Share

Pentagon Prioritizes Pursuit of Alternative Fuel Sources

by: Steve Vogel  |  The Washington Post

photo
Col. David Gaffney shows Director of Defense, Research and Engineering Alan Shaffer an insulated tent at an Army training center in California. (Photo: Reuters)

    For the Defense Department, the largest consumer of energy in the United States, addiction to fuel has greater costs than the roughly $18 billion the agency spent on it last year.

    By some estimates, about half of the U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to attacks with improvised explosive devices on convoys, many of which are carrying fuel. As of March 20, 3,426 service members had been killed by hostile fire in Iraq, 1,823 of them victims of IEDs.

    "Every time you bring a gallon of fuel forward, you have to send a convoy," said Alan R. Shaffer, director of defense research and engineering at the Pentagon. "That puts people's lives at risk."

    Spurred by this grim reality, the Pentagon, which traditionally has not made saving energy much of a priority, has launched initiatives to find alternative fuel sources. The goals include saving money, preserving dwindling natural resources and lessening U.S. dependence on foreign sources.

    "The honest-to-God truth, the most compelling reason to do it is it saves lives," said Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson, director of operations and logistics for the Army. "It takes drivers off the road."

    Other than fueling jet engines, the largest drain on U.S. military fuel supplies comes from running generators at forward operating bases. The Pentagon says that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have required more fuel on a daily basis than any other war in history. Since the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq began in 2001 and 2003, respectively, the amount of oil consumption at forward bases has increased from 50 million gallons to 500 million gallons a year.

    To help reduce consumption, the Pentagon is using $300 million of the $7.4 billion it received from the economic stimulus package to accelerate existing programs for developing alternative fuels and saving energy.

    "In the overall scheme of the stimulus, it sounds small," Shaffer said. But he added that the relatively modest sum is being strategically targeted to make the most of it. "For $300 million, we have a lot of things that could be found."

    Garbage, for example, is a commodity never in short supply when the Army goes to the field. A battalion-size forward operating base generates a ton of trash a day. The Pentagon is developing mobile units - small enough to fit on a five-ton flatbed trailer - that use an anaerobic microbial process to convert garbage into oil.

    Two prototypes - known as the Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery - were deployed to Iraq in the summer and were initially successful, converting field waste - paper, plastic, cardboard and food slop - into biofuel to power a 60-kilowatt generator. "We were able to get oil out of trash," Shaffer said.

    But the units were not particularly hardy and soon broke down. The stimulus money includes $7.5 million to develop a more rugged model.

    The Pentagon is also investing $15 million of the stimulus money into developing lightweight, flexible photovoltaic mats that could be rolled up like a rug and used at forward bases to draw solar power for operating equipment.

    "We think $15 million will let us build, develop and test one of these roll-out mats," Shaffer said.

    About $6 million is aimed at improving a program run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to convert algae into jet propulsion fuel 8, or JP-8, that could power Navy and Air Force aircraft.

    Other initiatives include $27 million to develop a hybrid engine the Army could use in tactical vehicles and $2 million to develop highly efficient portable fuel cells that could reduce the battery load carried by infantry soldiers.

    The Pentagon is also testing the use of solar and geothermal energy to provide power at installations. The Army, for example, is partnering with a private firm to build an enormous, 500-megawatt solar farm at Fort Irwin, Calif. The farm would supply the 30 to 35 megawatts needed to operate the installation, with the remaining available for sale to the California electrical grid.

    Fort Irwin's desert location is particularly well suited for solar energy, but the concept of using buffer land for energy production could be applied at many installations, said Keith Eastin, assistant secretary of the Army for installations and environment.

    "This buffer land could be used for solar farms, wind farms, whatever," Eastin said. "This would require almost no investment by the Army. This is a new way of thinking in the Army, to take advantage of the assets we have."

    For all the emphasis on new technologies at the Pentagon, one of the most successful initiatives involves decades-old technology: insulating thousands of tents in Iraq and Afghanistan with a two-inch layer of foam. The foam is sprayed like shaving cream from 55-gallon drums and hardens in about 20 minutes.

    A $95 million program to spray-foam tents in Iraq has dramatically reduced the amount of fuel needed for heating and cooling, saving $2 million in energy costs per day, Anderson said. It is also reducing the Army's logistical footprint, which includes roughly 900 trucks per day moving in and out of Iraq, he said.

    "We've already taken 12 trucks off a day," said Anderson, who previously served as deputy chief of staff for resources and sustainment for the multinational force in Iraq. "That may not seem like a lot, but it adds up pretty ... quickly. Those are some of the most dangerous roads in the world. I'm confident it has saved lives."

    A $29 million contract has been signed to insulate tents in Afghanistan, where vulnerable land supply routes pose serious challenges as the United States attempts to build up its forces.

    "If we're going to be in Afghanistan for a while, it behooves us to foam as many structures as we can," Anderson said.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

This is wonderful news from

This is wonderful news from our Department of Defense. For too many years, most of what we've seen from DoD has been major squandering of resources, whether economic, environmental, even human (in far too many cases). I'm absolutely delighted to find that someone in charge actually "gets" the fact that you can complete the mission without simply ignoring alternatives to the old ways of doing things. Good on you, BG Anderson! Hopefully you'll be carrying the heavy load of four stars in future, and it sounds as if our country and our military will be all the better for that.

The Pentagon would save even

The Pentagon would save even more if it would just bring everyone home and resolve never to fight for oil again

What is wrong with this

What is wrong with this picture? Seeing that our tax dollars are funding the cost of both wars how is it the Pentagon even got $7.4 BILLION in stimulus money period?!?They are rife with cost overruns and fraud as far as the eye can see, not to mention Pentagon is career salaried government employment the degree of which only ends from retirement, death or HA-HA-HA indictment! A far cry from what we were told the economic stimulus was intended! (comment by windskull)

alternative to combustion

alternative to combustion engine: the Hydristor. Look it up on Google...would save millions of gallons of fuel.

One would think that there

One would think that there is more than enough oil in Iraq for the Pentagon -- is that not why we are there in the first place? Are we still trying to get bin Laden or are were there now to protect the sanctity of Afghan Shiite marriages? I can never get all this straight... -- WHY NOT BRING THE SOLDIERS HOME??? If not now, when exactly...

The military is getting

The military is getting smart. We have a smart president and Gates is smart. President Obama did not choose to take us into war. The Republicans chose to take us into war and now are blaming President Obama because it is harder to get us our of war than into war. Please support President Obama in his difficult task to take us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan in a manner that protects the American people.