Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
Defense Watch 

Amid Political Backlash, Pentagon Pushes Forward With Green Energy 

2,012 

By Sandra I. Erwin 

Maybe the problem with the Defense Department’s renewable energy efforts is that they are called “green.”

And anything green these days can be radioactive on Capitol Hill. Republican lawmakers see funding requests for Defense Department clean-energy programs and cringe. Here we go again, another Solyndra, more ethanol subsidies, more government waste, more taxpayer dollars thrown at political cronies.

Military and civilian defense officials responsible for green initiatives increasingly are flummoxed and frustrated by the demonization of renewable energy. When did efforts to save lives and money become cheap partisan fodder?

“I think it’s sad” that the military’s campaign to burn less fuel and to secure alternative sources of energy is being politicized, one three-star general said in a private conversation.

Several industry insiders who work with the Pentagon’s most visible champion for green energy, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, said they were aghast at the amount of badgering he received last month during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. By their account, Mabus was quite upset by the grilling from several congressmen, who insinuated that the secretary was being too aggressive in promoting the Navy’s green fleet at the expense of more urgent force-readiness priorities.

“Now, look, I love green energy,” said Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va. But he questioned why the Navy is cutting its budget for ships but increasing spending on biofuels that cost $15 per gallon. “You’re not the secretary of energy. You’re the secretary of the Navy,” Forbes griped. Mabus was hit by similar unfriendly barbs from other HASC members.

In fairness to green-energy critics, the terms of the debate over Pentagon investments in this area have been tough to frame because the goals are so wide-ranging. On one end of the spectrum are Navy and Air Force initiatives to replace fossil fuels with renewables, with the goal of boosting “energy security” — a catchphrase for becoming less dependent on oil imports from unfriendly countries. On the other end are Defense Department green initiatives that have practical tactical aims, such as reducing fuel shipments in combat zones. Supply convoys in Afghanistan and Pakistan are regularly attacked and U.S troops and contractors have been killed and wounded.

One Pentagon contractor who produces renewable energy systems said he was appalled by the prosecutorial nature of congressional inquiries on green programs. “When you know people who have gotten killed transporting or guarding fossil fuel, it sort of points you in the right direction,” he lamented.

The war in Afghanistan may be winding down, but there are still more than 400 forward-operating bases throughout the country where U.S. troops are deployed. The Army, particularly, is rushing to provide more efficient generators that could cut fuel demand by half.

The Army’s chief of logistics Lt. Gen. Raymond Mason said the service is requesting $4 billion in the 2013-2017 budget for “operational energy” programs. “I have to convince the leadership that they have to spend money to save money and lives,” Mason told reporters. “The issue is not whether we can afford operational energy, we cannot afford not to do it.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently signed an “operational energy implementation plan” that could spur additional efficiency measures and more investments in clean-energy programs beyond what is currently under way. With congressional approval last year, the Pentagon set up an “operational energy capabilities improvement fund” that would provide seed money for technologies that reduce battlefield fuel use. It received $18 million in fiscal year 2012 for five projects that were selected among 32 competitors.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs Sharon Burke said that in this initial round of projects, the focus was on energy-saving cooling and heating systems for military outposts. Burke recently spoke to an industry conference where nearly 700 small-business representatives came to hear about future opportunities in the operational energy market. She told the audience that the OECIF money is not intended to bankroll “one off” science projects but rather to develop “long-term capabilities that will be sustained by the military services” so they can cut down on fuel use for years to come.

Lt. Gen. William N. Phillips, the Army’s head of acquisitions, said there is an urgent need for fuel savings. Each FOB in Afghanistan requires 250 to 7,500 gallons of fuel per day depending on the size. Larger bases demand up to 50,000 gallons per day. Overall the U.S. military consumes 50 million gallons per month in Afghanistan.

Looking ahead, even after the current wars end, the Pentagon sees a compelling need to wean itself from petroleum. “There is no question that the military will need alternatives to petroleum, particularly for our legacy fleet of ships and planes,” Burke said in an email. “Recent oil market volatility also emphasizes the need for these longer term solutions.” The Defense Department estimates that for every $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, its fuel bill goes up by $130 million.

The Navy’s director of the energy coordination office, Cmdr. James Goudreau, pushed back on the Republican HASC members’ criticism of military investments in renewables. “Alternative fuels for the Navy is not about being green, it’s about combat capability,” he said. “Our job is not to save the world, it is to protect the nation.”

One Republican who stands with the Pentagon on this issue is now-retired Virginia Sen. John Warner, a former secretary of the Navy and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During a panel discussion at the American Security Project, Warner warned Goudreau that Congress, being the political animal that it is, should not be trusted to rise above the fray, even when energy security is at stake. “The problem as I see it is in the puzzle palace,” Warner said. The Defense Department has laudable goals, he posited, “But is Congress going to help you? That is the real question.”

Reader Comments

Re: Amid Political Backlash, Pentagon Pushes Forward With Green Energy

Why spend that much on fuel? Because we need to invest in alternatives if we are to continue to employ the same strategies in future engagements as we are currently following in Afghanistan. We currently spend between $300-$400 per gallon to air drop fuel to bases around Afghanistan (because increased IED use makes convoys too dangerous). With any new technology the upfront costs tend to be quite high, but this is an investment the US Military needs to make. Additionally, investments in wind or solar can help keep the demands for fuel (for diesel generators) down.

James Brandt on 04/15/2012 at 15:14

Re: Amid Political Backlash, Pentagon Pushes Forward With Green Energy

Some pretty short sighted people in Congress and with comments here. The price for each gallon now is not the issue.
The real issue is setting up a viable production capability and a logistics pipe that can actually make use of it. The people braying against that sound like every other shellback that has ever frowned on something new, like steam powered ships and planes.
It is ironic that the Replublican side of the house is deploring the waste and cronyism, when it was that side of politics that set up some of the largest, most expensive, least competitive support contracts ever seen for Iraq and Afghanistan with companies connected directly with Republican party members. At least with alternative energy/fuels something that benefits the whole community, rather than just further enrich half a dozen people, might come of it.

Mik on 04/02/2012 at 23:47

Re: Amid Political Backlash, Pentagon Pushes Forward With Green Energy

No it's not that's it's "Called Green", it's a total Waste of the Tax Payers Money!!! Why Pay $300-$400.00 a gallon for fuel when you can get it for $4.00 per gallon. Spend the other $296.00 on new equipment for our Military, not some Green Agenda Fantasy

Terry Tee on 03/16/2012 at 19:24

Re: Amid Political Backlash, Pentagon Pushes Forward With Green Energy

Combat capability is not improved by spending 10, 20, or 200 times more for fuel. You do the math: The Navy bought 20,055 gallons of Solazyme HRD-76 diesel oil for $8,574,022 = $427.53 a gallon or $17,956 a barrel. Go to fbo.gov and search the archives for "Solazyme" and "BAA040008." Don't forget that DOE also chipped in $210M to Solazyme for a refinery. Dilute it with regular fuel all you want, one gallon of biofuel still only displaces one gallon of regular fuel and any rational person will realize the price per gallon is not reduced by mixing. The U.S. Military paid $2.25 a gallon for conventional diesel fuel in 2010.

Cliff Claven on 03/15/2012 at 16:59

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