Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
Defense Watch 

Tough to Free Troops From Oppressive Tyranny of Fuel 

2,010 

By Sandra I. Erwin 

What will it take for the military to be greener? If $400 a gallon fuel, incalculable logistics burdens and losses of human life don’t light a fire under the leaders of the Defense Department, it’s hard to imagine what will.

The current wars have exposed a previously ignored military vulnerability: the huge dependence on fossil fuels. The daily requirement for Afghanistan is 300,000 gallons a day. Most of it comes through a tenuous supply line through Pakistan where fuel theft is on the rise and roadside bombs target convoys.

At the Pentagon, officials are fully aware of the situation but are not sure what to do about it.

At least the Defense Department can’t say that it wasn’t warned. As early as January 2001, the Defense Science Board called on the Pentagon to do something about its fuel-hog weapons systems and the massive logistics tail associated with bringing fuel to the battlefield. The report noted that 70 percent of the tonnage required to position the Army into battle is fuel. And that was before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, particularly, the dreaded fuel tether has turned into an albatross.

“Next to Antarctica, Afghanistan is probably the most incommodious place to be trying to fight a war,” says defense acquisition chief Ashton Carter. The British army recently estimated that it takes seven gallons of fuel to deliver one gallon to Afghanistan. Not a small matter is the price tag associated with transporting and protecting the fuel supply: up to $400 per gallon. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon is spending $1 million per soldier deployed in Afghanistan, and up to $350,000 of that is for the fuel needed to support that soldier.

So far, the Pentagon has been focused on improving the energy efficiency of its fixed facilities and non-tactical vehicles, but has been slow in adopting green practices for making weapons and vehicles that burn less fuel, and finding ways to produce renewable energy in the field. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, has asked for items such as portable solar panels and wind turbines, but that may only help marginally.

Even though the Defense Department has acknowledged that it faces an enormous challenge, it has not made the cultural and technological changes that would be needed to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Now, the enemy has “found our Achilles’ heel,” says Charles F. Wald, retired Air Force general and senior defense and aerospace advisor at Deloitte LLP.

Fuel consumption by troops in combat since the Vietnam War has increased by 175 percent, according to a Deloitte study. The average Marine brigade burns 500,000 gallons of fuel per day. “With the significant number of troops supporting the transport, logistics, and deployment of fossil fuel to the front lines, there is a call to action to reduce dependence on oil in war,” the study says.
“They do have a big problem in Afghanistan,” Wald asserts. Standing in the way of solving it is not technology, but rather the Pentagon’s byzantine management and disjointed organization. There is no empowered leadership to really drive change, so each service does its own thing. “That’s inefficient,” Wald says.

One immediate fix for Afghanistan would be to replace older generators, which devour the bulk of the fuel at U.S. bases there. “The best they can do is cut the consumption at forward operating bases,” Wald says. Another helpful measure would be to reduce the enormous expenditure of batteries, which adds to the stress on the transportation system.

“Other than that, it’s going to be very difficult,” Wald says. Ideally, the military would need greener vehicles and means to produce electricity locally. “But there is no quick fix,” Wald says.
The Pentagon did once make an attempt to start building greener weapons systems. In response to alarming fuel price jumps, in 2006 the Pentagon’s acquisition executive Kenneth Krieg directed that the “fully burdened cost of fuel” be considered in the design of new weapons systems. He selected three “pilot programs” — the Air Force long-range strike concept, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and the maritime air and missile defense ship. This policy has not had any significant impact, and only the vehicle program is still alive.

U.S. buyers of military trucks, in fact, have shown little enthusiasm for green technology, says Chris Chambers, vice president of BAE Systems, which manufactures tactical vehicles for U.S. and other military forces worldwide. The company unveiled a new “global tactical vehicle” powered by hybrid engines in order to comply with Europe’s strict emissions requirements. U.S. military customers, however, have shown no interest in these new systems, Chambers says.

Defense insiders and lawmakers will be watching whether the Pentagon’s new “energy czar” Sharon Burke can shake things up. There is now a huge window of opportunity with the buildup in Afghanistan to gain momentum for energy reform, Wald says. “Is the fact that we’re in two wars motivating us to change?” The good news is that the nagging energy predicament has drawn high-level attention, Wald says. “We’ll see if this time it will stick.”

Once troops start coming home, the push for reform will lose steam and, many observers lament, it will be back to business as usual.
Reader Comments

Re: Tough to Free Troops From Oppressive Tyranny of Fuel

Sandra:

First, congrats on a superb article -- you got it mostly right.

You missed a HUGE POINT -- the need to REDUCE DEMAND.. and that we have the capability now to do so. If we did, we would save Billions of dollars and many lives.

I was the senior logistician in Iraq from Aug 06 – Nov 07 (during the 5 x BCT Surge) and saw firsthand the impact of our inefficient ways and the lack of accountability/emphasis/incentives within DoD regarding fuel consumption. Your article presents a compelling case for the need to change our ways and I hope it is getting lots of attention – it certainly deserves it.

But, as I said above, I don’t think you didn’t beat the “energy conservation” drum hard enough. Am absolutely convinced that conserving what we are using is truly the low-hanging fruit.

Here’s the deal: We are vulnerable and getting troops/contractors KILLED often because we are hauling fuel that we shouldn’t need. The majority of our log tail is consumed hauling fuel – and the vast majority of ground fuel is being used to heat or air-condition tents, CHU’s, C-huts in living and working areas. A single large circus tent used for housing consumes 700 gallons of fuel each day in a harsh theater like Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fully burdened cost of fuel in isolated places in Afghanistan is where fuel $400 per gallon. If we did something as simple as insulate these expeditionary living and working structures, we would significant cut our energy requirements – and take FUEL TRUCKS OFF THE ROAD. In doing so, we would save countless lives and billions of dollars.
This isn’t just an Anderson SWAG. One of the last things I did in the Army G4 was to commission a study on the impact of foam insulation (a 2 inch layer of polyurethane foam sprayed on the exterior of tents) on 1000 structures in Iraq. In July 09 AMSAA concluded, in a detailed and scientifically robust report (happy to send you) the initial effort to insulate approx 1000 temporary structures in Iraq is taking almost 1000 fuel trucks off the road and producing $65M in fuel cost avoidance annually – we have now done over ten times that initial amount of insulation so the cost avoidance is approaching a billion dollar annually and 10K few fuel truck convoys/trips. In other words, an absolute no-brainer and win-win for soldiers and taxpayers.
Of course, reducing risks to our troops and taking “IED targets” off the road is the top priority.

However, I am also convinced that our Nation has a potential strategic opportunity in Afghanistan. Over the next two to five years, our government and industry can leverage energy development in support of military operations in Afghanistan as we did NASA’s space-based technologies in the 60’s. The communications, computer, composite materials, and other technologies that emerged from our national campaign to put a man on the moon stimulated a generation of industrial prowess that eventually won the Cold War; we must now execute a similar campaign to develop an operational energy test bed in Afghanistan that exploits the most promising production, conservation and management technologies to improve support to war fighters -- and exports them back home here to address the greatest threat to our national security: our over-reliance on foreign oil.

I have shared these thoughts with GEN Wald and know he agrees. Just wanted to share them with you, too.

Glad to discuss and help with a follow-on article. It all starts with energy reduction at the point of need – in doing this, we save lives and boatloads of money in fuel and infrastructure costs -- and empower solar and wind and renewable energy sources to be truly viable for the first time in making a significant contribution to the fight. I was in Afghanistan recently and happy to share some additional insights.

Congrats again on a thoughtful article… and thanks for listening!

V/R, Steve

Steven M. Anderson
Brigadier General, US Army (Retired)
COO, Synovision Solutions LLC
(703) 286-7214
(703) 286-7478 fax
Virtual Office/BB: (571) 314-7609
SAnderson@Synovision.com
www.synovision.com

BG (Ret) Steve Anderson on 03/10/2010 at 23:08

Submit Your Reader's Comment Below
*Name
 
*eMail
 
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
*Comments
 
 
Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.
*Characters
  
*Legal Notice

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 
 
  Bookmark and Share