Lack of energy efficiency is a security risk, former Pentagon officials say

ClimateWire, 18 May 2009 - America's dependence on fossil fuels and a fragile electricity grid pose unacceptable national security risks, declared a group of former top-ranking generals and admirals in a report released today by the nonprofit Center for Naval Analyses (CNA).

The Pentagon -- the nation's single largest energy user -- needs to be first in line to overhaul its energy profile, they wrote. "Business as usual is just not a viable option anymore," said retired Navy Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, former commander of the U.S. Third Fleet and a member of CNA's Military Advisory Board.

They call on the Department of Defense to integrate energy and climate change considerations into all aspects of its planning, a practice they say has been insufficient so far.

"It's a sobering but honest, and necessary assessment," the board's chairman, retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Charles "Chuck" Wald, said in a statement. The findings add to a growing mandate, both from within the department and from Congress, for the military -- home of the Humvee and the globe-spanning jet bomber -- to fully consider and then slim its fuel consumption.

Doing so could change some of the nation's longtime foreign policy fundamentals. In what became known as the Carter doctrine, President Carter in 1980 proclaimed that any assault on the Persian Gulf region was essentially an assault on the United States. It would be repelled by "any means necessary."

Since that time, the total volume of oil imported to the United States has nearly tripled. That dependence weakens U.S. international leverage, undermines foreign policy and threatens economic stability, the report finds, noting that well more than half of top oil companies are wholly or majority-owned by foreign states and are located in countries like Venezuela, Russia and Iran.

The risks and costs posed by the military's energy profile will only increase as volatile cycles of fuel prices become sharper and shorter, says the report, entitled "Powering America's Defense: Energy and Risks to National Security."

A $10 rise in the per-barrel cost of oil translates into a $1.3 billion increase in Pentagon's energy costs, according to the report. In 2008, the military spent about $20 billion on energy, nearly double what it had in 2006, largely because of price spikes.

Today, however, perhaps no one is more aware of the hazards of America's fossil fuel reliance than a soldier deployed in Iraq, where fuel and supply convoys are regularly targeted by insurgents' improvised explosive devices.

'The antithesis of efficiency'

A study of the 2003 Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq found that 90 percent of its ground fuel was burned in the very Humvees and trucks needed to deliver and protect the remaining 10 percent. "It is the antithesis of efficiency," the CNA report says.

As President Obama shifts troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, the burden of the military's fuel use, both human and monetary, could grow, said McGinn.

Iraq has had problems, but at least it sits in an oil-rich region, he said. Backed-up lines of fuel convoys transporting fuel over Afghanistan's rough mountain passes on poor roads are even more exposed.

Closer to home, the report notes that an accident or attack to the nation's electricity grid that disrupts power for a lengthy period could overwhelm the current backup capacity of domestic military installations. Many run computer systems that protect the nation and troops abroad, all day and all year.

The report is a follow up to a 2007 CNA study on the national security risks of climate change, which concluded that global warming is a "threat multiplier" in many already fragile regions around the world. Such destabilization and an increased need for humanitarian relief will, in the future, expand the military's burden, it concluded.

Today's report acknowledges that greenhouse gas regulations are almost inevitable and recommends that the United States avoid pursuing energy options that conflict with the nation's long-term climate agenda.

This could mean jettisoning some otherwise promising energy security programs. The U.S. Air Force -- the military branch that uses the bulk of the military's liquid fuel -- has been engaged in research to deploy coal-based liquid fuels to partially replace petroleum, for example. But unless viable carbon sequestration technologies are available, this option is only attractive "on the surface," says the report.

"You cannot treat energy security, national security and climate change independently," said retired Navy Adm. John Nathman, former vice chief of naval operations.

To address its own fuel dependence, the report recommends that DOD make major investments to both measure and reduce its fuel burden overseas and energy use by domestic installations.

This could mean relatively simple investments. A $94 million investment to insulate tents in Iraq with spray foam has, every day, removed about 12 fuel transport trucks from the road and saved approximately $2 million.

Three-quarters of DOD demand is for jet fuel

And while many domestic military bases have already invested in energy efficiency, smart grid technologies, electric vehicles and renewable energy, the report says this needs to be increased.

But finding a low-carbon alternative to jet fuel is, for the military, the big elephant in the room.

Most of America relies on electricity produced from coal or natural gas for the majority of its energy consumption. By contrast, jet fuel makes up three-quarters of DOD's energy demand.

"That's a different problem than America faces," said Alan Shaffer, principal deputy director of DOD's Defense Office of Research and Engineering, addressing a conference this month. "At the end of the day, DOD has some unique problems, and we have to solve them."

Developing new energy technologies is exactly where DOD can further its role as a technology innovator and incubator, said Nathman. Historic examples of this role cited in the report include the military as the developer of the early Internet and test bed for nuclear energy technology.

And because the military can invest more heavily, with more patience and risk tolerance than traditional investors, its dollars can help new technologies avoid "the valley of death" in the commercialization of promising technologies.

"You can proof things because you can control the experiment very carefully," said Nathman. He cited the Navy's efforts to deploy smart grid technology at a major base to more reduce energy use. "If you did that for a big base complex, you could do that for a big city," he said.

Author Jessica Leber Publication Date 18 May 2009 Document Type News articles Issue/Topic Energy & Climate Energy Efficiency in Buildings Mobility Region North America Country United States Source Climatewire Include In RSS Business & Sustainable Development News Energy & Climate News Sustainable Mobility News