Last year the Defense Department spent $12 billion on more than 130 million barrels of oil, natural gas and missile fuel, according to the Defense Energy Support Center, which manages the department's energy needs. That's more than twice what the military spent in 2003, even though it cut consumption by 7 percent over the same period.

These escalating costs are squeezing the services' budgets. "It has required the Air Force to cut back other programs in order for us to continue to fly," said Air Force spokesman Gary Strasburg.

The Air Force is taking the lead in developing synthetic fuels, with the goal of running its entire fleet on synthetics by 2011. The service is also taking a page from commercial airlines by limiting the weight each plane carries, flying more efficient routes and reducing taxi time before takeoff. And at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, the largest solar panel array in North America generates 14 megawatts of electricity, enough to meet a third of the base's energy needs.

But while the Pentagon has nearly doubled the amount of power generated by renewable sources such as wind, geothermal energy and biomass since 2003, Defense Energy Support Center officials said fossil fuels still make up the bulk of its energy supply.

This is a problem not only because of the cost, but because transporting fuel in Iraq and Afghanistan is risky for troops on the supply convoys, which hurts "combat effectiveness," said experts at the Defense Science Board, a group that advises military leaders.

Last year renewable sources produced 12 percent of the Pentagon's electricity. The department has set a goal for renewable energy to supply 25 percent of its electricity needs by 2025, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Wayne Arny told lawmakers in March.

To help meet that goal, the Pentagon has requested $80 million for renewable energy and conservation projects in 2009, including new technologies, flying more fuel-efficient routes and replacing gas-guzzling training exercises with simulators.

The Pentagon sets a standard price for fuel each year, based on an 18-month projection of future prices and the overhead costs of transporting, storing and managing fuel. The purpose is to insulate the military from price fluctuations in oil, the Defense Energy Support Center said.

Although commercial oil prices have come down from July's record high of $147 per barrel, prices are expected to average $119 per barrel this year and $124 per barrel in 2009. That's well above last year's average of $72 per barrel, according to the Energy Information Administration, the Department of Energy's statistical agency.

The Pentagon's standard price usually remains constant throughout the year, but 2008's volatile oil market drove the department to raise the standard price more than 30 percent in July to $171 per barrel. In January 2007 the services were paying $97 per barrel.

"The rise in fuel prices is a concern," said Navy spokesman Lt. Thomas Buck Jr. "We are aware of the sacrifices that potentially the Navy would have to make because of these cost increases, and so we want to do our part to reduce our dependency on these fossil fuels."

That means investing in synthetic fuels and alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and thermal power to generate electricity. Wind partially powers naval bases at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and San Clemente Island off the California coast.

At the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake in California's Mojave Desert, a 270-megawatt geothermal power plant has been powering the entire base for two decades.

"It's enough power to supply electricity to 180,000 homes," Buck said. "And we have two transmission lines that deliver power directly to the California grid. This is all coming from China Lake."

Conservation also means adapting the acquisition process. The Navy is developing new ways of judging the cost-effectiveness of various energy sources and technologies, Buck said. Such assessments are critical, the Defense Science Board's energy security task force said in a February report, because energy efficiency should be a standard criterion when the military designs and buys new systems.

A new plane that can fly farther on less fuel might cost more to manufacture than a conventional aircraft, but the initial expense could be offset by savings over the life of the plane. The Navy aims to have protocols in place to judge such scenarios by 2013.

"We're subject to the same market forces as any other customer, so it's in our interest to be a smart customer," Buck said.

Modifications to ships also could save $30 million each year. Stern flaps reduce resistance, reducing fuel use by as much as 8 percent and saving $195,000 per ship each year. A project that generates electricity from temperature differences between the ocean's surface and deep water is being tested at Diego Garcia Naval Base in the Indian Ocean.

Cutting petroleum use in planes, ships and other vehicles can result in significant savings. The Defense Science Board's February report called on the Pentagon to reduce the amount of fuel used in combat operations, which totals three-quarters of the military's energy consumption. The remaining quarter powers permanent facilities in the United States and abroad.

The Navy increasingly is using "synthetic" training exercises, in which ships remain in port but carry out simulated maneuvers with NATO allies. The virtual scenarios might include stabilizing an area after a war, boarding ships that might be smuggling drugs or weapons, or responding to natural disasters such as a hurricane or tsunami.

This year 124 such exercises are scheduled, up from 84 last year, and by 2011 the Navy expects to conduct 178. The fuel conserved saves $160 million every year, Buck said.

Another $60 million in fuel is saved by training Navy pilots in flight simulators. The Air Force also has increased its use of simulators to cut back on flight time during training, said spokesman Strasburg.

But Navy spokesman Buck emphasized that conservation does not compromise the quality of training. "There are going to be certain things that you can only do in a real environment, and that's part of the reason that we have personnel trying to develop an effective simulator-real world balance," he said.

Individual ships are also doing their part to increase efficiency. An incentive program gives quarterly cash awards to the ships that conserve the most fuel; the crews can use their savings to buy other equipment. Since 2003 the program has saved 1.8 million barrels of oil and approximately $83 million, Buck said.

Reducing consumption is also crucial to successful overseas operations and to the safety of U.S. troops, said the Defense Science Board's energy security task force.

Ferrying fuel to troops in the field is "a high-risk operation," the report said. Each month the military supplies 55 million gallons of fuel to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

"Fuel presents an enormous logistical burden for (the Defense Department) when planning and conducting military combat operations," the GAO said in a March report to the House Armed Services Committee. The supply convoys that transport fuel to troops in the field are "exposed to the vulnerabilities of operations, such as enemy attacks," risking lives.

To cut back on fuel use in the field and reduce the number of supply trucks, the Army is developing foam-insulated tents and biodegradable domes that take less energy to heat and cool, the GAO said. They also hope to replace about half the generators at forward locations with mobile hybrid power stations that use a combination of wind and solar energy, diesel and storage batteries.

These measures have a financial benefit, of course. They could save at least $1.7 billion annually in Iraq, according to the GAO.

The Marines also are altering their vehicles to use less oil and more synthetics. They also are developing hybrid power sources, cutting back on the amount of fuel transported to the battlefield.

While conservation projects are making strides, the Defense Science Board task force said breaking the military's dependence on fossil fuels will require a major shift.

"Changing a culture that considers energy cheap and abundant is one of the most difficult challenges facing the Department and the nation," the report said.

But, the task force emphasized, "The payoff to (the Department of Defense) from reduced fuel demand in terms of mission effectiveness and human lives is probably greater than for any other energy user in the world."

(Medill News Service)

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Powering The World in the 21st Century at Energy-Daily.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News