Finally, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) finally released the DOD’s Annual Energy Management Report for Fiscal Year 2010.
This report focuses on energy used by military installations and non-tactical vehicles. For ease of discussion, this report refers to both as “facilities energy.” In a footnote you will find out that this report does not address operational energy. This is the first shock you will get on the first page.What does the report say About DoD Energy Consumption?
“DoD accounts for approximately 80 percent of all Federal energy consumption and spent about $15.2 billion on energy in FY2010. Seventy four percent of total DoD consumption can be attributed to operations while the remaining 26 percent was consumed by the Department’s facilities (Figure 1.1). Operational energy is used for military deployments, direct support of military deployments, and training in support of readiness for military deployment. Facilities energy comprises all other energy used at DoD’s permanent installations and by its non-tactical vehicles. Well over 90 percent of total energy is used by the Military Departments, with about 6 percent used by other DoD Agencies.
Figure 1.1. DOD Energy Use in FY2010
In FY2010, DoD spent $4.01 billion on facilities energy, with $0.25 billion used for fuel for 160,000 non-tactical vehicles. About $3.76 billion was spent on energy for the Department’s 507 permanent installations, which comprise more than 300,000 buildings and 200,000 other structures. These installations occupy approximately 28 million acres of land in the United States and overseas and include over 2.2 billion square feet of facilities space.
In addition to its high cost, DoD’s use of facilities energy is important for at least two other reasons. First, facilities energy has a significant environmental impact, contributing a disproportionate share (about 40 percent) of the Department’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Second, DoD is heavily dependent on the commercial electricity grid for its facilities energy. The fragility of this grid leaves DoD vulnerable to service disruptions and places continuity of critical missions at serious and growing risk.”
“The Department is addressing its energy management challenges through its facilities energy strategy. Under our strategy, the DoD seeks to reduce energy demand through energy efficiency and conservation, increase energy supplied by renewable and alternative sources, support technology innovation to develop management systems and clean energy technologies and improve energy security to reduce the risks posed by disruption of the electric grid.”
“In FY2010, however, the Department fell short of its goals for energy intensity, renewable energy use, and petroleum consumed by non-tactical vehicles, but exceeded its goal for reducing the use of potable water,” (see page 4) despite “DoD is investing in emerging technologies that hold the promise to reduce and manage energy demand, increase the supply of renewable energy, enhance energy security, and improve energy efficiency in buildings.”
But you will have a lot of details about facilities energy use. “Reducing facilities energy demand, enhancing energy security, facilitating innovative energy research and development, and increasing the use of renewable energy sources are important priorities for the Department of Defense,“ says the report. A bit exaggerated claim if you have an idea about the full picture of DOD wide energy use, costs and CO2 emissions.“DoD’s facilities energy costs totaled approximately $4.0 billion in FY2010.”
“Facilities energy accounts for 26 percent of DoD energy use, but 40 percent of greenhouse gases.”Facilities Energy Consumption
“DoD consumed about 211,000 billion British thermal units (BBTU) of energy during FY2010 in facilities subject to the energy intensity goal. As shown in Figure 2.1, DoD facilities energy consumption has been increasing since FY2007.”
Figure 2.1 DoD Facilities Energy Consumption Trends FY2006-2010
Figure 2.3 DoD Site-Delivered Energy By Type FY2010“ approximately 80 percent of the energy consumed by DoD facilities in FY2010 came from electricity and natural gas. DoD also used small percentages of fuel oil, coal, purchased steam and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), propane, and other fuels in its facilities.”
Non-Tactical Fleet Vehicles Petroleum Use EISA 2007 requires Federal agencies to achieve a 20 percent reduction in non-tactical vehicle (NTV) petroleum consumption by FY2015 compared to a FY2005 baseline. E.O. 13514 extends the reduction goal to 30 percent by FY2020. In FY2010, DoD NTVs consumed the equivalent of 80.3 million gallons of Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent (GGE), which includes gasoline, diesel, and the diesel portion of biodiesel blends (80% of a B20 blend). The mix of petroleum fuel types has remained relatively stable over the past three years.
DoD Renewable Energy Production Baseline and Potential for Growth While DoD generated 9,950 BBTUs eligible for the 10 U.S.C. § 2911(e) calculation, approximately 5,800 BBTUs (bottom right of Table 3.1) was from on-site generation. The other 4,150 BBTUs are the sum of renewable energy and REC purchases.
If DoD is to reach the estimated 17,000 BBTUs of renewable energy to meet the 10 U.S.C. § 2911(e) goal with on-site production alone (keeping RECs and off-site purchases steady) on-site renewable production must increase by about 7,000 BBTUs. This is equivalent to approximately 1,200 MW of solar, which would cover 9,400 acres (or 67 Nellis AFB solar fields). Alternatively, 7,000 BBTUs could be met with 260 MW of new geothermal generation (equivalent to two China Lake projects).Table 3.1 DoD Renewable Energy Production FY2010
Figure 3.4 DoD Estimate Of Renewable Energy Production Potential“DoD conducted a preliminary assessment of renewable energy potential at its installations using FY2009 data (…) the Military Departments, along with DLA and DeCA identified over 33,000 BBTUs of renewable energy project potential”
“Using FY2009 data, the analysis indicated that only 113 DoD installations (about 20 percent) had on-site energy production levels of 50 percent or more of their energy consumption. Of these, only five installations had significant renewable contribution to their on-site production (from 17 percent to 86 percent). This analysis indicates that DoD has minimal renewable production when compared to consumption on installations across DoD and that there is a large gap in the convergence of net zero and renewable energy goals.”
The report gives really a lot of details, by DOD services, by project etc.
On the cover page it states that “Preparation of this study/report cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $633,321 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.” This is a huge sum of money in which you cannot see an overall picture of how much energy the DOD used by energy source and how much CO2 emissions it released by consuming that energy. And of cost, you cannot see cost details. However, in Appendix B, you will find some data, less detailed than in previous years’ reports. But in those tables you will not see anymore, consumption in original units, corresponding estimated source BTU, and yes, also estimated CO2 emissions. Why is that? CO2 emissions are not important any more?
Why sometimes totals do not add up? Will the DOD come up with a similar report on Operational energy? If not, what is the use of that report?
Why the DOD insists on keeping fragmented energy management. However, I did my homework, below is the figure I produce by using the data provided in AEMR and my own estimations, particularly on CO2 emissions. Enjoy.
Labels: dod energy Fy2010