The Navy is positioning itself to take the lead among the military services in the use of renewable energy and in planning for future contingencies that may result from climate change.
If carried out successfully, an ambitious “energy reform” plan unveiled last month by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus could boost the Navy’s role as the Defense Department’s bellwether for green programs. The Pentagon has embraced broad goals to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and to consider the potential consequences of climate change in the nation’s long-term military strategy. It also wants to shrink its fuel bill. Fuel costs in recent years have fluctuated from $12 billion to $20 billion a year, depending on the price of crude.
But these larger objectives, for the most part, have yet to translate into major reforms. Much of the energy-efficiency push has occurred at military bases in the United States, where the Army and the Air Force have launched multibillion-dollar solar and wind energy projects. But military installations only consume 25 percent of the Pentagon’s daily intake of about 300,000 barrels of oil, which is less than 2 percent of the U.S. daily usage of 21 million barrels. The other 75 percent is pumped into airplanes, ships and trucks, and delivered to war zones to fuel vehicles and to power thousands of electric generators at forward operating bases.
Marine Corps Gen. James Conway said it costs up to $400 to ship a gallon of fuel to Afghanistan, when factoring transportation and convoy-security expenses. Bringing fuel to the front lines also costs lives, because convoys are vulnerable to roadside bombs. This is bad news considering that most U.S. weapon systems are “gas hogs,” said Mabus at an energy conference in McLean, Va.
Further, the carbon emitted by ships, aircraft and vehicles contributes to climate change, he said.
The Navy alone burns 35 million gallons of fossil fuel per year.
The most potentially consequential reforms that Mabus is initiating are the expanded use of biofuels in Navy weapons systems and changes in acquisition policies. These new rules would penalize contractors for making systems that are not energy-efficient, and would take into account contractors’ energy-saving practices.
“We are going to change the way the Navy and Marine Corps award contracts,” said Mabus. The lifetime energy cost of a building or a system, and the costs of fuel — including delivery expense — will be mandatory evaluation factors when awarding contracts. “We are going to hold industry contractually accountable for meeting energy targets and system efficiency requirements,” said Mabus. “We will also use the overall energy efficiency and the energy footprint of a competing company as an additional factor in acquisition decisions.”
Mabus also announced plans to deploy by 2016 a “green strike group,” composed of nuclear vessels and ships powered by biofuel. The strike group will be part of a green fleet that will consist of nuclear powered ships, surface combatants equipped with hybrid-electric alternative power systems that run biofuel, and aircraft flying only on biofuels.
The Navy estimates that 17 percent of its total energy consumption comes from alternative sources. By 2020, Mabus wants half of the Navy’s total energy consumption for ships, aircraft, vehicles and shore installations to come from renewable sources.
But he concedes that this goal may be an overreach. “Right now I’m told 40 percent is a more realistic target and even that remains difficult because of the cost and logistics.”
If the Navy can successfully adopt biofuels for use in major weapon systems, it would go a long way toward weaning the U.S. military off petroleum. But it will not be an easy road. The military services two decades ago sought to simplify battlefield logistics by creating a single fuel (JP-8) for aircraft, ground vehicles and support equipment such as generators. Adding biofuels could complicate the logistics of providing fuel. Price also is a consideration. As long as oil stays below $100 per barrel, biofuels could cost far more than JP-8. Navy officials said they expect oil prices to soar again, but admit that crude markets are difficult to predict.
The Navy is now pinning its hopes for a green strike group on being able to fly F/A-18s Super Hornets entirely on biofuels. A test last month at Patuxent River, Md., gives the Navy reasons to be optimistic that a “Green Hornet” will fly within the next three years, said Mabus. “Although the cost of the fuel used in that engine is high right now, it is still cheaper than putting gas into a generator on the battlefield in Afghanistan,” he said. “And that cost will fall as the scale of production is increased.” Mabus also cited engine upgrades planned for F/A-18s by 2015 that will save 127,000 barrels of fuel per plane, which amounts to $15 million for the fleet a year at today’s fuel prices.
For the test at Patuxent River, an F404 Hornet engine was filled with camelina biofuel mixed with JP-5. It was the first time a Hornet jet engine ran at full afterburner on biofuel. More tests are scheduled in December and January for the F414 Super Hornet engine. Navy officials expect the first flight of a Super Hornet fueled with a blend of biofuel and JP-5 will occur next spring.
The enthusiasm over the Green Hornet test, however, may be premature.
“Aircraft, since their inception, have been developed around petroleum based fuels,” said Rick Kamin, who oversees the biofuel test team at Naval Air Systems Command, in Patuxent River. “Although renewable fuels currently being tested have many similar properties to petroleum based fuels, they are not 100 percent the same,” he said in a NAVAIR news release. “Blending is the near-term solution to allow use of these fuels until ongoing research provides a complete solution.”
Biofuels are not only expensive compared to JP-8, but also require new infrastructure. Until biofuels are produced in massive quantities, they could remain too pricey to be affordable beyond pilot programs. Mabus is confident that if the Navy and Marine Corps create a demand for biofuels, the market will respond by increasing production and lowering costs.
“A lot of these fuels are already out there. But there’s no demand for them … I’m hoping that by providing demand, it will incentivize industry,” Mabus said.
So far the most promising biofuels for naval use are made from the camelina plant — a relative of the mustard seed and rapeseed — and a biodiesel made from algae. Mabus stressed that any source of biofuel would not compete with food the way corn-based ethanol does. Algae are not regarded as food crops. Supporters point out that algae are renewable, do not affect the food chain and consume carbon dioxide. Camelina is used as industrial chicken feed, and is grown by wheat farmers as a rotation crop. Manufacturers of camelina jet biofuel said it produces 80 percent less carbon emissions than conventional kerosene.
The Defense Energy Support Center awarded Sustainable Oils, a producer of camelina-based fuels, a contract for 40,000 gallons. The $2.7 million contract includes an option for an additional 150,000 gallons.
The company said its camelina biojet fuel has performed well in aviation tests with a Boeing 747-300. Sustainable Oils has the largest camelina research program in the nation. Most of the camelina for the Navy’s jet fuel will be grown in Montana. The fuel production will be subcontracted to UOP LLC, a Honeywell company.
Camelina fuel was used in a Japan Airlines’ biojet test flight. In August, camelina powered a Boeing U-787 hydroplane in a demonstration at the Seafair Cup in Seattle.
The Navy is particularly sanguine about camelina because vegetable oil performs like petroleum jet fuel, said John Williams, a spokesman for Sustainable Oils. Even though it currently costs about $67 per gallon, the price eventually could be comparable to fossil fuels, if it’s produced in large enough volume and the price of crude goes up.
Navy officials said the goal is to certify as many alternative fuels derived from renewable sources as possible.
It is not yet clear whether the Navy can provide enough of a demand for industry to expand production and reduce costs. So far, the signs are encouraging, said Williams. “If you have a strong and stable customer that is providing certainty of demand, you can get banks, financiers and strategic partners to come to the table,” he said. “The more of these defense contracts that can be put in place, the more it builds confidence in the private sector. This has been a real shot in the arm for the industry.”
Sustainable Oils also received a $6.6 million contract to produce 100,000 gallons of biojet fuel for the Air Force, with options for 100,000 more.
The Air Force’s goal is to meet 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel requirements with alternative fuel blends by 2016, said Michael F. McGhee, acting deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for energy, environment, safety and occupational health.
The service also is experimenting with synthetic fuels. It has flown several combat airplanes with a 50/50 fuel blend of JP-8 and a synthetic fuel derived from natural gas by the Fischer-Tropsch process. “If you blend it 50/50 with conventional jet fuel, the jet doesn’t know the difference,” McGhee said at an energy conference in Washington, D.C.
The Air Force started out testing synthetic fuels because it was the “first thing that walked through the door,” McGhee said. The Air Force didn’t actively seek it; it was “brought to us by industry,” he said.
As to the future of biofuels in the Air Force, McGhee said it remains to be seen how the market shakes out. “We’re not interested in boutique fuels,” he said. The Air Force could not afford to build a special transportation system and hire specialized crews just to handle biofuels. Any alternative fuel would have to work within the existing infrastructure, he said. One problem with biofuels now is that there is no single fuel that has been adopted as the standard for government use. “There’s lots of overlapping requirements from U.S. federal agencies for biofuels,” McGhee said.
Cost also is a concern for the Air Force. Nearly 85 percent of its $9 billion annual energy bill is for aviation fuel.
Algae-derived fuel could turn out to be a viable competitor in the military biofuels market. The Navy will spend $8.5 million on 1,500 gallons for aircraft testing and 20,000 gallons for use in ships. The supplier, Solazyme, also is subcontracting fuel production to UOP LLC. Solazyme makes algae oil in fermentation facilities.
For now, the Navy will concentrate its biojet fuel efforts only on the Super Hornet. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said there are no plans to “green” the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Roughead said he expects the Navy’s fleet of 285 ships to become more energy efficient. At least 220 of those ships will still be in service in 2020, so the Navy plans to retrofit many of its older vessels with new engines and other fuel-saving mechanisms. The USS Makin Island is the current poster child for a greener fleet. It uses an electric motor to power the ship at low speeds. In a voyage from a Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard to its homeport in San Diego, she saved nearly $2 million in fuel costs, Roughead said. At today’s prices, it could save $250 million over the lifetime of the ship.
Similar hybrid electric systems are being installed on 12 DDG destroyers, which will save almost $1 million per ship per year, he said.
Retrofitting DDGs with hybrid engines is a smart move because these ships have substantial electrical power-generating capability that currently cannot be tapped for propulsion power, said retired Rear Adm. Joe Carnevale, who oversaw ship programs in the Navy.
The Navy also is testing an anti-fouling coating for ship hulls that could save up to $180,000 a year per ship in fuel costs due to reduced drag from barnacles and marine growth.
“Joe Deckplate Sailor will have to be more mindful and conscious of energy,” Roughead said.
He downplayed speculation about the Navy building its future cruisers with nuclear plants that are similar to those that power aircraft carriers and submarines.
“For some applications nuclear may be the way to go,” Roughead said. “Nuclear is a great energy source. But it’s very expensive” not only to build, but also to maintain. Of most concern is the ability to recruit and retain skilled nuclear operators, who are in high demand in the civilian nuclear power industry. “That drives the cost of people,” he said. “When you crunch all the numbers, that has to be taken into account.”
Carnevale said the Navy’s hesitance to embrace nuclear propulsion for cruisers or destroyers has more to do with budget pressures than with the merits of nuclear power. A new cruiser that may cost $3 billion with a conventional engine might go up to $4 billion if it were equipped with nuclear propulsion. But the added expense would be more than offset by fuel savings over the life of the ship, Carnevale noted. Regardless, the upfront cost is considered too high vis-à-vis the Navy’s strained shipbuilding budget.
As a parallel effort to its energy strategy, the Navy, more deliberately than the other services, has taken on the study of climate change and how it might affect maritime operations in the next two to three decades.
Roughead created a “climate change task force” headed by Rear Adm. David Titley, the Navy’s senior oceanographer, to better understand and evaluate how climate change might affect maritime security. One of the scenarios is the melting of the polar ice caps by 2025, and the implications for global commerce. “Because the Arctic is changing faster than any other place on the planet, our first deliverable will be a strategic roadmap that proposes actions for the Navy regarding the Arctic region,” Titley said in a Pentagon radio interview.
Roughead received Titley’s so-called “Arctic roadmap” in early October and the Navy may release it by year’s end. The roadmap is expected to include an “assessment of how maritime strategy applies to the Arctic region, potential improvements in infrastructure, and recommended investments in force structure and capabilities to prepare for the challenges presented by the changing climate,” Titley explained.
Climate-related crises already are happening, said Roughead. Changing weather patterns and the destructive nature of natural phenomena are creating a “need for us to be able to respond,” he said. “I spent a lot of time in the Pacific and started to see some trends develop there — deforestation, changing weather that dumps huge amounts of rain,” said Roughead. “Next thing you know, half a mountain is sliding down on a village.” These are legitimate security issues, he said, because the Navy is committed to humanitarian assistance and disaster response.
Titley conceded that climate change is far from predictable and the science is not as precise as he wishes it were. “Nobody expects a 100 percent accurate crystal ball,” he said. The Navy will have to “hedge its bets” because it can’t possibly afford to plan for every conceivable dreadful climate scenario. “We could spend the entire U.S. treasury and still be wrong,” said Titley.
Asked whether the Navy’s bold energy moves are intended to posture the Navy as the lead service in this area, Roughead said it is too early to tell. “We have to do something, not just put a bumper sticker on the back of our cars. It’s all about action.”