“Unleash us from the tether of fuel.”
— Gen. James Mattis, former commander of the 1st Marine Division, during the drive to Baghdad, March 2003
Executive Summary
The Defense Department has embarked on an important set of reforms that focuses on the impact of our energy policies on our armed forces. However, while there is wide agreement on the objectives, and brilliant efforts have already led to some victories, successes are still few and far between. There are islands of excellence, but we are in need of a continent.
The need for action is clear. First and foremost, we need to reduce the vulnerabilities to our armed forces posed by 20th-century strategies regarding energy. A prime example is the high casualty levels suffered by troops guarding oil and water convoys.
Second, we need to reduce overall fuel cost and price volatility. For decades, the Pentagon has failed to accurately capture the cost of fuel. This failure has consequences for both our actual budget as well as our strategic posture.
Third, we must increase energy security. Our foreign policy and national security decisions too often are influenced or even driven by concerns about our fuel supply.
Fourth, we need to adapt and cope with climate change. The dangers of “climate refugees,” changing borders and aggravated social problems in the developing world present an active and increasing security threat for the U.S. and our allies, and perceived indifference will only diminish global respect for the U.S.
In this paper, we recommend that the Pentagon redouble its efforts on energy as part of a larger strategy to achieve a more efficient and effective security posture. This paper focuses on the concept of “energy performance,” which encompasses where the military gets its energy and how it uses it. We believe that maximizing energy performance will require, in large part, increasing the use of renewable energy, energy efficiency and more strategically favorable sources of energy. After a summary of the current costs and liabilities associated with the Pentagon’s energy posture — and some of the efforts already taken to strengthen it — this paper gives an explanation of several potential solutions going forward:
- Reform the acquisitions process. The Pentagon should fully account for the cost of battlefield fuel in all purchasing and logistical decisions.
- Improve in-theater energy performance. The military should implement new energy-performance technology at forward operating bases and other battlefield locations.
- Boost clean energy and efficiency at all Defense Department installations. For domestic bases, in particular, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels and the public electricity grid removes potential liabilities.
- Strengthen research and development and enhance commercialization of nascent clean energy technologies. By taking an active role as developer and customer, the Pentagon can help scale up clean tech innovations.
These efforts would ultimately save considerable taxpayer dollars, strengthen the resilience of U.S. forces and yield innovations that not only would enhance the military’s energy performance but also boost American competitiveness.
Tags: Clean energy and technology, Climate change, Defense Department, energy, energy security, James Mattis, Military, renewable energy
[...] In this paper, we recommend that the Pentagon redouble its efforts on energy as part of a larger strategy to achieve a more efficient and effective security posture. Read more… [...]
I enjoyed your “Cutting the Tether” paper, and am pleased that energy use is getting more attention. My military career was cut short because I raised combat energy issues. Ironically, in 2005, when I submitted ideas to the Air Force IDEA program and was credited by a 4-star General with saving over $137 million and millions of pounds of fuel in one year, the program was ended. From your paper, it seems that the military culture may be changing.
Do you know who in the Department of Defense and/or U.S. Air Force I may contact to implement and suggest fuel efficiency improvements? I was directly involved in the planning, execution and assessment of air refueling operations in combat–-one of the most expensive fuel delivery methods, yet most overlooked. In 2006, I presented at the International Air Refueling Systems and Advisory Group meeting http://www.arsaginc.com/Portals/0/documents/conf%20minutes/2006Conf.pdf (comments about my briefing can be viewed by searching by “Adams” in this document) about fuel efficiency gains that I led in combat over Iraq and Afghanistan as well as at the National Airlift Tanker Association Conference in 2005. Following these presentations, I was threatened with court martial, notified that I was under investigation and ordered to be silent. Since that time, I have extensively outlined many improvements that significantly enhance combat mission effectiveness and efficiency because I know that it will save lives someday.
While I was told that my research and findings are not valued because they detract from the Air Force’s desire to purchase a new tanker aircraft and the Joint Strike fighter, the information can immediately benefit the warfighter and the United States, or any other nation using air refueling aircraft. From your paper and research, perhaps you met an influential leader who may be willing to listen and is motivated to act. The political and military environment may be changing, or my input could be valued by specific individuals. Thank you for considering my request, and passing along helpful contacts.
— Alan Adams
Note: it has been long known burning fuel oil in ships–rather than “black” oil–will gain for a 30 knot-+ ships about 10% in speed and a comparable increase in all classes of range.
It has long also been known that two-stroke engines also can about double the speed range of vehicles–the Japanese have long had a tank using two stroke engine. (Deisels have powered large armored warships with signifcant increases in speed and range since the the 1930′s.