Center for Naval Analyses Calls for Electrification of Military Fleet, Move Away from Fossil Fuels

Last year, former CIA Director James Woolsey told me that he became a fan of electric vehicles years ago when running a war game for Congresswoman Jane Harman. One of the issues they were looking at was what would happen if there was a complete cut off of imported oil to the United States. Woolsey saw it as a major security threat and came to the conclusion that the U.S. needed to move toward electric vehicles as quickly as possible. He went out and bought a hybrid car which he had converted to a plug in hybrid. He also told me that former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz had an electric vehicle back in the 1990's. Electric vehicles have long made sense to security hawks.

It is not surprising then that the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) issued a report on Monday, titled Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security. The report looks at energy solely from the perspective of national security. It was compiled by their Military Advisory Board which includes 12 high-ranking retired US military officers representing four of the five branches of the US military.

In offering our recommendations, we considered a context that will be increasingly shaped by climate change. (We encourage readers to view our earlier report: “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.”) The effects of global warming will require adaptive planning by our military. The effects of climate policies will require new fuels and energy systems. Ignoring these trends will make us less secure; leading the way can make us more secure. The challenges inherent in this suite of issues may be daunting, particularly at a time of economic crisis. Still, our experience informs us there is good reason for viewing this moment in history as an opportunity. We can say, with certainty, that we need not exchange benefits in one dimension for harm in another; in fact, we have found that the best approaches to energy, climate change, and national security may be one and the same.

Particularly interesting are their recommendations for the use of hybrid electric military vehicles.

Inefficient use and overreliance on oil burdens the military, undermines combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag—in dollars and lives.

Consider a large, slow moving military convoy carrying oil to power the military convoys carrying supplies. The cost and logistics are immense. They are easily picked up due to the heat they put off from burning oil and they are easy targets that once hit, are moving explosives. Electric vehicles reduce the acoustic, thermal and infrared signatures, making the fleets safer.

Energy use in the battle space is a complex matter and often runs counter to conventional wisdom. A study of the 2003 I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) in Iraq found that only 10 percent of its ground fuel use was for the heavy vehicles that deliver lethal force, including M1A1 tanks, armored vehicles, and assault amphibious vehicles; the other 90 percent was consumed by vehicles—including Humvees, 7-ton trucks, and logistics vehicles—that deliver and protect the fuel and forces [37, 38]. It is the antithesis of efficiency: only a fraction of the fuel is used to deliver lethal force. A different study showed that, of the U.S. Army’s top ten battlefield fuel users, only two (numbers five and ten on the list) are combat platforms; four out of the top ten are trucks, many of them used to transport liquid fuel and electric generating equipment [39].

In fact, the burden of powering the world’s largest military on imported oil is so great, that designing and deploying “systems to reduce the burden that inefficient energy use places on our troops as they engage overseas” is a top priority, second only to integrating energy security and climate change goals into national security and military planning processes.

Electrification of the military fleet would have a number of benefits. It would drive research and development; it would save money and lives on the battlefield; it would lead in transforming America’s energy posture and transportation sector. We are not just talking about a little bit of money, we are talking about billions. According to the report, a $10 increase in the per-barrel cost of oil translates to a $1.3 billion increase to the Pentagon’s energy costs.

…each gallon of fuel delivered to an aircraft in-flight costs the Air Force roughly $42 [35]; for ground forces, the true cost of delivering fuel to the battlefield, while very scenario dependent, ranges from $15 per gallon to hundreds of dollars per gallon [35].

GENERAL ROBERT MAGNUS, USMC (RET.), Former Assistant Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps writes compellingly in the report about moving away from fossil fuels. “This discussion has to be about having the smartest and most efficient use of energy to do the military missions,” Gen. Magnus said.

The military has a stated goal of a 75% reduction in fuel consumption by 2020 and are already doing interesting things to reduce the amount of fuel needed in theaters of operation and bases around the world, reducing vulnerability and increasing capability. Plug in Hybrid Electric Humvees have been tested since 2005 and the Diesel Electric ‘Agressor’ may be deployed in Iraq soon. Or perhaps it will be Raser Technologies Electric Hummer, recently (and awkwardly) test driven by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. Spray insulation of tents will take 12 fuel transports off the road every day. Waste to energy refineries in Iraq are making a small contribution in reducing fossil fuel dependence, as well. At Nellis Air Force Base, a 14.2 MW photovoltaic solar array - the largest in the Americas - provides one-quarter of the base’s energy and saves an estimated $1 million per year. And the navy has show remarkable cost savings from using renewable energy sources like wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal and ocean thermal energy at military bases:

Navy ships saved more than $79 million in fuel costs during the first and second quarters of fiscal year (FY) 2009 through the i-ENCON program, reports the Navel Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communications. The achievement is touted as the largest cost savings in two quarters since the conservation program was implemented fleet wide in FY 1999. – Environmental Leader

The CNA report also urges that the domestic electricity grid be updated arguing that a fragile electric grid threatens national security. In part because when an energy grid fails, critical national security systems are jeopardized. According to VICE ADMIRAL DENNIS V. MCGINN, USN (RET.), Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs, the American people can play an important role in supporting the troops by supporting a move away from fossil fuels. “We have less than ten years to change our fossil fuel dependency course in significant ways. Our nation’s security depends on the swift, serious and thoughtful response to the inter-linked challenges of energy security and climate Our elected leaders and, most importantly, the American people should realize this set of challenges isn’t going away. We cannot continue business as usual. Embedded in these challenges are great opportunities to change the way we use energy and the places from which we get our energy. And the good news is that we can meet these challenges in ways that grow our economy and increases our quality of life.”