USA — Military Must Reduce Its Use of Fossil Fuels

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2010 — The Defense Department’s cur­rent reliance on expen­sive, difficult–to-transport and finite fos­sil fuels affects cost-reduc­tion efforts as well as war-fight­ing oper­a­tions, a senior Pen­ta­gon offi­cial said.

“Cer­tain­ly, for cur­rent oper­a­tions and for the future, one of the things we’re real­ly focused on is reduc­ing demand, [which is] reduc­ing our con­sump­tion, because no mat­ter what kind of ener­gy we’re using, the amount of ener­gy we’re using caus­es us prob­lems in prac­tice — par­tic­u­lar­ly in the kinds of fights we’re fight­ing today where so much of our logis­tics train is in the bat­tle­field,” Sharon Burke, direc­tor of the department’s oper­a­tional ener­gy plans and pro­grams, said in a recent “DoDLive” Blog­gers round­table.

Oper­a­tional ener­gy is the ener­gy used to move, train and sus­tain weapons, forces and equip­ment for mil­i­tary oper­a­tions, said Burke, who dis­cussed the Pentagon’s plans to reduce and reform oper­a­tional ener­gy con­sump­tion.

In her recent­ly cre­at­ed posi­tion, Burke’s job, she said, is to look into cur­rent oper­a­tional ener­gy usage and find ways to low­er total fos­sil fuel con­sump­tion, and to work toward incor­po­rat­ing alter­na­tive and renew­able ener­gy sources into the fight­ing force.

Sec­re­tary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, she not­ed, have said that fail­ure to find new, sus­tain­able ener­gy sources will soon pose a threat to nation­al secu­ri­ty.

As mil­i­tary instal­la­tions have worked to become more “green” over the past few years by incor­po­rat­ing alter­na­tive pow­er sources and elec­tric vehi­cles, Burke said, the con­flicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have renewed inter­est in reduc­ing fos­sil fuel usage for mil­i­tary oper­a­tions.

For exam­ple, recent insur­gent attacks on NATO fuel con­voys near the Afghanistan-Pak­istan bor­der have rein­forced the military’s con­cern that alter­na­tives to using fos­sil fuels must be devel­oped, she said.

“I think the recent NATO sup­ply con­voy attacks real­ly got people’s atten­tion and brought home to peo­ple what the risks are, and what … a worst-case sce­nario is,” Burke said. “And I think it also illus­trat­ed the range of pos­si­bil­i­ty here — that if we improve the way we use ener­gy on the bat­tle­field — and of course, 70 per­cent of the ener­gy the depart­ment uses is oper­a­tional ener­gy — it’ll allow us to shift some resources from tail to tooth.”

The first order of busi­ness, she said, is curb­ing the demand for fos­sil-based fuels. At a recent DOD-spon­sored ener­gy forum, Mullen described the “old” mil­i­tary men­tal­i­ty when it came to fuel as “burn it if you got it.” Burke said that men­tal­i­ty has to be changed before any real oper­a­tional reform can hap­pen.

For exam­ple, Burke said, use of bio­fu­el-blend­ed JP‑8 jet fuel will be part of the solu­tion because of its preva­lence in war zones. How­ev­er, she added, the solu­tion is wider rang­ing.

“Whether we’re putting it [jet or diesel fuel] in gen­er­a­tors to turn it into elec­tric­i­ty to pow­er com­put­ers and com­mu­ni­ca­tions gear, or whether we’re putting it into vehi­cles, almost all the fuel we use on the bat­tle­field is petro­le­um-based,” she said. “So we have to focus on it. But no mat­ter what kind of ener­gy it is, we have to find a way to use less.”

Burke said a big part of her office’s role is to seek inno­v­a­tive ideas for bat­tle­field-ready prod­ucts. Marine Corps units, she said, have start­ed deploy­ing with solar-pow­ered gen­er­a­tors. Mean­while, she added, the Army is imple­ment­ing use of bet­ter-insu­lat­ed tents and water-recy­cling tech­nol­o­gy to save ener­gy, and the Air Force has worked for many years to incor­po­rate alter­na­tive and renew­able fuel sources into their oper­a­tions.

Burke said she wants to ensure the ser­vices don’t lose any vital tools as they pare down fuel con­sump­tion. It’s impor­tant to get usage lev­els — and there­fore, costs — down, she said, but not as impor­tant as pro­vid­ing enhanced capa­bil­i­ty to troops in the field, which new ener­gy tech­nol­o­gy can do.

“We’re cer­tain­ly mind­ful and respon­sive to the larg­er ener­gy secu­ri­ty sit­u­a­tion for the whole nation, but our job is the nation­al secu­ri­ty mis­sion of this depart­ment,” Burke said.

“How does ener­gy and the future for ener­gy make that pos­si­ble, or make that more com­pli­cat­ed? Our job is to look at that. Our job is to improve defense capa­bil­i­ties.”

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

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

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

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →