Does Secretay Mabus Do the Right Thing

                                                           with Wrong Reasons?

The Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has recently become very repetitive in his speeches regarding the Navy’s energy efforts and underlying reasons.

Take for example two of his recent remarks at National Clean Energy Summit on 30 August 2011 and at Washington Energy Summit on 28 September 2011.

He emphasizes each time that fuel is right at the top of the list of the vulnerabilities that the American military has. And for that he argues that “By using alternative energy, by changing the way we use and produce energy, we’re going to continue to be the most formidable expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known.” We have witnessed so far many examples of it, like the use of biofules in aircraft, launch of the first hybrid ship etc.

For Mabus, the Navy is doing it because it has to do it to be a more effective fighting force. Why? He lists compelling strategic, tactical and national security reasons to switch the way the Navy use and produce fuel.

Where the military buys its fuel from is a strategic reason. He always argues that “too much of the energy supplies for the American military come from either potentially or actually volatile places on Earth. Now, we would never allow these countries to build our ships or our aircraft or our ground vehicles, but we give them a vote on whether those ground vehicles operate, those ships sail or whether those planes fly because we get our fuel from them.” Or in other wording: “We buy our energy from people who may not be our friends. We would never let the countries that we buy energy from build our ships or our aircraft or our ground vehicles, but we give them a say on whether those ships sail, whether those aircraft fly, whether those ground vehicles operate because we buy their energy.”

This makes the military vulnerable to price shock and supply shock, argues Mabus. I understand the first part, but not the second. The US military will always whenever and wherever it needs it. At what price is another issue. Does it really matter? The US Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for incremental war costs since the 9/11 attacks. According to one estimate the US has spent over $10 trillion since 2001 for national defense.  A few extra billions for energy would not make much difference.

Mabus also makes a big mistake by repeating this phrase: “We buy our energy from people who may not be our friends.” He never says which countries he is referring to but OPEC members are usual suspect. The US exports to OPEC member countries in 2010 was $50 billion. This makes only 4% of total US exports but look at the number again, it is not small. (The US imports from OPEC members was $147 bn in 2010). Also, look at the US military sales by country. Should they stop trading with the US or stop getting arms from the US? In short, you don’t or cannot always make business with your friends.

Main tactical reason is the logistic burden of getting fuel to forward operating bases. Gasoline and water are the two things the US military import the most into Afghanistan. Here Mabus always gives the difficulty of getting a gallon of gasoline to a Marine front-line unit in Helmand province in Afghanistan as an example: You have to take that gallon of gasoline across one ocean – either the Atlantic or the Pacific. Then you’ve got to put it on trucks and take it over land to Afghanistan, either north through Pakistan or south through the Northern Distribution Network by convoy, and then either across the Hindu Kush mountain range or across the Amu Darya River. Then once in Afghanistan you’ve got to get it all the way to that Forward Operating Base.

One needs to ask the following question: Is every drop of oil consumed by the US military in Afghanistan brought from the US? When you read or hear what Mabus says it sounds as if everything is brought all the way from the US to Afghanistan. If that is the case, which is not by the way, then one would have to ask for the logic behind it.

Of course this costs money and lives. “For every 50 convoys of gasoline we bring in, we lose a Marine, killed or wounded. That is too high a price to pay for fuel,” says Mabus. One needs to ask Secretary Mabus which year he is referring to. He should also be asked about the role of contractors today and in the past.

I see that he doesn’t use the nonsense $400 a gallon which is frequently quoted by the media as the cost of delivering fuel to FOB anymore. This is good.

Of course, the US military needs to be more efficient in the way it uses fuels. But more efficiencies may not necessarily mean fewer trucks on the road, fewer Marines at risk, as Mabus repeats all the time.

Although avoiding oil price spikes is one of the reasons why the Navy is developing alternative fuels, Mabus says “the only reason I am making this such a priority for the Navy and the Marine Corps is it makes us a better military force. It makes us better warfighters.” This is a dubious claim which I will not elaborate here.

Mabus argues that the military “can use a domestic, renewable feedstock that’s stable, has price stability” in the longer term. He lists three requirements for such sort of fuel: It has to be drop-in[1]; it’s got to be made in America; it should not take food out of production. All sound reasonable. The problem is how to give a push to industry to produce such fuel at competitive prices. For this, Mabus hides behind the Defense Production Act, which says if there is an industry that is vital to national defense that does not exist today in this country, then the DOD can help start that industry, working with the private sector, private finance, private industry on at least a 1-to-1 financial basis, to start up that industry. And “that’s what we’re doing with biofuels.”

Here one again needs to ask the following: How long should the tax payers subsidize the biofuel industry to finally get a competitively prices biofuel?

Mabus says that “In fact over the next five years everything we're doing in energy is going to pay for itself. So that payback is very quick. On the bio-fuels, they are more expensive right now but the more we buy the more that cost comes down. And, for example, last year because just on test amounts that we were buying the price was cut in half, we expect the price to be cut in half again this year on bio-fuels. (….) if we establish the market, the price is going to begin to come down.” He claims that "The Navy can be the market.”

It is good that the US Navy doesn’t push for first generation biofuels. But when it comes to non-tactical vehicles biofuels are frontrunner. There the US military has to think twice. Lester Brown noted that "The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year." This nonsense of producing biofuels from corn must stop.

Even the second or third generation biofuels may not be the answer for the US military. Rand Corporation concluded that “if the U.S. military increases its use of alternative fuels, there will be no direct benefit to the nation's armed forces.”   In addition, Rear Admiral Robert James (retired) concludes that: “We should do everything we can to limit the exposure created by moving fuel through combat zones. But let's get real about the solutions. The job of the military is defending the nation.”

In short, Mabus might be doing the right thing but he should have better facts. Otherwise he sounds as if he is trying to do the right thing with wrong reasons.

PS. Mabus should also be more convincing with some of his claims: For instance, he says “Since World War II, the United States Navy has been the ultimate guarantor of freedom of the seas.  We have guaranteed equal access for the entire world.” One should ask who gave the US military such a job. Mabus also states that “today more than 90% of all the trade for the world goes by the sea.” What he indeed refers is the volume of world trade. In terms of value, the figure he gives reduced to 74%.

NAVY ENERGY WEBSITE

The Department of the Navy unveiled a new Energy, Environment and Climate Change website in November 2010. The website, located at http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil, provides more or less all you need about Navy and Marine Corps’ programs to achieve energy security, practice environmental stewardship and understand the potential challenges presented by a changing climate. Although it needs further improvements such as easy navigation, incorporation of older news, speeches and reports on Navy and Energy by Navy services and officials, events with proceedings, I congratulate Navy for its comprehensive energy website.

On the website it is clearly stated that “The Navy is committed to improving energy security and environmental stewardship by reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The Navy is actively developing and participating in energy, environmental and climate change initiatives that will increase use of alternative energy and help conserve the world’s resources for future generations.”

Under the title energy it says “The Navy energy program is focused on enhancing operational capability. Energy security means having an adequate, reliable, and sustainable energy supply - sufficient to meet the demands of the mission.”

The cost of energy needed to complete Navy missions is becoming more volatile and less secure. Both price volatility and supply predictability are strategic concerns since Navy operational flexibility and sustainability are linked directly to our access to energy. High energy costs siphon away resources that can be used to procure Force Structure and to train and equip our Sailors. The potential for disruption of fuel supplies threatens our ability to perform in the battle space and the vulnerability of energy supplies to our facilities puts our ability to support our deployed forces at risk. Additionally, there are numerous current and prospective regulatory and legislative mandates related to energy and climate change.

Ashore and afloat efforts shall be focused across three cross functional tasks; physical and strategic security, research and development, and policy/doctrine. The overarching strategy will conserve energy, develop alternative energy options, and secure energy distribution.

As far as tactical energy is concerned

The Task Force Energy Charter recognizes that energy management is an operational and strategic imperative. Navy fuel has a direct impact on warfighting effectiveness. Navy mission is to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations. To that end, Navy must be able to maintain forward presence, even in an anti-access environment. Fuel efficiency enhances endurance, improves operational flexibility, and supports forward presence and distributed operations, while reducing vulnerability inherent in a long supply line.

Alternative Fuels Working Group develops the operational requirements necessary to acquire, approve and test alternative fuel types for use in Navy ships and aircraft, as well as non-tactical base support vehicles and support equipment. The F/A-18 Super Hornet, dubbed the “Green Hornet,” will fly on fuel derived from the camelina plant; and the “Green Ship” initiative will test fuel derived from algae. Initial results of camelina-based aviation biofuel are encouraging, and similar results are expected for the algae-based fuel.

Maritime Working Group ensures that naval ships have up-to-date technology using energy conscious products. Through Naval Sea Systems Command’s Fleet Readiness Research and Development Program, the Navy is testing five technologies on seven ships to demonstrate energy-saving initiatives that are ready to install and will improve mission effectiveness. Other programs, such as the High Efficiency HVAC and the Hybrid Electric Drive for DDG-51 class ships, are improvements to existing shipboard technologies that will both help with fleet readiness and decrease the ships’ energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. If implemented on ships in the future, these initiatives could greatly reduce the consumption of fossil fuels..

Expeditionary Working Group aims to identify opportunities to improve energy use and increase the capability of expeditionary forces. Current energy programs managed within the Expeditionary community include: (1) The on-board vehicle power initiative, an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funded effort, will improve tactical wheeled vehicle fuel economy while providing exportable electric power. (2) Improved environmental control equipment will improve ECU energy efficiency up to 23 percent and reduce electrical power requirements by 10-25 percent. (3) Integrated generator/environmental control will provide full 30kW of electrical power output in all environments

Aviation Working Group is charged with developing strategies and initiatives to implement Navy energy goals within the Naval Aviation community. This includes developing operational and policy goals, as well as technologies designed to reduce energy consumption across the Naval Aviation Enterprise. The Aviation Working Group is working closely with the other military services, allies, government agencies and commercial industry to increase energy security and efficiency. The energy programs that are developed help to achieve the Navy energy strategy, while also promoting a culture of energy efficiency through new training programs and technological updates. 

Energy programs currently managed within the aviation community include:

• The F/A-18 F414 Engine Efficiency Demonstration will test engine technologies with the objective to decrease the amount of fuel using during flight. This program has the potential to reduce fuel consumption by 3 percent per hour of flight. Improvements in naval aviation simulation will provide advanced alternative training solutions and further reduce demand on limited energy resources.

• The Advanced Engine Technology Development initiative and the Aviation Energy Conservation Research and Development Program are efforts designed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. These programs also include improvements to current systems, such as the T-56 engine.

As far as shore energy is concerned

The Navy’s approach has three pillars: Energy Efficiency, Culture and  Behavior and Renewable Energy and Sustainability. Renewable Energy and Sustainability is perhaps the most pronounced one. The Navy produces 12 percent of its total annual energy needs from renewable sources.  The Navy is pursing renewable and alternative energy technology using a “Watch-Partner-Lead” approach: Watch maturing technologies and invest when/where viable; Partner to develop needed technologies with others; Lead the development of mission-critical technology.

Listed below are some examples of the renewable energy technology the Navy is pursuing:

·         Solar Photovoltaic

·         Wind Energy
·         Geothermal Energy
·         Ocean Energy
·         Renewable Thermal Energy
·         Biomass & Methane Fuel

In addition, Navy is pursuing science and technology investments in alternative fuel sources, energy distribution and control, energy storage, and power generation and loads – all with an eye toward environmental stewardship.

·         Fuels

·         Distribution and Control

·         Energy Storage

·         Power Generation

·         Power Loads

Non-Tactical Vehicles programs focus on Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs). The Navy’s non-tactical vehicle fleet consists of 46,485 light, medium and heavy duty vehicles and equipment, fire fighting and weight handling equipment. Approximately half of the light and medium vehicles are alternatively-fueled. The AFV program has been strategically implemented to effectively and efficiently use existing alternative fuel sources in converting the fleet to various alternative-fuels vehicle and establishing infrastructure to maintain alternative fuel usage. Navy has made significant progress over the last seven years to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

These accomplishments include: 

• Reduced petroleum consumption by 31 percent from 2005 to 2009;

• Exceeded AFV acquisition goal of 75 percent seven years in a row; against an acquisition requirement of 2,315 vehicles it acquired 2,649 AFV/credits in 2009, or 114 percent ;

• Used over 169,198 gallons of Biodiesel (B20) and 226,126 gallons of E85 in 2009 with significant infrastructure improvements in 2009 for both E-85 and Biodiesel;

• Replaced more than 900 gasoline vehicles with Neighborhood Electric vehicles (NEVs) and are currently in the process of replacing more than 500 gasoline vehicles, including buses with hybrid electric vehicles;

• Procurement of a Heavy Diesel-Hybrid Refuse Hauler as part a program to evaluate performance and fuel efficiencies of heavy duty vehicles.

Besides, Navy is engaged in various pilots, initiatives, and researching new technologies such as car-sharing, GPS monitoring, low-rolling resistant tires, real time fuel economy indicators in an effort to reduce fossil fuel usage. In addition, it has been exploring opportunities to increase alternative fuel use by partnering with the Navy Exchange (NEX) and private industry to convert existing infrastructure or open new E85 and B20 fueling stations. Four E85 and B20 stations have opened recently at navy installations in the Pacific Northwest, two by the NEX and two CNIC/NAVFAC owned. NEX will open additional E85 infrastructure in Norfolk. NEX and CNIC/NAVFAC Hawaii are planning to open E85 and B20 infrastructure in the near future.

Navy Energy Vision

The Department of the Navy unveiled a new Energy, Environment and Climate Change website in November 2010. The website, located at http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/, provides more or less all you need about Navy programs to achieve energy security, practice environmental stewardship and understand the potential challenges presented by a changing climate.

Before the site was launched the US Navy released on 13 October 2010 a document about Navy Energy Vision, a very good document, written to be read. This post is a summary of that document.

First let me list some facts scattered around the document:

• Navy energy use is 30% of DOD energy use.

• Navy petroleum use represents 0.4% of U.S. petroleum use.

• Navy uses 75% of its energy afloat in its ships, aircraft, and vehicles and 25% ashore.

• Close to 60% of Navy energy use can be attributed to liquid petroleum-based fuels.

• Every day, the Navy consumes approximately 80,000 barrels of oil afloat and 20,000 megawatt hours of electricity ashore.

• Naval Aviation operates more than 3,700 aircraft that consume over 600 million gallons of petroleum based fuels each year.

• Over the last half-century, the aircraft carrier and submarine fleets have been completely converted to nuclear propulsion. However, more than 200 Navy ships remain dependent on fuel that must be resupplied every few days.

• The Navy already draws more than a quarter of its energy afloat from nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers and submarines.

• Naval Aviation operates more than 3,700 aircraft that consume over 600 million gallons of petroleum based fuels each year.

Energy security for Navy is defined as having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs afloat and ashore. Energy security is a critical component of National security.

Tactical energy security for the Navy is mitigation of vulnerabilities related to the energy requirements of tactical platforms, including the length of the logistics tail and the volatility of petroleum prices. Over-reliance on petroleum is a critical strategic vulnerability and creates constraints at the operational and tactical levels. That is why, the Navy aims to increase tactical energy security by decreasing overall fuel consumption, increasing the fuel efficiency of tactical systems, and using alternative fuels.

Already, Navy is the largest producer of alternative energy in the federal government, thanks to its geothermal power production at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, commenced in 1987. The geothermal plants at China Lake, with a full capacity of 270 megawatts, provide power to over 300,000 households in California.

The Navy’s Incentivized Energy Conservation (i-EN CON) program since 1999 contributed to a 10% reduction in average maritime fuel burn rates. In the same period, stern flaps installed on more than 60% of all surface ships have produced a strong return on investment for the Navy. Meanwhile, flight simulators have contributed to reducing fuel consumption and maintenance costs.

Test and certification of alternative fuels for maritime applications is already underway.

In 2009, Navy conducted the first test of an F/A-18 Super Hornet engine running on a 50/50 blend of petroleum-based and camelina-based naval aviation fuel (JP-5). In spring 2010, operational test was performed successfully in a supersonic flight. Afterwards, Super Hornet was dubbed Green Hornet. Besides that, a Navy prototype Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) currently runs on hydrogen fuel cell technology.

In 2009, the Navy commissioned its first amphibious assault ship, the USS Makin Island, with an electric auxiliary propulsion system that enables more efficient operation at speeds up to 12 knots. The first fuel to be tested will be a 50/50 blend of petroleum-based and algal-based naval ship propulsion fuel (F-76). Land-based engine testing and small craft at-sea demonstrations are planned for 2010 and 2011, and a shipboard demonstration is planned for 2012. Systems based on the same principle—using the shipboard gas turbine generator for propulsion—are under development for DDG-51 class guided missile destroyers. Current designs for a hybrid electric drive for DDG-51 could provide fuel savings on the order of 10 percent over baseline models at low speeds. A shipboard prototype is planned for 2012 on USS Truxtun.

Shore energy security for the Navy is mitigation of vulnerabilities related to the electrical grid, including outages from natural disaster, accident, and physical and cyber attack. The Navy increases shore energy security by decreasing overall energy consumption, increasing the energy efficiency of shore systems, increasing the use of viable alternative energy sources, and increasing the reliability of energy for critical assets.

Energy Vision envisions a Navy that values energy as a strategic resource; a Navy that understands how energy security is fundamental to executing its mission afloat and ashore; and a Navy that is resilient to any potential energy future. It identifies ends, ways, and means for increasing energy security.

In achieving this vision, the Navy will protect access to energy sources, consider energy requirements in strategic planning, incorporate energy requirements in all phases of systems development and acquisition, employ energy efficiency as a force multiplier for enhanced combat capability and a reduced logistics tail, spearhead early testing and adoption of viable alternative energy sources, rapidly adopt energy efficient technology and operating procedures, etc.

This vision comes with measurable goals, albeit some are over ambitious.

Alternative Energy Afloat: By 2020, half of the Navy’s total energy consumption afloat will come from alternative sources.

Great Green Fleet: By 2016, the Navy will sail the Great Green Fleet, a carrier strike group composed of nuclear ships, hybrid electric ships running biofuel, and aircraft flying on biofuel.

Alternative Energy Ashore: By 2020, half of the Navy’s total energy consumption ashore will come from alternative sources; the Navy will make half of its installations net-zero energy consumers, using solar, wind, ocean, and geothermal power generated on base.

Critical Infrastructure: By 2020, all of the Navy’s critical infrastructure will have reliable backup power systems and redundant power systems where viable to maintain mission effectiveness in the event of an outage in commercial electrical grid (due to any reason including natural disaster, accident, and physical and cyber attack).

Petroleum in Non-Tactical Vehicles: By 2015, the Navy will cut in half the amount of petroleum used in its commercial vehicle fleet through phased adoption of hybrid, electric, and flex fuel vehicles.

Efficiency and Conservation Afloat: By 2020, the Navy will increase efficiency and reduce overall fuel consumption afloat by 15 percent while maintaining or enhancing its ability to fight.

Efficiency and Conservation Ashore: By 2020, the Navy will increase efficiency and reduce overall energy consumption ashore by 50 percent.

Energy Efficient Acquisition: Evaluation of energy factors will be mandatory when awarding contracts for systems and buildings; industry will be held contractually accountable for meeting energy efficiency targets.

The success of the Navy Energy Vision and Strategy depends on key enablers. Navy lists the following enablers: leadership, sustained investment at all levels of technology, combining advances in technology with forward-looking policies and old-fashioned incentives, strategic partnerships, and culture change. Each of these enablers requires sustained commitment and resources.

In conclusion, the document underlines that successful implementation of the Energy Strategy and realization of the Energy Vision will depend on a variety of factors. Among the most difficult to predict are future mission requirements, fleet structure, and operating tempo. Introducing new technologies and operating procedures may require modifications to policy. While today’s fight is ongoing, and the character of tomorrow’s is uncertain, the Navy must maintain the long-term perspective required for investing in a new energy posture.