Pentagon going green, because it has to: officials

Oct 13, 2010
A hybrid solar-wind generator by Solar Stik, a company that makes portable renewable energy systems, on display at the Pentagon. The US military's heavy dependence on fossil fuels is a dangerous vulnerability, officials said Wednesday as they made a fresh push to develop renewable energy solutions.

The US military's heavy dependence on fossil fuels is a dangerous vulnerability, officials said Wednesday as they made a fresh push to develop renewable energy solutions for the battlefield.

While an bill has stalled in Congress and statewide alternative energy initiatives have been put on ice in the midst of a bruising , senior military leaders are now warning that the armed forces' continued reliance on petroleum harms national security.

In the wake of a spate of deadly attacks on tankers carrying fuel to foreign troops in Afghanistan, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of a "strategic imperative" for the US military to become more efficient and find new sources of energy.

The Department of Defense is burning through 300,000 barrels of oil a day, using more energy per soldier every year and its top import to Afghanistan is , the highest ranking US military officer said as he kicked off a Pentagon discussion on energy security.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has set a goal of having renewable energy account for 50 percent of power for the Navy and Marines by 2020.

General Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff, US army participates, seen speaking about renewable energy at the Pentagon. The Department of Defense is burning through 300,000 barrels of oil a day, using more energy per soldier every year and its top import to Afghanistan is fossil fuels, the highest ranking US military officer said as he kicked off a Pentagon discussion on energy security.

"We're not going green just for green's sake. Energy reform and the new energy future aren't about politics or slogans," he said.

"It's about protecting the lives of our troops. It's about making our military better and more capable fighters. It's about making our country more secure and more independent. That's why we are doing this, that's why we have to change."

Officials speaking at Energy Awareness Month events launched by the federal government -- the nation's biggest energy consumer -- said getting access to more sources of improved national security because too much oil consumed by the United States comes from volatile regions.

The cost of relying too heavily on fossil fuels, both in blood and treasure, is also a top concern for military planners.

A September 2009 Army study found that for every 24 convoys carrying fuel to bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, one soldier or civilian is killed.

Estimates vary on the cost of fuel.

While the US military sets a standard price for fuel at about three dollars, the Marine Corps once found the price of delivering that gallon to troops in the Afghan province of Helmand could reach up to 30 dollars. A 2001 Defense Science Board report said it could cost a whopping 400 dollars.

Earlier this month, attackers in Pakistan targeted fuel convoys headed for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, highlighting the vulnerability of the main land route for NATO supplies across the Torkham border through the Khyber Pass.

Scores of NATO vehicles were destroyed in gun and arson attacks as thousands of oil tankers and supply vehicles became stranded during an 11-day closure.

Explore further: Battery system will be able to light 2,500 homes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US military to make jet fuel from algae

Feb 16, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- If military researchers in the US are right, jet fuel produced from algae may soon be available for about the same price as ordinary jet fuels.

Hydrogen-powered ice resurfacer promoted

May 30, 2007

A U.S. Department of Energy-funded fuel-cell-powered ice resurfacer is touring ice rinks across the United States, promoting use of hydrogen fuel cells.

Do the benefits of renewable energy sources stack up?

Aug 13, 2007

Do the overall efficiencies of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal add up in terms of their complete life cycle from materials sourcing, manufacture, running, and decommissioning? Researchers in ...

Recommended for you

First self-contained step dimming LED tube

1 hour ago

Samsung Electronics today introduced the industry's first AC Direct step-dimming LED linear replacement for T8 and T12 fluorescent tubes at the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) Convention ...

Battery system will be able to light 2,500 homes

1 hour ago

One of the largest, most environmentally-friendly, battery-based energy storage systems in the nation will be installed at the University of California, San Diego the campus announced today (Sept. 29).

NREL software tool a boon for wind industry

4 hours ago

Wind energy is blowing away skeptics—it's so close to achieving cost parity with fossil fuels that just a little extra efficiency is all that is likely needed to push it into the mainstream and past the ...

Harvesting energy from walking

4 hours ago

A device that fits into a shoe harvests the energy made by walking and successfully uses it in watch batteries.

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2010
All energy renews at the same rate, 1350 Watts per square meter. Except of course nuclear energy that renews at 'universal' rates, time and space.
Shootist
1 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2010
And there is more deuterium and tritium in the seas than shall ever be needed. Helium 3 awaits as well.

There is also no shortage of Thorium or Uranium, both of which are as superior to Wind, Wave and Sun, as my Chevy pickup is compared to my grandfather's Model A.
MarkyMark
not rated yet Oct 14, 2010
Well be interesting to see what solutions they come up with 10 years from now.

And who knows could be something very clever.
[Peddle power]
mertzj
not rated yet Oct 14, 2010
I would think the only way they could really do it would be down sizing and autonomous vehicles, planes and weapons. Thats the only way they are going to get small enough to be efficient. Would save countless lives too. I think its kinda sad so many soldiers are dying needlessly when we have the technology to do most everything they do autonomously. Anyone seen the future weapons show where the soldier is on one side of a hill with a laptop and can see the other side (via satellite or autonomous helo) and locks onto like 50 targets and launches rockets at them destroying everyone of them at the same time? That is pretty efficient. Sucks how in WWII the airforce could order 1000 planes and they were designed and built in 2 months now it takes 10 years to come up with a prototype.
CarolinaScotsman
not rated yet Oct 17, 2010
Sucks how in WWII the airforce could order 1000 planes and they were designed and built in 2 months now it takes 10 years to come up with a prototype.

Quite a difference in technology between then and now.