Full Document Text
C L E A N E N E R G Y I N N OVAT I O N A N D A M E R I C A’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Tel. 215-575-2000
www.PewTrusts.org/EnergySecurity
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel. 202-552-2000
BATTLEF I ELD
FROM BARRACKS
T O T H E
THE PEW PROJECT ON
NATIONAL SECURITY, ENERGY AND CLIMATE
THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS
The Pew Charitable Trusts applies the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Pew employs a
rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public and stimulate civic life. We partner with a di-
verse range of donors, public and private organizations and concerned citizens who share our commitment to fact-based
solutions and goal-driven investments to improve society. For additional information on the Trusts, please visit www.
pewtrusts.org.
THE PEW PROJECT ON NATIONAL
SECURITY, ENERGY AND CLIMATE
The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate,
an initiative of the Trusts, works to bring together the
economic, scienti c and military communities to discuss
the links between American energy decisions and
national security. By advancing these discussions, the
Pew Project hopes to formulate solutions that will make
the United States more energy independent, prosperous
and secure.
Joshua Reichert, managing director
Phyllis Cuttino, project director
Laura Lightbody, manager
Joseph Dooley, senior associate
Jessica Frohman Lubetsky, senior associate
Brendan Reed, associate
David Catarious, former Pew sta er
Gavin Feiger, fellow
David Harwood, consultant, Good Works Group
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report bene ted tremendously from the expertise
and guidance of former Sen. John W. Warner, senior
adviser to the Pew Project on National Security, Energy
and Climate, as well as representatives from the U.S.
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and the U.S.
Department of Defense.
For more information, visit www.pewtrusts.org/
energysecurity.
This report is intended for educational and informational purposes. References to speci c products and projects have
been included solely to advance these purposes and do not constitute an endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation
by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
?2011 The Pew Charitable Trusts
901 E St. NW, 10th Floor 2005 Market St., Suite 1700
Washington, D.C. 20004 Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
TABLE OF Contents
2
4
12
14
20
26
58
Foreword
BY SEN. JOHN W. WARNER, RETIRED
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
WHAT CLEAN ENERGY CAN DO FOR DOD
WHAT DOD CAN DO FOR ENERGY INNOVATION
TECHNOLOGY PROFILES
VEHICLES
BIOFUELS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLES AND STORAGE AT BASES
57 CONCLUSION
26
33
41
Service Profiles
ARMY
AIR FORCE
MARINES
NAVY
58
62
66
70
74 Energy Compliance Appendix
2 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
Foreword
BY SEN. JOHN W. WARNER, RETIRED
For the past two years, I have had the distinct privilege of serving as senior
adviser to the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate, a
project of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
When I retired from the U.S. Senate in 2009, I wanted to continue working
on behalf of the military, as I have done throughout my long public service
career. As a former Secretary of the Navy and as a former Chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen rsthand the ingenuity
and commitment of our uniformed men and women, and their civilian
Department of Defense counterparts, seeking solutions to America’s
toughest challenges. Their accomplishments and innovations toward
lessening our nation’s dependence on imported oil by nding many ways
to achieve energy e ciencies, utilize renewable sources and harness
advanced biofuels has placed the Department of Defense in a well-earned
leadership position.
In preparation for this report, I traveled with Pew to visit military
installations to observe how they are adopting clean energy technologies,
improving energy e ciency and saving taxpayer dollars.
At Marine Corps Base Quantico, we witnessed a presentation of the
Experimental Forward Operating Base program, which is testing and
deploying renewable energy and energy e ciency initiatives in theatre in
order to reduce energy consumption at forward operating locations. At the
historic Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, uniformed and civilian personnel are
working as a team to increase the base’s energy security by constructing
LEED-certi ed buildings, co-generating heat and power and using solar
3T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
power as backup for communications systems. At Fort
Bragg, we toured the practical implementation of the
initiatives that are part of an Army-wide goal to achieve
“net zero” energy and water consumption and waste
generation.
Such combined e orts across all branches of the
military result in substantial nancial savings and
often encourage similar initiatives in nearby civilian
communities that provide support in so many ways to
military families.
The brave men and women in uniform, whether serving
on U.S. bases or on forward deployments overseas, clearly
understand the linkage between strong energy policies
and their ability to more safely perform their missions.
Under the leadership of former Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates, and now Secretary Leon Panetta, the
Department of Defense is exercising aggressive energy-
e ciency goals to lessen our dependence and to enhance
our nation’s energy security.
Our nation commends the Department of Defense for
being on the front lines of energy innovation, e ciency
and technological advances. The Pew Project is privileged
to work with them and compile their story for the public
to learn more about their achievements.
4 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Throughout its history, the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD) has invested in new ways of harnessing energy
to enhance the strength, speed, range and power of
the armed forces. Until recently, the U.S. military’s
innovation agenda has not placed a high premium on
energy e ciency and new sources of energy and fuels.
But the department’s experience conducting wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of new global threats
and challenges have caused DoD to rethink its strategic
energy posture. Special emphasis has been placed on
reducing battle eld fuel demand and securing reliable,
renewable energy supplies for combat and installation
operations.
DoD’s major energy challenges include risks associated
with transporting liquid fuels to and on the battle eld;
growing oil price volatility; the impact of fuel dependence
on operational e ectiveness; the fragility of energy
supplies for forces that must have assured power 24 hours
a day; and energy laws and mandates the department
must comply with.
This report details how energy innovation and clean
energy can help DoD respond to these energy challenges.
It also explores ways in which DoD’s commitment to
energy transformation is contributing to development
of new energy technologies that can serve American
consumers and commercial interests alike. Special
attention is given to priority DoD initiatives in key
areas of the world’s burgeoning and competitive clean
energy sector: vehicle e ciency, advanced biofuels, and
energy e cient and renewable energy technologies for
buildings.
HOW INNOVATION CAN HELP
ADDRESS DOD ENERGY CHALLENGES
The emergence of the clean energy sector and
increasingly competitive alternative energy sources
presents DoD with opportunities for saving lives and
money in the years ahead.
Energy e ciency measures help reduce fuel demand and
operational risk while enhancing combat e ectiveness.
For example, DoD insulated 9 million square feet of
temporary structures, reducing energy consumption by
77,000 gallons per day.1
Alternative fuels and renewable energy sources can
be domestically produced (and locally sourced around
the world) to enhance the security of energy supplies.
Similarly, microgrids and “smart” energy technologies
help protect DoD installations from commercial power
outages.
5T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
New energy technologies also help shield the department
from oil price volatility. In contrast to oil prices, the
cost of renewable energy has been declining rapidly in
recent years. The cost of solar panels, for example, has
decreased by more than 60 percent since 2009.2
HOW DOD CAN HELP ADVANCE
ENERGY INNOVATION
In recent decades, DoD technology development
e orts have supported commercial development
of computers, the Internet, the Global Positioning
System, semiconductors and many more innovations.
DoD has a broad range of strengths that can help
accelerate clean energy technology development and
commercial maturity. These include an established
research and development infrastructure, ability to grow
demonstration projects to scale, signi cant purchasing
power and the necessary culture and management
infrastructure necessary to foster innovation.
In recent years, DoD has begun to harness these
capabilities in service of energy technology innovation.
Its budget for energy security initiatives has risen from
$400 million to $1.2 billion in the past four years,3 and
market experts project steadily increased expenditures
for energy innovation activities in the coming years. Pike
Research estimates that DoD investments in advanced
energy technologies will reach $10 billion a year by
2030.4
DOD PROGRESS ON KEY
TECHNOLOGIES
While the Department of Defense is exploring a wide
range of innovations to enhance energy security
and improve operational e ectiveness, its e orts
in three areas stand out: 1) developing of more
e cient vehicles to reduce battle eld fuel demand;
2) harnessing advanced biofuels as an alternative to
petroleum fuels; and 3) deploying energy e cient and
renewable energy technologies at xed and forward
bases.
MORE EFFICIENT VEHICLES
Energy e ciency across DoD’s large eet of airplanes,
ships and ground vehicles represents the cheapest, fastest
and most e ective means of reducing fuel consumption
and addressing operational risk to soldiers, price
volatility, supply security and mission success. Liquid
petroleum fuels account for approximately three-quarters
of DoD’s annual energy consumption and more than $11
billion of its annual energy bill.5
6 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
AN F/A 18F SUPER HORNET STRIKE FIGHTER.
THE ARMY UNVEILS ELECTRIC VEHICLE FLEET.
U.S. N
avy
U.S.
Army
The department’s e orts to reduce its dependence
on petroleum are taking shape through research and
development, demonstration projects, and deployment
of clean vehicle technologies in air, land and sea eets.
AIRPLANES
Improving the e ciency of the military aviation eet is
the most promising opportunity for reducing DoD fuel
consumption. A leading e ciency expert has estimated
that a 35 percent e ciency upgrade in defense aircraft
would o set as much fuel as is currently used by all DoD
facilities and ground and marine vehicles combined.6
Developing new airplanes with more e cient o -the-
shelf technologies and accelerating aircraft replacement
will reduce petroleum use in the near term, but
development and adoption of new technologies will be
critical as the Air Force seeks to reduce the amount of
fuel burned by legacy aircraft (those currently in use)
by 20 percent by 2030.7 In addition to its own aircraft
fuel e ciency improvements, the Navy is also working
to reduce fuel consumption by mandating greater use
of aircraft training simulators.8 Overall DoD spending to
harness clean energy technologies in the air, at sea and
on the ground is projected to increase to $2.25 billion
annually by 2015.9
ELECTRIC GROUND VEHICLES
The department is also advancing electric vehicle
technologies. By focusing on improvements in advanced
combustion engines and transmissions, lightweight
materials, thermal management and hybrid propulsion
systems, DoD hopes to meet the requirements of
7T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
THE NAVY’S RIVERINE COMMAND BOAT EXPERIMENTAL RCB X .
U.S. N
avy
Executive Order 13423, which mandates a 30 percent
reduction in non-tactical eet fossil fuel use by 2020.
In June 2011, the department issued a request for
information from electric vehicle manufacturers, battery
manufacturers, suppliers, nancing corporations and
other stakeholders on equipment costs, availability of
technologies, nancing options and other innovative
proposals that would allow DoD to deploy electric
vehicles at a cost that is competitive with internal
combustion engine vehicles. With more than 190,000
non-tactical vehicles, the deployment of medium and
heavy duty electric vehicles in military eets could be
signi cant in just a few years, assuming that procurement
can be achieved at competitive prices.
SHIPS
With a goal of increasing e ciency and reducing fuel
consumption on ships by 15 percent between 2010
and 2020, the Navy is testing and advancing new
technologies in its operational vessels.10 To achieve its
fuel reduction goal, the Navy is investing $91 million
in scal year 2012 to develop more e cient materials
and power systems for engines, advanced materials for
propellers and water jets, and systems that allow ship
hulls to eliminate biological growth that can reduce
e ciency.11 By installing stern aps, which reduce
drag and the energy required to propel a ship through
the water, the Navy has already generated annual fuel
savings of up to $450,000 per ship.12
The Navy has also made
progress on hybrid systems
for ships. The USS Makin
Island was commissioned in
2009 with a hybrid electric
propulsion system that will
save more than $250 million
in fuel costs over the life of
the ship.13 Looking forward,
a hybrid electric drive system
will be tested and installed as
a proof of concept on the USS
Truxtun. The Navy estimates
successful testing will result
in fuel savings of up to 8,500
barrels per year.14
8 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
ADVANCED BIOFUELS
Even with sustained improvements in vehicle e ciency, the
department will rely for the foreseeable future on liquid
fuels as its primary energy source. Therefore, DoD is taking
prudent steps to harness advanced biofuels. In fact, the
various service branches have set ambitious goals:
• The Air Force wants to use alternative aviation fuels
for 50 percent of its domestic aviation needs by
2016.
• The Navy aims to sail a “Great Green Fleet” and
along with the Marines plans to use alternative
energy sources to meet 50 percent of its energy
requirements across operational platforms by 2020.
• The Army seeks to harness alternative fuels to
power its vehicle eet and meet the EO 13423 goal
of increasing non-petroleum fuel use by 10 percent
annually in non-tactical vehicles.
To reach these goals, the armed services are considering a
variety of alternatives with potential for ful lling military
requirements. DoD is moving forward prudently to ensure
that advanced biofuels can be developed and produced in a
manner that is cost-competitive, compatible with existing
military hardware, domestically available at the scale DoD
needs, and environmentally sound.
RESEARCH
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
is exploring a variety of biofuel technologies on behalf
of the armed services, including production of cost-
competitive algal-based biofuels within ve years.
TESTING AND CERTIFICATION
On March 25, 2010, the Air Force successfully conducted
the rst ight test of an aircraft powered by a 50-50
camelina-based biofuel blend. As of mid-2011, 99
percent of the Air Force eet has been certi ed to y on
biofuel blends.15 The Air Force expects to complete all
ight testing by February 2012 and all certi cations by
December 2012.
The Navy also is actively engaged in testing and certifying
advanced biofuels for planes and ships— ying the
“Green Hornet” on a camelina-based jet fuel and oating
Riverine Command Boat-Experimental (RCB-X) on a
biofuel derived from algae.16
DEMONSTRATION
The Navy is planning to demonstrate a carrier strike group
powered solely by alternative fuels in 2012. Dubbed the
Great Green Fleet, the ships and planes are expected to
conduct an extended mission in 2016, and all energy
provided to operational platforms is to be 50 percent
alternative by 2020.
COOPERATION WITH INDUSTRY
Cognizant of the extensive commercial interest in
development of advanced biofuels, DoD is working
closely with domestic agriculture, aviation and other
transportation industries.
9T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
In August 2011, President Barack Obama announced that
the U.S. Navy, along with the Departments of Energy and
Agriculture, would invest up to $510 million to co- nance
construction or retro t plants and re neries capable of
producing signi cant quantities of advanced biofuels over
the next three years.17 The Navy, DoE and USDA issued
a request for information (RFI) to the industry about
ideas for how to establish a commercially viable drop-in
biofuels industry.18 This initiative will help reduce the cost
of advanced biofuels, ensure that supplies of these new
fuels are available for military testing and use, and spur
job creation and economic opportunities in rural America.
CLEAN ENERGY AT DOD BASES
The Department of Defense manages more than 500,000
buildings and structures at 500 major installations
around the world. The building space under DoD
management totals about 2.2 billion square feet, three
times the square footage operated by Wal-Mart and
more than 10 times that of the U.S. government’s General
Services Administration.19 In theater, DoD also runs a
number of forward operating bases that require energy
to power electronics, provide lighting, and heat or cool air
and water.
Across its xed building stock and forward operating
bases, DoD has ample opportunities to save energy and
deploy new alternative energy sources. Since 1985,
DOD has reduced its facility energy consumption by
more than 30 percent.20 Over the past decade, its Energy
Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) nanced more
than $440 million worth of energy-saving measures at
installations. In addition, from 1999 to 2007, more than
$3.8 billion worth of energy e ciency improvements at
DoD facilities were nanced through innovative third-
party nance mechanisms.21 Including third-party
nancing, DoD expenditures in scal year 2010 alone
totaled $1.09 billion for energy and water e ciency and
renewable energy.22
Recognizing the bene ts of actively managing energy
use at its facilities, DoD is pursuing energy e ciency,
renewable energy, and energy storage measures at xed
and forward bases.
ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES AND
OPERATIONS
From scal 2003 to scal 2010, Department of Defense
installation energy initiatives reduced overall energy
intensity (energy use per square foot) by 11.4 percent,
short of the goal of the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007.23 To continue these e orts
and deploy successful initiatives across installations, the
department has initiated the Installation Energy Test Bed
Program, which has more than 45 demonstration projects
underway and hopes to reduce demand by 50 percent in
existing buildings and 70 percent in new construction.24
DoD is also exploring energy e ciency initiatives at
forward operating bases. During a recent demonstration
at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine
Palms in California, a company of Marines ran their
equipment solely on solar and battery power for 192
hours and saved a total of eight gallons of fuel per
10 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
day.25 As a result of the demonstrations, a group of
Marines from India Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines
was deployed to Afghanistan in the fall of 2010 with
equipment from the Experimental Forward Operating
Base (ExFOB) program.26 Energy savings from the
deployment included:27
• Two patrol bases operating entirely on renewable
energy.
• A third base reducing generator fuel use from 20
gallons a day to 2.5 gallons per day.
• A three-week-long foot patrol that did not require a
battery resupply, saving the Marines 700 pounds of
weight.
MICROGRIDS
The Department of Defense is moving rapidly to examine
the potential of self-contained “microgrids” that hold
promise for ensuring the continuity of critical operations
at domestic bases. It is estimated that DoD is reliant on
civilian utility companies for 99 percent of its electricity
requirements.28 Microgrids are self-contained islands of
energy generation and management capacity that may
or may not be attached to the commercial grid.
DoD’s aggressive move toward microgrid technology
is helping to spur industry growth and demonstrate
technological feasibility. In part because of the
numerous DoD microgrid projects underway, the U.S.
microgrid market reached $4 billion in 2010.29 Market
analysts indicate that DoD will account for almost 15
percent of the microgrid market in 2013 and that military
implementation of microgrids will grow by 375 percent
to $1.6 billion annually in 2020.30
RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION
TECHNOLOGY
As the world’s largest institutional energy user and with
a broad range of facilities, DoD is an important player in
the development and deployment of renewable energy
technologies. In scal 2010, the department produced
or procured 9.6 percent of its electric energy consumption
from renewable energy sources, just shy of the National
Defense Authorization Act goal of 10 percent.31
Research: At the research level, DARPA has led a
concerted e ort to develop solar cells that achieve 50
percent conversion e ciency, more than twice the
current rate of leading technologies. Record conversion
e ciencies of greater than 40 percent have been
achieved, and the public-private partnership is exploring
next steps in product engineering and manufacturing.32
Deployment: As of mid-2010, the Department of
Defense was operating more than 450 projects involving
solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy.33 The
U.S. Navy accounts for 60 percent of DoD’s renewable
energy projects—some 250 in total. The 14-megawatt
solar array at Nellis Air Force base in Nevada is one
of the largest projects in the United States, although
large-scale projects in the 250 to 1,000 MW range
are in development. One of the largest projects
11T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
under development in the United States is a 500 MW
concentrated solar power project at Fort Irwin in
California. DoD renewable energy spending is projected
to reach $3 billion by 2015 and $10 billion by 2030.
ENERGY STORAGE
Lightweight and long-lasting power is crucial for troops
who need computers, radios or night-vision goggles on
extended missions.
Batteries: It is estimated that up to 20 percent34 of a
soldier’s 70- to 90-pound pack consists of batteries. Army
Soldiers must carry seven or more pounds of batteries
for each day on mission.35 A typical infantry battalion
uses $150,000 worth of batteries during a one-year
deployment.36 More e cient, longer-lasting, lighter
battery systems, such as the Army’s Rucksack Enhanced
Portable Power System, can signi cantly improve mission
e ectiveness and mobility. Technological research into
advanced battery technologies is being pursued actively
by DoD and the Department of Energy, and the military
is pairing rechargeable batteries with renewable energy
technologies to extend soldier range and e ectiveness.
Fuel Cells: The military is also utilizing fuel cells as
an additional source of portable power for troops. The
bene t of fuel cell technology from a war ghting
standpoint is that the cells outperform traditional
batteries by up to sevenfold.37 Fuel cells are applicable
to a wide range of military uses, from small amounts
of power for individual soldiers to large amounts for
facilities, bases and tactical vehicles. Compared with
traditional generators, fuel cells are lighter, quieter,
produce fewer emissions and are estimated to be 83
percent more e cient.38
In its clean energy e orts, the department is
demonstrating that U.S. economic, energy and national
security are inextricably linked. For DoD, today’s
investments in clean energy will save lives and money
for many years to come. For the nation, farsighted
energy policies help reduce dependence on imported
oil, create manufacturing and economic opportunities,
reduce harmful pollution and make our country safer.
With its commitment to using energy more e ciently,
harnessing alternative sources of power, and developing
technologies that promote a more reliable and secure
electricity grid, today’s DoD is helping to point the way
toward a more secure, clean and prosperous tomorrow.
12 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
INTRODUCTION
Militaries that fail to innovate lose strategic advantage.
Nations that fail to innovate lose economic edge. Clean
energy innovation is an essential strategy for making
the United States and its service men and women safer,
stronger and more successful.
Time and again, military leaders have invested in new
ways of harnessing energy to enhance the strength,
speed, range and power of armed forces. Navies that
once relied on wind power transitioned to coal, then
oil and eventually nuclear power to propel eets across
the seas. Air forces harnessed jet propulsion and made
superiority in the skies a central component of strategic
doctrine. And on land there have been continuous
improvements to tactical and non-tactical vehicles to
meet the needs of ever-changing military missions.
THE MILITARY’S NEW ENERGY
IMPERATIVE
Until recently, the U.S. military’s innovation agenda
has not placed a high premium on energy e ciency
and new sources of energy and fuels. Because of
plentiful, inexpensive supplies of petroleum products
and electricity, highest priority has been given, until
late, to building weapons platforms that are bigger,
faster and more powerful. But energy is no longer an
inconsequential expense, the nature of con ict has
changed and the U.S. military is responding.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has been
motivated to accelerate energy innovations by a range of
major developments over the past decade, most notably
the conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of
asymmetric threats and terrorist activities in the United
States, growing concerns about the security of energy
supplies, and sharp uctuations in the price of oil.
DoD’s essential energy challenges were crystallized
in 2008 through the work of a distinguished panel of
experts convened by the Defense Science Board. The
report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD
Energy Strategy, “More Fight—Less Fuel,” called on the
department to initiate aggressive energy innovations
aimed at reducing risk to soldiers and enhancing the
military’s long-term energy security. The task force study
advises DoD to address two key challenges: reducing
battle eld fuel demand and ensuring uninterrupted
power supply at the nation’s critical military installations.
This report details how energy innovation and clean
energy are helping DoD respond to these energy
challenges. It also explores ways in which DoD’s
commitment to energy transformation is contributing to
13T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
Just as the shift
from wind to coal
revolutionized naval
power in the 19th
century, so did the
introduction of
nuclear energy—
on submarines and
aircraft carriers—
transform the global
balance of power in
the 20th. Our mastery
of energy technology
both enabled our nation
to emerge as a great
power and gave us a
strategic edge in the
Cold War.
Deputy Secretary of Defense William
Lynn, April 26, 2011
development of new energy technologies that can serve
American consumers and commercial interests alike.
Special focus is given to priority DoD initiatives in key
parts of the world’s burgeoning and competitive clean
energy sector: vehicle e ciency, advanced biofuels, and
energy e cient and renewable energy technologies for
buildings.
As the largest institutional energy user in the United
States, DoD is in a position to help shape the energy
innovation process to its own and the nation’s bene t.
DoD’s scale, management capacity and history of
technology innovation can make a crucial di erence
in clean energy research and development. The
department’s purchasing power can help technologies
make the transition from laboratories to the commercial
marketplace. In the process, jobs and manufacturing
opportunities can be created, along with goods
and services that save money and are of value to all
Americans.
In its clean energy e orts, the department is
demonstrating that U.S. economic, energy and national
security are inextricably linked. For DoD, today’s
investments in clean energy will save lives and money for
many years to come.
14 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
36%
27%
Department of the Navy
(Navy and Marine Corps)
Army
30%
Air Force
6%
Other DoD Agencies
FIGURE 1: DOD ENERGY USE IN FY2010
Source: FY2010 Federal Energy Management Report
WHAT CLEAN ENERGY
CAN DO FOR DoD
The energy risks and challenges facing DoD are
evident in its energy pro le. It is the single largest
consumer of energy in the United States and one of the
largest institutional energy users in the world, having
consumed 819 trillion BTUs of energy in 2010. Oil
products accounted for 80 percent of DoD’s nal energy
consumption. In 2009, DoD used more than 375,000
barrels of oil per day, more than all but 35 countries. 39
Another 11 percent of DoD’s energy is delivered in the
form of electricity.
DoD’s oil and electricity use are re ected in the
department’s emerging organizational structure for
advancing energy innovation. Fuel is primarily used for
operational energy requirements and is in the purview
of the newly created position of Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs,
currently held by Sharon Burke. Operational energy
has been referenced by DoD as the “energy required for
training, moving, and sustaining military forces and
weapons platforms for military operations.”40 Electricity
is primarily needed to ful ll the energy requirements
of xed installations and bases. Installation energy
management is overseen at DoD by the Deputy
Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment, Dorothy Robyn.
15T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
FY10: $15.2B
Facilities Energy*
26%
Operational Energy
74%
* $4.01B in facilities energy
costs include non-tactical
vehicle fuel
$3.76B – facilities energy
$0.25B – non-tactical
vehicle fuel
FIGURE 2: DOD ENERGY COSTS
Jet Fuel
Navy
Special
Other
Auto Gasoline Diesel-distillate
Aviation Gasoline
81%
Electricity
64%
12%
Coal
2%
Fuel Oil
9%
LPG
2%
Nat Gas
14%
Steam
3%
1%
2% 4%
Renewable Energy Purchases
0%
Fleet Fuel
6%0%
OPERATIONAL INSTALLATIONS
FIGURE 3: DOD ENERGY COSTS, FY2010 (ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS)
Source: FY2010 Federal Energy Management Report
16 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
DOD’S MAJOR ENERGY CHALLENGES
The military’s two central energy requirements—fuel for
operations and electricity for installations—present ve
distinct challenges:
Operational Risk—Today’s soldier requires 22
gallons of fuel per day on average, an increase
of 175 percent since the Vietnam War.41 In
Afghanistan alone, 20 million to 50 million
gallons of fuel must be delivered each month
to meet these needs.42 Eighty percent of the
convoys into Iraq and Afghanistan are for fuel,43
and it is estimated that one in 46 convoys results
in a casualty.44 From 2003 to 2007, more than
3,000 uniformed and contractor casualties were
associated with the delivery of fuel. In 2010, there
were 1,100 attacks on fuel convoys.45
Operational E ectiveness—The extensive
need for fuel convoys diverts forces from combat
operations and war ghting. In a memorandum to
coalition forces in June 2011, Gen. David Petraeus
noted that “a force that makes better use of fuel will
have increased agility, improved resilience against
disruption and more capacity for engaging Afghan
partners, particularly at the tactical edge.”
Security of Supply—DoD is concerned about two
distinct energy supply issues. First, the department’s
operations rely upon large quantities of oil, the
majority of which must be imported, often from
unstable regions and/or hostile regimes. Second,
installations rely on electricity transmitted over an
aging and vulnerable commercial grid.
Price Volatility—The department is not immune
from oil price spikes and resulting budgetary
challenges. In scal 2005, DoD spent $8.8 billion
for 130 million barrels of petroleum supplies. In
scal 2008, 134 million barrels cost the department
$17.9 billion, more than double the cost for almost
the same amount of fuel purchased in 2005.46 More
recently, the price paid for gasoline by the Air Force
increased in mid-2011 by $1 per gallon. Carried
forward over the course of the year, this price
increase could raise Air Force energy costs by $2.3
billion.47 Across the department, operational energy
costs increased from 2009 to 2010 by more than 19
percent, even though energy consumption declined
by more than 9 percent.48
Moreover, where military operations are concerned,
the pump price of gasoline does not fully account for
all of the costs associated with securing, shipping
and protecting fuel. Thousands of troops are put at
risk, some sacri cing their lives, so that fuel can be
obtained and delivered to the battle eld. These
and material costs are increasingly factored into
long-term military planning, and the department
is exploring ways to consider what is known as
the Fully Burdened Cost of Energy (FBCE), which is
estimated to be as high as $40 per gallon.49
Compliance—DoD is required to comply with
laws passed by Congress, as well as executive
17T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
A U.S. MARINE CORPS MV 22 OSPREY LIFTS OFF FROM NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, MD., DURING A SUCCESSFUL BIOFUEL TEST
FLIGHT. THE TILT ROTOR AIRCRAFT FLEW AT ALTITUDES OF UP TO 25,000 FEET ON A 50 50 BLEND OF CAMELINA BASED BIOFUEL AND
STANDARD PETROLEUM BASED JP 5 FUEL.
U.S. N
avy pho
to
orders set forth by the president. A listing of legal
requirements that DoD must meet related to energy
can be found in the Energy Compliance Appendix.
HOW INNOVATION CAN HELP
ADDRESS DOD ENERGY CHALLENGES
A marked expansion of clean energy innovations has
occurred in the past decade as inventors, investors
and policy leaders seek cleaner, cheaper, more secure
means of meeting energy requirements. For DoD, the
rapidly changing energy landscape o ers promising
possibilities for addressing key risks and challenges. Most
importantly, the department’s clean energy investments
will save lives and money for many years to come.
Energy e ciency measures at forward operating bases in
combat areas and across weapons platforms are reducing
the need for energy in combat operations and alleviating
operational risk. As part of an e ort to reduce fuel use in
forward operations, DoD insulated 9 million square feet of
temporary structures, decreasing energy consumption by
77,000 gallons per day.50 More broadly, the department
is exploring a variety of e ciency measures at forward
18 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
U.S. AIR FORCE AIRMAN MARK HEITKAMP PULLS A FUEL SERVICE HOSE FROM AN R 11 FUEL TRUCK IN PREPARATION FOR REFUELING A KC 135
STRATOTANKER AIRCRAFT WITH JP 8 FUEL AT AN AIR BASE IN SOUTHWEST ASIA ON MAY 31, 2006.
DOD
PHOTO
BY
MASTER
SGT
.
DOUGLAS
K
.
LINGEFELT
,
U
.S
.
AIR
FORCE
.
operating bases and across weapons platforms to help
ease fuel requirements and reduce risks to soldiers.
Alternative fuels and renewable energy sources can be
domestically produced (and locally sourced around the
world) to decrease the need for imported oil. Similarly,
waste-to-energy technologies can be used to reduce
logistics associated with waste management in forward
operations, producing meaningful amounts of usable
fuel in theater. Fixed installations, which provide critical
support to combat forces, can be reliably powered by
microgrids, “smart” technologies and renewable energy
sources.
Energy e ciency and renewable energy will help
the department avoid price shocks that have come to
characterize world oil markets. Energy e cient and hybrid
engine technology can reduce fuel requirements in planes,
ships and ground vehicles. In contrast to oil prices, the cost
of renewable energy has been declining rapidly in recent
years. The cost of solar panels, for example, has decreased
by more than 60 percent since 2009.51
19T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
Innovative energy technologies and applications can help
enhance operational e ectiveness. Energy e ciency is a
force multiplier, freeing up troops from logistical support
for deployment in combat operations. Lighter, longer-
lasting batteries can reduce the weight soldiers must
carry and extend their range, agility and endurance in the
eld. Portable solar energy arrays can be integrated into
rucksacks to recharge batteries and power computers,
communications equipment and other advanced
electronic systems.
At the department’s xed installations, e ciency
standards for new buildings and major retro ts can
save large amounts of energy over many years. Military
leaders expect base energy needs and costs to increase
as overseas troops are brought home in the coming
months and years, making e ciency measures even more
important to maintaining the department’s bottom line.52
Alternative fuels and electric vehicles in eets can help
DoD and the nation meet their goals to reduce petroleum
use and emissions. These investments in new sources of
fuels and cutting-edge technologies can, in turn, improve
quality of life for service members and conserve scarce
budgetary resources for soldier care, morale and welfare.
Clean energy will help DoD address its key operational
and installation energy challenges and make the United
States and its businesses more competitive in today’s
rapidly emerging clean energy economy. The United
States, once the world leader in attracting private
clean energy investments, has fallen behind China
and Germany and on a number of measures is failing
to keep pace in a sector that has grown 630 percent in
seven years. DoD’s clean energy agenda serves the
department’s interest in making America’s service men
and women safer, stronger and more e ective, and it also
serves the nation’s interest in creating jobs and economic
opportunity in the emerging and competitive clean
energy sector.
U.S. ARMY SPC. DEAN KALOGRIS CHARGES THE INSTALLATION’S COMMAND
SERGEANT MAJOR’S ELECTRIC CAR ON FORT BLISS, TEXAS, APRIL 14, 2010.THE
BASE LEADERS DRIVE THE CARS, WHICH ARE MADE FROM RECYCLED PLASTIC
AND CAN REACH SPEEDS OF 25 MPH, TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR COMMITMENT TO
HELPING KEEP ENERGY COSTS DOWN AND PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT.
U.S.
Army pho
to by Ma
j
. Deanna
Bagu
e
20 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
FIGURE 4: TOTAL SALES AND MILITARY SHARE OF U.S. INTEGRATED CIRCUIT SALES
1 9 6 5 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 5 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 5 1 9 9 0
0%
20%
10%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Total SalesMilitary %
0
6,000
4,000
2,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
8,000
Source: David Mowery, Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley
WHAT DoD CAN DO FOR
ENERGY INNOVATION
In view of the new risks and challenges that have
been identi ed over the past decade, DoD is moving
aggressively to harness new energy technologies that
can reduce fuel demand and enhance long-term energy
security. In all these e orts, military needs are closely
aligned with national imperatives and interests.
Dependence on foreign oil is a concern of the military and
civilian sectors alike. Power outages, which threaten the
continuity of military operations, are of equal concern to
America’s commercial interests and homeowners. Rising
energy costs are a major factor for household budgets
as well as military nancial planning. Ine cient legacy
infrastructure is as much of a challenge across the country
as it is across DoD’s facilities. Further, both sectors are
concerned about the environmental impact of current
energy options.
DOD’S HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY
INNOVATION
While the department is focused appropriately on its
priority mission of protecting the American people, it has
demonstrated that it can also help advance America’s
21T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
technology development and commercial interests.
The scale of its operations, its continuous need for
improved technologies and its capacity for technology
development and deployment have played a key role in a
wide and important range of recent innovations such as
semiconductors, computers, the GPS and the Internet.
In all of these e orts, DoD helped new technologies
reach commercial maturity. As illustrated in Figure 4
and documented by David Mowery of the Haas School
of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, “the
military applications of semiconductors and computers
meant that defense-related research and development
funding and procurement were important to their early
development. The ‘R&D infrastructure’ created in U.S.
universities by defense-related and other federal R&D
expenditures contributed to technical developments
in semiconductors, computer hardware, and computer
software, in addition to training a large cadre of scientists
and engineers.”53
In its pursuit of advanced technologies such as
semiconductors, the basis of modern electronics
including transistors, computers and telephones, DoD
aligned its considerable research and development
capabilities with the expertise of other federal agencies
and the dynamism of the private sector. In doing so,
the department re ected an understanding of the links
between economic and military security. A vibrant,
innovative American economy is crucial to a strong,
technologically superior U.S. defense posture.
Encouragingly, DoD’s energy innovation e orts are
taking a similar approach. The inaugural Operational
Energy Strategy, released in June 2011, notes that “the
department has an interest in long-term national security
and should take steps to work with other federal agencies
and the private sector to diversify and secure fuel
supplies.”54 The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
notes that the department’s Environmental Security and
Technology Certi cation Program is actively engaged in
using “military installations as a test bed to demonstrate
and create a market for innovative energy e ciency and
renewable energy technologies coming out of the private
sector and DoD and Department of Energy laboratories.”55
In fact, the department has created a far-reaching
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the
Department of Energy (DoE) to help accelerate the energy
innovation process in service of the nation’s energy
and national security goals. DoD and DoE are working
cooperatively on advanced batteries, energy e ciency,
microgrids and “smart” technology.56 Similarly, DoD has
initiated an MOU with the Department of Agriculture to
22 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
Research &
Development
Demonstration /
Proof of Concept
Deployment /
Pilot Facility
Di usion /
Commercialization
Commercial Maturity
Technology Creation Product Development Early Commercialization
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5
Generate idea and begin
to generate intellectual
property
Design and test prototype
Build company
Improve intellectual
property
Prove technical validity in
the eld
Market technology
Prove manufacture
process can be scaled
economically
Prove technology is viable
at scale
Proven technology is sold
and distributed
GAP
S Valley of Death -
Commercialization
Valley of Death -
Technological
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
FIGURE 5: STAGES OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
The DOE is the lead federal agency
responsible for the development
and deployment of advanced
energy technologies, yet DOD will
need to invest in many of these
same energy technologies. …
Partnering with DOD provides DOE
the opportunity to accelerate the
deployment of its technologies
and expertise toward the critical
economic and energy security
needs of the United States
and to promote scientific and
technological innovation.
DOD-DOE Memorandum of Understanding, July 22, 2010
help accelerate development of advanced biofuels that
can be produced in the United States at cost-competitive
prices and without negatively a ecting food producton.
DoD is also working cooperatively with the private
sector by engaging scientists and corporations, as well
as the defense industrial base. While the department is
depending in large part on the private sector to provide
energy technologies, it is actively engaged in preparing
its infrastructure and vehicles to accept new products.
DOD’S TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
ASSETS
Whether on xed installations or on the battle eld, DoD
brings a variety of strengths to the major stages of energy
innovation: research and development, proof of concept,
pilot testing, di usion, and commercial maturity.
23T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
DoE Defense Other DoD R&DDoD S&T Source: AAAS Report: Research & Development series. FY 2012 gure is
latest estimate. R&D includes conduct of R&D and R&D facilities. DoD
S&T gures are not comparable for all years because of changing
de nitions. ?2011 AAAS
FIGURE 6: TRENDS IN DEFENSE R&D (IN BILLIONS OF CONSTANT FY 2011 DOLLARS)
In all of these e orts, the department brings a broad
range of expertise and institutional capacity to bear,
including:
An Established R&D System—DoD has a mature
research and development system, giving the
department an understanding and structure for
managing far-reaching technology development
processes, from research to procurement. For example,
the Defense Advanced Research Products Agency (DARPA)
has a 50-year tradition of accelerating technology
development, and DoD’s military construction and
logistics capabilities are world renowned. DoD research
and development spending, mostly on weapons and
platforms, has averaged more than $80 billion annually
over the past decade.57 The department also has long-
established relationships with the defense industrial
base, which can aid the technology development process.
Scale—DoD conducts operations across the United
States and around the world, in all regions, climates and
geographic settings, making it an apt proving ground for
new technologies and applications. The various branches
of the military also bring a wide range of expertise
24 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
* Energy saving performance contracts (ESPCs) are agreements between DoD and a private contractor which evaluates energy e ciency opportunities
and costs, helps pay upfront costs and is remunerated through the savings that result from e ciency measures. Power purchase agreements (PPAs)
are long-term contracts between DoD and electricity providers, which incur the cost of developing power supply and are remunerated at an agreed-
price over the length of the agreement.
and requirements to the technology development
process. These capabilities and interests can help drive
technological progress on ships, aircraft and ground-
based vehicles.
Purchasing Power—DoD acquires $400 billion worth
of goods and services each year.58 This purchasing power
can be a crucial lifeline to edgling technologies and
companies working to usher technologies across the so-
called “Valley of Death” between the idea and commercial
viability stages of business development. Moreover,
DoD has made extensive use of innovative third-party
nancing arrangements, from performance contracts to
power purchase agreements.*
Commitment—The department has the culture of
discipline and management structure necessary to
foster technology innovation. At the same time, DoD
has the staying power to complete complex technology
development processes, and it has the urgency needed to
accelerate the process.
Trust—DoD enjoys high levels of trust among the
public and policymakers alike. A Gallup poll in 2009
found overall public support for DoD at 78 percent,
and broad public esteem for the military.59 As a result,
technologies that have met the rigorous requirements
and certi cations demanded by DoD are well regarded in
the commercial sector.
DOD’S INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN
ENERGY ARE GROWING
In recent years, DoD has begun to harness these
capabilities in service of energy technology innovation.
Its budget for energy security initiatives has increased
from $400 million to $1.2 billion over the past four
years.60 DARPA is engaged in research e orts on
advanced batteries, super-e cient solar cells and new
biofuels. The Installation Energy Test Bed Initiative is
piloting emerging energy e ciency and renewable
energy technologies with the aim of di using them
throughout DoD facilities. The department is proving
out concepts for portable solar power packs. Microgrids
are being deployed at xed installations and forward
operating bases. Across the services, power purchase
agreements and other innovative nancing mechanisms
are being used to harness commercially mature and
cost-e ective renewable energy and energy e ciency
technologies.
Market experts project steadily increased expenditures
for energy innovation activities in the coming years.
Pike Research estimates that DoD investments in
advanced energy technologies will reach $10 billion
a year by 2030.61 More broadly, Pike estimates that
the global military marketplace for clean energy
technologies will grow from $1.8 billion in 2010 to
$26.8 billion by 2030.
25T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 $ Millions
Facilities
Mobility
$1,000
$
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
FIGURE 7: DOD’S INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN ENERGY
Source: Pike Research
26 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
TECHNOLOGY PROFILES
While the Department of Defense is exploring a wide
range of innovations to enhance energy security and
improve operational e ectiveness, its e orts in three
areas stand out: 1) developing more e cient vehicles to
reduce battle eld fuel demand; 2) harnessing advanced
biofuels as an alternative to petroleum fuels; and 3)
deploying energy e cient and renewable energy
technologies at xed and forward bases.
DEVELOPMENT OF MORE EFFICIENT
VEHICLES
THE RATIONALE FOR DOD VEHICLE EFFICIENCY
The primary energy challenge for the Department of
Defense is to reduce the operational demand for liquid
fuels, which now totals about 375,000 barrels of oil each
day.62 Energy e ciency constitutes the cheapest, fastest,
most e ective means of reducing consumption and
addressing operational risk to soldiers, price volatility,
supply security and mission success. That is why DoD is
moving expeditiously to improve the fuel e ciency of its
tactical and non-tactical vehicles and investing in electric
vehicle (EV) technologies.
Liquid petroleum fuels account for approximately three-
quarters of DoD’s annual energy consumption and more
than $11 billion of the department’s annual energy bill.63
The scale of DoD fuel requirements creates signi cant
transportation needs, with attendant risk and budgetary
impacts. For example, in scal 2005, DoD spent $8.8
billion for 130 million barrels of petroleum supplies. In
scal 2008, 134 million barrels cost the department $17.9
billion, more than double the cost for almost the same
amount of fuel purchased in 2005.64
To avoid the signi cant costs—in dollars and lives—and
achieve energy security, the Air Force, Army and Navy
are initiating management and process improvements
that save energy, developing more e cient and reliable
engines and introducing electric vehicles across the DoD
eet of 11,000 aircraft and helicopters, 200 combat and
support Navy vessels, and 200,000 tactical vehicles and
190,000 non-tactical vehicles.65
These e orts are guided by the ndings of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy, whose
report, “More Fight—Less Fuel,” found that combat
operations “su er from unnecessarily high, and growing
battle space fuel demand which degrades capability,
increases force balance problems, exposes support
operations to greater risk than necessary, and increases
life-cycle operations and support costs.”66 One of the
report’s primary recommendations was for DoD to invest
in energy e ciency at a level “commensurate with their
27T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
operational and nancial value.”67 The report goes on
to note: “It is unlikely that energy e ciency has a higher
value to any other organization in the country, possibly
the world.”68
DoD’s role in the advancement of e ciency and electric
vehicle technologies can have important positive e ects
on the growth of the clean energy sector and corollary
impacts on future missions. In the United States, it is
estimated that the commercial transportation sector
will use more than 40 times the amount of energy
consumed by the military by 2020.69 Because the defense
and commercial industrial bases are closely aligned,
technological advances in military vehicles are likely to
migrate to commercial civilian markets, as has occurred
with a long list of key technologies. Moreover, e ciency
gains and electric vehicle deployment in the private
sector markets can also relieve DoD’s future burdens
associated with securing oil transport routes and the
impacts of climate change.
E ciency is a major priority across the commercial
transportation marketplace, especially for the domestic
aviation industry. The U.S. Department of Commerce
recently reported that ticket prices for commercial
airlines rose more than 12 percent over a six-month
period beginning in October 2010, which coincided with
a 22 percent rise in the price of petroleum.70 Without
strong gains in e ciency and diversi cation of the fuel
mix, ticket price increases are likely to continue. In fact,
the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects
that energy prices for aircraft will rise 30 percent from
2011 to 2020.71 DoD e orts on aviation e ciency can
help overcome barriers, reduce costs and prove out
technologies of commercial signi cance.
Boeing, which produces several types of aircraft for the
department, is working aggressively to deploy e cient
new eets of commercial aircraft. The Dreamliner 787
is advertised to be 20 percent more fuel e cient than
comparably sized commercial aircraft. To date, more
than 800 Dreamliners valued at $162 billion have been
ordered.72
Finally, DoD transportation e ciency e orts are consistent
with key national goals and requirements. A listing of legal
requirements that DoD must meet related to energy can be
found in the Energy Compliance Appendix.
DOD VEHICLE EFFICIENCY
INITIATIVES
The department’s e orts to reduce its dependence
on petroleum are taking shape through research and
28 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
development, demonstration projects, and deployment
of clean vehicle technologies in its eets. Overall DoD
spending to harness clean energy technologies in the
air, at sea and on the ground are projected to increase to
$2.25 billion annually by 2015.73
MORE EFFICIENT AIRPLANES
Improving the e ciency of the military aviation eet is
the most promising opportunity for reducing DoD fuel
consumption. A leading e ciency expert has estimated
that a 35 percent e ciency upgrade in defense aircraft
would o set as much fuel as is currently used by all DoD
facilities and ground and marine vehicles combined.74
The U.S. Air Force uses 64 percent of DoD’s petroleum
supplies. More than 84 percent of the Air Force’s
petroleum use is in the form of jet fuel. As a result, the
Air Force is seeking to reduce aviation fuel use by 10
percent by 2015.75 As the rst Report on Operational
Energy Budget Certi cation notes, “increasing the
energy e ciency of the current legacy eet presents
the greatest opportunity for optimizing use of
operational energy” in activities that cannot be
reprogrammed to simulators or other techniques.76
Developing new airplanes with more e cient o -the-
shelf technologies and accelerating aircraft replacement
will reduce petroleum use in the near term, but
development and adoption of new technologies will be
critical as the Air Force seeks to reduce the amount of
fuel burned by legacy aircraft (those currently in use) by
20 percent by 2030.77
While the Air Force plans and budgets for retro tting
legacy systems, it is taking steps to optimize fuel
consumption by implementing energy management and
operational initiatives—modifying routes, improving
aircraft centers of gravity, using ight simulators and
adjusting aircraft crew ratios—that will result in scal
2012 energy savings totaling $494 million.78
The Air Force is investing in a Versatile A ordable
Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE) program, in which
two key components seek to improve fuel consumption
by 25 percent compared with a scal 2000 state-of-the-
art engine, such as the Joint Strike Fighter.79
The rst initiative under VAATE is the Adaptive Versatile
Engine Technology program (ADVENT), in which
aircraft are tted with a “multi-design point engine”
that incorporates the best characteristics of high-
performance and fuel-e cient jet engines into a single
engine that will perform consistently under a broad
range of conditions. For example, fan and core designs
of the ADVENT engine will generate thrust when
needed and optimize fuel e ciency when cruising,
with the goal of improving e ciency by 35 percent in
subsonic performance and 14 percent in supersonic
performance compared with scal 2000 state-of-the-
art engines.80 ADVENT can be applied operationally
29T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
84%
Aviation
12%
Facilities
4%
Vehicle and
Ground Equipment
Source: Pike Research
FIGURE 8: U.S. AIR FORCE ENERGY UTILIZATION
to increase supersonic range in the sixth-generation
TACAIR, the Air Force and Navy ghter jets likely to be
placed into service in the next 20 years.81
Looking beyond ADVENT, the Air Force is designing
the Highly E cient Embedded Turbine Engine
(HEETE). HEETE will reduce engine weight, improve
the thrust-to-weight ratio, and increase operational
e ectiveness.82 HEETE will also improve fuel e ciency
10 percent beyond ADVENT while increasing payload
and transport range.83
The Air Force is investing $94 million in the VAATE
program in scal 2012, with more than $361 million
scheduled for the next ve years.
ELECTRIC VEHICLES
DoD is also advancing ground vehicle fuel e ciency and
electric vehicle technologies. Although they make up
a much smaller component of the department’s energy
use compared to aircraft, ground vehicles at military
bases and installations are an important test bed for the
deployment of fuel-saving technologies. By focusing
on improvements in advanced combustion engines
and transmissions, lightweight materials, thermal
management and hybrid propulsion systems, DoD hopes
to meet the requirements of Executive Order 13423,
which mandates a 30 percent reduction in fossil fuel
use by 2020. Of special note are DoD e orts on electric
vehicle technologies. The Army is particularly focused on
30 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
Source: Mike Aimone, Batelle Memorial Institute
HIGH
PERFORMANCE
FUEL
EFFICIENCY
HIGH EFFICIENCY CORE + ADAPTIVE ENGINE TECHNOLOGY =
SIGNIFICANT FUEL DEMAND REDUCTION
FIGURE 9: ADAPTIVE VERSATILE ENGINE TECHNOLOGY (ADVENT)
ADVENT
31T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
the transfer of electrical power between the vehicle and
grid and is investing part of its $13 million Alternative
Energy Technologies budget for scal 2012 in these
activities.84
DoD has also deployed thousands of non-tactical,
slow-moving electric vehicles (on-base vehicles that
travel at less than 25 mph) powered by batteries and is
considering broader deployment of electric vehicles for
medium and heavy duty trucks, particularly those used
on U.S. installations where vehicles tend to drive less
than 100 miles per day. Similar to corporate eets, these
vehicles have predictable usage cycles and can be fueled
from a central depot, making installation of required
charging infrastructure simple.
In June 2011, the department requested information
from electric vehicle manufacturers, battery
manufacturers, suppliers, nancing corporations and
other stakeholders on equipment costs, availability of
technologies, nancing options and other innovative
proposals that would allow DoD to deploy electric
vehicles at a cost that is competitive with the cost of
internal combustion engine vehicles. The deployment
of medium and heavy duty electric vehicles in military
eets, comprising more than 190,000 non-tactical
vehicles, could be signi cant in just a few years, assuming
that procurement can be achieved at competitive prices.
Research and testing of electric vehicle technologies are
also continuing at the Army’s Tank Automotive Research
Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC). As
tactical vehicles that are deployed on the front lines,
combat vehicles cannot use technologies that limit
e ectiveness and will employ new e ciency and electric
vehicle technologies more slowly than will non-tactical
vehicles. However, TARDEC is active in research and
testing of EV and e ciency technologies, often with
consortia made up of manufacturers and universities,
including CALSTART and the National Automotive
Research Center.85 E orts to test technologies are
proceeding, and TARDEC’s new Ground System Power
and Energy Facility is likely to open in late 2011. At this
facility, the Army will be able to test EV and e ciency
“The Department of Defense has
a large and diversified fleet with
many of the same vehicles that we
have in the utility industry. Their
participation in the development
of clean energy technologies
will create the critical mass
that many manufacturers need
to commercialize some of their
products and technologies, which
ultimately will benefit commercial
and utility fleets.”
- Dave Meisel, Director of Transportation
Services, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
32 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
U.S. AR
MY
THE ARMY’S
FUEL EFFICIENT
GROUND VEHICLE
DEMONSTRATOR FED
WITH KOLLMORGEN’S
LOW VOLTAGE
POWER GENERATION
PLATFORM.
technologies in extreme temperatures in a laboratory
environment.86 TARDEC is also testing the Fuel E ciency
Demonstrator Alpha (FED-Alpha), a vehicle with the
same capabilities as the M1114 Humvee but that seeks to
improve fuel e ciency by 70 percent.87
DoD is also investing in development of electric vehicle
technologies through the Near Term Energy E cient
Technologies Program (NTEET). Investments in applied
research and development of high-temperature silicon
carbide power semiconductors will enable deployment
of additional heavy-duty electric vehicles, because
improvements in semiconductors can potentially allow
for storage of higher energy levels. Under NTEET, the
department will also invest in ground vehicles that can
export electric power from onboard storage systems,
allowing vehicle-to-grid and other applications that can
result in reduced peak energy use on DoD installations,
and mobile generator units that reduce the need to
transport liquid fuel to remote locations.
MORE EFFICIENT SHIPS
With a goal of increasing e ciency and reducing fuel
consumption on ships by 15 percent from 2010 to 2020,
the Navy is testing and advancing new technologies in
its operational vessels.88 To achieve its fuel reduction
goal, the Navy is investing $91 million in scal 2012 to
develop more e cient materials and power systems for
engines, advanced materials for propellers and water jets,
and systems that allow ship hulls to eliminate biological
growth that can reduce e ciency.89
33T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
THE USS MAKIN ISLAND ON ITS 2009 MAIDEN VOYAGE.
CHRIS
TIN
DAL, DIRE
CTOR OF OPE
RATIONAL ENERG
Y
, U.S. N
AVY
Electric propulsion technologies are also making their
way into Navy vessels. The Navy has plans to test and
construct a hybrid electric drive system on the USS
Truxtun, a guided missile destroyer, and plans to invest
more than $16 million in research and development
next year.90 The Navy expects the hybrid engine to save
8,500 barrels of fuel per year.
Industry leaders have also completed a successful test of
a 36.5 MW motor for use in the Navy’s “Great Green Fleet”
and for future use in all electric ships and submarines.
This technology, a high-temperature superconductor
(HTS) motor, involves replacement of copper wire that
results in electricity that is conducted more than 150
times more e ciently. The Navy has already invested
more than $100 million in HTS technologies. Hybrid shaft
generators can also provide auxiliary power to vessel
propellers and at higher levels of e ciency.91
Deployment of ships with hybrid electric propulsion
systems began with the commission of the USS Makin
Island in 2009, an amphibious assault vessel that the
Navy expects to save more than $250 million in fuel costs
over the life of the ship.92
HARNESSING ADVANCED BIOFUELS
DOD’S AMBITIOUS GOALS
Even with sustained improvements in vehicle e ciency
e orts, the Department of Defense will rely for the
foreseeable future on liquid fuels as its primary energy
source. Today, DoD is the largest single consumer of
liquid fuels in the world. With uncertainties surrounding
the long-term supply and cost of fuels, DoD is
complementing vehicle e ciency initiatives with prudent
e orts to explore development of alternative fuels. The
service branches have set ambitious goals:
34 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
ALGAE CAMELINA SWITCHGRASS
• The Air Force wants to use alternative aviation fuels
for 50 percent of its domestic aviation needs by
2016.
• The Navy aims to sail the Great Green Fleet and with
the Marines plans to use alternative energy sources
to meet 50 percent of its energy requirements across
operational platforms by 2020.
• The Army seeks to harness alternative fuels to power
its vehicle eet and meet the goal set by Executive
Order 13423 to increase non-petroleum fuels by 10
percent annually in non-tactical vehicles.
The biofuels being pursued by military and commercial
interests include hydro -treated renewable jet fuel (HR-
J) and hydro-processed renewable diesel fuel (HR-D),
both of which can be made from the same materials
or feedstocks. Production-level feedstocks include oil
seeds such as camelina, jatropha, rapeseed, soybeans
and babassu; animal fats; and plant and cellulosic
materials such as crop residue, wood scraps and
switchgrass. In the case of oil seeds and animal fats,
oil is directly extracted from the feedstock and then
re ned into the nal product. Grasses and crop and
forest scraps contain cellulose, which must be mixed
with yeast or bacteria to create a product that can be
re ned into the nal product.
Emerging feedstocks, currently the focus of a great deal of
research, development and pilot projects, include algae,
seaweed and electrofuels. Although algae and seaweed
produce a relatively large amount of oil per area, they rely
on ine cient photosynthesis. Electrofuels are the most
advanced nascent biofuel technology being pursued, with
the goal of making liquid fuels using organisms that can
convert carbon dioxide into fuel-like molecules without
using photosynthesis.
DoD must consider a variety of factors and move forward
with great care in the development and deployment
of alternative fuels. The military must ensure that any
alternative fuels are not harmful to legacy infrastructure
and the signi cant investments that have created them.
DoD’s top priority is to achieve its core mission—protecting
the interests of the American people and the brave men
and women serving the armed services—but it also seeks
to lessen America’s dependence on foreign oil.
35T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
CRITERIA FOR ADVANCED BIOFUELS
In view of these and other considerations, DoD is working
to harness biofuels that are consistent with key criteria.
These include:
Cost—In the near term and consistent with its
interest in the development of advanced biofuels,
DoD can pay a premium for small quantities of
prospective alternative fuels for testing, certi cation
and demonstration purposes. But over the long
term, the department has made clear that its
interest is in alternative fuels that are less expensive
than petroleum products, and that it will be able to
purchase large quantities of such fuels only if they
become cost competitive. The Navy, which is working
with researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology’s Sloan School of Management, predicts
that the biofuels being developed today will reach
cost parity with oil by 2020.93
Compatibility—As previously noted, DoD’s tactical
weapons systems make the U.S. military the most
capable ghting force in the world. The renewable
fuels being pursued by the military and commercial
transportation industries are “drop-in” substitutes
for petroleum fuels. That is, no signi cant costly
additional engine or systems engineering is
required, because the fuels must be chemically
equivalent and perform to the standards of the
petroleum-based fuels they are replacing.
Versatility—Military operations occur in every
region and climate in the world. Therefore,
alternative fuels must meet versatile performance
criteria, such as an ability to perform in very hot and
cold temperatures with equal e cacy as petroleum-
based fuels.
Scale—Viable advanced biofuels must be capable
of being produced at scale. The department must be
able to purchase and deploy large volumes of these
prospective fuels. For example, to meet its strategic
goals, the Navy will need 336,000 gallons of biofuels
(jet fuel and diesel) in 2012, 3.36 million gallons in
2016, and 336 million gallons in 2020.94
Environment—The 2010 QDR recognized the
important challenges that climate change poses for
America’s military. Accordingly, DoD is committed
to ensuring that alternative fuels are not more
carbon-intensive than the petroleum fuels now in
use. This commitment is consistent with Section
526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, which requires all federal agencies to purchase
alternative fuels with lower life-cycle greenhouse
gas emissions than are produced by conventional
fuels. This mandate is supported by DoD and has
never prevented the department from meeting its
current mission needs.
DoD’s leadership role in the development of advanced
biofuels and its associated infrastructure are of
acute interest and potentially enormous value to the
commercial aviation, shipping and auto manufacturing
industries, which are keen to learn more about the
viability of advanced biofuels. For example, U.S. airline
36 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
and cargo operations use approximately 17.5 billion
gallons of jet fuel a year95 and the industry is eager to
bene t from lessons learned through DoD initiatives.
DOD’S ADVANCED BIOFUELS
INITIATIVES
DoD is moving forward carefully but methodically to
help accelerate development of advanced biofuels. The
department is engaged in a variety of e orts across the
early stages of the technology development process
in hopes of demonstrating compatibility and moving
toward early adoption of alternative fuels that meet its
well-founded performance and cost criteria.
RESEARCH
DoD is involved in a variety of research activities aimed at
advancing technological progress on advanced biofuels.
DARPA is exploring a variety of biofuel technologies on
behalf of the armed services. Although much of the
research and results are classi ed, DARPA predicts that
cost-competitive algal-based biofuels will be available
within ve years.
Early DARPA biofuel partners include Honeywell UOP and
General Atomics, both of which supplied test batches of
jet fuel and are on the path to commercial production.
Honeywell UOP worked with General Electric Global
Research and the University of North Dakota’s Energy and
Environmental Research Center to create a feedstock-
exible process to produce oil from non-food crops such
as soy, camelina, canola, palm, coconut oils, jatropha,
algae and cuphea. San Diego-based General Atomics
worked with a number of academic and commercial
partners to explore ways of lowering the cost of algae
production, speci cally by increasing per-acre yield. Both
projects delivered renewable Air Force jet fuel at the end
of 2008.
In July 2011, Texas-based Terrabon was awarded a $9.6
million, 18-month contract by Virginia-based Logos
Technologies to design a lower-cost process to produce
renewable jet fuel from a variety of feedstocks for DARPA.
Terrabon will use its demonstration facility in Bryan,
Texas, to design and operate a customized process for
DARPA in an e ort to produce 1,500 gallons of jet fuel
using Terrabon’s advanced biore ning technology,
MixAlco.96 The MixAlco process uses low-cost, readily
available, non-food feedstocks, such as municipal waste,
wood chips and waste and sweet sorghum, to produce
products for biore ning. The process does not require
sterilization, which signi cantly reduces costs. Just as
DARPA programs are responsible for the Internet and
GPS, the next generation of renewable fuels may well
be a product of this program if current funding levels are
maintained or increased.
TESTING AND CERTIFICATION
On March 25, 2010, the Air Force made history with
the rst ight of a biomass-powered aircraft.97 The
A-10C Thunderbolt II, taking o from Eglin Air Force
Base in Florida, ew on a 50-50 blend of camelina HR-J
and conventional Air Force jet fuel (JP-8). In February
2011, the Air Force announced certi cation of the rst
37T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
THE NAVY’S RIVERINE COMMAND BOAT EXPERIMENTAL RCB X .
CHRIS
TIN
DAL, DIRE
CTOR OF OPE
RATIONAL ENERG
Y
, U.S. N
AVY
aircraft platform for biofuel
use: the fuel-hungry C-17
Globemaster III. 98 The C-17
was certi ed for unlimited
HR-J-blend use, leading the
way for certi cations across
the Air Force eet. To date,
99 percent of the Air Force
eet is certi ed to y on
biofuel blends.99 The Air Force
expects to complete all ight
testing by February 2012 and
all certi cations by December
2012. The Air Force has also
extended the certi cation
requirements to any new
platform purchses.
The Navy, too, is actively engaged in testing and
certifying advanced biofuels for planes and ships. The
service is continuing to certify more of its vessels on
biofuels through 2011 and 2012 in preparation for a
Green Strike Group demonstration in 2012.100 In one of
the rst steps, on April 22, 2010 the Navy made headlines
by demonstrating an F/A-18 Super Hornet, dubbed the
“Green Hornet,” on a 50-50 blend of traditional Navy jet
fuel (JP-5) and camelina-based HR-J.101
In October 2010, the Navy tested the Riverine Command
Boat-Experimental (RCB-X) on a biofuel derived from
algae.102 As with the Green Hornet, the riverine craft
was tested using a blend of the traditional petroleum-
based marine fuel with the algae-based substitute.
The test represented the rst time a Navy vessel was
driven at full speed with biofuels in the tank. It is
noteworthy that the algae fuel was produced from a
plant that was constructed with a $21.8 million grant
from the Department of Energy in 2009. In fact, the
fuel’s entire value chain supported the United States
economy. Solazyme, a California-based company with
manufacturing facilities in Pennsylvania, produced and
dried the algae before shipping it to Iowa, where the oil
is extracted and sent to re neries in Texas to produce the
nal fuel, which is blended with petroleum fuel at NAS
Patuxent in Maryland.103
Throughout 2011, to support the 2016 and 2020
alternative fuel goals, the Navy has successfully tested
38 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
HOME-GROWN
FUELS
California-based Solazyme signed a
150,000-gallon contract with DoD for delivery
of algal biofuel during 2011. Solazyme focuses
on algae-based fuels.
Illinois-based Honeywell UOP and Seattle-
based Sustainable Oils each supplied more
than 500,000 gallons of HR-J from a variety of
advanced feedstocks to military branches for
testing and certi cation in 2011. Honeywell
UOP bene ted from DARPA funding in 2007
to develop a military-speci c jet fuel (which
can also be used commercially) in 2010.
Sustainable Oils is focusing on camelina-based
biofuels grown on marginal lands in Montana.
a number of other applications on biofuels, including:
the Allison 501 K gas turbine engine,104 the Marine Corps
MV 22 Osprey105 and the T-45 Goshawk.106 During their
annual Labor Day performance, the Navy’s Blue Angels
ew for the rst time on a 50-50 biofuel blend.107 In
2012, the Navy plans to run a self-defense test ship on a
biofuel blend.108
DEMONSTRATION
The Navy successfully ew a MH-60S Seahawk helicopter
on a 50-50 blend of Solazyme’s algae-derived Solajet
HRJ-5 (a JP-5 drop-in substitute) in June 2011—the rst
military aircraft ever to y on algal biofuel. Throughout
2011, the Seahawk is being own on 100 percent biofuel
for more extensive testing and evaluation.
The Great Green Fleet goals begin with testing a carrier
strike group composed of nuclear ships, hybrid ships,
traditional ships and aircraft all powered by biofuel, with
plans to demonstrate the eet locally in 2012 and sail an
extended mission in 2016. To test the Green Fleet during
2010, Solazyme delivered more than 20,000 gallons of
algae-based jet fuel to the Navy. In July 2011, the Navy
signed a contract for 100,000 gallons of renewable jet
fuel and 350,000 gallons of biodiesel, to date the largest
single order for the Navy, to test and certify ships and
aircraft for alternative fuel use.
DEPLOYMENT
Executive Order 13423 of 2007 requires most federal
agency eets (non-tactical vehicles) to increase total
non-petroleum fuel consumption by 10 percent,
compounded annually through 2015, compared with a
2005 baseline.109 EISA Section 246 requires modi cation
of large fueling sites to provide alternative fuels. Of the
137 DoD sites dispensing more than 100,000 gallons per
year, 63 percent were modi ed by 2010 and 25 percent
plan to make the modi cations in the near future. The
Navy has an accelerated goal to cut in half the amount of
fuel used in its non-tactical eet through hybrid, electric
39T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
7m RHIB
50/50 Algal
Biofuel Test RCB-X 501K
F/A-18
Flight Test
Completed
MH-60S
Ship Progress
Aviation Progress
V-22 T-45 EA-6B
YP Boat LCAC
MAERSK CVN EDG (JP-5)
AV-8B MQ-8B Great
Green
Fleet
National Defense
Test Ship
Green Strike
Group
Demonstration
FY11FY10 FY12 FY16
FIGURE 10: TESTING AND CERTIFICATION OF THE GREAT GREEN FLEET
SOURCE: CHRIS TINDAL, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL ENERGY, U.S. NAVY
and ex-fuel vehicles. The Air Force has a speci c goal to
purchase 100 percent light-duty alternative or ex-fuel
vehicles where commercially available, a goal 25 percent
above federal mandates.110 Flex-fuel vehicles are available
from most major automobile companies and can run on
a blend of up to 85 percent ethanol. In 2009, the most
recent year with available data, DoD purchased 1,485
ex-fuel vehicles and installed 16 alternative fueling
stations.111 At the end of scal 2009, the Air Force had
more than 7,000 ex-fuel vehicles, 25 E85 fuel pumps
and 62 B20 dispensaries.112 The Army is also purchasing
ex-fuel vehicles at rates meeting or exceeding federal
mandates. This is another case of the military leading the
way to greater commercialization of a biofuel technology.
In Virginia, for example, the Navy has the largest eet of
alternative-fuel vehicles in the state. It is installing ex-
40 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
fuel pumps for its vehicles but also making some of them
available to the public.
As an example of the e ort to use a single fuel for as
many applications as possible, the Air Force successfully
refueled a B-52 Stratofortress with biofuel, using a
72,000-pound hybrid refueling truck running on the
same HR-J blend.113
COOPERATION WITH INDUSTRY
DoD is cognizant of the extensive commercial interest
in development of advanced biofuels. The department
also knows that, provided that fuels meet DoD criteria,
its role as an early adopter could help create a larger
industry. Not surprisingly, numerous companies are
actively engaged in the e ort to commercialize advanced
biofuels to supply the permanent and growing military
and commercial airline sectors. Beyond traditional oil
companies, the standouts include Neste Oil, Honeywell
UOP, Sapphire Energy, Sustainable Oils and Imperium
Renewables. Additionally, a number of companies led
IPOs in 2010 and 2011, including Renewable Energy
Group, Ceres, KiOR, Gevo and Solazyme.114 Solazyme, for
example, went public in May 2011, taking in $200 million
with its initial public o ering of more than 10 million
shares, exceeding projections and representing a record
IPO for advanced industrial biotech. At full commercial
scale, the company plans to produce renewable crude oil
at $3.44 per gallon with its current technology.115
In August 2011, President Barack Obama announced that
the U.S. Navy, along with the Departments of Energy and
Agriculture, would invest up to $510 million to co- nance
construction or retro t plants and re neries capable of
producing signi cant quantities of advanced biofuels in
the next three years.116 The Navy, DoE and USDA issued
a request for information (RFI) to the industry about
ideas for how to establish a commercially viable drop-in
biofuels industry.117 This initiative will help reduce the cost
of advanced biofuels, ensure that supplies of these new
fuels are available for military testing and use, and spur job
creation and economic opportunities in rural America.
DoD’s advanced biofuels e orts also have signi cant
implications for the aviation industry. On July 1,
2011, the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) approved a 50 percent biofuel blend for use in
conventional commercial and military aircraft. ASTM is
an international standards organization that develops
and publishes technical standards for a wide range of
materials, products, systems and services. Although it
has no role in requiring or enforcing compliance with its
standards, corporations and government bodies often
make the standards mandatory.
After the o cial ASTM biofuel certi cation in July 2011,
Lufthansa launched four return daily ights between
Hamburg and Frankfurt. The regular ights use an Airbus
A321 fueled by Finland-based Neste Oil’s biofuel made
from jatropha, camelina and animal fats. Airbus estimates
that fuel from plant-derived sources could account for 30
percent of airlines’ consumption by 2030,118 and Boeing
estimates that biofuels could reduce ight-related life
cycle greenhouse-gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent.119
Airbus and Boeing, which together manufacture about 80
41T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
“We are ready and
eager to use this fuel.
…If they’ll produce it,
we’ll buy it.”
—Terry Yonkers, Air Force assistant
secretary for installations, environment and
logistics
percent of the world’s passenger planes, plan to invest in
global biofuel production and distribution.120
Under its emissions trading program, Europe will begin
regulating greenhouse gas emissions from air carriers,
including military, in 2012, and Australia plans to impose
a carbon tax in 2012 and emissions trading in 2015. In
response and anticipation, some commercial airlines,
including Air New Zealand, Virgin Atlantic, KLM Royal
Dutch Airlines, Japan Airlines and Continental, have
tested biofuels in passenger-free trials. California-based
Sapphire Energy supplied biofuels tested in a commercial
Boeing 737 by Continental Airlines.
Looking forward, Seattle-based AltAir Fuels, a liated with
Sustainable Oils, is building two biore neries to supply
drop-in substitutes for traditional jet fuels to the Air Force,
with production beginning in Bakers eld, Calif., in late
2012 and in Tacoma, Wash., in 2014.121 Sapphire is building
a production facility in New Mexico that is projected to
begin operation by 2013 and produce 100 million gallons of
renewable diesel and jet fuel by 2018 and 1 billion gallons
by 2025. Additionally, an Australian coalition including
Qantas, Virgin and Boeing plans to ensure that ve percent
of Australia’s aviation fuel will be biofuel by 2015 and 40
percent by 2050.122 These private-sector investments are a
strong indicator of the e ect that the military s having on
the commercial biofuel industry.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLES
AND STORAGE AT BASES
THE RATIONALE FOR CLEAN ENERGY AT BASES
The Department of Defense manages a prodigious
inventory of real estate: more than 500,000 buildings and
structures at 500 major installations around the world.
The building space under DoD management totals about
2.2 billion square feet, three times the square footage
operated by Wal-Mart and more than 10 times that of the
U.S. government’s General Services Administration.123
In theater, DoD also manages a number of forward
operating bases that require energy to power electronics,
provide lighting, and heat or cool air and water. Because
of increased energy requirements during wartime and
rising costs, the department has placed a priority on ways
to better manage its energy usage at battle eld facilities.
There are currently thousands of forward operating bases
deployed throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.
Across its xed building stock and forward operating
bases, DoD has ample opportunities to save energy
42 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
and deploy new alternative energy sources. E ciency
opportunities exist in improved design, operations and
power management technologies as well as energy-
saving “smart” products and microgrids. Many of these
enhancements can be integrated with the deployment
and use of new renewable energy technologies. And all
of these e orts can be utilized as key strategies in the
e ort to reduce costs, increase security and improve the
operational e ectiveness of the U.S. military.
DoD has been a leader in U.S. federal energy
management e orts at its installations for several
decades. Since 1985, DoD has reduced its facility energy
consumption by more than 30 percent.124 Under the
auspices of the O ce of the Secretary of Defense, the
Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) is used
to nance e ciency and other innovative energy projects
that have maximal savings-to-investment ratios. Over
the past decade, ECIP nanced more than $440 million
worth of energy-saving measures at installations.
Defense facilities have also pursued on-site energy
e ciency initiatives through the use of creative nancing
arrangements o ered through utilities and energy service
companies. For example, performance-based contracts
allow large facilities and buildings to undertake e ciency
improvements at little or no upfront cost. Instead,
third-party contractors are paid through a portion of
the savings generated as a result of energy-saving
measures. From 1999 to 2007, more than $3.8 billion
worth of energy e ciency improvements at DoD facilities
were nanced through these arrangements.125 DoD
expenditures in scal 2010 alone totaled $575 million for
energy and water e ciency and renewable energy, and
$323 million worth of energy e ciency measures were
nanced through performance contracts.126 In addition,
DoD spent $190 million in scal 2010 to install advanced
energy meters, a precursor to “smart” projects and
enhanced management techniques.127
Historically, DoD energy enhancements have been
advanced by facility energy managers. More recently,
senior military leaders have come to appreciate the
U.S. Marine
Corp
s MARINES AND SAILORS OF INDIA
COMPANY, 3RD BATTALION, 5TH
MARINES, AND THEIR AFGHAN
NATIONAL ARMY COUNTERPARTS,
POSE IN FRONT OF SOLAR
PANELS AT PATROL BASE
SPARKS, IN HELMAND PROVINCE.
NICKNAMED “THE RAPTOR,”
AFTER THE TYPE OF POWER CELLS
IN ITS SIX SOLAR PANELS, THE
SYSTEM CAN KEEP MORE THAN
17 COMPUTERS AND 15 LIGHTING
UNITS RUNNING THROUGHOUT
THE NIGHT.
43T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
relationship between installation energy e ciency and
management and the strategic imperatives of energy use
for the safety of America’s soldiers and the e ectiveness
of combat operations. Military brass has also recently
stressed an organization-wide culture change of every
war ghter being his own “power manager.”
Moreover, DoD is increasingly aware of the substantial
opportunities presented by energy e ciency and improved
resource management at facilities and forward operating
locations. DoD’s Defense Science Board found in its
important report, “More Fight—Less Fuel,” that “it is
important to DoD’s energy future to aggressively increase
the e ciency levels of buildings and infrastructure.”128
Furthermore, one of the two principal ndings of the
Defense Science Board report was that dependence of
DoD’s facilities on an antiquated and vulnerable electricity
grid poses signi cant risks to the continuity and success of
vital defense missions and must be addressed.
The department also understands the budgetary
imperative of sound energy resource management at its
facilities. In 2010, DoD’s facility energy costs totaled more
than $4 billion and accounted for more than 25 percent
of the department’s overall energy bill. Absent concerted
action to save energy and reduce costs, DoD’s facility
energy tab is expected to increase in the coming years as
troop deployments end and more of the armed forces are
stationed at permanent U.S. defense facilities.129
Recognizing the bene ts of actively managing energy use
at its facilities, DoD has established three central goals for
installation energy:
• Reducing energy use.
• Increasing usage of renewable energy and onsite
power generation.
• Enhancing energy security.
In pursuit of these goals, DoD is working with the private
sector and other government entities to accelerate the
process of researching, developing, testing and deploying
energy-saving and alternative energy technologies for
facilities. As the largest institutional energy user in the
world, DoD recognizes that a strategic approach to facility
energy use can be a win-win-win proposition: enhancing
DoD energy security, conserving scarce budgetary resources
and fostering economic progress for private industry and
American competitiveness. These mutual bene ts were
expressly recognized in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR), which found that defense installations can
be used as “a test bed to demonstrate and create a market
for innovative energy e ciency and renewable energy
technologies coming out of the private sector and DoD and
Department of Energy laboratories.”130
The department is playing an important role across the
technology development spectrum, from basic and applied
research to testing and deploying emerging technologies
for energy e ciency and renewable energy generation.
DoD continues to demonstrate that its early adoption
of important new technologies can play a critical role
in accelerating product commercialization. In short, its
energy e ciency and resource management e orts are
simultaneously strengthening its mission and advancing
U.S. interests in the emerging clean energy economy.
44 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
FIGURE 11: ENERGY INTENSITY COMPARED WITH EISA 2007 GOAL
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
Ene
rgy I
ntensi
ty Rel
ati
ve
to FY2003
Baselin
e
-30%
-25%
-15%
-20%
0%
-5%
-10%
Army DoN Air Force DoD EISA 2007 Goal
DOD BASE ENERGY INITIATIVES
ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES AND
OPERATIONS
By virtue of numbers and geographic diversity, America’s
defense installations, both xed and at forward operating
locations, can help to demonstrate a wide range of
energy e ciency and new energy technologies. And
they have: From scal 2003 to scal 2010, Department
of Defense installation energy initiatives reduced overall
energy intensity (energy use per square foot) by 11.4
percent, short of the EISA 2007 goal.131
The department has initiated the Installation Energy
Test Bed Program to identify key energy management
strategies that can be broadly deployed in defense
installations and transferred to the civilian sector as well.
Under the direction of the Environmental Security
Technology Certi cation Program (ESTCP) and with $30
million in funding in scal 2010, the Installation Energy
Test Bed Program works closely with the Department of
Energy to identify and demonstrate innovative, cost-
e ective energy technologies that hold the potential for
signi cantly altering DoD energy trends. The program
is developing and testing new energy technologies and
techniques in ve focus areas:
• Advanced components (lighting, heating/cooling).
• Energy management and control tools.
• Smart grid and energy storage.
Source: FY2010 Federal Energy Management Report
45T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
FIGURE 12: INSTALLATION ENERGY TEST BED PROJECT LOCATIONS
ARMY
NAVY
USAF
USMC
2008
2007
2009
2011
2010
Source: Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
• Energy assessment and design tools.
• Alternative energy generation.
The two-year-old initiative has more than 45
demonstration projects underway and is responding to
a variety of recommendations that hold the potential
for reducing demand by 50 percent in existing buildings
and 70 percent in new construction.132 Last year, the
program received more than 300 proposals from a diverse
set of private- and public-sector entities interested in
demonstrating and commercializing energy saving and
management technologies.
Similarly, energy e ciency initiatives hold great promise
for forward locations and operating bases in theater.
Portable power generators provide the electricity needed
at forward operating locations, but they are expensive
and hazardous. DoD has 125,000 generators deployed,133
and, when considering the fully burdened cost of fuel,
it is estimated that in wartime, the department spends
46 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
POWERSHADES FIT OVER
STANDARD MARINE CORPS
TENTS AND CUT THE
TEMPERATURE INSIDE BY 10
15 DEGREES. SOLAR PANELS
EMBEDDED INTO THE CANVAS
PROVIDE ENOUGH ENERGY TO
RUN THE TENT’S LIGHTS.
Marine
Corps pho
to
$3.5 billion to $5 billion annually to power them.134 More
importantly, fuel convoys are required to provide the fuel
necessary to power the generators, and these convoys
are popular targets for insurgents; according to the
Army, there is one casualty for every 46 ground resupply
convoys in Afghanistan.135
Because of this burden, sustainable sources of power that
can be produced in remote forward operating locations
have become a priority for the military. In 2010, the
Marines initiated the Experimental Forward Operating
Base Program (ExFOB) at Marine Corps Base Quantico.
The program tested energy e ciency technologies at
forward operating bases136 and allowed private industries
to demonstrate operational energy technologies that
included renewable energy generation, energy e cient
heating and cooling systems, e cient shelters and
e cient water puri cation.137
ExFOB demonstrations at Quantico and other Marine
bases around the country provided critical information
about how clean energy technologies could be
incorporated into deployed structures. For example, the
Marines have incorporated exible solar technology into
their tent structures, with 1 to 2 kilowatts of capacity
built into the roof for radios, laptops and other electronic
devices.138 During a recent ExFOB demonstration at
Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine
Palms, a company of Marines ran their equipment
solely on solar and battery power for 192 hours and
saved a total of eight gallons of fuel per day.139 Equally
as important as the on-site power generation is solar
power’s quiet nature, which, unlike noisy generators,
does not alert insurgents to Marines’ whereabouts.
As a result of the demonstrations, a group of Marines
from India Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines
47T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
“As far as disadvantages,
I really haven’t seen any.
You don’t need any fuel,
it’s much quieter than a
generator but can still
power any electrical asset
you need.”140
—Sgt. Gregory Wenzel, intelligence
analyst, India Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th
Marines, on using the expeditionary energy
system
was deployed to Afghanistan in the fall of 2010 to
demonstrate the ExFOB program in theater.141 Energy
savings from the deployment included:142
• Two patrol bases operating entirely on renewable
energy.
• A third base reducing generator fuel use from 20
gallons a day to 2.5 gallons per day.
• A three-week-long foot patrol that did not require a
battery resupply, saving the Marines 700 pounds of
weight.
These savings have prompted the Marines to invest
$25 million to provide the same capabilities to all of
its units in the Helmand Province.143 In August 2011,
Marines from 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines deployed after
having trained at Twentynine Palms during the next
phase of ExFOB. Their equipment targets battalion level
command and control systems, which are major energy
consumers in the battle eld. Capabilities of the Marines’
equipment include hybrid power systems and e cient
air conditioning, which had demonstrated 83% savings
during ExFOB.144
Lessons learned through the Installation Energy Test Bed
Program and ExFOB Program hold the promise of helping
the United States realize the large potential for energy
e ciency improvements throughout the nation’s building
stock. A 2008 review by the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory estimates that energy e ciency improvements
in U.S. buildings have the potential to cut the nation’s
energy bill by up to $170 billion annually in 2030.145
MICROGRIDS
The Department of Defense is moving rapidly to examine
the potential of self-contained “microgrids” that hold
promise for addressing one of the primary challenges set
forth by the Defense Science Board in “More Fight—Less
Fuel” ensuring the continuity of critical DoD operations at
domestic bases.
At DoD installations across the United States, large
amounts of energy are required to power the lights, run
the computers and operate the buildings in which key
defense missions are conducted, from combat support
and operation of unmanned aircraft to training and care
for America’s warriors. When U.S. troops and national
security interests are at risk, there is no room for electric
service interruptions.
48 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
Load Side
Storage
Stability Base O ces
(Load)
Photovoltaic
Battery
Storage
Battery
Storage
Power
Generator
Fossil Fuel
Base Operations
Power Lines
(Distribution)
In the event
power is severed
from commercial
sources...
FIGURE 13: MILITARY SURETY MICROGRID
Source: Sandia National
Laboratory
It is estimated that DoD depends on civilian utility
companies for 99 percent of its electricity requirements.146
Although the U.S. electricity sector is highly reliable,
the current grid is old, unsuited for new and emerging
technologies, and vulnerable to natural disasters and
terrorist attack.
For these reasons, DoD is playing a key role in the
development of microgrid technologies. Microgrids
are self-contained islands of energy generation
and management capacity that may or may not be
attached to the commercial grid. In most cases, the
military is developing microgrids as contingency power
sources to support critical operations in the event of
an outage associated with utility power provision.
Microgrid technology also helps facilitate integration of
renewable energy sources, energy e cient and demand
management technologies, and other “smart grid”
components.
DoD’s aggressive move toward microgrid technology
is helping to spur industry growth and demonstrate
technological feasibility. In part because of the numerous
DoD microgrid projects underway, the U.S. microgrid
market reached $4 billion in 2010.147 Market analysts
indicate that DoD will account for almost 15 percent
49T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
FIGURE 14: GLOBAL AND G-20 CLEAN ENERGY
INVESTMENT, 2004-10 (BILLIONS OF $)
Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts
50
100
150
200
250
0
2004
Non-G-20 Countries G-20 Countries
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
of the microgrid market in 2013 and that military
implementation of microgrids will grow by 375 percent to
$1.6 billion annually in 2020.148
In addition, DoD’s interest is drawing the expertise of major
technology industries and companies. The complex but
promising opportunities associated with microgrids and
smart grids require the kind of integrated systems approach
that the traditional defense industries can bring to bear.
Encouragingly, a number of major defense industry
organizations such as Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, United
Technologies and General Electric are taking an interest
in the emerging potential of smart grid and microgrid
technologies. “DoD’s push on innovation with microgrids
could have major rami cations for the broader economy,
replicating past successes with cutting edge technologies
such as the Internet, GPS systems, computers and
airplanes,” says Peter Asmus of Pike Research.149
Among the key projects underway are deployment of
microgrid control technologies at the Marine Corps’ largest
base, Twentynine Palms in California, and the Smart
Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability
and Security (SPIDERS), a collaborative technology
demonstration involving the U.S. Paci c and Northern
Commands, DoE laboratories and local utilities in proximity
to Fort Carson in Colorado and Camp Smith in Hawaii.
RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION
TECHNOLOGY
The renewable energy sector is growing at a rapid pace all
over the world. As documented in a Pew Charitable Trusts
report, “Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race? 2010
Edition,” worldwide investment in clean energy increased
30 percent in 2010 to a record $243 billion. Over the past
six years, worldwide investments in clean energy have
grown 367 percent. These encouraging numbers are
tempered in the United States by the fact that the U.S.
competitive position in the clean energy marketplace
has been slipping in recent years. Although many of
the leading renewable energy technologies have been
pioneered in the United States, manufacturing and use of
renewables has shifted markedly to Europe and Asia.
The Department of Defense does not use energy on a
su cient scale to single-handedly enhance the clean
energy competitiveness of the United States, but as
the world’s largest institutional energy user and with a
50 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
15
20
20
20
25
Total Rene
wable
Ene
rgy
Consumption/
Pro
cu
reme
nt
0%
5%
15%
10%
25%
20%
Renewable Energy Credit Purchase
Energy Purchase
On Site Generation (Not Listed)
On Site Generation
DoD Annual Target
DoD Total/RE
Consumption/Procurement
Do
D
Air
Fo
rc
e
Ar
m
y
Do
N
Do
D
Air
Fo
rc
e
Ar
m
y
Do
N
Do
D
Air
Fo
rc
e
Ar
m
y
Do
N
Do
D
Air
Fo
rc
e
Ar
m
y
Do
N
DoD
Annual
Target
Traje
ctory
FIGURE 15: DOD RENEWABLE ENERGY TREND TOWARD 25% GOAL
Source: FY2010 Federal Energy Management Report
broad range of facilities, DoD is an important player in
the development and deployment of renewable energy
technologies. In scal 2010, the department produced or
procured 9.6 percent of its electric energy consumption
from renewable energy sources, just shy of the National
Defense Authorization Act goal of 10 percent.150
Research: At the research level, DARPA has led a
concerted e ort to develop solar cells that achieve
50 percent conversion e ciency, more than twice
the current rate of leading technologies. Record
conversion e ciencies of greater than 40 percent have
been achieved, and the public-private partnership is
exploring the next steps in product engineering and
manufacturing.151
At the other end of the technology development
spectrum, DoD is deploying commercially available
renewable energy technologies that serve three
organizational goals: reducing dependence on fossil fuels,
saving money and improving the security and reliability
of electricity supplies.
Deployment: As of mid-2010, the Department of
Defense was operating more than 450 projects involving
solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy at its
xed installations.152 More than two-thirds of these
projects (311) involve solar photovoltaic or solar thermal
technologies, with an additional 56 projects involving
geothermal energy. The U.S. Navy accounts for 60
percent of DoD’s renewable energy projects, a total of
51T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
Solar
Billions of
Annual
BT
Us
Wind Ground Source
Heat Pump
Geothermal Biomass Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Defense Commissary AgencyDefense Logistics Agency Air Force ArmyNavy
FIGURE 16: DOD ESTIMATE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION POTENTIAL
Source: FY2010 Federal Energy Management Report
about 250. As of mid-2010, the Army was operating 115
projects and the Air Force 70 projects. The 14 MW solar
array at Nellis Air Force base is one of the largest projects
in the United States, although large-scale projects in the
250 to 1,000 MW range are in development. One of the
largest projects under development in the United States
is a 500 MW concentrated solar power project at Fort
Irwin in California.
DoD currently produces or procures approximately 10
trillion BTUs of renewable energy.153 A 2009 study
undertaken across the armed forces found that the
department has the potential to produce on-site at its
facilities three times that amount of renewable energy,
an overall potential of 33 trillion BTUs, or almost ve
times more than is needed to reach the 2025 goal of
obtaining 25 percent of its facility energy from alternative
sources.154
Financing for DoD renewable energy projects is derived
from the Energy Conservation Investment Program
and innovative third-party nancing mechanisms
such as enhanced use leases (EULs) that allow private
entities to set up renewable energy generating capacity
on under-utilized installation property, and power
purchase agreements (PPAs) with renewable energy
companies. EULs and PPAs are attractive for major
institutions because they take advantage of private
sector expertise, minimize government risk and reduce
upfront construction and ongoing maintenance costs.
The Navy recently initiated a 40 MW solar power purchase
agreement for facilities across California. In August 2011,
52 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
“Dow Kokam provides the
Department of Defense with
advanced batteries that
decrease costs and provide
power in smaller, lighter
packages to reduce burdens
on warfighters. DOD is a
critical customer for advanced
clean energy manufacturers
that are scaling up new
technologies for both defense
and commercial markets.”
-Ravi Shanker, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Dow Kokam
the Navy issued a $500 million multiple award contract
for solar power at its installations across Hawaii.155
In 2007, new policies were initiated that allow for 30-year
power purchase agreements where such purchases are
cost-e ective.156 This policy should help reduce costs and
expand opportunities for renewable energy projects for
the armed services.
ENERGY STORAGE
As electronics become increasingly more important to
troops on the battle eld, so, too, does energy storage.
Lightweight and long-lasting power is crucial for troops
who need computers, radios or night-vision goggles on
extended missions. Similar to other energy sources, the
military has long viewed portable electricity as a readily
available resource. However, with a new emphasis on
changing the culture surrounding energy consumption,
DoD is increasingly stressing to its ground troops the
importance of viewing themselves as managers of their
own power.
Batteries: It is estimated that up to 20 percent157
of a soldier’s 70- to 90-pound pack consists solely of
batteries. Army soldiers must carry seven or more
pounds of batteries for each day on mission,158 which, in
the sweltering heat of Iraq or Afghanistan, can hamper
mobility. DoD’s Operational Energy Strategy projects
that battery demands will increase and that by 2012,
war ghters on a three-day foot patrol will require 50
batteries per soldier weighing a total of 18 pounds.160
Batteries also contribute to DoD’s enormous energy
bill: A typical infantry battalion uses $150,000 worth of
batteries during a one-year deployment.160 Costs are also
up because of the lack of common standards; the Army
spends about $10 million a year on custom-made radio
batteries alone.161
Combined with equipment e ciency improvements,
batteries that are more e cient, longer-lasting and
lighter can signi cantly improve mission e ectiveness
and mobility. While technological research into
advanced battery technologies is being pursued by
53T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
RUCKSACK ENHANCED
PORTABLE POWER SYSTEM
IS A LIGHTWEIGHT,
PORTABLE POWER SYSTEM
CAPABLE OF RECHARGING
BATTERIES AND/OR ACTING
AS A CONTINUOUS POWER
SOURCE. IT COMBINES
ANTI GLINT SOLAR PANELS,
CONNECTORS AND ADAPTORS
FOR INCREASED CHARGING
OPTIONS, AND CAN CHARGE
MOST COMMON MILITARY
BATTERY TYPES IN FIVE TO
SIX HOURS.
US NAVY WATT PHOTOVOLTAIC BATTERY SYSTEM, DEVELOPED BY THE
OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH, CAN PROVIDE CONTINUOUS POWER TO
MARINES IN THE FIELD
US N
av
yDoD and the Department of Energy, the military is
pairing rechargeable batteries with renewable energy
technologies to extend soldier range and e ectiveness.
The Army and Marines have developed portable power
systems that include rechargeable batteries and solar-
powered recharging devices. For example, the Army’s
10-pound Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System
(REPPS), is a portable battery recharging kit made up of
a thin 62-watt solar mat that can roll up when carried,
as well as associated rechargeable batteries and fuel cell
chargers.162 REPPS can charge most military batteries in
ve to six hours163 and can be linked to accommodate
larger energy requirements.
54 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
THE U.S. ARMY TANK
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT AND
ENGINEERING CENTER
UNVEILED ITS FUEL
EFFICIENT GROUND VEHICLE
DEMONSTRATOR ALPHA
TO EMPLOYEES AT THE
PENTAGON JULY 12, 2011.
TARDEC SERVES AS THE
LEAD PROGRAM AGENCY
ON THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE’S
FED PROGRAM TO ADDRESS
FUEL CONSERVATION NEEDS
ACROSS THE MILITARY. THE
ALPHA REPRESENTS THE
FIRST OF TWO VEHICLES
BEING DEVELOPED TO
COMPETE FOR A ROLE IN
THE SERVICE OF THE U.S.
MILITARY.
Wa
yne
V. Hal
l, U
.S.
Arm
y
The Marines have a similar system called the Solar
Portable Alternative Communication Energy System
(SPACES), which is a small, exible solar panel that can
t inside a backpack and charges smaller items such
as radio batteries.164 Additionally, deployed Marines
in Afghanistan are using the Ground Renewable
Expeditionary Energy System (GREENS), a larger, portable
power system consisting of rechargeable batteries and
solar panels that can provide 300 watts of electricity.165
In July 2010, a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
was established between DoD and the DoE to “strengthen
coordination of e orts to enhance national security,
and demonstrate Federal Government leadership in
transitioning America to a low carbon economy.”166 Under
the MOU is work on battery research and development,167
whereby the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E) and DoD are jointly working to develop hybrid
energy storage systems.168 The extensive battery work
being done by DoE only reinforces the notion that there
are a multitude of markets that can be penetrated by
DoD’s adoption of better batteries.
Fuel Cells: The military is also utilizing fuel cells as
an additional source of portable power for troops. The
bene t of fuel cell technology from a war ghting
standpoint is that the cells outperform traditional
batteries by up to sevenfold.169 Fuel cells are applicable
to a wide range of military uses, from small amounts
of power for individual soldiers to large amounts
for facilities, bases and tactical vehicles. Compared
with kerosene or JP-8 powered generators, fuel cells
are lighter, quieter, produce fewer emissions and are
estimated to be 83 percent more e cient.170
55T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
A 300 WATT FUEL CELL USED BY THE ARMY. FUEL CELLS ARE ESTIMATED
TO BE 83% MORE EFFICIENT THAN TRADITIONAL GENERATORS.
U.S.
Arm
y
Of the many di erent storage types of fuel cells, perhaps
the two most relevant to portable power are cells in the
sub-50 W and sub-250 W categories. Sub-50 W cells are
small, can operate under a wide range of temperatures
and are up to 70 percent lighter than conventional
batteries,171 meaning they can be worn by soldiers.
The Army’s Soldier Conformable Rechargeable Battery
(SCRB) is thin enough to conform to soldiers’ protective
chest plates. Using a small 25-watt fuel cell, the SCRB
can support a 72-hour mission before recharging is
necessary.172 Sub-50 W cells also have applications
for unattended ground sensors (UGS), which detect
information on a wide range of targets such as motion or
weather patterns.173
Sub-250 W fuel cells are aimed at recharging larger-
scale batteries used in squadron-sized charging units,
unmanned vehicles and tactical satellite radios.174
Defense contractors are targeting the military’s Joint
Tactical Radio System Program (JTRS) for development
of satellite radios in ground vehicles and aircraft. Tactical
satellite radios have signi cant advantages over currently
deployed radios in that they can transmit JPEGs and other
larger-scale data.176 It is estimated that by switching to
secondary batteries, the military can avoid purchasing
100,000 primary batteries and save $20 million a year.176
DoD’s use of fuel cell technology can play a large role
in the development of fuel cells at commercial scale. A
recently announced component of the DoD-DoE MOU
has been the fuel cell backup power demonstration,
which will examine how DoD’s use of fuel cells can
improve existing commercial fuel cell technology. The
partnership calls for DoD to monitor the deployment of
fuel cell systems across eight military installations. In
exchange, scientists from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) will collect performance data and
make it available to fuel cell developers in the commercial
and government sectors that are interested in adopting
the technology.177
In the DoD market alone, requirements for sub-50 W
and sub-250 W fuel cells over the next ve years would
spur investments of $550 million to 650 million.178
According to DoE, research and development in the fuel
cell industry has reduced costs by up to 80 percent since
2002,179 and as costs come down, fuel cell technology will
become increasingly competitive in the vast commercial
marketplace.
56 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
U.S.
Air
Fo
rc
e pho
to/
Lan
ce
Cheun
g
57T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
CONCLUSION
The past decade has been one of great challenges and
successes for the United States military. The Department
of Defense has been charged with managing two wars,
helping oversee establishment of more robust homeland
security measures and responding to a large number
of worldwide humanitarian emergencies. America’s
service men and women have been deployed for long
stretches in di cult environments and circumstances and
at great risk.
Throughout this trying decade, the military has had
the foresight to look inside its operations, learn lessons
and nd opportunities for improvement. The energy
issue, long an afterthought to the nuts and bolts of
military hardware, has clearly emerged as a key strategic
consideration for the future of military operations in
the Middle East and around the world. Operational
energy considerations have penetrated the top tier of
considerations for troop safety, budget integrity and
mission success.
Recognizing the strategic importance of energy security,
the Department of Defense has set essential institutional
frameworks and initiatives for confronting its long-term
energy challenges. But as the nation knows, interest in
an energy policy that makes economic, national security
and environmental sense does not necessarily translate
into coherent and sustained success in the needed energy
transformation.
DoD has the need and institutional capacity to help lead
the nation toward a more rationale long-term energy
future—cleaner, stronger and more economically sound.
But succeeding in this important mission will require
vigilance and leadership.
The department has established ambitious and far-
reaching goals that would transform military energy use,
from platforms to practices. But these lofty goals are
unlikely to be met unless DoD’s rhetoric is matched by
sustained policies and resources. Energy innovation must
be a budgetary priority, a focus of cooperation between
the department and Congress, and part of the reward
structure and culture of the department.
As this report documents, the rationale for DoD action
on energy innovation is clear, as is the role that the
department can play in accelerating the technology
development process. Already, the department is
engaged in encouraging initiatives on vehicle e ciency,
alternative fuels, renewable energy and energy
management and storage.
With sustained e ort and initiative, the department can
realize the multiple bene ts of a new energy future:
increasing military e ectiveness, saving money and
lives, and advancing the economic and national security
interests of the United States.
58 S e r v i c e p r o f i l e
ARMY
The U.S. Army’s wide-ranging war- ghting
responsibilities require large amounts of energy at
xed and forward facilities. The service manages about
150,000 buildings worldwide, more square footage
than Wal-Mart Stores Inc. With its signi cant fuel and
electricity needs, the Army is an excellent proving ground
for alternative power sources that enhance energy
security, save money and lower the risk to the service
members and civilians who protect vulnerable supply
lines. The Army is combating its reliance on an aging
68%
OPERATIONS INSTALLATIONS
32%
domestic electricity grid, its long tail of fuel convoys and
its unpredictable fuel costs by pursuing renewable energy
and initiating e ciency and conservation measures. In
2010, the Army had 126 active renewable thermal and
electric energy projects operating. Forty percent of the
Army’s 80,000 non-tactical vehicles are alternative fuel or
hybrid. The Army’s “net zero” program will result in eight
installations that generate as much energy on-site as
they consume by 2020.
The information presented in the service pro le is derived from o cial data provided for this report by the armed services or in the Department of
Defense Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Energy Management Report; the Department of Defense Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report for Fiscal Year
2012; the U.S. Armed Forces Energy Strategy documents; and presentations by representatives of the armed forces at a July 7, 2011, forum hosted by The
Pew Charitable Trusts.
ARMY ENERGY USE 2010 (PERCENT OF TOTAL ENERGY COST)
59T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
ENERGY USE AND COST (FISCAL 2010)
Total Energy Use = 295 trillion BTU
Total Energy Cost = $4 billion
Operational Energy Cost = $2.7 billion
Installation Energy Cost = $1.2 billion
CLEAN ENERGY GOALS
Renewable:
Increase the amount of renewable energy to 25 percent of total energy consumed by 2025.
Vehicles:
4,000 electric vehicles by 2012.
Net-Zero Installations:
Six installations producing as much as they consume in energy, six in water and six in waste by 2020. Additionally,
two other installations will become net zero in all three.
CLEAN ENERGY PROGRESS (FISCAL 2010)
Total Renewable Energy Produced/Procured:
5.6 percent of electricity consumption.
Energy Intensity Reduction:
8.7 percent relative to 2003 baseline.
Electric Metering:
100 percent of facilities required to have electric meters by 2012.
BUDGET AND INITIATIVES (FISCAL 2012)
Operational Energy Budget:
$212 million requested in scal 2012 for operational energy initiatives.
Major Initiatives:
1. Research, develop and procure Advanced Mobile Medium Power Sources—new generators that are quiet, easy
to operate and repair, and more fuel e cient.
2. Increase energy e ciency of existing ground and air vehicles.
3. Hybrid vehicles with energy storage systems that reduce fuel demand and can provide energy to forward-
operating bases.
4. Investigate and develop advanced power sources and storage to enhance soldier mobility and sustainability.
60 S e r v i c e p r o f i l e
KEY CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS
NAME OF FACILITY/PROJECT
Tooele Army Depot, Utah
Fort Benning, Ga.
Fort Irwin, Calif.
Fort Carson, Colo.
MW OR OTHER MEASURE OF QUANTITY
Tooele has the Army’s rst wind turbine. The 1.5-MW turbine is
expected to save more than $200,000 a year. Additionally, the post
installed passive solar heating walls on 11 buildings, saving another
$100,000 annually in heating costs. The facility even installed solar-
powered warning sirens.
Fort Benning is using land ll gas to generate 250-kilowatts of
electricity, enough to power about 250 homes. Looking forward, the
fort is testing two advanced wind turbines that take advantage of air
owing from chillers that normally is vented into the atmosphere.
In 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers signed an agreement with Energy
Security Partners to construct a 500-MW solar energy complex by 2024.
The partnership will take advantage of 2,400 underused acres and
provide enough energy to meet the post’s entire demand. The project is
planned to expand to 1 gigawatt.
Fort Carson is one of the Army’s net-zero bases, with plans to achieve
net-zero status for energy, waste and water by 2020. The post started
in December 2007 when a 2-MW solar array was completed. The solar
panels were installed on 12 acres, half of which is a former land ll,
and will ll more than 2 percent of the electricity demand. The panels
were built under a partnership agreement with the local utility, which
ensures a xed price for the electricity for 20 years, protecting the
facility from price volatility.
61T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
Secretary of the Army John McHugh
GovEnergy Conference
Cincinnati, OH
August 10, 2011
We have 1.1 million Soldiers in our ranks. We have more
than 400,000 civilian and contracted employees. If the
Army were a city, we would represent the fourth largest
city in America. We have 158 installations worldwide and
own more than 15 million acres of land across the United
States. If the Army was a state, we’d be the 42nd largest.
We have more people than the city of Philadelphia and
more territory than the state of Maryland. What I’m
trying to say is, we’re pretty darn big. But like those cities,
those states, and the people who live in them, we have
an obligation to manage and conserve. I’m pleased to tell
you that we have already begun.
Last scal year, the Army had 126 renewable energy
projects, with nearly all the energy produced from them
on-site, for Army installations. We’ve launched a “net
zero” initiative, identifying installations that will produce
as much energy on-site as they use in a year. And we’ve
replaced “point generation” power production with
several minigrid/power plants supporting U.S. forces in
Afghanistan with plans to incorporate 20 more in the
near future.
In World War II, the average daily fuel consumption for
an allied Soldier was about one gallon a day. Today, it’s
between 15 and 22 gallons per Soldier a day. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, fuel and water comprise about 70 to 80
SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY / CSA
OFFICES OF PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY
SEC WORKING GROUPS
O 6 LEVEL
CHAIR: ODAS E&P STAFF
SENIOR ENERGY COUNCIL
ASA / 3 AND 4 STAR EQUIVALENTS
CO CHAIRS: VCSA / ASA I&E
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: DASA E&P
SEC ADVISORY BOARD
DASA / 2 STAR EQUIVALENTS
CHAIR: DASA E&P
percent of ground resupply weight. In Afghanistan, we
su er one casualty for every 46 resupply convoys. Less
energy use means fewer convoys, and fewer convoys
mean fewer casualties.
So our commitment to Energy Security, and certainly
mine as Secretary of the Army, is about much more than
pinching pennies and the budget. Addressing our energy
security needs is operationally necessary, scally prudent
and vital to mission accomplishment.
ENERGY ORGANIZATION CHART
62 S e r v i c e p r o f i l e
AIR FORCE
With its large appetite for energy, the Air Force is ideally
situated to make great strides in increasing energy
security while reducing government spending and
driving investment in the commercial sector. Research,
development and purchasing provide the spark needed
to commercialize renewable fuels, clean and e cient
vehicles and energy e ciency technologies. To date,
the service has met or exceeded every energy e ciency
goal it has confronted. The Air Force is well on its way
to meeting the newest aggressive goals of generating
25 percent of facility energy with renewable sources by
2025 and obtaining 50 percent of aviation fuels from
alternative blends by 2016. The service has approximately
80 renewable energy projects on 43 installations
around the world, and 99 percent of its aviation eetis
certi ed to y on a 50-50 alternative blend. With
its on-site electricity generation, renewable power
purchasing, e ciency upgrades, biofuel certi cation and
procurement and conservation measures, the Air Force
will continue to set the bar high for the Department of
Defense, the U.S. government and the rest of the country.
OPERATIONS INSTALLATIONS
84%
16%
AIR FORCE ENERGY USE 2010 (PERCENT OF TOTAL ENERGY COST)
The information presented in the service pro le is derived from o cial data provided for this report by the armed services or in the Department of
Defense Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Energy Management Report; the Department of Defense Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report for Fiscal Year
2012; the U.S. Armed Forces Energy Strategy documents; and presentations by representatives of the armed forces at a July 7, 2011, forum hosted by The
Pew Charitable Trusts.
63T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
ENERGY USE AND COST (FISCAL 2010)
Total Energy Use = 246 trillion BTU
Total Energy Cost = $8.17 billion
Operational Energy Cost = $6.83 billion
Installation Energy Cost = $1.34 billion
CLEAN ENERGY GOALS
Renewable: Increase renewable energy use at installations 7.5 percent by 2013 and 25 percent by 2025 (Department of
Defense goal).
Alternative Aviation Fuels: Acquire 50 percent of aviation fuels with alternative blends by 2016.
Energy E ciency: Reduce installation energy intensity from 2005 levels by 3 percent a year or 30 percent by 2015.
Reduce fuel burn in existing aircraft by 5 percent in 2016, 10 percent in 2020 and 20 percent in 2030.
Increase lift-to-drag ratio 20 percent by 2016.
CLEAN ENERGY PROGRESS
Total Renewable Energy Produced/Procured: 8.1 percent of electricity consumption.
Approximately 80 renewable energy projects.
Energy Intensity Reduction: 14.9 percent relative to 2003 baseline.
Electric Metering: 87 percent of facilities required to have electric meters toward 2012 requirement of 100 percent.
Other: 75 percent of new vehicle purchases have been alternative-fuel capable over the past seven years.
99 percent of aviation eet certi ed to y on 50-50 alternative blends.
BUDGET AND INITIATIVES
Operational Energy Budget: $261 million in scal 2012 requested for operational energy initiatives.
Major Initiatives (and estimated scal 2012 savings):
1. Certify all aircraft and systems for a 50-50 biofuel blend.
2. Increase use of ight simulators ($368 million).
3. Research and development of the Highly E cient Embedded Turbine Engine (HEETE) and the Adaptive Versatile
Engine Technology program (ADVENT).
4. Other materiel initiatives such as optimizing aircraft centers of gravity, e cient routing, aircraft crew ratios and
aircraft over fueling ($59 million).
64 S e r v i c e p r o f i l e
KEY CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS
NAME OF FACILITY/PROJECT
Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz.
Edwards AFB, Calif.
Air Force Academy, Colo.
Luke AFB, Ariz.
14.5-MW solar on underused land and 6-MW at new Soaring Heights Community
(displacing coal). Saving more than $500,000 a year.
Received 2010 Air Force Energy Conservation Award. All of the base’s electricity is
from renewable sources. Has contracted for a 3,288-acre, 440-MW photovoltaic solar
facility through an enhanced use lease. This will be one of the largest solar arrays in
the world, capable of powering 89,000 homes.
The Academy has a “net zero” initiative, which sets a goal of generating all the
electricity it needs via on-base renewable energy sources by 2015. In June, the
Academy took a large step toward that goal by dedicating a 6-MW solar array on 30
underused acres. The array will supply 11 percent of the Academy’s electricity needs
and save up to $1 million a year.
Luke plans to build a 15-MW solar array on 100 underused acres on base. The array is
projected to meet half of the base’s energy needs and save up to $10 million on utility
bills over 25 years.
MW OR OTHER MEASURE OF QUANTITY
65T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
AIR FORCE ENERGY COUNCIL
Co-Chairs: SAF/US (Undersecretary of the Air Force) and AF/CV
Attendance Level: ***
Members: IE, AQ, FM, US(M), IA, PA, GC, A3/5, A4/7, A6 CIO, A8 A9, ST, MJACOM EMSG Chairs
Executive Secretary: SAF/IEN
Frequency: Quarterly
AIR FORCE ENERGY INTEGRATION BOARD
Chair: SAF/IE PDAS
Attendance Level: ***/**
Members: Steering Group Chairs
Frequency: Quarterly
COLONEL’S ACTION
GROUP
Chair: SAF/IEN
Members: HAF & MAJCOM
Frequency: Bi-Weekly
AVIATION
OPERATIONS
ENERGY SG
HAF Chair: AF/A30
MAJCOM Champ:
AMC
INFRASTRUCTURE
& EXPEDITIONARY
ENERGY SG
HAF Chair: AF/A7C
MAJCOM Champ: ACC
PARTNERSHIP
& OUTREACH
ENERGY SG
HAF Chair: SAF/IEN
MAJCOM Champ:
AETC
PLANNING,
REQUIREMENTS
& ACQUISITION
POLICY ENERGY
SG
HAF Chair: AF/A8X
MAJCOM Champ:
None
ACQUISITION
AND RDT&E
ENERGY SG
HAF Chair: SAF/
AQR
MAJCOM Champ:
AFMC
ENERGY ORGANIZATION CHART
66 S e r v i c e p r o f i l e
MARINE CORPS
Under the leadership of Secretary Ray Mabus, the
Department of the Navy has set some of the most
ambitious clean energy goals in the nation. In recent
years, equipment improvements have enhanced the
Marine Corps’ war- ghting capability but have also made
it heavier, less-agile and more dependent on energy.
To address this trend, Marine Corps leaders have made
energy innovation a top priority. They aim to increase
operational energy e ciency 50 percent and to reduce
the amount of energy consumed per Marine by a similar
amount. To achieve these goals, the service is targeting
energy e ciency at xed and forward-deployed
structures, creating power-management strategies that
can reduce generator requirements by two-thirds, and
using renewable energy to power the increased need
for batteries, computers and radios. A 2010 assessment
of energy requirements in Afghanistan found that fuel
consumption could be reduced 60 percent through
enhanced management of generators and more-e cient
structures. In the same year, the Marine Corps launched
an Expeditionary Energy Strategy that highlights
key goals, initiatives and expectations for Marines
individually and the Corps overall.
68%
OPERATIONS INSTALLATIONS
32%
MARINE CORPS ENERGY USE 2010 (PERCENT OF TOTAL ENERGY COST)
The information presented in the service pro le is derived from o cial data provided for this report by the armed services or in the Department of
Defense Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Energy Management Report; the Department of Defense Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report for Fiscal Year
2012; the U.S. Armed Forces Energy Strategy documents; and presentations by representatives of the armed forces at a July 7, 2011, forum hosted by The
Pew Charitable Trusts.
67T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
*Numbers re ect the Department of the Navy (Navy and Marine Corps)
ENERGY USE AND COST (FISCAL 2010)
Total Energy Use = 221 trillion BTU*
Total Energy Cost = $651 million
Operational Energy Cost = $440 million
Installation Energy Cost = $211 million
CLEAN ENERGY GOALS
Renewable: 50 percent of energy consumption at installations from alternative sources by 2020.
50 percent of facilities “net zero” by 2020.
Energy E ciency: Reduce battle eld fuel demand 25 percent by 2015 and 50 percent by 2025.
Reduce installation energy intensity from 2005 levels by 3 percent a year or 30 percent by 2015.
Vehicles: 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in non-tactical vehicles by 2015.
CLEAN ENERGY PROGRESS
Total Renewable Energy Produced/Procured*: 18.5 percent of electricity consumption
Energy Intensity Reduction*: 16 percent. Department of the Navy requires a 30 percent reduction by 2015.
Electric Metering*: 22,000 advanced meters will be installed by 2016, exceeding goal of metering 95 percent of all
electricity.
Other: Rapid deployment of clean energy technologies in Afghanistan through India Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th
Marines
BUDGET AND INITIATIVES
Operational Energy Budget: $42 million in scal 2012 for operational energy initiatives.
Major Initiatives:
1. Expeditionary energy initiatives—evaluating and deploying battle eld energy e ciency and renewable energy
technologies.
2. Energy e cient equipment—procurement of advanced environmental control units and energy e cient shelters.
3. Research and development—advanced batteries for mobile forces; advanced power distribution/generation
technology and lightweight power systems.
68 S e r v i c e p r o f i l e
KEY CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS
NAME OF FACILITY/PROJECT
Marine Corps Air Ground Task Force Training
Command, Twentynine Palms, Calif.
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif.
Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, Calif.
Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Ga.
Marine Corps Base Hawaii
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif.
1.1-MW solar
1.5-MW solar
1.5-MW wind
1.9-MW combined heat and power generator run with land ll gas
First grid-connected wave-energy project
3.2-MW land ll-gas project
SIZE
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus
National Clean Energy Summit 4.0
Las Vegas, NV
August 30, 2011
Why the interest in alternative energy? The answer is
pretty straightforward: We buy too much fossil fuel from
potentially or actually volatile places on earth. We buy
our energy from people who may not be our friends. We
would never let the countries that we buy energy from
build our ships or our aircraft or our ground vehicles, but
we give them a say on whether those ships sail, whether
those aircraft y, whether those ground vehicles operate
because we buy their energy.
There are great strategic reasons for moving away from
fossil fuels. It’s costly. Every time the cost of a barrel of
oil goes up a dollar, it costs the United States Navy $31
million in extra fuel costs. But it’s costly in more ways
than just money. For every 50 convoys of gasoline we
bring in, we lose a Marine. We lose a Marine, killed or
wounded. That is too high a price to pay for fuel.
One of our most glaring vulnerabilities is how we get
and how we use energy, and it’s a vulnerability we have
to address. Over the last two years, we’ve made a lot
of progress. Over Labor Day weekend, the Navy’s Blue
Angels, for the rst time ever, are going to y on biofuels.
By the end of the fall, we will have certi ed every single
aircraft that the Navy and Marine Corps y to run on
biofuels.
On the ground, our Marines are using alternative energy
devices in Afghanistan so they can do what they were
69T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
sent there to do – ght, engage and rebuild. Not to guard
fuel convoys or replenishment convoys. They’re using
portable solar panels to power their batteries or radios
or GPSs. In the mid-90s, a Marine company carried 14
radios; today, that same Marine company carries more
than 120. But by relying on these portable solar mats, the
Marines are saving almost 700 pounds of batteries per
day that they don’t have to carry.
By using alternative energy, by changing the way we
use and produce energy, we’re going to continue to be
the most formidable expeditionary ghting force the
world has ever known, and we’re going to continue to
do what the Navy and the Marine Corps have always
done: innovate, adapt and come out on the other side
victorious.
Source: 2010 Navy Energy Vision for the 21st Century
ENERGY ORGANIZATION CHART
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
ASN EI&E
Energy, Installations and
Environment
ASN FM&C
Financial Management
and Comptroller
OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL
ASN RD&A
Research, Development
and Acquisition
PDASN EI&E
Energy, Installations and
Environment
ONR
OFFICE OF NAVAL
RESEARCH
DASN EI&E
Energy, Installations and
Environment
DASN
ENVIRONMENT DIRECTOR, EXPEDITIONARY
ENERGY USMC
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SHORE ENERGY
POLICY
NAVY & USMC
OPERATIONAL
ENERGY POLICY
NAVY
COMMANDANT
OF THE MARINE
CORPS
70 S e r v i c e p r o f i l e
NAVY
Under the leadership of Secretary Ray Mabus, the
U.S. Navy has set some of the most ambitious clean
energy goals in the nation. In service of energy security
and independence, the secretary has called for major
energy transformations at sea and ashore through use
of alternative fuels, renewable power and e ciency.
The Navy has tested the F/A-18 “Green Hornet” strike
ghter jet, the rst aircraft to use advanced biofuels at
supersonic speed (greater than 750 mph); sailed the
amphibious assault ship Makin Island at a savings of $2
NAVY ENERGY USE 2010 (PERCENT OF TOTAL ENERGY COST)
million on its inaugural voyage; and through the O ce of
Naval Research is playing an important role in developing
and deploying advanced fuel cell technology. The Naval
Air Weapons Station at China Lake, Calif., is home to a
270-MW geothermal energy facility, almost 10 percent of
total U.S. geothermal capacity in 2010. Additionally, the
Navy recently announced a $500 million contract for solar
energy at its installations in the Southwest and Hawaii.
The result should be almost 45 MW of new solar capacity.
76%
OPERATIONS INSTALLATIONS
24%
The information presented in the service pro le is derived from o cial data provided for this report by the armed services or in the Department of
Defense Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Energy Management Report; the Department of Defense Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report for Fiscal Year
2012; the U.S. Armed Forces Energy Strategy documents; and presentations by representatives of the armed forces at a July 7, 2011, forum hosted by The
Pew Charitable Trusts.
71T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T ET H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
*Numbers re ect the Department of the Navy (Navy and Marine Corps)
ENERGY USE AND COST (FISCAL 2010)
Total Energy Use = 221 trillion BTU*
Total Energy Cost = $3.17 billion
Operational Energy Cost = $2.42 billion
Installation Energy Cost = $751 million
CLEAN ENERGY GOALS
Renewable: 50 percent of energy consumption from alternative sources by 2020.
50 percent of facilities “net zero” by 2020.
Biofuels: Demonstrate “Great Green Fleet” by 2016.
Energy E ciency: Reduce installation energy intensity from 2005 levels by 3 percent a year or 30 percent by 2015.
Vehicles: 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in non-tactical vehicles by 2015.
CLEAN ENERGY PROGRESS
Total Renewable Energy Produced/Procured*: 18.5 percent of electricity consumption
Approximately 180 renewable energy projects at installations worldwide
Energy Intensity Reduction*: 16 percent. Department of the Navy requires a 30 percent reduction by 2015.
Electric Metering*: 22,000 advanced meters will be installed by 2016, exceeding goal of metering 95 percent of all
electricity.
Other: Certi cation of 50/50 biofuels blend for Green Hornet.
Operates more than 10,000 alternative fuel vehicles
BUDGET AND INITIATIVES
Operational Energy Budget: $389 million requested in FY2012 for operational energy initiatives
Major Initiatives [and estimated FY2012 savings]
#1 Increase Alternatives A oat to advance development/certi cation/testing of advanced biofuels.
#2 Sail the Great Green Fleet through procurement of alternative jet & maritime fuels
#3 Increase E ciency A oat through ship and air energy conservation training, power management systems and
development of advanced e ciency technologies for ships and aircraft.
71
72 S e r v i c e p r o f i l e
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus
National Clean Energy Summit 4.0
Las Vegas, NV
August 30, 2011
Why the interest in alternative energy? The answer is
pretty straightforward: We buy too much fossil fuel from
potentially or actually volatile places on earth. We buy
our energy from people who may not be our friends. We
would never let the countries that we buy energy from
build our ships or our aircraft or our ground vehicles, but
we give them a say on whether those ships sail, whether
those aircraft y, whether those ground vehicles operate
because we buy their energy.
There are great strategic reasons for moving away from
fossil fuels. It’s costly. Every time the cost of a barrel of
oil goes up a dollar, it costs the United States Navy $31
million in extra fuel costs. But it’s costly in more ways
than just money. For every 50 convoys of gasoline we
bring in, we lose a Marine. We lose a Marine, killed or
wounded. That is too high a price to pay for fuel.
One of our most glaring vulnerabilities is how we get
and how we use energy, and it’s a vulnerability we have
to address. Over the last two years, we’ve made a lot of
progress. Over Labor Day weekend, the Navy’s Blue Angels,
for the rst time ever, are going to y on biofuels. By the
end of the fall, we will have certi ed every single aircraft
that the Navy and Marine Corps y to run on biofuels.
On the ground, our Marines are using alternative energy
devices in Afghanistan so they can do what they were
sent there to do – ght, engage and rebuild. Not to guard
fuel convoys or replenishment convoys. They’re using
portable solar panels to power their batteries or radios
or GPSs. In the mid-90s, a Marine company carried 14
radios; today, that same Marine company carries more
than 120. But by relying on these portable solar mats, the
KEY CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS
NAME OF FACILITY/PROJECT
China Lake, Calif.
Naval Base Guantanamo Bay
San Clemente Island, Calif.
Naval Base Coronado, Calif.
270-MW geothermal energy project
3.8-MW wind facility
675-kW wind facility
500-kW building integrated photovoltaics
SIZE
73T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
Marines are saving almost 700 pounds of batteries per
day that they don’t have to carry.
By using alternative energy, by changing the way we
use and produce energy, we’re going to continue to be
the most formidable expeditionary ghting force the
world has ever known, and we’re going to continue to
do what the Navy and the Marine Corps have always
done: innovate, adapt and come out on the other side
victorious.
Source: 2010 Navy Energy Vision for the 21st Century
ENERGY ORGANIZATION CHART
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
ASN EI&E
Energy, Installations and
Environment
ASN FM&C
Financial Management
and Comptroller
OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL
ASN RD&A
Research, Development
and Acquisition
PDASN EI&E
Energy, Installations and
Environment
ONR
OFFICE OF NAVAL
RESEARCH
DASN EI&E
Energy, Installations and
Environment
DASN
ENVIRONMENT DIRECTOR, ENERGYAND ENVIRONMENTAL
READINESS USN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SHORE ENERGY
POLICY
NAVY & USMC
OPERATIONAL
ENERGY POLICY
NAVY
DEPUTY CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS
FOR FLEET,
READINESS AND
LOGISTICS
CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS
74 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
Energy Compliance Appendix
AREA EO 13514 EO 13423 EISA EPAct, Farm Bill
Ener
gy Us
e §2(a)(i): Reducing energy intensity in agency buildings should be
considered.
§2(g)(i): All new buildings entering
planning in 2020 or later designed to
achieve zero-net-energy use by 2030.
§2(g)(ii),(iii): At least 15% of existing
agency buildings (including leased)
meet the Guiding Principles for Federal
Leadership in High Performance
and Sustainable Buildings by FY15,
as well as all new construction,
major renovation and repair. Annual
progress will be made towards 100%
compliance for the building inventory.
§2(g)(iv): Pursue cost-e ective,
innovative strategies, such as highly
re ective and vegetated roofs, to
minimize consumption of energy,
water, and materials.
§2(g)(v): Manage existing building
systems to reduce consumption of
energy, water, and materials, and
identifying alternatives to renovation
that reduce existing assets’ deferred
maintenance costs.
§2(g)(vi): When adding assets to the
agency’s real property inventory,
identifying opportunities to
consolidate and dispose of existing
assets, optimize the performance of
the agency’s real property portfolio,
and reduce associated environmental
impacts.
§2(g)(vii): Ensuring that rehabilitation
of federally owned historic buildings
utilizes best practices and technologies
in retro tting to promote long-term
viability.
§2(a) “improve
energy e ciency and
reduce greenhouse
gas emissions of the
agency, through
reduction of energy
intensity by (i) 3%
annually through
the end of scal year
2015, or (ii) 30%
by the end of scal
year 2015, relative
to” FY03. §2(f):
Ensure that (i) new
construction and
major renovation
comply with the
Guiding Principles,
and (ii) 15% of the
existing Federal
capital asset building
inventory of the
agency as of the end
of FY15 incorporates
the sustainable
practices in the
Guiding Principles.
§431 (existing federal
buildings): 3%
reduction per year in
fossil fuel use from 2008
through 2015, or 30%
total by 2015, relative
to FY03. §433 (new
or majorly renovated
buildings): fossil fuel
use halved by 2030
relative to FY03, and
sustainable design
principles applied to
their siting, design,
and construction.
DOE Secretary to
establish a federal
green certi cation
program. In addition
to water conservation
required by this section,
“water conservation
technologies shall be
applied to the extent
that the technologies
are life-cycle cost-
e ective”. §434
(large capital energy
investments such as
HVAC): must employ
“the most energy
e cient designs,
systems, equipment,
and controls that are
life-cycle cost e ective”.
Natural gas and steam
must be metered. §434
(leasing): as of 3 years
after signing, all leases
must be for Energy Star
buildings.
EPAct §102: Agencies
can keep savings
from energy and
water reductions.
EPAct §103: Bldgs
must be metered
for electricity. EPAct
§701: Vehicles with
dual fuel capabilities
shall be operated on
alternative fuels.
REQUIREMENTS OF EO 13514 AND OTHER RECENT FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SUSTAINABILITY
75T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
AREA EO 13514 EO 13423 EISA EPAct, Farm Bill
Rene
wable Ener
gy §2(a)(ii): Consider increasing agency use of renewable energy and
implementing renewable energy
generation projects on agency
property. (Note, however, that U.S.C.
10 §2911(e) requires DoD to produce
or procure not less than 25% of the
total energy consumed within its
facilities from renewable sources
during FY 2025.)
§2(b): Ensure that
(i) at least half
of the statutorily
required renewable
energy consumed
by the agency in a
FY comes from new
renewable sources,
and (ii) to the extent
feasible, implement
renewable energy
generation projects
on agency property
for agency use.
§523: If lifecycle cost-
e ective, as compared
to other reasonably
available technologies,
not less than 30% of
the hot water demand
for each new Federal
building or Federal
building undergoing
a major renovation
be met through the
installation and use of
solar hot water heaters.
EPAct §203:
Renewable energy
≥3% in FY07-09;
5% in FY10-12;
7.5% in FY13 and
beyond (compared
to total electricity
consumption).
Vehicle Fleet
s
Scope 3 GHG Emission
s
§2(a)(iii): (A) Use low greenhouse gas
emitting vehicles including alternative
fuel vehicles; (B) Optimize the number
of vehicles in the agency eet; (C):
If the agency operates a eet of at
least 20 motor vehicles, reduce the
agency eet’s total consumption of
petroleum products by a minimum of
2% annually through the end of FY20
relative to FY05.
§2(g): (i) Reduce
the “ eet’s total
consumption of
petroleum products
by 2% annually
through the end
of scal year 2015”
relative to FY05 (if
at least 20 motor
vehicles); (ii)
10% increase in
non-petroleum fuel
annually relative to
FY05; (iii) plug-
in hybrids once
economically viable.
§141: Purchase only low
GHG-emitting vehicles.
§142: 20% reduction
in vehicle petroleum
use, 10% increase
in non-petroleum
fuel use, annually by
FY15 relative to FY05.
§246: a renewable
fuel pump for every
eet by 1/1/10. §526:
alternative fuels cannot
be used if lifecycle GHG
emissions are greater
than from petroleum
sources.
§2(b): in setting the Scope 3
target, consider: (i) Supply Chain
- opportunities with vendors and
contractors to address and incorporate
incentives to reduce GHG emissions.
(ii) Employee Travel - implementing
strategies for transit, travel, training,
and conferencing that actively support
lower-carbon commuting and travel
by agency sta . (iii) GHG emission
reductions associated with pursuing
other relevant goals in this section.
(iv) Developing and implementing
innovative policies and practices to
address scope 3 emissions unique to
agency operations.
76 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
END NOTES
1 Department of Defense. 2010. Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_
sustainability/DoD%20SSPP-PUBLIC-26Aug10.pdf.
2 Kenny, C. 2011. Foreign Policy: Let the Little Light Shine. www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137786684/foreign-policy-let-the-little-light-shine.
3 Department of Defense. 2010. Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan.
4 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency. p. 8. Pike Research.
5 This gure does not take into account the fully burdened cost of fuel, which includes logistics and assets required to deliver fuel in addition
to the market price paid.
6 Lovins, A.B. 2010. DoD’s Energy Challenge as Strategic Opportunity. National Defense University Press. (57): 37. www.ndu.edu/press/lib/
images/jfq-57/lovins.pdf.
7 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. p. 24. Department of Defense. http://energy.defense.gov/
FY12_Operational_Energy_Budget_Certi cation_Report_FINAL%208%20JUN.pdf.
8 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. p. 24. Department of Defense.
9 Cobb, J. 2011. Worldwide Military Spending for Renewable Energy to Multiply 15 Times by 2030. www.hybridcars.com/news/spending-
military-renewable-energy-multiply-15-times-18-years-30205.html.
10 Department of the Navy. 2010. A Navy Energy Vision for the 21st Century. p. 8. http://green eet.dodlive.mil/ les/2010/10/Navy-Energy-
Vision-Oct-2010.pdf.
11 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. p. 17. Department of Defense. http://energy.defense.gov/
FY12_Operational_Energy_Budget_Certi cation_Report_FINAL%208%20JUN.pdf.
12 U.S. Navy. 2009. Navy Stern Flap Installations Project to Save Millions in Fuel Costs. www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=44891.
13 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency. p. 2.
14 Conversation with Kate Brandt. O ce of the Secretary of the Navy. September 9, 2011.
15 Yonkers, T. 2011. Leading by Example: How Energy Innovation is Strengthening America’s Military. Brie ng at Pew Charitable Trusts.
16 Lowe, S. 2010. Navy biofuels demonstration made possible by DLA support. Defense Logistics Agency News. www.dla.mil/dlapublic/
dla_media_center/TopStories.aspx?ID=848.
17 O ce of the Press Secretary. 2011. President Obama Announces Major Initiative to Spur Biofuels Industry and Enhance America’s Energy
Security. The White House. www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o ce/2011/08/16/president-obama-announces-major-initiative-spur-
biofuels-industry-and-en.
18 U.S. Navy. 2011. Navy, USDA, DOE Seek Input from Industry to Advance Biofuels for Military and Commercial Transportation. www.navy.
mil/search/display.asp?story_id=62476.
77T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
19 Robyn D. 2011. DoD Installations, Energy, and the Environment: An Update. Department of Defense. Presentation at E2S2 Symposium.
http://e2s2.ndia.org/speakers/Documents/Robyn.pdf.
20 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_FY2010__
July_2011%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf.
21 Andrews, A. 2009. Department of Defense Facilities Energy Conservation Policies and Spending. pp. 12-13. Congressional Research Service.
22 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. pp. 44-45. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_
FY2010__July_2011%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf.
23 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. p. 18.
24 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. 2011. White House Energy Security Blueprint References ESTCP. www.serdp.
org/News-and-Events/In-the-Spotlight/White-House-Energy-Security-Blueprint-References-ESTCP.
25 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. 2011. White House Energy Security Blueprint References ESTCP.
26 U.S. Marine Corps. 2011. Experimental Forward Operating Base (Fact Sheet). http://marines.mil/community/Documents/ExFOB%20pdf.
pdf.
27 U.S. Marine Corps. 2011. Experimental Forward Operating Base (Fact Sheet).
28 Hulme, G. V. 2011. Despite years of talk, utilities remain compromised, vulnerable. www.csoonline.com/article/684287/despite-years-of-
talk-utilities-remain-compromised-vulnerable.
29 SBI Energy. 2011. Expanding Military Interest in Microgrid Technology Fuels $4 Billion Industry. www.sbireports.com/about/release.
asp?id=1856.
30 SBI Energy. 2011. Expanding Military Interest in Microgrid Technology Fuels $4 Billion Industry.
31 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. p. 25. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_
FY2010__July_2011%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf.
32 University of Delaware. 2007. UD-led team sets solar cell record, joins DuPont on $100 million project. www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/
solar072307.html.
33 Government Accountability O ce. 2010. Defense Infrastructure: Department of Defense’s Renewable Energy Initiatives. p. 10. www.gao.
gov/new.items/d10681r.pdf.
34 Defense Science Board Task Force. 2008. More Fight—Less Fuel. O ce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics. www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf.
35 U.S. Army. 2011. U.S. Army Energy Security and Sustainability: Vital to National Defense. www.ausa.org/publications/
torchbearercampaign/tnsr/Documents/TB_Energy_web.pdf.
36 Erwin, S.I. 2011. Army, Marines Face Uphill Battle to Lighten Troops Battery Load. National Defense Magazine. www.
nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/May/Pages/ArmyMarinesFaceUphillBattleToLightenTroops%E2%80%99BatteryLoad.aspx.
37 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. 2011. Defense Sciences O ce – Robust Portable Power Sources. www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/
DSO/Programs/Robust_Portable_Power.aspx.
38 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
78 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
39 Karbuz, S. 2010. DoD Energy Use in 2009. http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2010/07/dod-energy-use-in-2009.html.
40 Department of Defense. 2011. Energy For the War ghter: Operational Energy Strategy. http://energy.defense.gov/OES_report_to_
congress.pdf.
41 Deloitte. 2009. Energy Security: America’s Best Defense. www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/AD/
us_ad_EnergySecurity052010.pdf.
42 Burke, S. 2011. Leading by Example: How Energy Innovation is Strengthening America’s Military. Brie ng at Pew Charitable Trusts.
43 Petraeus, D.H. 2011. Supporting the Mission with Operational Energy. Memorandum for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Civilians
of US Forces-Afghanistan. http://energy.defense.gov/OperationalEnergy-SpttoMission.pdf.
44 Conversation with Tarak Shah, Special Assistant to Sharon Burke, O ce of Operational Energy, OSD. September 6, 2011.
45 Burke, S. 2011. Leading by Example: How Energy Innovation is Strengthening America’s Military. Brie ng at Pew Charitable Trusts.
46 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
47 Yonkers, T. 2011. Leading by Example: How Energy Innovation is Strengthening America’s Military. Brie ng at Pew Charitable Trusts.
48 Robyn, D. 2011. DoD Installations, Energy and the Environment: An Update. http://e2s2.ndia.org/speakers/Documents/Robyn.pdf.
49 Conversation with Tarak Shah, Special Assistant to Sharon Burke, O ce of Operational Energy, OSD. September 6, 2011.
50 Department of Defense. 2010. Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan.
51 Kenny, C. 2011. Foreign Policy: Let the Little Light Shine. www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137786684/foreign-policy-let-the-little-light-shine.
52 Hammack, K. 2011. Leading by Example: How Energy Innovation is Strengthening America’s Military. Brie ng at Pew Charitable Trusts.
53 Mowery, D. 2009. Federal policy and the development of semiconductors, computer hardware, and computer software: A policy model for
climate change R&D? U.C. Berkeley Haas School of Business.
54 Department of Defense. 2011. Energy For the War ghter: Operational Energy Strategy. http://energy.defense.gov/OES_report_to_
congress.pdf.
55 Department of Defense. 2010. Quadrennial Defense Review. www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20of%2029jan10%201600.PDF.
56 Department of Defense and Department of Energy. 2010. Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Department of Energy and
U.S. Department of Defense Concerning Cooperation in a Strategic Partnership to Enhance Energy Security. www.energy.gov/news/
documents/Enhance-Energy-Security-MOU.pdf.
57 American Psychological Association. 2010. Advocating for Fiscal Year 2011 Psychological Research at DoD. www.apa.org/about/gr/science/
spin/2010/03/psych-research.aspx.
58 Miles, D. 2011. Budget cuts demand more DOD buying power. U.S. Air Force. www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123252585.
59 Donna Miles, “Budget cuts demand more DOD buying power,” AF.mil, April 20, 2011, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123252585.
60 Department of Defense. 2010. Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_
sustainability/DoD%20SSPP-PUBLIC-26Aug10.pdf.
61 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
79T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
62 Karbuz, S. 2010. DoD Energy Use in 2009. http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2010/07/dod-energy-use-in-2009.html.
63 This gure does not take into account the fully burdened cost of fuel, which includes logistics and assets required to deliver fuel in addition
to the market price paid.
64 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
65 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
66 Defense Science Board Task Force. 2008. More Fight—Less Fuel. O ce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics. www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf.
67 Defense Science Board Task Force. 2008. More Fight—Less Fuel. O ce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics.
68 Defense Science Board Task Force. 2008. More Fight—Less Fuel. O ce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics.
69 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/
pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf.
70 Department of Commerce. 2011. Reasons to Break America’s Addiction to Foreign Oil: A Play in Three Cool Charts. Economics & Statistics
Administration. www.esa.doc.gov/Blog/2011/05/18/three-more-reasons-if-we-needed-more-break-americas-addiction-foreign-oil.
71 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/
pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf.
72 110th Congress. 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6.
73 Cobb, J. 2011. Worldwide Military Spending for Renewable Energy to Multiply 15 Times by 2030. www.hybridcars.com/news/spending-
military-renewable-energy-multiply-15-times-18-years-30205.html.
74 Lovins, A.B. 2010. DoD’s Energy Challenge as Strategic Opportunity. National Defense University Press. (57): 37. www.ndu.edu/press/lib/
images/jfq-57/lovins.pdf.
75 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
76 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense. http://energy.defense.gov/
FY12_Operational_Energy_Budget_Certi cation_Report_FINAL%208%20JUN.pdf.
77 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense.
78 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense.
79 Defense Science Board Task Force. 2008. More Fight—Less Fuel. O ce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics. www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf.
80 Defense Science Board Task Force. 2008. More Fight—Less Fuel. O ce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics.
81 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense. http://energy.defense.gov/
FY12_Operational_Energy_Budget_Certi cation_Report_FINAL%208%20JUN.pdf.
80 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
82 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense.
83 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense.
84 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense.
85 Conversation with Dr. David Gorsich. TARDEC. July 2011.
86 Conversation with Dr. David Gorsich, TARDEC, July 2011.
87 Burke, S. 2011. National Security and Fuels of the Future: The Importance of Sec. 526. The White House Blog. www.whitehouse.gov/
blog/2011/07/15/national-security-and-fuels-future-importance-sec-526.
88 Department of the Navy. 2010. A Navy Energy Vision for the 21st Century. p. 8. http://green eet.dodlive.mil/ les/2010/10/Navy-Energy-
Vision-Oct-2010.pdf.
89 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense. http://energy.defense.gov/
FY12_Operational_Energy_Budget_Certi cation_Report_FINAL%208%20JUN.pdf.
90 Burke, S. 2011. Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certi cation Report. Department of Defense.
91 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
92 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
93 Jean, G. 2011. Navy Energy O cials Predict Biofuels Will Be Cost-Competitive by 2020. National Defense Magazine. www.
nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=372.
94 Tindal, C. 2010. Department of Navy’s Biofuel Demand. Power point presentation. www.farmfoundation.org/news/article les/1731-
Tindal%20TO%20POST_v01_2010-11-15.pdf.
95 Air Transport Association. 2010. Airline Energy Q&A. www.airlines.org/Energy/Fuels101/Pages/AirlineEnergyQA.aspx.
96 LeCronier, M. 2011. Terrabon Inc. Awarded $9.6 Million by Logos Technologies to Produce 6,000 Liters of Renewable Jet Fuel for the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). www.terrabon.com/terrabon_press_release_20110725.pdf.
97 Lowe, S. 2010. DLA supports Air Force goal of cleaner fuel, energy independence. Defense Logistics Agency News. www.dla.mil/DLAPublic/
DLA_Media_Center/TopStories.aspx?ID=632.
98 Dowdell, R. 2011. O cials certify rst aircraft for biofuel usage. U.S. Air Force. www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123242117.
99 Yonkers, T. 2011. Leading by Example: How Energy Innovation is Strengthening America’s Military. Brie ng at Pew Charitable Trusts.
100 Tindal, C. 2010. Department of Navy’s Biofuel Demand. Power point presentation. www.farmfoundation.org/news/article les/1731-
Tindal%20TO%20POST_v01_2010-11-15.pdf.
101 Wright, L. 2010. Navy Tests Biofuel-Powered ‘Green Hornet.’ U.S. Navy. www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=52768.
102 Lowe, S. 2010. Navy biofuels demonstration made possible by DLA support. Defense Logistics Agency News. www.dla.mil/dlapublic/
dla_media_center/TopStories.aspx?ID=848.
103 Tegler, E. 2010. Down River - The Navy’s ‘ ex-fuel eet’ starts with RCB-X. Defense Media Network. www.defensemedianetwork.
com/stories/down-river/.
81T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
104 Roughead, G. 2011. Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on FY 2012 Department of Navy Posture. www.navy.mil/
navydata/people/cno/Roughead/Testimony/CNO%20Roughead_Testimony_030111.pdf.
105 U.S. Navy. 2011. A U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey lifts o from Naval Air Station Patuxent River during a successful biofuel test ight.
www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=105862.
106 U.S. Navy. 2011. First Navy Trainer Completes Biofuel Flight at Patuxent River. www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=62384.
107 Defense Logistics Agency. 2011. DLA Energy provides biofuel for Navy’s Blue Angels. www.dla.mil/dla_media_center/Pages/
newsarticle201109081200.aspx.
108 Tegler, E. 2010. Down River - The Navy’s ‘ ex-fuel eet’ starts with RCB-X. Defense Media Network.
109 O ce of the President. 2007. Executive Order 13423—Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-374.pdf.
110 U.S. Air Force. 2010. Air Force Infrastructure Energy Plan - 2010. www.dm.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101202-064.pdf.
111 Department of Defense. 2010. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2009. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/library/aemr_fy_09_
may_2010.pdf.
112 Department of Defense. 2010. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2009.
113 U.S. Air Force. 2010. Air Force Acquisition & Technology Energy Plan - 2010. www.sa e.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-091208-
028.pdf.
114 Korosec, K. 2011. The Year of the Biofuel IPO: The Good, Bad and Ugly. BNET. www.bnet.com/blog/clean-energy/the-year-of-the-
biofuel-ipo-the-good-bad-and-ugly/5930.
115 Baldwin, C. and P. Henderson. 2011. Biofuel maker Solazyme shares rise in Nasdaq debut. Reuters. http://uk.reuters.com/
article/2011/05/27/uk-solazyme-ipo-idUKTRE74Q70N20110527.
116 O ce of the Press Secretary. 2011. President Obama Announces Major Initiative to Spur Biofuels Industry and Enhance America’s Energy
Security. The White House. www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o ce/2011/08/16/president-obama-announces-major-initiative-spur-
biofuels-industry-and-en.
117 U.S. Navy. 2011. Navy, USDA, DOE Seek Input from Industry to Advance Biofuels for Military and Commercial Transportation. www.navy.
mil/search/display.asp?story_id=62476.
120 Downing, L. 2011. Airlines Win Approval to Use Plant-Based Biofuels on Commercial Flights. Bloomberg. www.bloomberg.com/
news/2011-07-01/airlines-win-approval-to-use-plant-based-biofuels-on-commercial- ights.html.
121 Gonzalez, A. 2007. To go green in jet fuel, Boeing looks at algae. Seattle Times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
boeingaerospace/2003858756_boeingenergy30.html.
122 Downing, L. 2011. Airlines Win Approval to Use Plant-Based Biofuels on Commercial Flights. Bloomberg. www.bloomberg.com/
news/2011-07-01/airlines-win-approval-to-use-plant-based-biofuels-on-commercial- ights.html.
123 Abbott, C. 2011. U.S. assists two crop-for-aviation-fuel projects. Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/usa-biofuels-
idUSN1E76P1C320110726.
124 Cauchi, S. 2011. Planes tap into ower power. Sydney Morning Herald. www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/planes-tap-into-
ower-power-20110709-1h7mv.html#ixzz1RlRvgco3.
125 Robyn D. 2011. DoD Installations, Energy, and the Environment: An Update. Department of Defense. Presentation at E2S2 Symposium.
http://e2s2.ndia.org/speakers/Documents/Robyn.pdf.
82 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
124 Department of Defense. 2010. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2009. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/library/aemr_fy_09_
may_2010.pdf.
125 Andrews, A. 2009. Department of Defense Facilities Energy Conservation Policies and Spending. pp. 12-13. Congressional Research Service.
126 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. pp. 44-45. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_
FY2010__July_2011%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf.
127 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. pp. 53-54. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_
FY2010__July_2011%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf.
128 Defense Science Board Task Force. 2008. More Fight—Less Fuel. O ce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics. www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf.
129 Hammack, K. 2011. Leading by Example: How Energy Innovation is Strengthening America’s Military. Brie ng at Pew Charitable Trusts.
130 Department of Defense. 2010. Quadrennial Defense Review. www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20of%2029jan10%201600.PDF.
131 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. p. 18. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_
FY2010__July_2011%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf.
132 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. 2011. White House Energy Security Blueprint References ESTCP. www.serdp.
org/News-and-Events/In-the-Spotlight/White-House-Energy-Security-Blueprint-References-ESTCP.
133 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
134 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
135 Conversation with Tarak Shah, Special Assistant to Sharon Burke, O ce of Operational Energy, OSD. September 6, 2011.
136 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
137 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
138 U.S. Marine Corps. 2010. Solar powered Devil Dogs. Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms. www.marines.mil/
unit/29palms/Pages/SolarpoweredDevilDogs.aspx.
139 U.S. Marine Corps. 2010. Solar powered Devil Dogs. Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms.
140 U.S. Marine Corps. 2010. Solar powered Devil Dogs. Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms.
141 U.S. Marine Corps. 2011. Experimental Forward Operating Base (Fact Sheet). http://marines.mil/community/Documents/ExFOB%20pdf.
pdf.
142 U.S. Marine Corps. 2011. Experimental Forward Operating Base (Fact Sheet).
143 Conversation with Bob Charette. Director of Expeditionary Energy, USMC. September 9, 2011.
144 Conversation with Bob Charette. Director of Expeditionary Energy, USMC. September 9, 2011.
145 Brown, R. et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy E ciency Potential. University of California Berkeley. http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-
1096E.pdf.
83T H E P E W P R O J E C T O N N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y , E N E R G Y A N D C L I M A T E
146 Hulme, G. V. 2011. Despite years of talk, utilities remain compromised, vulnerable. www.csoonline.com/article/684287/despite-years-of-
talk-utilities-remain-compromised-vulnerable.
147 SBI Energy. 2011. Expanding Military Interest in Microgrid Technology Fuels $4 Billion Industry. www.sbireports.com/about/release.
asp?id=1856.
148 SBI Energy. 2011. Expanding Military Interest in Microgrid Technology Fuels $4 Billion Industry.
149 Asmus, P. 2011. Which States Represent the Best Markets for Small Wind? Pike Research Blog. http://www.pikeresearch.com/blog/articles/
which-states-represent-the-best-markets-for-small-wind.
150 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. p. 25. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_
FY2010__July_2011[1][1].pdf.
151 University of Delaware. 2007. UD-led team sets solar cell record, joins DuPont on $100 million project. www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/
solar072307.html.
152 Government Accountability O ce. 2010. Defense Infrastructure: Department of Defense’s Renewable Energy Initiatives. p. 10. www.gao.
gov/new.items/d10681r.pdf.
153 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. p. 28. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_
FY2010__July_2011[1][1].pdf.
154 Department of Defense. 2011. Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year 2010. p. 31. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/DoD_AEMR_
FY2010__July_2011[1][1].pdf.
155 U.S. Navy. 2011. Navy Awards $500 Million Contract for Solar Energy. www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=62316.
156 U.S. Government Printing O ce. 2006. 10 U.S.C.2922A – Contracts for Energy or Fuel for Military Applications. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
search/pagedetails.action?collectionCode=USCODE&searchPath=Title+10%2FSubtitle+B&granuleId=USCODE-2006-title10-subtitleA-
partIV-chap173-subchapII-sec2922a&packageId=USCODE-2006-title10&oldPath=Title+10%2FSubtitle+A%2FPart+IV%2FChapter+173
%2FSubchapter+II%2FSec.+2922a&fromPageDetails=true&collapse=true&bread=true.
157 Defense Science Board Task Force. 2008. More Fight—Less Fuel. O ce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics. www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf.
158 U.S. Army. 2011. U.S. Army Energy Security and Sustainability: Vital to National Defense. www.ausa.org/publications/
torchbearercampaign/tnsr/Documents/TB_Energy_web.pdf.
161 Department of Defense. 2011. Energy For the War ghter: Operational Energy Strategy. p. 4. http://energy.defense.gov/OES_report_to_
congress.pdf.
162 Erwin, S.I. 2011. Army, Marines Face Uphill Battle to Lighten Troops Battery Load. National Defense Magazine. www.
nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/May/Pages/ArmyMarinesFaceUphillBattleToLightenTroops%E2%80%99BatteryLoad.aspx.
163 Erwin, S.I. 2011. Army, Marines Face Uphill Battle to Lighten Troops Battery Load. National Defense Magazine.
164 Erwin, S.I. 2011. Army, Marines Face Uphill Battle to Lighten Troops Battery Load. National Defense Magazine.
165 Bathmann, D. 2010. Army deploys innovative battery-recharging kit. U.S. Army. www.army.mil/-news/2010/08/02/43176-army-deploys-
innovative-battery-recharging-kit/.
166 Price, W. 2011. Renewable energy vital to Marines’ success in Afghanistan, future. www.quantico.usmc.mil/Sentry/StoryView.
aspx?SID=4874.
84 F R O M B A R R A C K S T O T H E B AT T L E F I E L DC L E A N E N E R G Y I N N O V A T I O N A N D A M E R I C A ’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
167 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
168 Department of Defense and Department of Energy. 2010. Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Department of Energy and U.S.
Department of Defense Concerning Cooperation in a Strategic Partnership to Enhance Energy Security. www.energy.gov/news/documents/
Enhance-Energy-Security-MOU.pdf.
169 Department of Energy. 2011. Energy and Defense Departments Announce New Steps to Enhance Cooperation on Clean Energy and Energy
Security. www.energy.gov/news/10156.htm.
170 Department of Energy. 2011. Energy and Defense Departments Announce New Steps to Enhance Cooperation on Clean Energy and Energy
Security.
171 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. 2011. Defense Sciences O ce – Robust Portable Power Sources. www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/
DSO/Programs/Robust_Portable_Power.aspx.
172 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
173 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
174 Soldiers Magazine. 2011. Army developing Soldier-wearable battery. http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e1/soldiers/archives/pdfs/jan11all.pdf.
175 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
176 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
177 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
178 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
179 Proebstel, D., and C. Wheelock. 2010. Renewable Energy for Military Applications: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, Hydrokinetic Energy,
Biofuels and Synfuels, Fuel Cells, Microgrids, Smart Meters, and Energy E ciency.
C L E A N E N E R G Y I N N OVAT I O N A N D A M E R I C A’ S A R M E D F O R C E S
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Tel. 215-575-2000
www.PewTrusts.org/EnergySecurity
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel. 202-552-2000
BATTLEF I ELD
FROM BARRACKS
T O T H E
THE PEW PROJECT ON
NATIONAL SECURITY, ENERGY AND CLIMATE
