The U.S. military is launching a series of ultra-ambitious efforts to dramatically slash its reliance on fossil fuels. Or maybe the U.S. military isn’t very serious at all about going green.
There’s plenty of evidence to support both views, as I note in the current issue of Foreign Policy.
The Pentagon recently set ambitious targets to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by a third in 10 years. However, that figure exempts the military’s bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the jets, ships, and ground vehicles that swallow up 75 percent of the military’s fuel supply.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus says he’s ready to turn an entire carrier strike group an environmentally friendly armada — from biofueled fighter jets to hybrid ships — by 2016. The idea: demonstrate that some of the military’s biggest gas guzzlers don’t have to stay that way. But even Mabus’ own energy specialists aren’t sure what “deploying” this so-called “Great Green Fleet” will really mean. “It’ll depend on the supply chain. If they go over the horizon and 30 days later they have to go back to regular fuel because there’s not enough biofuel, then so be it,” says Chris Tindal, deputy director for renewable energy in the Navy’s Energy Office.
The story is already generating some discussion in the Defense Department. “How will replacing one fuel with another (a la the Green Fleet) change any military advantage or vulnerability” asks one Pentagon official in a thought-provoking e-mail. The note in full, after the jump.
Here are some thoughts to consider. How will replacing one fuel with another (a la the Green Fleet) change any military advantage or vulnerability? From a military perspective, a requirement for maple syrup (instead of JP-8 [the standard, petroleum-based fuel]) would still mean that we’re vulnerable to supplies of maple syrup. You’re right to bring up the nuclear navy example, but the benefits of nuclear power were more clear from a military perspective. Primarily, they cut the need for oilers to refuel the carrier. Unless we’re brewing up the fuel at sea (which I haven’t heard about), the Green Fleet does no such thing. It’s also useful to remember that a criticism of the carrier’s nuclear power is that the air wing and battle group still needed to be refueled (esp after demise of nuclear power CGs [cruisers]) and retained the need for the long logistics tails. Makes me think of the scenario of the CVN [aircraft carrier] speeding to the Arabian Sea, only to leave behind the battle group when they needed to refuel.
Supplier diversity is important, but equally – maybe more important – is reducing our energy needed for a given level of mission output. Developing non-petroleum supplies of fuel does not, by itself, affect any form of military vulnerability. The quote by Chris Tindal is telling. It may be a net social or public policy good to pursue the Green Fleet, but it’s not clear how this increases our military advantage or decreases our vulnerability. Strategically, we’ll always be able to get petroleum – it may cost a lot, but we can get it. DoD consumption is a pittance compared to global supply (or even US supply), and the bigger problem is getting it to the user. Operational energy risk is about being vulnerable to those logistics being disrupted. Reducing demand, not substituting one fuel for the other, will reduce that vulnerability.
Something to consider. I’m all for energy alternatives, but we should place them in the related but often distinct contexts of national policy objectives on the one hand, and more narrow military risks and opportunities on the other.
Hope all is well. Look forward to talking more, if you like.
Cheers,
XXXXXXXX
PS: One final comment. Someone once said that the best solution to global warming is a gallon of fuel not used. Never mind the new exotic alternative fuels, better efficiency might do the trick better. Not sexy, but efficiency pays.
There’s plenty of evidence to support both views, as I note in the current issue of Foreign Policy.
The Pentagon recently set ambitious targets to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by a third in 10 years. However, that figure exempts the military’s bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the jets, ships, and ground vehicles that swallow up 75 percent of the military’s fuel supply.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus says he’s ready to turn an entire carrier strike group an environmentally friendly armada — from biofueled fighter jets to hybrid ships — by 2016. The idea: demonstrate that some of the military’s biggest gas guzzlers don’t have to stay that way. But even Mabus’ own energy specialists aren’t sure what “deploying” this so-called “Great Green Fleet” will really mean. “It’ll depend on the supply chain. If they go over the horizon and 30 days later they have to go back to regular fuel because there’s not enough biofuel, then so be it,” says Chris Tindal, deputy director for renewable energy in the Navy’s Energy Office.
The story is already generating some discussion in the Defense Department. “How will replacing one fuel with another (a la the Green Fleet) change any military advantage or vulnerability” asks one Pentagon official in a thought-provoking e-mail. The note in full, after the jump.
Here are some thoughts to consider. How will replacing one fuel with another (a la the Green Fleet) change any military advantage or vulnerability? From a military perspective, a requirement for maple syrup (instead of JP-8 [the standard, petroleum-based fuel]) would still mean that we’re vulnerable to supplies of maple syrup. You’re right to bring up the nuclear navy example, but the benefits of nuclear power were more clear from a military perspective. Primarily, they cut the need for oilers to refuel the carrier. Unless we’re brewing up the fuel at sea (which I haven’t heard about), the Green Fleet does no such thing. It’s also useful to remember that a criticism of the carrier’s nuclear power is that the air wing and battle group still needed to be refueled (esp after demise of nuclear power CGs [cruisers]) and retained the need for the long logistics tails. Makes me think of the scenario of the CVN [aircraft carrier] speeding to the Arabian Sea, only to leave behind the battle group when they needed to refuel.
Supplier diversity is important, but equally – maybe more important – is reducing our energy needed for a given level of mission output. Developing non-petroleum supplies of fuel does not, by itself, affect any form of military vulnerability. The quote by Chris Tindal is telling. It may be a net social or public policy good to pursue the Green Fleet, but it’s not clear how this increases our military advantage or decreases our vulnerability. Strategically, we’ll always be able to get petroleum – it may cost a lot, but we can get it. DoD consumption is a pittance compared to global supply (or even US supply), and the bigger problem is getting it to the user. Operational energy risk is about being vulnerable to those logistics being disrupted. Reducing demand, not substituting one fuel for the other, will reduce that vulnerability.
Something to consider. I’m all for energy alternatives, but we should place them in the related but often distinct contexts of national policy objectives on the one hand, and more narrow military risks and opportunities on the other.
Hope all is well. Look forward to talking more, if you like.
Cheers,
XXXXXXXX
PS: One final comment. Someone once said that the best solution to global warming is a gallon of fuel not used. Never mind the new exotic alternative fuels, better efficiency might do the trick better. Not sexy, but efficiency pays.
Posts
