Twitter Facebook Google RSS
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Will War Drawdown Dampen Pentagon’s Green Energy Program?
Will War Drawdown Dampen Pentagon’s Green Energy Program?

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus often reminds audiences that, for the Defense Department, renewable energy is not a fad or a “way to be politically correct.” Energy security, Mabus and other Pentagon officials have stressed, is about national security.

The end of the war in Iraq and the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, however, could throw a wrench in the Pentagon’s ambitious energy strategy. As per a congressional mandate, the Pentagon unveiled in 2010 a comprehensive plan to reduce fuel use on the battlefield in an effort to avert casualties in war zones, where thousands of troops and contractors have been killed moving and guarding fuel supplies. The Pentagon’s strategy also sets broad goals to reduce the Defense Department’s dependence on fossil fuels and to require that all future weapon systems be more energy efficient. The military today consumes less than 2 percent of the nation’s oil supply, or about 300,000 barrels per day.

The troop drawdown, in and of itself, could weaken the sense of urgency that has so far propelled projects such as replacing Army and Marine Corps diesel-hogging generators with solar panels.

Sharon Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs, said it would be unwise to return to “business as usual” after the current wars end. “If we do that, we’ll have the same revelation [that we had when the current wars started] next time we have to fight a war,” she said in an October interview with National Defense.

“Yes, sometimes we forget when we come home,” she said. “But we’ll pay a price” if energy priorities are not addressed during peacetime, before the next conflict erupts. “If we are going to be a global force, it’s going to take a lot of energy to sustain a global force,” Burke said. “We should not wait until the problem is manifested.”

But a shift in the energy debate over the past several months has sparked questions about the prospects of long-term support for the Defense Department’s program.

Entering the conversation is the idea that energy security — defined as lowering U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil — could be achieved by increasing domestic production of fossil fuels. This could influence support for some of the military’s green-energy effort such as increased use of biofuels. The Navy and Air Force have spent hundreds of millions of dollars procuring biofuels and modifying aircraft so they can fly on a mix of alternative and conventional fuel. Last month, the Defense Logistics Agency purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuels for future tests. It was billed as the largest ever U.S. government biofuel buy.

Recent statistics about U.S. domestic energy production have raised eyebrows within industry and political circles. Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of "The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World," noted in a Wall Street Journal article that the United States has become less dependent on petroleum imports from unstable countries while U.S. crude oil output has risen by 18 percent since 2008. “The big surprise is onshore, where the United States is experiencing an oil boom.” U.S. petroleum imports, he wrote, reached their peak (60 percent) in 2005, and they are now down to 46 percent.

The Journal also reported that U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, and “putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years.”

According to Politico’s “Issues Forecast” for 2012, “Republicans on the Hill and on the campaign trail have been pressing for more oil drilling on- and offshore.” Tax credits for production of renewable energy, meanwhile, are set to expire in the next two years. Politico projects that “renewables face going off a cliff unless they find some strong allies in Congress.”

Experts say it is too soon to foretell what these developments mean for alternative-energy investments, including the Pentagon’s financial backing of biofuels and green technologies.

Retired Air Force Gen. Charles F. Wald, a supporter of biofuels, said it would be “extremely shortsighted and narrow minded to think that our energy problem is resolved” by relatively small increases in domestic oil production. “The energy problem is not waning,” said Wald, who is director of the consulting firm Deloitte's defense practice. Regardless of recent developments in domestic energy, he said, the United States remains highly dependent on foreign oil that has to be transported through volatile areas. “If the Straits of Hormuz is shut down, that is one-fifth of the world’s oil,” he said. “The global economy would go into a tailspin.”

As to whether the troop drawdown will take the wind out of the defense energy sails, Wald said that is entirely possible, unless the nation’s leaders bring the issue to the forefront.

“We go through cycles. There are periods of great concern and nervousness about energy disruption and high prices,” he said. “If we’re net exporters, does that mean we no longer care because we have bigger things to worry about?” he asked. “I think it’s a leadership issue.”

The Defense Department’s biofuels program will remain strong, he said. It may progress at a slower pace, but the Pentagon will muddle through, he added.

Another retired Air Force general and renewable energy advocate, Norman Seip, said he is optimistic about the Defense Department’s green efforts.

“I don’t see the enthusiasm dampening,” he said. Even if domestic production of fossil fuels picks up steam, that is still no reason to give up on alternative energy, Seip said.

Green energy enthusiasts caution that it is too soon to interpret these recent domestic energy numbers as a sign that the United States is truly becoming more energy independent.

“The United States still uses 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies and produces around 2 percent. That has not changed,” said Nicole Lederer, co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs.

“We are not a net exporter of domestically drilled oil. We are a net exporter of refined oil products,” which is an important distinction to make, she said. U.S. refineries bring in oil from foreign sources, and exports the proceeds which are sold at global market prices. “We have no more access [to domestically refined oil] than any other country,” she said. “So we continue to be very vulnerable to global price fluctuation.”

Lederer praised the Defense Department for seeking to diversify its energy supply and reduce demand. “The Pentagon is not walking away from these issues,” she said. “They’re committed.”

The biofuels industry is counting on the Defense Department to “help get through the valley of death” as these products transition from the lab to the field. “As soon as the market sees a demand, private investors will continue to swarm into this space to help them scale up,” she said. “The Defense Department is playing an extremely important role establishing that demand.”

One sector of the military’s green-energy business that is expected to see rampant growth is upgrades to Army bases. Army Secretary John McHugh formed an “Energy Initiatives Task Force” as a one-stop shop for the development of cost-effective large-scale renewable energy projects. Army officials are betting that the private sector will jump at the opportunity to spend billions of dollars to build utility-scale solar plants and wind turbines, or produce geothermal energy on federal lands. The large upfront investment would be offset by future government contracts to supply electricity to military bases and surrounding communities.


Re: Will War Drawdown Dampen Pentagon’s Green Energy Program?

The Navy paid $430 a gallon for Solazyme algae diesel oil for its recent ship stunts and $149 a gallon for algae kerosene for its recent airplane stunts-- fuels that normally cost the military less than $3 a gallon in bulk.  I say "stunts" because that is what RAND said in its Jan 2011 study ( that said the US Military is wasting vast sums of money duplicating meaningless demonstrations that have already been done by industry for 55 different biofuel blends.  The issue is not making the fuel, it's making it economically.  To see how we are doing, consider that Solazyme is receiving another $21 million in subsidies from DOE, so the real cost of the fuel is still far higher, and that Honeywell UOP was just awarded a DOE contract for $1.1M to produce a mere 100 gallons of fuel sometime in 2012--that is $11,000 a gallon.  North America is already littered with failed ethanol biofuel enterprises that never delivered and closed up as soon as the subsidies dried up.  BTW, where is the real "green" crowd?  As rain forests are getting chopped down to become corn or oil palm plantations and natural prairies are being turned into farm land, I wonder where Sierra Club is?  All the nitrogen fertilizer used for increased cultivation (which comes from natural gas BTW), is accelerating eutrophication (creation of dead zones) in our lakes and oceans.  The reputable lifecycle research done by unbiased institutions (e.g., Cornell and UVA) show it actually takes more fossil fuel energy to make a liter of ethanol or biodiesel than that liter provides back to the system.  Biofuels can't beat the laws of thermodynamics, let alone economics.
Cliff Claven at 12/23/2011 9:55 AM

Re: Will War Drawdown Dampen Pentagon’s Green Energy Program?

I applaud the current green initiatives of the military.  We should not waste money, but I think the military can provide an excellent example for the rest of our government and our country concerning these green energy initiatives.   This article discusses some of the positive ways the navy is leading the charge: 

Now, I think these are positive changes, however, I think we need to carefully consider the costs of these programs.  We should not be paying double or triple the current cost of energy. But, a reasonable percentage above the current cost of other energy sources could be set.  I believe 20% maximum (present value of costs and savings) would be reasonable (depending on the impact on co2 emissions).  However, we should be making absolutely sure that we are doing everything possible to take the low hanging fruit when it comes to payback periods.  For example, energy efficient light bulbs have a very fast payback.  Changing behavior and not being wasteful is often the cheapest approach to saving a great deal of energy and money.
green energy enthusiast at 12/23/2011 11:51 AM

Re: Will War Drawdown Dampen Pentagon’s Green Energy Program?

Army and Marine Corps need to replace diesel-hogging generators with fuel cells, not solar panels.
Another View at 12/28/2011 9:00 AM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *



Name: *

eMail *

Comment *


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