A New TET Offensive: Navy Transportation Efficiency Breakthrough

Thanks to OSD's Ollie Fritz for flagging this. With help from the forward looking Office of Naval Research (ONR), this new rather low-tech energy saving breakthrough is called the Transportation Exploitation Tool or TET for short.

Here's an example of how it works:

Imagine a scenario where a U.S. Navy ship in a foreign port urgently needs a particular engine part to complete its mission. TET allows the user to simply enter what cargo needs to be shipped and where it’s going, and then provides the planner with all available space on transports across military and commercial sectors, with recommendations for the most efficient routes. 

Previously, planners had to search multiple databases to access all civilian and military space availability, which could require hours or even days. In the worst cases, separate flights had to be chartered.

You can read the full piece HERE.

Photo credit: Marines.mil

USA/USAF Energy Forum, Day 0.5: Leadership, Technology and Empty Barrels

The first day of the first bi-Service Energy Forum is in the books and it was an impressive first. That the Army and Air Force where able to coordinate schedules and allow hundreds of government, industry, academic and media bubbas to assemble, mingle and learn was a first. As Dr. Kevin Geiss , Air Force Deputy Assistant Sec for Energy pointed out, by holding a joint conference, they eliminated one set of air travel, hotel bills and conference fees (not to mention bar bills), allowing us all to stretch our budgets, reduce our travel related GHG footprint and juxtapose Service agendas. The downside was an agenda so packed with simultaneous breakout sessions that it became almost impossible to choose where to be. That being said, themes began to emerge quickly.

After opening remarks by respective Assistant Secs for installations, energy, environment, logistics and what have you , the first plenary session kicked off with the White House Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Under Secs from the Air Force and Army extolling the virtues of DOD involvement in energy security. “DOD has a history of leadership, DOD helps get technology launched, DOD can get it done” was the chorus and all were singing. The first sour note began to creep in when Mr. Westphal (Army) let slip that, oh, by the way, we don’t have any big money to do this and it is going to get tougher. You could hear the collective sucking of teeth by all the industry folks. Of course this is really not news. All of the government folks have been telling us that they cannot achieve their lofty goals without third party involvement and their industry partners. Still, many of the folks who were there hoping to dig into the supposed barrels of DOD money for energy, were shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover the barrel is bare.

This was followed by the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. Dr. Chu is the funniest, Nobel Prize winning, experimental physicist I know. At one point, when describing the Energy Innovation Hub concept, he said that while working in a previous job a couple of years ago, he had tried to get DOE interested in the concept, with little luck. “The current administration has been more receptive to my ideas.” And then he told us, that that was the joke. We laughed. Sometimes we forget that Nobel Prize winners who have done remarkable work on cooling lasers and have the vision to predict a glucose based economy (vice carbon) are just plain folks. I am seriously in awe of this man and his ideas. I would also like to have a beer with him.

Dr. Chu went on to discuss the multitude of projects in which DOE is engaged, many in support of DOD. He reminded the audience that DOE has an extensive history in working with explosives (see Manhattan Project) and is helping DOD look at IED resistant vehicles. SecEn went on to talk about what DOD could do to its 2.2 BILLION square feet of buildings to reduce their energy impact and closed by showing where other nations ranked in developing Clean Energy for Security and Prosperity as a percentage of their GDP. For a guy with such awesome technology at his finger tips, you would have thought he could have come up with a slide format that would have allowed him to show where the U.S. ranked on that scale. Unfortunately he could only list the top sixteen countries. What do China and Brazil know that we don’t?

I will break here so that Andy Bochman doesn’t yell at me for writing another book instead of a blog, but lots more to follow on the themes of DOD leadership, technical innovation and bare bank account. Tomorrow will have observations on the first day breakout panels and the most impressive presentation of the day. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t from DOD.

For all of you who came up to me and expressed your appreciation for what Andy and I have tried to do in this space, thank you. As much as I pick at DOD on energy, it is only because I am impatient. We are the nation that electrified the world in the first half of the last century and computerized it in the second half. What should we be doing in the first half of this century? Ask Dr. Chu. He will tell you we should be developing Clean Energy for Security and Prosperity. Hear, Hear. Dan Nolan

QDR 2010 Directly Addresses DOD's Operational and Facilities Energy Issues

I admit it: back in June of 2009 I had my doubts. But the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is finally out, and energy got its due - approximately one page out of one hundred twenty eight. Not bad, when you consider previous QDRs never considered the topic. Starting on page 84 of the report, I've captured and reprinted the 4 energy specific paragraphs here and will break it down, with the points I consider most important / helpful highlighted in yellow.

First, I like that they take a stab at defining energy security, and when they do it's kept short and sweet:

Energy security for the Department means having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs.

There's a lot they leave out that others try to cram in. I say: good job. Re: the definition - just want to make sure we don't spend so much time and energy on the protect and deliver parts that we significantly impair our ability to prosecute war ... or whatever else it is our troops are told to accomplish. The QDR addresses that concern in the next sentence:

Energy efficiency can serve as a force multiplier, because it increases the range and endurance of forces in the field and can reduce the number of combat forces diverted to protect energy supply lines, which are vulnerable to both asymmetric and conventional attacks and disruptions.

... and points out additional benefits to fielding a leaner, meaner force. So how's this goodness going to come about? By baking better energy thinking in right up front the way it's already been told to do by congress, and the way two Defense Science Boards and the GAO have already recommended:

DoD must incorporate geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes. To address these challenges, DoD will fully implement the statutory requirement for the energy efficiency Key Performance Parameter and fully burdened cost of fuel set forth in the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.

Who's going to make this happen? Why the DOD Energy Boss, of course. The QDR language makes it sound like a fait accompli:

The Department will also investigate alternative concepts for improving operational energy use, including the creation of an innovation fund administered by the new Director of Operational Energy to enable components to compete for funding on projects that advance integrated energy solutions.

Sounds good, but I've got the feeling they're being a little too optimistic on this one. See here.

I like everything in this next two paragraphs, but I'm going to let them ride without comment and just a few highlights:

The Department is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand to improve operational effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives, and protect the Department from energy price fluctuations. The Military Departments have invested in noncarbon power sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy at domestic installations and in vehicles powered by alternative fuels, including hybrid power, electricity, hydrogen, and compressed national gas. Solving military challenges—through such innovations as more efficient generators, better batteries, lighter materials, and tactically deployed energy sources—has the potential to yield spin-off technologies that benefit the civilian community as well. DoD will partner with academia, other U.S. agencies, and international partners to research, develop, test, and evaluate new sustainable energy technologies.

Indeed, the following examples demonstrate the broad range of Service energy innovations. By 2016, the Air Force will be postured to cost-competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel via an alternative fuel blend that is greener than conventional petroleum fuel. Further, Air Force testing and standard-setting in this arena paves the way for the much larger commercial aviation sector to follow. The Army is in the midst of a significant transformation of its fleet of 70,000 non-tactical vehicles (NTVs), including the current deployment of more than 500 hybrids and the acquisition of 4,000 low-speed electric vehicles at domestic installations to help cut fossil fuel usage. The Army is also exploring ways to exploit the opportunities for renewable power generation to support operational needs: for instance, the Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System (REPPS). The Navy commissioned the USS Makin Island, its first electric-drive surface combatant, and tested an F/A-18 engine on camelina-based biofuel in 2009—two key steps toward the vision of deploying a “green” carrier strike group using biofuel and nuclear power by 2016. The Marine Corps has created an Expeditionary Energy Office to address operational energy risk, and its Energy Assessment Team has identified ways to achieve efficiencies in today’s highly energy-intensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to reduce logistics and related force protection requirements.

Finally, the last paragraph brings it all home with the intent to address the brittle grid problem.

To address energy security while simultaneously enhancing mission assurance at domestic facilities, the Department is focusing on making them more resilient. U.S. forces at home and abroad rely on support from installations in the United States. DoD will conduct a coordinated energy assessment, prioritize critical assets, and promote investments in energy efficiency to ensure that critical installations are adequately prepared for prolonged outages caused by natural disasters, accidents, or attacks. At the same time, the Department will also take steps to balance energy production and transmission with the requirement to preserve the test and training ranges and the operating areas that are needed to maintain readiness.

They covered all the bases (no pun intended) as far as I'm concerned. There's another two-hundred or more pages of detail I would have like to have seen included on energy, but if they had, given all the other challenges facing the department at this time, it wouldn't be a QDR.

I'll pursue the usual path from this point on: reminding the Department that this is what it's told itself it needs to do on energy matters, and nudging it to move faster when it looks like other challenges, or more likely, mind-numbing bureaucratic inertia, tribal squabbling and/or status quo thinking get in the way of desperately needed progress.

Photo Credit: abnskyshark / Andrew Michael Smith @ Flickr

2010 DOD Energy Planning Brief: Natural Gas Looking Good

We've talked about natural gas before, primarily to point out that the world is going to have access to a lot more of the stuff in the coming years thanks mainly to new discoveries and extraction methods. Here's an early 2010 natgas intro and update from guest blogger and Navy energy contractor, Vince Marshall.

1/19/01 "There's no such thing as a free lunch" Update: In the case of one of the new New York fields, a skirmish is brewing over possible extraction-related groundwater contamination. Here's an excerpt from oil & gas newspaper, Upstream:

At issue is the controversial process of shale gas extraction known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," in which a combination of chemicals, sand and water are blasted through rock to free trapped gas. Fracking is exempted from regulation under the US Clean Water Act. The natural gas industry argues that drilling poses no risk to drinking water, saying the chemicals are injected through layers of steel and concrete thousands of feet below aquifers. But opponents argue that toxic fracking chemicals are contaminating drinking water, citing numerous reports of private wells near gas installations having water that is discolored, foul tasting, or even flammable because of methane that has escaped from drilling operations.

-------Original Post Below----------

Natural gas is a preferred fuel for heating and power plant operations at many DOD locations worldwide. It is clean, comparatively simple to bring to process, and for the most part, readily accessible. As such, fluctuations in the supply and demand of this commodity severely impact operational budgets. For the next few years, there are strong market drivers that should help keep average gas prices relatively low. The first is Hydraulic Fracturing.

Hydraulic Fracturing, also referred to as “fracking”, is a process that injects high pressure fluids into shale and existing gas fields. This breaks up the underground rock and allows gas to be removed that otherwise would stay in the ground. The process increases production from fields that otherwise would be considered depleted. More on fracing here. Fracing is not a brand new technology but is increasingly being used to breathe new life into older gas fields. It does have a downside, though: groundwater contamination has prompted some local governments or prohibit its use.

Another development of note is the discovery of very large natural gas fields in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and elsewhere have substantially increased US gas inventories. In 2010, current gas inventories are approximately 15% higher than the rolling five year average. More on this here.

Of course, climate change legislation that would tax coal or fuel oil would drive consumers to natural gas and likely cause gas prices to increase. So far, coal and petroleum lobby groups have been effective in avoiding significant changes in their taxes and liability. From an early 2010 vantage, this is unlikely to change in the near future and will help keep natural gas prices low.

Perhaps this biggest short term driver has been the recent reduction in demand, which has increased inventories and helped keep prices low. New electrical generation from gas fired combustion turbines requires a long lead time and takes years to build and permit. It is believed that increases in demand will be more than offset by increases in gas production.

In sum, DOD personnel responsible for making long term energy decisions, like DLA's DESC, can look at today’s environment and plan with some certainty that natural gas prices will stay reasonably low over the next few years.

Photo Credit: sidewalk flying / Seth Sawyers @ Flickr

Keeping an Eye on Copenhagen for DOD

Climate science was not really on my DOD Energy radar until the CNA report "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change" appeared in 2007. Since then, while climate issues are far removed from the core missions of the day, they are beginning to inform future planning activities and global scenarios, as we'll see more clearly when the QDR 2010 is released to the public in a few months.

So along these lines, here's a dispatch from guest blogger and former Naval engineer, Vince Marshall, who's watching the Copenhagen climate summit closely:

Copenhagen: Global Climate Change Insurance for “Uninsured Motorists”

192 Global Climate Change representatives are in Copenhagen trying to hammer out policies on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The discussions come down to a few relatively simple issues:

• Industrialized nations believe that developing nations will add a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases as they grow and should take steps to reduce now
• Developing nations counter with two major complaints: the industrialized nations did not do this when they were growing and, more importantly, if this is so important to wealthy nations, how about helping out the poor neighbors by giving money and technology to reduce this burden?

Both sides make strong points and the question becomes this: how important is global climate change and who should pay for mitigation? There is a great set of articles in the Dec 5 edition of The Economist on Climate Change. The editors don’t debate whether climate change exists. They simply observe that climate change mitigation should be considered an “Insurance policy”. We take out insurance policies for our vehicles and homes against fires, floods and earthquakes without a second thought. In very simple terms, Copenhagen is about industrialized nations agreeing to take out “Uninsured Motorist” policies to cover developing nations.

If governments agree that taking out an insurance policy for the entire planet is a good idea, then how much should each country be willing to spend and who should be writing the checks? This comes down to policy and the Economist describes it here.

Global Climate Change “Insurance” can be measured in percentages of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and allocated for mitigation over many decades. We can do this by getting the highest “Bang for the buck” with energy efficiencies first then deciding what the best technologies for each region are in terms of renewables. Base electrical loads using distributed nuclear, such as those from Hyperion and Toshiba should be considered in addition to wind, solar and biomass.

Most likely we will see little outcome from Copenhagen unless the 70% majority of the developing nations (135 of 192 attending) can convince the industrialized nations to transfer large amounts of money and technology to them. This may happen but will probably be on a small scale and not really enough to make a difference.

Whether you believe in human-induced climate change or not, it makes sense to pay attention to these proceedings, as the outcomes may have broad implications for DOD and the nation.

Me, I'm not sure we understand how our planet works nearly well enough to know what to do to make it better, or that we'd even collectively agree on what better means. I believe in the power of the scientific method to iteratively arrive at the truth, but when climate change became politicized (and a billion dollar business), it left the realm of science for good IMHO.

But I understand many if not most folks feel otherwise. Vince has informed me that he'll be preparing a summary post after the conference is concluded to assess what impacts, if any, DOD is likely to feel from this. Stay tuned.

"Little Mermaid at Langelinie" Photo Credit: Erantis.com

USAF Mid 2009 Energy Plan Update

Linked here you'll find a slide deck outlining the current state of Air Force energy plans and policy in the context of the Leadership's overarching goals and priorities. In particular, I like this slide for its audacious attempt to boil down the massive complexities involved into lines of action mere mortals can understand: 1) Reduce Demand, 2) Increase Supply, and 3) Change the Culture (Culture Change).

All the right stuff, if done with vigor today and baked into force planning and war gaming for tomorrow's Air Force. As I see it, my job is to continue to nudge AF leadership and energy personnel to bring the last slides' "over the horizon issues" into the planning foreground as soon as possible. Here's the full presentation.

Updated: QDR 2010 Coming into Focus with No Focus on Energy

Feb 2010 Update: QDR just released to public. Wrote it up here.

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

Jan 2010 Update: I'm told there will be a significant discussion of energy issues in the QDR when we get to see it. That'll be in a month or two, I believe. Stay tuned ...

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

We're in the early stages of the development of the first Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) since the advent of $150/barrel oil one year ago. The way this DOD QDR Fact Sheet lays it out, however, mentioning only "scarcity of resources" and "climate change," energy may or may not get any extra attention this cycle. Same holds true from this 2010 QDR thematic preview from DOD Buzz.

It's hard to believe that with energy half of what it was 12 months ago, and twice what it was 6 months ago, the massive price volatility hasn't snapped more seniors awake. Not one mention of fuel ... nor any of energy management or energy security.

Well, not to get all doom and gloom on you - I'll admit I know there are at least a couple of folks working this QDR from an energy angle, but it remains to be seen how loud their voices will be.

Reader Feedback on "Unintended Costs and Consequences" and Design

One thing is almost always true when someone writes a comment on a DOD Energy Blog post: it's often right on the mark and from a person with a heck of a lot more wisdom and experience than me. That seems to be the case again with a note received this morning from former Army and RMI vet Karl Rábago of The Woodlands, Texas: 

The piece you posted on Unintended Costs and Consequences got my attention. But it took my thinking in a different direction - probably the result of a few years spent at Rocky Mountain Institute. This seems an issue of bad design. Perhaps if energy efficiency (or at least the ability to power down) had been a key performance metric for the systems? At RMI, we used to say that all the really good mistakes are made on the first day - meaning that good design is key. I wonder if the types of systems described in the article could be cost-effectively retrofitted to allow even more energy savings and better performance?

In many ways, it's the first day (day one) for getting energy security strategy and energy efficient design baked in. We've been living with systems designed for another time and an oil rich world and continue to pay for them in fuel, transportation and force protection costs. Modifications may help some of the legacy systems (new engines, winglets, etc.) but ensuring the next tanker/ship/generator/tactical vehicle/facility is designed for today's and tomorrow's world is the job of right now. 

Energy Changes Coming to DOD ...

... finally. In 2001, the Defense Science Board (DSB) published the excellent "More Capable Warfighting through Reduced Fuel Burden: Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms." When almost nothing happened, the DSB reconstituted itself (it's instructive to note that IDA consultant Tom Morehouse was a key member on both teams) and in Feb 2008 cranked out the ultimate guide to DOD Energy issues: "More Fight, Less Fuel: Report on DOD Energy Strategy." (Both of these voluminous and detailed docs are available in the right sidebar on this site.)

As we approach the one year annivesary of the second report, thought you might like to see what is, IMHO, the most singularly powerful statement it makes. Summarizing the key findings of the 2001 report, which have remained true all along, it says: 

The key finding was that warfighting, logistics and monetary benefits occur when weapons systems are made more fuel-efficient, but those benefits are not valued or emphasized in the requirements and acquisition processes. This is because DoD’s business processes do not explicitly, routinely or systematically consider either the energy problem or opportunities to address it. The [2001] report found that the requirements process does not require energy efficiency in deployed systems, the acquisition process does not value it, the procurement process does not recognize it, and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) process does not provide it visibility when considering investment decisions.

Ouch, that hurts. But there's good reason to believe 2009 is finally going to usher in some big changes. In fact, you'll see some of them very soon. Stay tuned.

Old and New Energy Development Hits the Brakes

Boston is hosting two energy-related conferences this week. One is the giant Green Build expo which is advancing the very successful LEED program, focusing on improving energy efficiency, energy management and materials issues in the construction industry. The other I discuss here is the 4th Conference on Clean Energy, which brings together much of the New England-area venture capital and academic tech transfer communities. Normally a very optimistic and stimulating stage to announce all the new stuff going on in the tech energy space.

While the innovators from MIT and elsewhere have some fantastic new technologies, the lead off speaker began by acknowledging an unruly and very large mammal head on: the elephant in the room. Though anyone with access to the media knows that the global economy is grinding to a halt and that investments and other capital expenditures are way down, it was a bit of a shock to hear it spoken out loud in a forum like this. Talk about boom-bust:

• Most energy infrastructure work (development and maintenance) is stalled ... worldwide
  
• Oil development work in US slowing, stopping
• Russia infrastructure will deteriorate and oil output will decline over next few years
• Only some OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia will continue to spending on their oil infrastructure ... though at a lower rate than in the past
• Investments in the renewables build-out way down as no money is flowing 

Take away: when the economy recovers, there' s going to be even less global oil available than there was when it hit $147 a barrel this summer. And the only country that's keeping its gear in good shape, Saudi, will comprise a larger % share of US oil imports than it ever has. For DOD, this is a very good time to avoid short term thinking if it can.

UAVs' Unknown (But Potentially Enormous) Impact on DOD Energy Demand

Recent DOD Energy Blog posts like this one have show strong trend lines towards greater use of UAVs by the US military. Much greater, in fact. Now this Slate article makes it clear that our Predator drones are doing a great job in Afghanistan, military and politically. 

And guess what that means? We're going to make more of these aircraft, train more ground-pilots, and keep UAVs in the air more often. I need to find out how much fuel these planes use per hour and how long a typical mission is. And how many are in the air at any one time. And how many will be in the air in a year. And will sensor and comm (if not weapon) systems be miniaturized enough for them to be carried on lightweight versions powered in part, or in full by solar/fuel cell/battery/etc. 

While the comparison is far from perfect, here's a taste of how much JP8 some of their manned counterparts consume from Dr. Karbuz's most recent paper:

• B1-B bomber: 59 gallons per minute
  
• B-52 bomber: 54 gallons per minute
  
• KC-135 tanker: 35 gallons per minute
  
• F-16 fighter: 13 gallons per minute
  

I wonder if someone at the Pentagon is keeping track of this and thinking about what this trend might do to AF and Army energy budgets and logistics?  

Lastly, it's not just the US that's learning how effective they can be, see the cautionary note the conclusion of the Slate piece about how other countries are becoming enamored of UAVs as well. And not just our friends.

Photo courtesy of Mike Hawes @ Flickr