The Department of Defense today is the single biggest consumer of energy in the United States, a country that burns more oil than any other but controls only 2 percent of the supply.
These facts alone are enough to justify concern about energy policy and the future of the U.S. military, says a panel of retired generals, admirals and a former space shuttle commander.
The panel released a report Monday that describes America's current reliance on fossil fuels as "a serious and urgent threat to national security," putting troops, the environment and the economy at risk.
The report by the Military Advisory Board calls for a speedy, national transition to alternative sources and greater energy efficiencies, at both the Pentagon and throughout the nation.
Its conclusions come as President Barack Obama is pushing for more green energy, and as the Pentagon is starting to move toward cleaner energy options.
The report is intended to support these efforts - and to accelerate them if possible, its authors said.
"As military planners and as responsible public servants, we cannot turn a blind eye to the dangerous realities of our energy situation," said retired Air Force Gen. Charles F. "Chuck" Wald, who chaired the study group organized by CNA, a nonprofit policy consultant.
Dependence on oil often forces America to befriend unstable or undemocratic regimes, Wald and his colleagues said, while also burdening the military with huge, volatile fuel bills for tanks, vehicles, planes and warships.
In 2007, for example, the Defense Department spent $13 billion on fuel. Last year, that number climbed to $20 billion. It could go higher this fiscal year as America moves military equipment and personnel from Iraq to Afghanistan.
"I see energy and energy issues crop up everywhere in our decision-making," said Ashton Carter, the incoming undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
Carter said the Pentagon has tripled its budget for alternative energy research and development in recent years, to $1.2 billion this year.
The same panel of retired military leaders created a splash two years ago by calling climate change a national security threat and urging action against this enemy, too.
The group includes former Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn; former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Nathman; former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon Sullivan; and former Vice Adm. Richard Truly, who also was a space shuttle commander and director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
At a news briefing Monday, former U.S. Sen. John Warner said the reports are important not only in what they advocate but also in who is doing the advocating.
Climate change and green energy are subjects that some Americans still consider dubious fodder for liberals and environmentalists, the former Virginia senator said. So when military brass raise the same red flags, Warner said, "you bring credibility to these issues, which is greatly needed at this time."
The panel suggested the military become a laboratory for new and emerging technologies developed in the civilian world. For example, the group said, shifting the giant Norfolk Naval Station to a "smart grid" system for delivering electricity might be one experiment the government could try.
The panel also asked the Pentagon to budget its fuel costs with "fully burdened" numbers to provide a true picture of gasoline and diesel expenses. Carter said the military already has started doing this.
The true cost for a gallon of gas for a vehicle operating at a forward base in Afghanistan, he said, is $13. That accounts for the transportation and security needed to get it there.
For a tanker plane, the true cost goes up to $42 per gallon, Carter added.
In Iraq, he said, most fuel is used to power up generators. And most of the generators are powering up air conditioning units for tents and other facilities.
By insulating the tents with foam, Carter said, the Pentagon believes it can cut its electricity needs by 45 percent.
"We just need to think about these issues from an energy standpoint," he said.
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Maybe in Garrison
I could see a huge windmill farm or a massive field of solar panels at Camp LeJeune, makes sense for a large base with many garrisoned units. Ethanol can be used in the multi-fuel engined fleet of vehicles until something better comes along, but mileage goes down dramatically with ethanol, which means you have to bring in more fuel at higher initial cost. The foam lined tentage mentioned in the news article only makes sense if you are under canvas in very hot or very cold conditions for an extended amount of time. Otherwise, the extra trucks needed, the hassle in movement, and the expense of moving the foam liners wouldn't be worth the savings in fuel used in heating / AC.
Green Military
If our military gets into this green nonsense,we will rue the day.
I can see it now; Sir,we must hold off on the attack because there will be no Wind or Sunshine to run our Tanks,Aircraft and Humvees in the next few days. ( HA! that will go over like a,you know what in a Punch Bowl!)
The things referenced in this story are just the prelude to even more Green nonsense in more areas of the Military operations;using Subsidised Energy in place of the real thing is nuts;especially when the Subsidised Energy has a cost of 4.5 times more than the traditional energy.(Ethanol will destroy gasoline engines and is very expensive to make.)
Nuclear (electricity) is probably the way to go for the citizens and normal commerce but for the Military it should be the traditional fuels that have proven themselves to be economical,and abundant in OUR OWN COUNTRY; if the liberals and the feds stop blocking our use of our own abundant natural Resources.
"Experiment" with our defenses
Sure, because our military should be a testing facility for every "green" idea. We have enough problems with the instability of shore power provided to our ships now, which cause equipment malfunctions and failures. Experimenting with a smart grid before we know whether it will at least be able to provide the same level of instable power will result in more ships staying on ship's power, requiring more personnel to remain on board while in port, and the burning of more fossil fuel. But I'm sure the military people who will have to maintain an exceptional level of national security while playing lab rat for the Goracle will have no input about how these experiments are carried out, they'll just be ordered to make it work, whatever the cost. Alternative energy sources should only be used by the military AFTER they are proven to be reliable, more efficient, and more cost effective.
Military and America's Use of Fossil Fues
I agree with the article titled "Panel Calls For A More Energy-Efficient U.S. Military" that the US Military must look for alternative fuel sources in order to strengthen the security of the United States. I must premise my argument with the statement that I am not an environmentalist. I drive a truck and I frankly don't worry about my carbon footprint on a daily basis. I think the US Military and America in general must lessen its reliance on fossil fuels because of where they come from. The solution to this problem is a multi-faceted reduntent energy system that isn't dependent on a single source. We must look at wind energy, nuclear energy, geothermal energy, hydrological energy, etc. and figure out a way to tie them all together in order to solve our transportation and energy needs. The solution isn't to cut back and ignore all the progress the world has seen since the industrial revolution, but instead to innovativley figure out ways to reduce our requirement while maintaining the way we operate as a military.
So, the plans are
So, the plans are putting some monitoring units on switch panels and foam on tents. No idea why there's a bunch of windmills in the picture, since that has nothing to do with the article.