Thoughts on DOD’s Operational Energy Strategy

The US soldiers run on water, batteries and fuel. The latter two are becoming more and more pain that the first one which is why armed forces require a reliable and assured supply of operational energy.


As indicated in the Fiscal Year 2012 Operational Energy Budget Certification Report released by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs in January 2011, “growing operational energy demands are having an impact on military effectiveness, raising the risks and costs for U.S. forces. On the battlefield, large fuel supply lines are challenging to route, vulnerable to attack, and consume significant combat and monetary resources. At home, installations supporting military operations draw significant amounts of power from the civilian electricity grid, which is vulnerable to a range of disruptions. In the longer term, growing global demand for oil and the concentration of supplies will mean continued price volatility, potential supply disruptions, and geostrategic consequences.”

Facts point to similar pains. In 2010, the DOD spent $15 billion on energy. It consumed nearly 5 billion gallons of fuel in military operations, costing $13.2 billion. Air delivery of fuel to Afghanistan is 10 times as expensive as ground delivery. By the end of 2010 some 40 million gallons of fuel per month was delivered into Afghanistan.

The challenge is to adjust to worsening fiscal and budgetary circumstances due to high and volatile energy price and at the same time sustain military effectiveness.

On 14 June 2001 the Department of Defense (DoD) has published a document Energy for the Warfighter: Operational Energy Strategy, by the newly established Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs. In a DOD News Briefing, Deputy Secretary Lynn and Assistant Secretary Burke presented the main points of the DOD Operational Energy Strategy.

The DOD’s energy portfolio includes the energy used at military installations in the United States and overseas as well as the energy used by military forces in execution of their day-to-day missions, or operational energy. This strategy focuses on the latter, the energy used to move, train and sustain weapons, forces and equipment for military operations.  
The goal of the “Operational Energy Strategy” (OES) is to ensure that the armed forces will have the energy resources they require to meet 21st century challenges. This strategy will guide the DOD in how to better use energy resources to support the Department’s goals and the Nation’s energy security goals while lowering risks to warfighters and saving money for American taxpayers.


OES outlines three principal ways to improve DoD energy policy and energy security for the warfighter: reduce, diversify and plan for the future.

• More fight, less fuel: Reduce the demand for energy in military operations by taking steps to improve the efficiency energy use, both through technological innovation and nonmaterial changes.

• More options, less risk: Expand and secure the supply of energy to military operations, i.e, diversifying energy sources and giving deployed forces a range of supply options.

• More capability, less cost: Build energy security into the future force, by incorporating operational energy security into all stages of strategic planning on “force structure, posture and strategy” and force development.

Some of the key messages of Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn are:

As conflicts become longer in duration and more expeditionary in nature, the amount of fuel it takes to keep forces in the field has become a significant vulnerability. The less of it we need, the more operationally resilient we will be.

DOD needs to address energy needs as a broad military challenge. With the changing nature of war, our current energy technology is not optimized for the battlefield of today or tomorrow.

By reducing demand, expanding and securing supply, and integrating energy security into our future force, we will not only increase our military effectiveness, but we will lower our costs.

Some of the key messages of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs Sharon Burke are:

Our fixed installations will be resilient to power outages, regardless of the reason or the duration. Petroleum will no longer be such a burden on our budget and our strategic choices.

This strategy is a true strategy in that it tells the department, here’s the direction we’re going, here are the strategic goals and the ways you’re going to get there. The implementation plan will have some more specific timelines and some more specific policy targets to meet.

My thoughts

First of all, the term “strategy” should be taken out of the title of the document simply because what is inside is not a strategy. What the document does in its current form is to lay out the problems and needs. However, any strategy should discuss at minimum the ends, ways and means. This is mostly lacking. I guess because the people who prepared it are not well acquainted with the meaning of strategy.

The “strategy” addresses energy needs as a broad, military challenge and calls for reducing demand, improving efficiency and lowering costs. This is in fact a problem definition, not a roadmap.

True that an energy analysis can help DOD planners better understand the energy footprint of deployed forces and the human and financial costs of moving fuel into a theater of war. But without having sufficient data there is no way to do that. Mrs Burke correctly and rightly mentioned on several occasions that the DOD lacks sufficient data on and analysis of operational energy use to manage consumption effectively. The DOD Services need better statistics on how much energy is being consumed, where, and for what purposes in order to tackle the problem and then improve operational energy security. In my opinion, the DOD must first know how much energy it consumes in the continental US and overseas. They it should try to break it down to installations and operations.

In releasing the strategy, Lynn and Burke said the plan will reduce costs, and also improve military capabilities. Lynn said “Every dollar spent on energy use is a dollar not spent on other warfighting priorities.” But he should be reminded that the same is true for every dollar wasted. If “This strategy is good for the taxpayers and the warfighters,” as Lynn proclaimed then he should have given a DOD wide tangible action instead of showing a few micro examples.

The DOD is said to be an early investor and adopter. I can understand this. But should the DOD play a seminal role in stimulating the clean energy revolution? Under current fiscal difficulties why should the DOD installations be treated as an ideal test bed for next-generation energy technologies?

Promote research, development, testing, evaluation, and fielding of alternative energy sources that can be generated locally or regionally near deployments is a key motto at the DOD. The Services have already taken steps to certify aircraft, ships, tactical vehicles, and support equipment to use alternative liquid fuels. What is the result as of today? Still certifying and testing. This is the problem with the DoD, trying to do all at once with no clear priority.

It is quite logical that where possible the installations should make use of alternative and renewable energy technologies. These are good examples already in operation. But pushing them blindly just because civilian infrastructure may fail is a wrong thing to do. If some installations need permanent and assured supply of electricity then such installations should use small nuclear power plants, not solar or wind.

Before going ahead with spaghetti policies, the DOD should harmonize, unify and coordinate already fragmented energy policies across the services. Each branch of the military has established energy visions that may or may not compatible, compatible, or synchronized. This new strategy will not be much useful for removing the duplications and priorities. Note that operational energy is only one part of the problem.

In my opinion, the DOD must first know how much energy it consumes in the continental US and overseas. They it should try to break it down to installations and operations.

Army Operational Energy Challenges

May 2011 issue of the Army Magazine has two important articles. This post is a summary of their important points:

The Army's Operational Energy Challenge By LTG Michael Vane and COL Paul Roege,

 Even as Army pursues alternative energy technologies, fossil fuels will likely remain dominant.

 Power and energy grow ever more important to military capabilities; they enable every system that supports soldier and unit performance, from mobility and weapons systems to surveillance and communications, as well as heating and cooling.

 Over the past century, modern militaries migrated to petroleum-based energy for its ease of handling and worldwide availability. Bow alternatives in order to ensure availability, mitigate price risk and fulfill environmental responsibility must be considered.

 The Army needs to find alternative energy sources, both for installation and operational energy. This is critically essential, not only to mitigate volatility in energy costs, but simply to promote resilience to disruption of our mission. It is important, however, to consider implementation factors such as cost, simplicity and compatibility within the operational context. The idea is that we can transform energy savings into greater combat efficiency by conserving resources to purchase needed capabilities for our soldiers and enhancing force protection.

 Operational energy is the energy and associated systems, information, and processes required to train, move, and sustain forces and systems for military operations. It is an important enabler for operations.

 The Army recently drafted an initial capabilities document that outlines energy-related capability requirements. Common goals that pervade the analysis include: improve operational energy management; improve awareness of energy issues that affect operations; increase power-source density and commonality; decrease the size and weight of systems; increase power generation and distribution efficiency and capacity; decrease energy demand; and foster energy innovation.

 The Army has taken its operational energy deficiencies and grouped these into three “grand challenges”: establish the ability to manage energy/water resources, dramatically reduce energy/water demand, and finally build resilience and flexibility to maintain operational effectiveness under changing situations.

 To tackle these three operational energy challenges, the Army identified a number of enabling strategies. These measures enhance endurance, reduce the need for logistic fuel, provide resilience and may mitigate tactical signature.

 What the Army is doing?

 There is a growing list of Army initiatives directed toward improving operational energy capabilities and performance. For instance, since January 2009, Army acquisition programs have been required to consider the fully burdened cost of fuel in cost calculations. An Army Science Board team is developing recommendations on strengthening the sustainability and resilience of the future force. “smart grid” technology is identified as one of the most promising solutions we could deploy to improve operational performance while reducing energy consumption.

 The Army has undertaken many materiel initiatives directly associated with the three grand challenges. To establish the ability to manage energy/water resources, the Army has developed the following programs.

• Fuel Manager Defense, an automated fuel accountability and tracking system
• Hi-Power project, a standardized smart grid capability for tactical command posts and similar multigenerator
• Rechargeable conformal batteries and soldier power networking devices

The Army is reducing demand. For that purpose it deployed improved temporary structures that incorporate insulation to reduce heating, ventilation and air conditioning energy consumption. It is updating the Army Facilities Components System, which prescribes standard Army camp designs from tent-based (initial), temporary and semi permanent structures. Tactical diesel generators (5-, 10-, 15-, 30- and 60-kilowatt sets) are one of the focus areas.

 To build resilience and flexibility to maintain operational effectiveness under changing situations, the Army is pursuing the following alternative energy solutions.

• Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System, a lightweight, portable power system capable of recharging batteries or acting as a continuous power source. 
• Flexible Photovoltaics in Shelter Integrated and Soldier Portable Applications, power small soldier loads or recharge military batteries in the field via complementary high-efficiency battery chargers.
• Solar Hybrid—a system capable of providing up to 10 kilowatts of power continuously while reducing generator running time by 20 percent. 
• Power Upgrade—an extended solar-power solution to operate a wireless surveillance system for combat outpost force protection.
• Reusing Existing Natural Energy Wind and Solar—a combination solar/wind/energy storage system to provide high levels of power in the field for reducing fuel logistics and soldier load.
• Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center has an ongoing program to evaluate the operation of Army systems on alternative/synthetic hydrocarbon fuels.

 What is the expected net result of these initiatives?

 Efficiencies in operational energy can lead to substantial increases in effectiveness for the warfighter. Energy savings translate not just to less fuel used, but to more boots on the ground available for other tasks, more resources available for the mission and more mobile, resilient forces.

 The Army must “operationalize” energy. We need a fundamentally “lean” approach, which demands an understanding of operational requirements and systems and how energy supports them. The Army must establish capabilities and procedures to manage power and energy utilization as an integral aspect of its operations.

 Moreover, we need to identify those critical performance measures that correspond to operational challenges beyond the historical focus on cost and environmental impacts. Military requirements demand that we consider additional criteria such as power and energy densities, logistics, ease of integration into military applications, safety, security, reliability, availability, flexibility and adaptability.

                                                                              ******

Shaping Sustainment for Tomorrow, By LTG Mitchell H. Stevenson

 In 2009, $2.7 billion out of a $4.1 billion Army energy budget was consumed in operations.

 Heavy fuel use can create a greater reliance on contractor support. The fully burdened cost of fuel in Iraq can be as high as $30 per gallon, and in Afghanistan it can be even higher.

 The Army has a strategy and specific plans to succeed, from exploring alternatives to petroleum-based fuel, to decreasing the size and weight of systems, to making vehicles and buildings more fuel efficient. A number of advanced technologies have already been deployed, including lightweight, high-energy soldier power sources and off-the shelf products that improve energy efficiency at forward operating sites.

 More progress is under way. For instance, accelerating replacement of tactical quiet generators with advanced medium mobile power source generators, rucksack enhanced portable power system, a lightweight system that employs a 62-watt solar panel to recharge batteries or act as a continuous power source.

 Another promising battery-charging technology is the thermoelectric generator (TEG) power source. This lightweight, modular system will burn small amounts of JP-8 or other fuels to create heat, which is then converted into usable charging usable electricity. TEG is being developed to support battery operations in the most austere operating environments; the goal is to generate more power than most current manportable solutions and significantly lighten the soldier’s load.

 Smart and Green Energy for Base Camps, encompasses the full spectrum of military bases at the tactical, operational and theater levels. The focus is on reducing energy consumption in base camps with readily available technology. The initiative includes using energy-efficient shelters and environmental control units; microgrids and intelligent energy-management capabilities; solar dish concentrators; solar thermal water heaters and cryogenic coolers; shower-water reuse systems.