The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

On Clean Energy, the Military's Biggest Fight is with Congress

Clint Wilder, Clean Edge
August 30, 2012  |  16 Comments

Print

For two days in mid-July, 100 miles off the northern coast of Oahu in Hawaii, the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz played host to the first large-scale demonstration of the Navy's Great Green Fleet. More than 70 aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, E-2 Hawkeye early warning aircraft, and helicopters, as well as destroyers and other ships, participated in the biannual Rim of the Pacific naval exercises with sailors and pilots from 21 other nations. A 50-50 biofuel/petroleum blend powered virtually all of the Navy's ships and aircraft.

“The military has done a lot of things that start a tidal wave throughout our culture, and I think this is one of those things,” Navy Lt. Commander Jason Fox, an E-2 Hawkeye pilot, told Forbes.

Meanwhile, stateside in the deserts of California, SunEdison is constructing the massive 350 MW Oro Verde solar PV plant in Kern County that will power part of Edwards Air Force Base where the plant is located. SunPower is preparing for the October opening of a 14.8 MW solar plant at the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake. And SolarCity’s SolarStrong initiative for military residential PV installations across the U.S. continues to progress, with last month’s announcement of solar deployments on 850 Air Force Base residences in California and Colorado. 

All these activities are part of the U.S. military’s major push into clean energy, a trend presented in this space earlier this year by Environmental Entrepreneurs co-founder Nicole Lederer. In a very bumpy year for the clean-tech industry, the Pentagon’s development of clean energy continues to be one of the brightest lights. It is creating markets and jobs, and seeding next-gen technology developments. At the same time, organizations like Veterans Green Jobs and Airstreams Renewables are promoting training and hiring of military veterans in the clean-tech sector.

The Pentagon has ambitious goals to reduce fossil-fuel use in both combat operations and on bases; the Navy and Air Force, for example, both aim to get half their fuel from non-petroleum sources by 2020. And with good reason: fuel convoys to supply infantry in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to be one of the most vulnerable aspects in the war theater. In an all-too-common example on July 18, a bomb planted by the Taliban destroyed 22 NATO tanker trucks in northern Afghanistan. This occurred in the same week as the Navy’s Great Green Fleet exercises occurred in Hawaii, showcasing a better way. 

But now, in Congress, a great deal of this may be in jeopardy. In various hearings over the past few months, Senators James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), among others, have opposed the military’s biofuels usage because of high costs. I’m skeptical that other aspects of defense spending are receiving the same fiscal scrutiny–these members of Congress are in the same party whose presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney is on record stating, “I will not cut the military budget.”

The Congressional opponents argue that today’s next-generation biofuels, from algae, waste streams, and other feedstocks, are significantly more expensive than fossil fuels, and that is certainly true. But they also argue that it’s not the Pentagon’s role to pay a premium to help bring new technologies to commercial scale that would bring costs down, and that argument conveniently ignores, oh, about 150 years of U.S. military history. As Navy Secretary Ray Mabus often says, “Since the 1850s, the Navy has moved from sail power to coal to oil to nuclear. And every time we changed, plenty of people said the new energy source was too expensive, too hard, and too unproven. But every time, we made a better Navy.”

Indeed, the Navy’s pioneering work on nuclear technology for energy rather than bombs after World War II arguably gave birth to a viable (albeit with sizable government subsidies) nuclear power industry. In a nice historical touch, it was a nuclear-powered ship, the Nimitz, that carried the biofuels-powered aircraft of the Great Green Fleet. And nuclear power is far from the only example. Scores of everyday commercial technologies, from semiconductors to lasers to the Internet, are the direct result of early development work by the Department of Defense. 

An F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet is not a research lab; the military is proving that today’s next-gen biofuels perform in operational use, under high-stress conditions with no margin for error. Petroleum replacement fuels will create U.S.-based industries, make military operations safer and more effective, and help reduce our need for military action to defend access to petroleum sources in the first place. Seems to me that’s part of what national security is about. It’s a shame that some in Congress don’t seem to agree.

Lead image: Naval carrier via Shutterstock

16 Comments

Register To Comment
Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan
March 12, 2013
Other then space technology, military R&D is the one area it is easy to get money for.

We require some form of military, although I agree that preemptive wars should be avoided if at all possible; so why not use RE technology to reduce costs for the military while at the same time speeding up development of RE technology not just for the military, but for everyone.

Most of the really useful technology we have today started or was initially developed because the military had a need for it. Including cell phones, internet, communications satellites, microwaves, weather sats, computers, GPS. At the time all of those started up, no business saw any use for them or at least none they could afford to develop.

The reason the military can afford those things is because it is not in the business of making money. The world is not safe, so we need a military, why not use it to make good things happen.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
March 12, 2013
Use of RE for militarism is a waste at any level. RE is for sustainable civilization and the idea of economically sustainable war is insane on the face of it. Militarism is only for defense, at best, and the idea of pre-emptive war must be let go with those who encite for it. Using the armed forces for RE aid to other, less advantaged countries may be one way the forces could be re-purposed effectively.
Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan
September 13, 2012
Okay greenhouses are just not practical, it takes far too long to grow food for it to be practical even at a base. Algae can grow much faster, so I figure that is in the realm of practical at a base.

I would like to express some terminology terms back into the discussion.

For me the term base, means a location that is going to be there for awhile likely at least 2-3 months minimum. A camp is the term that should be used for something intended to be there less then 3 months, possible as little as a single night. I think solar and wind are practical at a camp if they are integrated with the vehicles and tents. You are not likely to have A/C at a camp (except in the vehicles themselves).
Algae or other fuel generation are only practical at a base. And greenhouses would only be practical at a permanent base.

With continued development, I would hope there is a day in the future where the camo paint on the vehicles is solar generating. I can see it being possible, although of course not sure if it may be practical anytime in the near to mid-future.
Thomas Hansen
Thomas Hansen
September 12, 2012
I view solar as a tool available as an option, not a blanket policy to be adopted everywhere.

Military deployments come in all shapes and sizes. There are clearly countless scenarios in which solar would not be advisable. For example, obviously small mobile units that have to move quickly would not be good candidates for solar.

But, just because a technology isn't "one size fits all" doesn't mean it doesn't have great potential value in the right situation. Our military needs access to all the tools available, not just the ones they have been using just because they are the ones they have been using.

In a remote war zone where fuel is scarce and difficult to transport in, the side that has the better technology for on-site generation of energy could very well have a tactical advantage. In some situations like Afganistan, the side that wins is sometimes the side that outlasts and outlives the other, not necessarily the one that moves the quickest and has the most raw power.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 12, 2012
The enemy can only hope our military adopts renewables on the battlefield. If you think a mobile and armed fuel convoy is vulnerable, how about a stationary solar farm or a biogas generating plant or a wind farm that cover many acres of land and all scream "here are the Americans! Lob a rocket over here--you can't miss! The smallest unit will have a huge footprint of equipment that can be seen from space. And if they need to move in a hurry--say bye bye to the millions of dollars in high-tech equipment they just abandoned to the enemy because they didn't have time to pack it up while dodging the incoming rounds. The super-low power density of renewables would just make the military a huge soft target. (see comment 6 above for some specifics).
Thomas Hansen
Thomas Hansen
September 12, 2012
Having advanced and effective solar energy technology available to a fighting force can be a huge tactical advantage. Imagine an encampment in a remote corner of Afganistan being able to power and feed itself with solar energy and self-sustaining greenhouses for food, and with the capability of producing its own biofuels. It could remain there indefinitely without the need for supply lines of any kind. Dependence on fossil fuels means that hugely expensive supply lines must be maintained, and they are costly not only in dollars but in human life.

And remember: even if we don't develop and deploy such self-sustaining solar technology, the enemy will.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 5, 2012
@Mark: Algae need hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and many micronutrients to grow, as well as an astronomical amount of water and 7 times the energy to stir the water as is in the biodiesel product at the end. If you think the troops can grow their own algae, I have to think that you are growing your own--and smoking it. The air-conditioning is for the computers and radios and equipment in the command post, and I would please ask you to post a link to a solar-powered 10-ton AC unit so we can all see what kind of footprint it needs.
Mark Smolinski
Mark Smolinski
September 5, 2012
Mr Claven (not your real name, hmmm?) knows little (or ignores lots) of which he speaks. Reducing your energy footprint is not just about supply; how about DEMAND?? Conventional air conditioning is mentioned, but not the discussion of solar hybrid air conditioning like I have installed at my house. This is a no-brainer, if you are looking for personal- or military solutions. A solar collector (about 3'x4') collects solar energy into the refrigerant gas, negating much of the need for a conventional compressor. When our 5 ton unit was replaced, the condensing unit current went from 22 amps to 7 amps- about the same current it takes to run a microwave oven. THIS is what converting over to solar means. Yes, you can toss a WHOLE LOT of fuel for generators if you change the loads at the same time. Oh yeah, and my 7 kw of solar now makes me a net provider of electricity to the grid- with HOT Florida sun AND acquisition and operation of TWO ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

And algae doesn't need anything but sunlight to grow. It is VERY conceivable that troops of the future GROW THEIR OWN BIOFUEL at the point of use, instead of requiring trucks to transport the fuel.
And while I haven't investigated the alleged 100 year pay off of the solar installation he discusses, it runs counter to EVERY other solar installation I know of, which has a payoff period in single digit years.

I have learned that those who exaggerate one thing to support their ideas cannot be trusted on ANY other of their details either.
Thomas M
Thomas M
September 5, 2012
No solar for war!
Paul Arrondelle
Paul Arrondelle
September 5, 2012
Hmm, I'm not sure that your mobile Army and Marines care too much for AC at forward operating bases. Far more likely to have portable solar packs for their night-vision, radios, GPS etc.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 5, 2012
This is all being done to please the political masters, not to improve national security. Nellis AFB installed virtually the same $100M SunPower solar farm in 2007 as is being built in China Lake. It saves $1M a year in utility costs so the payback is 100 years--and it doesn't work when city power is out because they didn't install transfer switches, so zero improvement in energy security. As far as the battlefield goes, @Paul above is right--got to have liquid fuel and would have to tanker in biofuel as well. The U.S. military has a 10-ton portable AC unit run by a 40 kW generator. (http://www.appliedcompanies.ne... ). The standard rooftop solar system is 3-4 kW, and with a capacity factor of 22% (same as Nellis in the cloudless desert), this single AC unit would require more than 40 tent roofs of solar panels to cool one tent. You would need more roofs full of panels to light the tent, power the electronics, refrigerate any food or medical products, and run the really energy hungry radios and computer equipment. You would also need batteries or fuel cells to store power for overnight. Last time I checked, the Army and Marines considered mobility to be a virtue on the battlefield, so all this acreage of PV solar and truckloads of batteries must be portable and quick to set up and take down, and easily camouflaged. Ironically, the liquid fuel needed for all the extra trucks needed to haul the 40 tents of solar panels and the extra troops needed to set them up and take them down and their food and weapons far exceeds the fuel used by the single generator. In place of this huge footprint of equipment and extra fuel, they could instead use the single generator on the same trailer as the AC unit. The enemy can only wish we were so stupid as to offer them such a large and soft and juicy target as solar on the battlefield.
Paul Arrondelle
Paul Arrondelle
September 3, 2012
I see, so it would be more about using less liquid fuel, perhaps through efficiencies and alternate methods. I certainly hadn't thought about micro-generation using anerobic digesters, for example, and actually that's an excellent point!
Nicolas Pietrangelo
Nicolas Pietrangelo
September 1, 2012
Ref ot military and solar/troops marines using solar for charging batteries-on backpaks-ref Sec State ret George Schultz-Colorado energy conf sponsor Stanford Univ. Every thing is done with electricity/how about the drones the smaller ones for recon not the big Predator which is turbine powered. Watch closely also the SOLAR Zephyr drone which basicially can fly at any altitude and stay up if required forever/needs no water no oxygen no fuel-solar panel on wings(United solar Ovonic solar cell) and lithium sulphur battery from SION-BASF. Ideal reconisense/hell of alot cheaper-lot cheaper than any type of satellite/lots of work out of Lincoln labs(USAF-MIT)for low power/light wt electronics.
BRIAN HENDRIX
BRIAN HENDRIX
September 1, 2012
Paul, that was my first thought, as well. However, I see no reason why today's gasification technology couldn't be used for generating energy (savings) by gasifying the daily waste of the troops, especially on large-scale operations, such as aircraft carriers and military bases. The feedstock could consist of all carbon-based waste, such as, sewage, food waste, materials waste, paper, etc. This would certainly not eliminate, but would at least, cut down on the amount and frequency of needed fuel transportation.
Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan
September 1, 2012
As much as I am a fan of solar and wind and believe we should convert our energy system over to use those over fossil fuels; There are certain things which require liquid fuel at this time and for the foreseeable future. Military vehicles being the biggest one, with commercial aircraft close behind.

Until we can get very high-density low-weight energy storage available these vehicles will need fuel of some type. Very large ships can be nuclear powered, but tanks and aircraft can't afford the shielding weight for nuclear, so they need something else. Moving a 70 ton tank at 50+ MPH apparently requires about 1,120 kW sustained power. An M-1 Abrams has 1/3 the surface area of my roof so using that as a basis and extrapolating, even with the best technology from the labs if it were available today. if the Abrams were covered in solar panels it could only generate about 10kW max sustained power or 1/100th of what it needs to operate. Not very practical, not even enough to recharge itself if it only operated 1 hour per day. So solar is not going to do.

That said, using solar, wind, and batteries with a algae fuel farm at a forward base you might not need to transport fuel forward. Water, ammo, parts and food would be your main concern and perhaps you could use the algae as a food source if needed (that may be pressing it). So when setting up a forward base, you transport in the solar, wind, batteries and algae farm. They take a little more effort then fuel and generators initially, but then you minimize your resupply. Almost to nil if you can set up next to a water supply.

But you still need the fuel. The less fuel you need the better and the more we save NOW the more we have for the future.
Paul Arrondelle
Paul Arrondelle
August 31, 2012
The one part of this argument I don't understand is that while solar and wind could assist the troops by being generated onsite, surely biofuels will have to be transported by tanker to the front line the same as fossil fuels?

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Clint Wilder

Clint Wilder

Clint Wilder is contributing editor at Clean Edge, a research and strategy firm in the San Francisco Bay Area and Portland, Oregon, focused on the business of renewable energy and other clean technologies. He is the co-author of The Clean...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 4
    Women in Power – It’s a Natural Fit
  • 4
    Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary
  • 3
    Big Apple Anticipates Solar Explosion for 2013

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Quick Mount PV
  • Trojan Battery Company
  • Active Communications International
  • W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
  • Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.
  • American Solar Energy Society
  • PLANSEE SE
  • GreenBrilliance
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information