Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire: United States armed forces

Showing posts with label United States armed forces. Show all posts

Monday, October 4, 2010

Navy: Alternative fuel needed for security

disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only

by Staff Writers Phoenix (UPI) Oct 1, 2010 The U.S. military represents a huge market for companies that can develop low-cost renewable fuels, said a U.S. Navy official. By 2020, the Navy aims to meet half of its energy needs for ships and planes with renewable energy sources, requiring some 8 million barrels of biofuel.
"That represents a pretty formidable market," Rear Adm. Philip Hart Cullom, director of the Navy's Energy and Environmental Readiness Division told the Algae Biomass Summit in Phoenix, The Arizona Republic newspaper reports.
About 600 industry leaders from 27 countries participated in the annual conference this week, which focused on the potential for algae to meet environmental, economic and energy challenges.
Cullom said the sector, as it works to develop alternative fuels, can help reduce the military's reliance on foreign oil.
Cullom recounted how in 2008, as oil prices shot up, the Navy saw its annual fuel costs soar to $5.1 billion from $1.2 billion the previous year.
"That meant about $4 billion less of something else that you were not able to buy," he said.
Retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, a leading expert on the link between energy, climate change and international security, told the group of their significant role in national security.
"I am saying that we need you for our national security. The United States armed forces need this industry to succeed ... we need to recognize that the potential that algal biofuels have for the future is fantastic," said McGinn, a news release states.
Cullom acknowledged that he expects biofuels to remain costlier than traditional fossil fuels for some time.
Last September, the Defense Energy Support Center, which oversees procurement of biofuel for the Navy, paid $2.7 million for 40,000 gallons of camelina-based fuel. That came to about $67.50 per gallon, compared to the typical cost of about $2.94 per gallon for its standard fuel, JP-5.
In April, on Earth Day, the Navy conducted its first test flight of a F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jet powered by alternative fuel, in this case half-camelina oil. Navy officials said the exercise, deemed a success, was intended to demonstrate the Navy's commitment to reducing its dependence on foreign oil as well as safeguarding the environment.
The Navy said it would continue to test the biofuel-powered Super Hornet over about 14 more flights, then move on to testing alternative fuels in the marine gas turbines that power many surface ships as well as engines of U.S. Marine Corps ground vehicles.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

US Military Needs to Get Off Oil by 2040: Report by Matthew McDermott

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/u-s-military-needs-to-get-off-oil-by-2040.php

photo: John Martinez Pavliga via flickr
The United States military must entirely get off oil by 2040 if it wants to reduce operational vulnerabilities, reduce costs, stop new security risks caused by climate change and avoid the coming peak oil supply crunch. That's the word from the Center For a New American Security, whose Fueling the Future Force report details the hows and whys of the situation.
afghan convoy attacked photo

DVIDSHUB via flickr
Petroleum is 77% of Military Energy Supply
Report authors Christine Parthemore and Dr. John Nagl say, "Reducing dependency on petroleum will help ensure the long-term ability of the military to carry out its assigned missions. Moving beyond petroleum will allow DoD to lead in the development of innovative technologies that can benefit the nation more broadly, while signaling to the world that the United States has an innovative and adaptable force."
How big is that dependency? Currently US forces rely on petroleum for 77.2% of all energy needs, with "other electric" sources coming in second at 11.4% and natural gas coming at 8.4%.
In Thirty Years Oil Will Be Hard to Come By
Why the 2040 timeframe? The report lays it out (emphasis is mine):

This 30-year timeframe reflects market indicators pointing towards both higher demand for petroleum and increasing international competition to acquire it. Moreover, the geology and economics of producing petroleum will ensure that the market grows tight long before petroleum reserves are depleted. Some estimates indicate that the current global reserve-to-production ratio--how fast the world will produce all currently known recoverable petroleum reserves at the current rate of production--is less than 50 years. Thus, given projected supply and demand, we cannot assume that oil will remain affordable or that supplies will be available to the United States reliably three decades hence. Ensuring that DOD can operation on non-petroleum fuels 30 years from today is a conservation hedge against prevailing economic, political and environmental trends, conditions and constraints.

In other words, 30 years from now there odds aren't good that there will be petroleum to fuel anything with much consistency or at minimum with any level of affordability. This echoes recently revealed reports that the German military is pretty freaked out about the prospect of peak oil as well.
Oil Price Rises Cost Military Millions, Dependency Creates Security Risks
As for costs of continued military oil dependence, the report notes that for every dollar increase in the price of petroleum an additional $130 million is added to the Department of Defense's operating costs.
The report itself outlines a twelve-point plan to transition the military off oil--which is frankly all pretty ordinary stuff for regular TreeHugger readers--as well as some of the security issues of continued oil dependency (Iran and Venezuela get further leverage over US) and logistical challenges (currently purchased vehicles require petroleum and have a long service life).
Read more: Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era [PDF]
soldier at dusk photo

photo: US Army via flickr
How Much Less Energy Needed, If We Didn't Have to Secure Oil?
Though it sounds somewhat cynical, I ask this quite practically: I wonder what how much the US military's energy demand and required size would be if part of its (not loudly or fully stated) mission weren't positioning itself around the world to secure the very energy supplies which are going to be relatively soon depleted? It's not like the military's purpose ceases to exist absent having to secure oil supplies, not by a long shot, but surely its size and fuel demand would be reduced.
TH NOTE: In a previous version of this article the names of the report authors were incorrectly stated. This has been corrected.
Like this? Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.
More on Oil:
Minus Oil: Energized Ideas For Surpassing Petroleum
The German Military is Freaked Out by Prospect of Peak Oil
After Oil, The Extreme Risk of Biofuel Dependency

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Panel Seeks Pentagon WMD Response Reforms

Seal of the United States Department of Defense

Image via Wikipedia

The U.S. Defense Department should revise numerous elements of its preparations for responding to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, a congressionally established experts panel warned in a report issued yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 10).

The report outlines more than 40 steps Congress and the Obama administration could take to improve the country's WMD response capabilities. The panel, comprised for former high-level U.S. military officials, former lawmakers, National Guard officers and academic experts on disaster response, received support from RAND Corp. in completing the study.
“This is a matter of critical importance because such an incident will happen, and the stakes are too high to delay action,” panel Chairman Steve Abbot said in a statement. “In our year of deliberations, we identified a number of findings and recommendations that will allow the Department of Defense to better support the civil authorities that will respond to a domestic disaster" (RAND Corp. release, Sept. 15).
The department wields many of the powers it would need to aid civilian agencies after a biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive strike, but the powers "are not widely known and are frequently misunderstood," says the document, prepared by the Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

U.S. Military Learns to Fight Deadliest Weapons * By Adam Higginbotham

Detonation of a MICLIC to destroy a 1km in dep...

Image via Wikipedia

The tactics of today's insurgent bombmakers are the product of a long-simmering melting pot of global terrorism.
Photo: Tom Schierlitz; IED models: Based on actual bombs constructed by Prop House Weapons Specialists Ltd.