Pentagon is investing in a greener military

Aug 25, 2011 By Steve Gelsi

Think your fuel bill is too high? Have a look at the U.S. military, which spent a whopping $13 billion on petroleum last year to keep its ships, planes and combat vehicles running.

Add to that the human toll from attacks on supply convoys and an estimated $400 price per gallon of fuel sent to the front lines, and it's no wonder the Department of Defense is looking for alternatives.

"The and the have set very aggressive goals to change their energy mix over the next decade," said Sherri Goodman, senior vice president of CNA Analysis & Solutions and a former deputy undersecretary of defense.

"Right now we're on the cusp. There's not one single silver bullet, but there's a lot of silver buckshot out there. There's going to be a lot of changes over the next decade in how we power our cars and the military," Goodman said.

Those changes are expected to create opportunities for anyone looking to participate in the Pentagon's drive to diversify its fuel portfolio.

To be sure, alternative energy is still a young, volatile industry and faces major hurdles in its quest for lucrative government contracts, especially given the latest congressional drive to rein in spending.

Given the challenges and recent losses on Wall Street, at least one analyst is shunning publicly traded "clean tech" companies altogether, regardless of the Pentagon's budding interest in renewable energy.

"We are not recommending the sector right now," said Jesse Pichel, managing director of clean tech research at Jefferies. "Professional investors are not in these stocks."

In the long term, however, Pichel said a gradual switch to solar power at government facilities could benefit makers of photovoltaic panels, including low-cost producers such as First Solar Inc.

Most companies participating in the military's push into green power say their work is still in the early stages. They are also keen to tout prospective growth in the private sector.

"The push is on to develop lighter, more efficient batteries and fuels, for cars, trucks, and tanks," said Goodman of CNA, a research firm based in Alexandria, Va.

"At the same time, energy is tied to security in the battlefield. We are losing soldiers every month when we have to convoy fuel to the front. That puts lives at risk, and so our military leaders said let's find other ways through solar or wind or better batteries to get energy for our troops."

Retail investors interested in gaining some exposure to the military's green energy programs might consider any of several initial public offerings from companies doing business with the government.

Other players haven't yet reached the IPO stage, but are already drawing interest from venture capitalists and institutional investors.

Ocean Power Technologies Inc., which went public in 2007, makes ocean buoy electric generation systems that tap energy from waves. Chief Executive Charles Dunleavy said the buoys could help the U.S. Navy's efforts to use more renewable energy.

The company's 40-kilowatt PB40 power buoy has been deployed since December 2009, less than a mile off the coast of the Marine Corps Base on Oahu, Hawaii. At peak output, it generates enough electricity for 20 homes. Separately, the company has begun sea trials of a buoy system to power offshore surveillance gear for the Navy as an alternative to diesel-fired generators.

Another firm tied to the military's green push is algae specialist Solazyme Inc., which went public on May 27 at $18 a share.

Solazyme has worked with a unit of Honeywell International Inc. to supply the Navy with microbe-derived advanced aviation and marine fuel.

In June, the Navy demonstrated Solazyme's fuel in an MH-60S Seahawk helicopter using a 50/50 blend with petroleum-based jet fuel.

Last year, Solazyme's distillate fuel was also used in a Navy Riverine Command Boat.

Larry Goldenhersh, chief executive officer of Carlsbad, Calif.-based Enviance Inc., a privately-held tech company, said the Pentagon's push to go green could double his revenue within three years.

"Our product allows the Defense Department to get data directly on its heaters and boilers and the assets that use energy, so it can have a footprint of consumption to manage its energy and intensify reductions," Goldenhersh said. "We do it in a way that saves the government a lot of money."

Goldenhersh, whose firm is backed by Enterprise Partners Venture Capital of San Diego, doesn't rule on out an initial public offering some day.

"We're receiving an immense amount of attention from the market, which would include financial and strategic investors," Goldenhersh said. "We've been told we have many options in the market at this point."

Bill Vass, who left Sun Microsystems to lead Liquid Robotics Inc., said the military's green initiatives often center on cutting fuel and manpower costs.

The Sunnyvale, Calif. company's solar and wave-powered Wave Glider ocean-going robots cost about $3,000 a day to operate, compared with $55,000 for the average non-combat, data-gathering Navy vessel.

"If you're going to do ocean current studies, or collect intelligence, or anti-submarine warfare, or mine sweeping, all those things you'd do with a ship, you instead do that with a robot," said Vass, who figures that military contracts now make up about a third of his company's business.

Last June, the company closed a $22 million round of venture capital financing with support from oil service firm Schlumberger Ltd., which is working with Liquid Robotics on oil and gas exploration.

"There's been a lot of strong interest," Vass said. "People want to invest but we don't need more money. We're generating revenue and we've got cash in the bank and we are hiring. [But] there will be times in the near future where we may need more investment capital."

Rick Wilson, chief executive of Cobalt Technologies Inc. and a veteran of BP PLC, said the company is working with the Navy to turn vegetation into biobutanol suitable for fueling jets. The company makes butanol for about $1.90 a gallon and converts it to military-spec jet fuel for roughly half the cost of conventional fossil-fuel blends, he said.

"In the case of the Navy, the real attraction for our technology is that it can be used locally," he noted. "We can use algae growing in a pond, we can use grasses, we can use trees. Having a jet fuel supply around the world creates supply reliability."

Traditional defense contractors will likely pursue a role in a greener military to take the sting out of future cuts to big-ticket weapon and hardware programs.

Two big names in the business, Boeing Co. and Siemens AG,  have formed a strategic alliance to pitch the Pentagon on smart grid technologies aimed at improving energy access and security.

Navy Secretary and former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus estimates gasoline costs the military up to $400 a gallon when factoring in airlifts, ground transport, guards and final delivery to remote battlefields in Afghanistan.

"We simply buy too much from either potentially or actually volatile places on earth and we need to address that vulnerability," Mabus said in a conference call this week.

Mabus argued that using biofuels and installing smart meters and solar panels at military bases could provide critical cost savings for taxpayers.

"If you look out past five years, the savings are tremendous; they are huge for the Navy and the Marine Corps," Mabus said. "So if you're looking for ways to save money, to make the most of the money we have, then this has to be one of our highest priorities."

Jefferies analyst Pichel said these and other new technologies could be major cost-savers while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

"We think it is ironic that if the USA and U.S. government/military goes green, it would lessen our need to import from the Middle East, and in essence we could reduce our defense spending," he said.

Explore further: Morocco wind farm, Africa's biggest, starts generating power

5 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Pentagon going green, because it has to: officials

Oct 13, 2010

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.

US Air Force: We want to use biofuels

Jul 19, 2011

The US Air Force is ready to switch to biofuels to help power its warplanes but the price of alternative fuels remains too high, military officials said Tuesday.

Energy Conference spotlights military's green energy

Mar 22, 2011

It’s not surprising that the U.S. Navy should be at the cutting edge of new energy alternatives, said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, speaking at the annual MIT Energy Conference on March 5. Innovation ...

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.

Recommended for you

Switch on sunlight for a brighter future

4 hours ago

Imagine sitting in a windowless room yet having the feeling of the sun shining on your face. This unique experience is now possible thanks to the COELUX EU-funded project which recreates the physical and ...

US urged to drop India WTO case on solar

20 hours ago

Environmentalists Wednesday urged the United States to drop plans to haul India to the WTO to open its solar market, saying the action would hurt the fight against climate change.

Is nuclear power the only way to avoid geoengineering?

Apr 23, 2014

"I think one can argue that if we were to follow a strong nuclear energy pathway—as well as doing everything else that we can—then we can solve the climate problem without doing geoengineering." So says Tom Wigley, one ...

Finalists named in Bloomberg European city contest

Apr 23, 2014

Amsterdam wants to create an online game to get unemployed young people engaged in finding jobs across Europe. Schaerbeek, Belgium, envisions using geothermal mapping to give households personalized rundowns of steps to save ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

knikiy
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2011
"Navy Secretary and former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus estimates gasoline costs the military up to $400 a gallon when factoring in airlifts, ground transport, guards and final delivery to remote battlefields in Afghanistan."

Another argument for cutting spending on the military industrial complex.
BobbyT
4.8 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2011
@kinkiy you have a point, but without our military complex we wouldn't be enjoying our discussion on Physorg. I agree we shouldn't be paying $400/gallon and there is an immense need for technological advancements in clean energy.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2011
[q9ut without our military complex we wouldn't be enjoying our discussion on Physorg.
I think that is debatable. Universities were looking for ways to move data around even as DARP was looking into building the first internet connections. The vastly overwhelming majority of technologies that have shaped the net since then have not come originally from the military sector. We may have had it a few years later, but we'd have had it nonetheless.
NotAsleep
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
Perhaps instead of changing the industrial military complex, we should just leave the middle east. The military is extremely good at logistics but there's only so much you can do to safeguard a fuel shipment in the middle east.

I don't see any point in discussing why we're stuck in the desert, though.

The military is already making huge cuts across the board, especially in flying hours. Pilots aren't flying much more than what it takes to maintain proficiency in their aircraft, which is a major change from the past where we flew until the annual funding was spent

More news stories

Facebook buys fitness app Moves

Facebook has bought the fitness app Moves, which helps users monitor daily physical activity and their calorie counts on a smartphone.

Cell resiliency surprises scientists

New research shows that cells are more resilient in taking care of their DNA than scientists originally thought. Even when missing critical components, cells can adapt and make copies of their DNA in an alternative ...