Smaller Carbon Footprint Means Fewer Risks, Official Says

WASHINGTON — A hard push by the Defense Depart­ment and the mil­i­tary ser­vices to reduce depen­dence on fos­sil fuels will shrink risks on the bat­tle­field along with the Pentagon’s car­bon foot­print, a DOD offi­cial said yes­ter­day.

Oliv­er Fritz is deputy direc­tor for pol­i­cy in the Office of the Under Sec­re­tary of Defense for Acqui­si­tion, Tech­nol­o­gy and Logis­tics, and assis­tant sec­re­tary of defense for oper­a­tional ener­gy plans and programs. 

He joined ener­gy experts from each ser­vice here in a pan­el dis­cus­sion dur­ing the 12th Nation­al Con­fer­ence on Sci­ence, Pol­i­cy and the Envi­ron­ment about how DOD can dri­ve clean ener­gy innovation. 

“His­tor­i­cal­ly, ener­gy has been a deci­sive fac­tor in warfight­ing, … most recent­ly in Afghanistan and Iraq, where you see fuel not only being need­ed in increas­ing quan­ti­ties, but being moved over a bat­tle­field with­out front lines,” Fritz said. Many Amer­i­can lives have been lost on such con­voys, he added, mov­ing fuel or pro­tect­ing it. 

Sub­sti­tut­ing solar ener­gy, bio­fu­el and oth­er tech­nolo­gies can pay off in warfight­ing capa­bil­i­ty, Fritz said. 

“Those tech­nolo­gies are clean­er and do have a low­er car­bon foot­print,” he said, “and in a way, that car­bon foot­print is a metaphor for some of the logis­tics risks that we’re try­ing to reduce.” 

The Defense Depart­ment released its first oper­a­tional ener­gy strat­e­gy in June to improve ener­gy effi­cien­cy and costs, and to sup­port strate­gic goals and low­er risks to warfighters. 

Broad strate­gic changes that include the decline of front lines and the emer­gence of anti-access tech­nolo­gies like mis­siles and road­side bombs “designed to dis­rupt our abil­i­ty to freely maneu­ver, whether that’s around Afghanistan or around the globe, are forc­ing us to rethink how we are going to project and sus­tain pow­er if our logis­tics are under attack,” Fritz said. 

The strat­e­gy urged more fight with less fuel, more options with less risk and more capa­bil­i­ty with less cost, he added, and clean tech­nolo­gies can help to make those things happen. 

“The strat­e­gy was issued last year, and we’re in the process of imple­ment­ing that. … But in addi­tion to hav­ing meet­ings at the Pen­ta­gon, we’re actu­al­ly try­ing to make a dif­fer­ence on the bat­tle­field,” Fritz said. 

In Afghanistan, this means a new suite of more effi­cient gen­er­a­tors and cen­tral­ized power. 

“Our cur­rent approach to base camps often uses a lot of decen­tral­ized spot-pow­er gen­er­a­tion,” he said. “So we’re try­ing to improve the effi­cien­cy of those gen­er­a­tors, and at some bases where we can have larg­er pow­er plants with [elec­tric] grids, which are much more efficient.” 

The Navy and Marine Corps are devel­op­ing exper­i­men­tal for­ward oper­at­ing bases called exFOBs, test­ing them in the Unit­ed States and deploy­ing them to Afghanistan. The bases use small-scale water purifi­ca­tion, ener­gy-effi­cient light­ing and pho­to­volta­ic, or solar-based, ener­gy har­vest­ing to reduce the need to trans­port fuel and water over long distances. 

“The Marines with their exFOB and a series of Army ini­tia­tives are deploy­ing a host of ener­gy-effi­cient tech­nolo­gies,” Fritz said. “Whether it’s shel­ters and tent shades or solar pow­er gen­er­a­tion, there’s a range of mate­r­i­al solu­tions that both ground com­po­nents are push­ing into the field.” 

The Air Force, the department’s largest con­sumer of ener­gy, has been mod­i­fy­ing how it flies its air­craft, chang­ing air­craft alti­tudes and routes and opti­miz­ing air­craft loading. 

“That alone is slat­ed to save over $500 mil­lion in fuel,” the deputy direc­tor said. 

“That’s not a rev­o­lu­tion­ary change in reduc­ing our ener­gy, but it’s a sol­id first step. If you start doing those incre­men­tal­ly across the force, they add up,” Fritz added. 

“We use about 2.5 bil­lion gal­lons of fuel every year. Our ener­gy bill is about $9 bil­lion, … and 84 per­cent of that is for avi­a­tion fuel,” said Kevin Geiss, deputy sec­re­tary of the Air Force for ener­gy in the Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary for Instal­la­tions, Envi­ron­ment and Logistics. 

The Air Force is reduc­ing demand, increas­ing sup­ply and chang­ing the cul­ture across the ser­vice, he added, “to make ener­gy a con­sid­er­a­tion in every­thing we do.” 

The Navy is exe­cut­ing a range of ini­tia­tives in ship coat­ings, propul­sion options, a hybrid-elec­tric dri­ve and a new amphibi­ous ship that is dra­mat­i­cal­ly more efficient. 

This year off the Hawai­ian coast, an exer­cise will demon­strate a green strike group of Navy ships, and by 2016 the Navy plans to deploy a “Great Green Fleet” pow­ered entire­ly by alter­na­tive fuels, said Chris Tin­dal, direc­tor of oper­a­tional ener­gy in the Office of the Deputy Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of the Navy for Energy. 

For the Hawaii exer­cise, “we’ve got a car­ri­er and a sub­ma­rine on nuclear pow­er, but then we also will have the air wing on the car­ri­er using bio­fu­els, along with two destroy­ers and a cruis­er,” he said. “That’s going to be a big oppor­tu­ni­ty for us to show that it real­ly can happen.” 

In the Army, instal­la­tion ener­gy pro­grams include efforts to reduce ener­gy con­sump­tion on bases, find ways to low­er envi­ron­men­tal impact, and bring in inno­v­a­tive approach­es to reduc­ing ener­gy con­sump­tion, said Army Col. Paul Roege, chief of the Oper­a­tional Ener­gy Office assigned to the direc­tor of Army logistics. 

On the oper­a­tional side, the Army focus­es on oper­at­ing capa­bil­i­ties, espe­cial­ly at the squad and small-unit lev­el — what the Army calls the tac­ti­cal edge. 

“They’re on a fair­ly small ener­gy bud­get, but every BTU, every kilo­watt hour, every milowatt hour is some­thing they car­ry on their backs,” Roege said. 

“If we get the peo­ple out there who are in the oper­a­tions to under­stand and think about what they’re try­ing to do, and their sys­tems and pro­ce­dures relate to that … , then we can have the whole Army com­ing up with bet­ter ways to do busi­ness,” he added. 

“These are things that are hap­pen­ing today,” Fritz said. 

“The strat­e­gy is as much about how we orga­nize, train and equip our force back here in the States and devel­op those capa­bil­i­ties,” he added, “but we’re also deploy­ing those today.” 

“We in the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Army and our coun­ter­parts in the Office of the Sec­re­tary of Defense have a mis­sion and that mis­sion is nation­al defense,” Geiss said. 

“I don’t believe the coun­try will accept fail­ure in that mis­sion for the sake of sav­ing a gal­lon of fuel,” he added, “but our job is to fig­ure out how we can accom­plish that mis­sion while we save a gal­lon of fuel or that kilo­watt hour of ener­gy. That’s the job [we’re all] focused on, day in and day out.” 

U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs) 

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →