency improvements) is directly correlated with saving soldiers' lives.

Switching gears from tactical fuel issues to installations, slides 13 - 17 are also good and show hypothetical Army deployment locations for solar, geothermal, wind, and biomass. Sure it's just a Powerpoint dec, but it certainly gives the impression that Bollinger and his staff are thinking through the energy security issue and generating plans to turn things around.

Photo Courtesy of Dan at Taxson.net

Marines Know the Link Between Energy and Mission

Journalist and author Tom Friedman turns his sights on energy in his upcoming book, and Wired Magazine has a short intro piece on it. I particularly like this anecdote, featuring:

a Marine Corps general in Iraq who requested solar panels to power his bases. Asked why, he explained that he wanted to win his region by "out-greening al Qaeda." Instead of trucking in gas from Kuwait at $20 a gallon — money that fuels oppressive petro-dictatorships — in convoys that are vulnerable to roadside bombs, why not beat the insurgents by taking away their targets and their funding?

Reminded me of another USMC general,  Gen James T. Mattis, cited in the Defense Science Board's energy report released earlier this year, as saying: 

"Unleash us from the tether of fuel"

While the Air Force is often seen as out in front for DOD on several new energy initiatives, clearly they have no monopoly on good ideas or on passion for improving current conditions. The Marines, by far the most mobile ground force, care big time about the effects of fuel on their troops and their operations.