USN: "Save Energy Unless You Can't"

Hat tip to CAPT Jim Goudreau, Dir Navy Energy Coordination Office, for the heads-up on this brief article and apologies for the latency in getting it posted.

The Navy continues to be active in tuning its policies to more fully account for the operational constraints of fuel dependency and the wins that can be derived from more energy efficient systems and energy conserving behaviors.

From the official "Navy Live" blog:

The key ... is that energy-saving practices must evolve from “Save energy when you can” to “Save energy unless you can’t.” Institutionalizing and codifying energy savings throughout the fleet will enable us to continue meeting our national defense mission and fulfilling combatant commander requirements, while conserving vital energy resources and conserving scarce defense dollars that the Navy can apply to other priorities, such as maintenance and modernization.

Short, sweet, and comprehensively applicable to all manner of lifecycle and strategy considerations. You can read the whole post HERE.

Conference Alert: Defense Energy Summit

Haven't been this enthused about an energy conference since GovEnergy (RIP).  The line-up of speakers would be hard to beat. Though there's a caveat.

The vast majority of senior DOD and government speakers haven't yet confirmed, most likely due to frozen travel budgets (tagged with * below). Maybe some of them, like Senator Cornyn, even though Texas is a quite large, can simply drive. But the challenge is more significant for Washingtonians.

Listed Speakers

• Sharon Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs US Department of Defense
• Jonathan Powers, Federal Environmental Executive, The White House
• Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas*
• Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense*
• Richard Kidd IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy & Sustainability, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Installations, Energy & Environment, US Army*
• General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff*
• Thomas Hicks, Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy/Deputy Chief Management Officer, US Navy*
• Kevin Geiss, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics, US Air Force*
• John Lushetsky, Executive Director, Army Energy Initiatives Task Force, US Army*
• Honorable Katherine Hammack, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy & Environment), U.S. Army
• Chris Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy US Department of Energy

Nevertheless, the program looks very strong with or without the keynotes. I'll be there for sure.*

Details

When: November 11-13, 2013
Where: Austin, TX
For more info and to register: www.defenseenergy.com

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

Conference Alert: Defense Energy Summit

You've got plenty of time for this one, but want to get it on your calendar early.  Here's the Joe Friday "just the facts, ma'am":

• Who: Headliner will be Sharon Burke,  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs
• What: a 3-day conference and expo covering operational and installation energy issues
• When: 11-13 November, 2013
• Where: Austin, TX (venue is TBD)
• Why: GovEnergy is gone. The sequester has landed. This is a good chance for like-minded leaders and doers to get together and chart a course together for 2014 and beyond.

Also until August 8th you can submit proposals for the annual Defense Energy Challenge (DETC), which matches new energy solutions for DOD with testing and procurement opportunities.

--------

Conference URL
http://www.defenseenergy.com/

Photo credit: Knowsphotos on Flickr (and yes, that's a Stevie Ray Vaughan statue in the foreground. RIP.)

Aim High 2013: USAF Updates its Energy Plans

B-2 Spirit - Click to greatly enlarge

I remember talks several years ago with Mike Aimone, then an SES and big cheese of Air Force installations and logistics on a workable definition of energy security. After a stint at  Battelle, he's back in DOD as Director, Business Enterprise Integration ODUSD (AT&L)/I&E (BEI) (thanks to Scott Sklar for the correction). Nevertheless, the Air Force's search to define and deliver energy security goes on.

USAF has just released its 2013 Energy Plan, its first revision to the 2010 edition, and it addresses all the right topics, albeit at very high, and highly polished, level. Included is this sidebar on Installation Energy Security:

Farrell says Stay the Course on DOD Energy Diversification

With the rash of stories this past year on failures of US solar companies, the lack of speedy adoption of electric vehicles, and the boom in un-conventional natural gas and oil, occasional readers of the DOD Energy Blog might wonder whether renewables and energy efficiency have lost some of their luster for operational and facilities energy applications.

Well, the June edition of National Defense leads with a piece called "New American Oil Boom: "Will it Slow DOD's Renewable Energy Momentum?" which convincingly refutes the idea that energy leaders have taken their eye off the alternative energy strategy ball. National Defense magazine has long had a strong focus on energy matters, thanks to the leadership and insight of its President, retired USAF General Larry Farrell.

Reminding us of how tightly bound the DOD remains to oil, Farrell says:

When speaking of petroleum, independence is a myth, regardless of where it comes from. The fact is that, for transportation energy, there is no diversity of supply or source.

And looks a few years into the future:

Diversity has strengths of its own. The current positive situation of domestic supply will last a few years at best — perhaps out to 2030 or so. At some point global demand and increasing difficulties to get supplies will catch up. 

Concluding with a vote of confidence that DOD leadership is still on point on energy strategy:

We have the gift of time to address the problem. Knowledgeable leaders in the Defense Department realize this. It is unlikely that they will slacken their efforts to bring solutions to operational capability. There really is no other choice. 

I believe Farrell's observations and conclusions are correct, but Dan and I would be happy to hear if you see things the same way.  Andy Bochman

Getting your Head on Straight re: DOD Energy Strategy and Planning in a Rapidly Changing World

In the earliest days of this blog one of my best sources for clarity was former International Energy Agency (IEA) senior analyst Sohbet Karbuz. This man knows more about the way global energy markets function, and more about the ways DOD participates in them, than perhaps anyone on the planet.

Well, I've come back to him recently to try and grok the significance of some of the reports you may have seen lately saying the US is about to become a net oil & gas exporter, and that large fossil energy firms are increasingly focusing their efforts on unconventional resources (e.g. fracking for nat gas, shale gasoline extraction) in North America and Australia.

Here's some clarity on the contents of a CNA's recently released report on US Energy Security. First of all, the report's authors seem to have gaps in their understanding of the way the global energy markets function. In particular, they ascribe imaginary powers to individual nations and orgs when they say things like:

We are held hostage to price fixing by a cartel that includes actors who would do our nation harm, and we are too often called upon to risk the lives of our sons and daughters to protect fragile oil supplies from this very cartel. 

and ...

OPEC can increase production and drive down gas prices, erasing market incentives for developing alternative fuels ... the price of gasoline at the pump can too easily be manipulated by suppliers.

This doesn't do much to bolster the credibility of those who wrote and reviewed the report. But the report also mixes misleading or mistaken statements like those above with others that are much more on target. Here's Karbuz's take:

None of those [above quoted] claims make any sense. I was thinking about writing a few paragraphs on how the world oil markets functions and how oil prices are set. But I see that a reasonably good answer to those wrong arguments comes again from the report itself: “oil is a global commodity, priced on the global market. No matter how much more we produce here in the U.S., we can’t control the price of oil.”

He's also got a lot to say on the reports recommendations, particularly on biofuels. 

There's much more to process, and by the time you've finished Karbuz's analysis (on his blog, HERE), you'll have a better feel for what's going on, and also better context in which to consider the implications for DOD of the continuously changing energy landscape.  Andy Bochman

Your Ship is Sailing: Navy Energy Forum 2011 Underway

We mentioned it earlier, but in case you missed it, and find yourself in DC with some unexpected holes in your schedule, the Naval Energy Forum is happening today and tomorrow (10/13/2011 to 10/14/2011) at the Reagan Building in DC.

The agenda includes:

• Remarks by Secretary of the Navy: New Energy Future 
• Remarks by Chief of Naval Operations 
• Affecting Culture Change: How to Create Spartan Energy Warriors 
• Retooling Our Fleet: Successes and Challenges 
• Combat Enablers: It’s About the Warfighter 
• Strategic Outlook 
• C5I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Collaboration, and Intelligence) Considerations 
• Energy Efficient Acquisition 
• Game Changing Solutions 

Click HERE for more info.

2011 Energy Security Book List

There are two new books out in the last few months I want you to know about. Whether you have time to read them, even if I am successful in getting you worked up about them, well, that's another story. So again, it's only two books, which is probably one or two more than you'll be able to get to given your current workload. But here's why you should give them a shot.

The first one is by former Austin Energy CIO Andres Carvallo, called The Advanced Smart Grid: Edge Power Driving Sustainability. Co-authored with frequent technology writer John Cooper, this book is relatively short at ~200 well illustrated pages, and is a pleasure to read. I'm going to re-use some of the laudatory words I recently posted in an Amazon review.

Before they invite you to travel with them into the future, Carvallo and Cooper do a solid job of orienting the reader with concise summaries of where the grid came from, how it's evolved over time, and as accurately as possible, how it's doing in its current state. For the many immigrants who've recently moved to energy from other sectors (like me), this is a great grounding.

The authors then look past the current climate of activity, much of it initially fueled with government grants, to a phase where business drivers alone dictate what gets deployed next. Ultimately, they begin to unveil for us a blurry but emerging vision of "the advanced Smart Grid", that's predicated on pervasive IP networking, tons and tons of data, microgrids, EVs, virtual power plants, new business models and more. For me, it was well worth the time, and depending on your background and/or day job, it might be for you too.

Book number two is from one of the (if not, THE) true giants of global energy thinking over the past decades, Daniel Yergin. Best known (to me, anyway) for his biblical telling of the history and future of the oil industry in The Prize, his new book, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World, expands in scope to consider all energy sources. Recently reviewed in the NYT, this excerpt seems apropos:

When it comes to assessing the world’s energy future Mr. Yergin is a Churchillian. He argues that we should consider all possible energy sources, the way Winston Churchill considered oil when he spoke to the British Parliament  in 1913. “On no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent,” Churchill said. “Safety and security in oil lie in variety and variety alone.”

... and one more thing, for which the a smarter grid is the essential precursor:

One of Mr. Yergin’s closing arguments focuses on the importance of thinking seriously about one energy source that “has the potential to have the biggest impact of all.” That source is efficiency. It’s a simple idea, he points out, but one that is oddly “the hardest to wrap one’s mind around.” More efficient buildings, cars, airplanes, computers and other products have the potential to change our world.

Sounds great, right? Well, the bad news for you travelers is that, from a weight perspective, is that it tops 800 pages, though if you get the ebook version it's as light as can be. Now reading it, or the majority of it, that's another story. If it's too much for you to consider, maybe you can wait and hope for a movie version. But I wouldn't count on it.

Happy reading!

Photo credit: Miamism on Flickr.com
(Cross-posted from the Smart Grid Security Blog)

Where Do We Go From Here? 2010 Energy Report and Media Outreach

Tremendous week, last week, for Army and Air Force energy offices with media and bloggers. I make the distinction between what bloggers do and what the media does because it is important to draw that line between journalists and the unwashed masses in the streets. We expect higher standards, more facts and less opinion from reporters. Glad I am not one of those; way too hard!

Back to the media blitz. This past Wednesday, DASAF, Energy Dr. Kevin Geiss, provided an update on what the AF has planned and accomplished over the past several months, as well as they were in reaching the various goals, mandates and executive orders under which they labor. The answer was: Dang Close.

The recently released DOD Annual Energy Management Report for 2010 ranked all the Services in the categories of energy reduction and production of renewable energy. By the end of 2010, all Services were to have reduced their energy use by 3% a year from a 2003 baseline or 15% by EOY 2010. The results for 2010: AF-14.9% , Navy – 13.7% and Army – 8.7%. (top chart)

For production of renewable energy, the goal was 5% by 2010. The winner is…… AF at 6.4% with the Army and Navy have yet to reach the 2007 goal of 3%. (bottom chart)

The Air Force bought a lot of Renewable Energy Certificates (3.3%) which helped it achieve the goal; otherwise they would have been around the 3% mark. The performance of the other Services prevented the DOD from reaching the 5% goal. So, what are the implications and ramifications of missing the mark? There do not appear to be any. I wonder if Congress will start trimming the budget to reflect where the Services should be?

The Army followed the Air Force roundtable with their own, to announce the first day of work for the Energy Initiatives Office Task Force. This is the Office (Task Force?) about which the SecArmy announce the formation at GovEnergy some weeks ago. I guess the stationary arrived. The job of the Task Force (Office?) is to provide expertise to installations for larger renewable energy projects. The Army is looking for $7.1 Billion in investment over the next ten years to put them into position to achieve 25% of their energy from renewable sources by 2025 (Sec 2911(e) of Title 10 U.S.C.). Their motto is “We have the land and the demand”. Hopefully, they will be taking on the stalled Fort Irwin 500 MW Solar project and put the hard lessons learned from that apparent slow motion train wreck.

Fortunately, they have a little time to get it together. Here in late September, there are no large scale renewable energy projects for the Army that are in the proposal stage. Lots of information being sought, but no proposal. In a post at the beginning of the year, we said that DOD would have to add 1.5% of its total energy use (after energy reductions) to make its goals. It appears that this year has been about making plans and strategies and setting up offices. Speaking on behalf of industry, we are ready to rock. DOD….ready when you are! Dan Nolan

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

Operational Energy Strategy: Bumper Stickers for All

The Department of Defense rolled out its Operational Energy Strategy yesterday with all the impact of a low velocity marshmallow. The Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms sets forth standard US military and associated terminology to encompass the joint activity of the Armed Forces of the United States. This document defines strategy ”as a prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives”. It would be expected that a strategy published by DoD would conform to this characterization. This document does not.

What was released yesterday was a rehash of recent military energy history and bumper stickers. It was due to Congress on 21 December 2010. Six month later we get a missive signed by the DepSecDef (guess the SecDef was still on the farewell tour) that the National Journal summed up by saying, “Right now, the energy strategy consists of a new office, a new way of thinking about energy, and a three-point plan laid out in an 11-point memo that’s full of slogans but short on specifics”

The strategy promises an implementation plan within 90 days that ”will include specific targets and timelines for achieving this strategy in the near-, mid-, and long-term”. The strategy and implementation plan will be updated annually and will serve as the basis for the ASDOEPP’s annual certification of Service operational energy budgets. So, what are the “set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives”? The three bumper stickers read: More fight, less fuel; More options, less risk; and More capability, less cost. Let’s take a closer look at what the strategy requires of the Services..

The first Strategic Goal is to “reduce the demand for energy in military operations”. The strategy requires the Services to:

• Document actual and projected energy consumption in current and planned military operations
• Accelerate and adopt technological and management innovations from across the “DOTMLPF” spectrum to reduce demand and improve efficiency

The second Strategic Goal is to “diversifying and securing military energy supplies (in order to) improve the ability of our forces to get the energy they require to perform their missions”. The strategy requires the Services to:

• Diversify and develop new energy sources suitable for expeditionary use, to include efforts aimed at developing the capacity of partner nations in support of U.S. strategic goals
• Assure reliable energy supply for critical operational missions at fixed installations

Finally, the third Strategic Goal is to ensure that “energy consumption and the associated costs and logistics challenges are taken into account in all decisions about strategic planning, structuring, equipping, and posturing the force. The strategy requires the Services to:

• Analyze and report the primary “lessons learned” from current operations to inform future planning, to include the tactical, operational, and strategic consequences
• Apply those lessons to future military force development
• Demonstrate civilian and military leadership commitment to incorporating energy analysis and planning

The strategy consists of telling the Services to figure out how they are using energy and then use less; get more sources (types?) of energy and plan for energy in force development. In the entire document there is only one mention of the fully burdened cost of energy and no mention of energy as a key performance parameter. Both of these are required by law but with caveats.

The promise of the implementation plan is tantalizing. Targets and timelines are not enough; the Department has those and each Service has their own. What are required are measureable objectives for each goal with associated authorities (resources) and a belly button for each objective so that there is someone to be held accountable. Then, when the ASDOEPP provides their annual report to Congress on Service budget certification for operational energy, they will have a set of measurable objectives against which to measure. Responsibility, Authority and Accountability: my bumper sticker. Dan Nolan

It's Here

This just in, hot off the presses from Sharon Burke and crew (from the office of the ASD of Operational Energy Plans and Programs - there's no more DOEPP). Titled: "Energy for the Warfighter: Operational Energy Strategy", it's a first-of-its-kind document.

I'm sure Dan's going to have a thing or two to say about this report, but wanted to get it in front of DOD Energy Blog readers asap so you can form your own opinions.

You can download it by clicking on the cover image or by clicking HERE. Enjoy.

And in case you were wondering ... yes, I am trying to win the 2011 blog post title brevity award with this. Let's see if someone dares to try a shorter one.

Conference Alert: Joint Operations for Energy

The Army and Air Force are joining together for this year's energy forums. Scheduled for 19-20 July at the Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, Arlington, VA, registration is now open here.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Kevin Geiss points out that this effort shows the Services coming together to share resources and knowledge. The joint session will also cut down the travel requirements for those who usually attend both forums. They will also be able to bring in speakers from DOE, the White House and Congress with out double tapping those busy folks for separate events. Draft agenda is online now. The Navy will have their forum in October.

Of course, there is no free lunch and the cost for this event is about $500 for non government attendees. If, like many small businesses, the price tag for travel, fee and hotel are outside your budget, feel free to pass your questions to us here and we will try to get answers for you and publish them in a follow up blog. For those who can attend, see you there! Dan Nolan

“We are Sparta" at 8 Gallons/Marine/Day: USMC Energy Strategy on the Street

Once again, the Devil Dogs are first ashore on energy with the publication of a comprehensive, directive and accountability based strategy. The Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan was signed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps on 24 February 2011 and it sets the bar high. According to folks one step to the left and one to the rear, the CMC is fired up about it and wants to be aggressive. This is intended to get more teeth and less tail into the fight. The document is comprehensive in that it includes the vision, mission, scope, goals, initiatives and a way ahead. Most importantly, it includes the implementation guidance necessary to get the acquisition community rolling. More available at the Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office website.

For you fans of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), and I know you are out there, the next step is the Initial Capabilities Document and the Marines are ready to rock the JCIDS. They are completing staffing of the Expeditionary Energy, Water, and Waste Initial Capabilities Document (E2W2 ICD). For those not familiar with this document, the ICD identifies a capability gap or other deficiency in terms of the functional area, the relevant range of military operations, and the time frame. Key Performance Parameters (KPP), such as Energy are not included in the ICD. The ICD guides the Concept Refinement and Technology Development phases of the Defense Acquisition System and supports Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). The AoA is where the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel is used to compare alternatives in doctrine, organization, training, material, logistics, personnel and facilities. For industry: Gentlemen, start your engines! Class dismissed.

The document goes beyond the battlefield to embrace “the fifth element” of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force: bases, stations and Garrison Mobile Equipment. The goal? 50% will be Net Zero by 2020. Leathernecks will also take water and waste on as an element of the energy equation. The strategy is chock full of data point, examples and fun facts. Among those facts is that the new USMC metric for operational energy is Gallons Per Marine Per Day (GPMD). I would classify this metric as as good as any. The current number is eight GPMD. For installation energy the metric will continue to be the Defense Utility Energy Reporting System.

The Marine ICD is expected to identify 112 gaps capabilities and groups them into 29 tasks for resolution. It was created by three separate working groups consisting of SMEs from around the Corps. Will keep you posted on the deployment of this document.

One of the organizations drawing attention to the Marine energy effort is, of course, the ExFOB. It gets the press because it is a very visual example of what is being done (and not being done) in operational energy. That being said, in order to have real organizational impact, documents like the ICD are required. They start the wheels turning, money flowing and requirements for material necessary to engage industry. The ExFOB provides the initial energy capability and informs the requirements process in order to pursue technological solutions and programs of record that meet long term objectives.

The last major deployment of ExFOB kit was with India Company 3/5 Marines. The initial reports on that effort from the field were very positive. Next will be support for a battalion command and operations center this summer. As with the company set, the material solutions (hybrid PV/Gen/Btry system, DC air conditioners, tent liners, LED lights), will be tested in CONUS training and deployed only if operationally sound. We look forward to the outcome of this charrette (pun intended). Thanks to Amory Lovins for adding that to my lexicon. Dan Nolan

Air Force's Latest Thinking on Energy

Recent DOD Energy Blog posts have shown that the Army is working to bring energy considerations to the forefront of its thinking in operations and installations. The Navy and Marines too, are trying to find ways to run much tighter ships where fuel demand is concerned. But as the tighter ship metaphor probably doesn't work for AF types, here's a new term that's just landed from AFRL: "energy optimized aircraft" (thanks to Steve Iden via Ollie). The goals of the EOA program are to bring more efficient systems to planes and in-so-doing, reduce both fuel requirements and heat signatures in future systems. Nice!

Meanwhile, the Air Force seems to be making progress in the present as well, with some good sounds coming from new Undersecretary Conaton, and leaders past and present, at USTRANSCOM. All of these statements come from "Air Force: to save Fuel, we must change how we Fly" in the July edition of National Defense.

First, Erin C. Conaton, Undersecretary of the Air Force:

We realize it’s ambitious, but it’s incredibly important to set specific goals for reducing demand.

Air Force General Duncan J. McNabb, CC USTRANSCOM points to comparative cost as a major driver for the process-change actions described in the article:

It costs 10 times as much to move stuff by air as it does by surface. Transportation Command has spent nearly $80 million on computerized systems that help plan transportation routes more efficiently. What you have to do is marry the technology with the concept of operations.

And here's an eye opener for you, from McNabb's predecessor, retired Air Force General John Handy:

Moving cargo by sea takes longer but is far less expensive. A single “roll-on roll-off” military cargo ship can carry 300 C-17 aircraft’s sorties worth of equipment.

Numerically speaking, Duncan's 10 to 1 is a major attention getter. But Handy's 300 to 1 is a mind blower. Often, the equations and metrics used to illustrate DOD's energy demand challenges are complex and hard to translate for regular folks. In these statements at least, Conaton, McNabb and Handy make it clear to everyone why the Air Force has fuel on its mind.

Hat tip to USAFA classmate, now USAF BG Ian Dickinson for forwarding this article.

Photo Credit: David Brewster@ Flickr.com

Improved Posture: Services Increasingly Speaking with One Voice on Energy Priorities

Trickle up has become trickle down as calls for more attention to energy issues from low-to-mid ranking voices in the operational wilderness are now Service "posture statements" issued by the most senior of senior leaders.

The FY 11 Service Secretary posture statements are issued after the budget is presented to Congress by the President. Each is a 25-30 page statement of “needs” or “hot button” priority items that the Service Secretaries want Congress to know about the DOD budget.

What follows are the energy excerpts from each service's posture statement. While the Air Force has had energy language for a couple of years, this appear to be the first time all the services had something to say on energy. You'll note some interesting parallels and alignment, among them.

Army

Energy security is a key component of Army installations, weapons systems, and operations. The Army has developed a comprehensive energy security strategy, and is acting now to implement initiatives to make us less dependent on foreign sources of fuel and better stewards of our nation’s energy resources. In support of these goals, we fielded the largest hybrid vehicle fleet within the Department of Defense. Energy will continue to be a key consideration in all Army activities in order to reduce demand, increase efficiency, seek alternative sources, and create a culture of energy accountability, while sustaining or enhancing operational capabilities.

Navy

In order to meet our readiness challenges, the Department is working to develop greater energy independence and conservation ashore and afloat. Energy costs siphon resources away from vital areas. The potential for disruption and the possible vulnerability of energy supplies could threaten our ability to perform on the battlefield. The Department of the Navy has made good progress in increasing energy efficiency, reducing energy consumption, and capitalizing on renewable energy sources. We are the Department of Defense lead for solar, geothermal, and ocean energy, and today, 17% of our total energy requirements are provided through alternative or renewable sources. The Navy and Marine Corps can, and should, do more. As we continue to increase conservation and develop alternative energy options, the Department of the Navy can mitigate the impact of energy volatility, use energy as a strategic resource for operational advantage, and become a leader in environmental stewardship.

Air Force

As part of our institutional effort to consider energy management in all that we do, the Air Force requests $250 million for energy and water conservation projects in FY11. This investment will ensure we meet the President’s efficiency goals by 2015. In FY10, the Air Force finalized an energy plan that directs the development and use of reliable alternative energy resources, and reduces the life-cycle costs of acquisition programs. Additionally, the plan recognizes that aviation operations account for over 80 percent of the energy used by the Air Force each year, and directs Airmen and mission planners to continue managing aviation fuel as an increasingly scarce resource.

It's great to see the emerging awareness that smarter energy strategies can be a mission enhancing advantage:

• Army - "... create a culture of energy accountability, while sustaining or enhancing operational capabilities."
• Navy - "... use energy as a strategic resource for operational advantage."

Big thanks to Mike Aimone for making this post possible.

It's More than Academic: Expeditionary Fuel Savings = a Better US Military

Guess what officers are researching these days as part of their graduate work? That's right, operational energy. Here are the two of the more recent ones I've seen:

• "NPS Graduate Thesis: Cost Benefit Analysis of Integrated COTS energy-related technologies for Army's Force Provider Module" by LCDR Allen Rivera, SC, USN (Sep 2009). PDF here
• "Reducing Battlefield Fuel Demand:. Mitigating a Marine Corp Critical Vulnerability" by Major William B. Fenwick, USMC (Mar 2009). PDF here

Rivera's paper documents some extensive work done in conjunction with the Soldier Systems unit at Natick, MA testing the value propositions of improved lighting and insulation tech. Guess which category offers the bigger energy bang for the buck?

Fenwick's strategy paper focuses on the disconnect between expeditionary missions and the sobering limitations of current energy logistics.

Photo Credit: CarbonNYC / David Goehring @ 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

Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs (DOEPP) Announced ... Finally !!!

June/July 2010 Update: Paydirt! Burke's been confirmed ... see here.

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

March 2010 Update: Progress! We've gone from nomination to testimony and questioning before the Senate Armed Services Committee ... documented here.

---------------------
At times it's felt like Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" where the two hapless characters Vladimir and Estragon (and the equally hapless audience) wait and wonder whether the guy in the title is ever going to show. So much of what DOD needs done on energy has been bottled up, waiting for the DOEPP to show up.

Well, after months that seemed like years (hmmm, maybe it was years), things took a promising turn a few weeks ago when the stage crew got orders to build the set: word came that money'd been allocated to stand up the office. And then about a week ago, Sharon Burke, who's recently been running the Natural Security program at CNAS, blogged that she'd been tapped for this position by President Obama.

She's been a big part of my education over the past few years and certainly informed the recent Case for Operational Energy Metrics paper. Here's Burke's career summary from the White House press release:

Sharon E. Burke has had more than twenty years of experience as a national security and energy security professional, including service in the Federal government and non-profit organizations. Currently, she is a Vice President at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a Washington-D.C.-based national security research center. At CNAS, Ms. Burke focuses on "Natural Security," a program she originated that examines the national security implications of global natural resources supplies. In that capacity, she has published several studies on energy security and climate change. Previously, she served as a high-level advisor in the United States government, including as a Member of the Policy Planning Staff at the Department of State, a Country Director in the Department of Defense, and a speechwriter to the Secretary of Defense. She also worked in the Energy and Materials program of the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. Ms. Burke graduated from Williams College and was a Zuckerman Fellow at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, where she focused on international energy policy and earned a Certificate of Middle Eastern Studies.

From the legislation, here's a list of her duties should she make it through the process:

The Director shall:

1. Provide leadership and facilitate communication regarding, and conduct oversight to manage and be accountable for, operational energy plans and programs within the Department of Defense and the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps;
2. Establish the operational energy strategy;
3. Coordinate and oversee planning and program activities of the Department of Defense and the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Marine Corps related to:

• Implementation of the operational energy strategy;
• The consideration of operational energy demands in defense planning, requirements, and acquisition processes; and
• Research and development investments related to operational energy demand and supply technologies; and

And lastly, monitor and review all operational energy initiatives in the Department of Defense. I'm relieved to see there's movement. Burke's definitely got mountains to move and it's far too early to tell how much she's going to be able to get done. But one thing was certain, DOD Energy mountains don't move themselves. And one person can't do it alone. I vote we all work to make Burke a very big success.\

Photo Credit: Center for a New American Security (CNAS)