Ron Houle


DOD plugs alternative power sources into battlefield

Alternative energy can trim fuel consumption, power gear in remote environments

Because the Defense Department is the nation’s single largest consumer of energy, it is taking aggressive measures to improve energy efficiency. That effort cuts across every application of energy consumption, including installations, ships, aircraft, combat vehicles and support equipment.

The work even reaches down to the level of the individual soldier. New technologies are being fielded for recharging batteries and operating radios and other communications gear. It's clear that DOD is committed to reducing fuel consumption by inserting technologies in every branch of service, and the department will be a leader in technologies that other federal departments and commercial markets will adopt.

The evidence of that commitment is visible with the establishment of the department’s newly created office for operational energy plans and programs. The office's first director, Sharon Burke, began work recently. Burke describes operational energy as the energy used to move, train and sustain weapons, forces and equipment for military operations. As much as 70 percent of all the energy consumed by the department fits into this definition.

Although delivering fuel has always been a problem, our war in Afghanistan is a stark reminder that this period of sustained conflict will often have us operating in austere environments. Harsh terrain, troops and equipment widely dispersed, underdeveloped road networks and lack of nearby ports amplify the problems for reliable distribution.

Let’s look at one mission area that is already seeing the benefits of increased efficiencies.

Power generation in the tactical environment has always been a huge consumer of fuel. Forward operating bases, command posts of all sizes, isolated life support areas, communications nodes and other facilities all need reliable power when commercial grids aren't available. Here, we are seeing all of the services examining ways to distribute power to the battlefield consumer while simultaneously reducing fuel consumption. DOD has determined that the single greatest consumer of fuel on the battlefield is for power generation — far exceeding the requirements for vehicles and aircraft. As such, it is imperative to focus on this area to make significant progress.

In the Army, the Communication-Electronics Research and Development Command has sponsored projects to investigate near-term applications for mobile, networked power grids for command posts and forward operating bases. The Marine Corps’ Energy Office has sponsored similar projects under its test bed named the Experimental Forward Operating Base. That work has been especially promising. With a networked grid, the supply of power more evenly matches the demand, so generators are being turned off and on as power requirements change. That approach to power management for a mobile grid can occur automatically, with remote monitoring and controls, and can even have a Web-enabled capability to monitor loads and predict maintenance cycles.

More improvements in the delivery of battlefield power are possible when other technologies join a grid that is usually limited to diesel-powered generators. Renewable energy sources can contribute to the grid. Deployable solar panels can be arrayed, sheets of photovoltaic can be used for tactical shelters and better insulation can be added to shelters. These are all parts of a total solution which, when combined with a networked grid of generators, can reduce fuel consumption by 50 percent or more.

From biofuel for our jet fighters to man-portable solar arrays, DOD is aggressively seeking solutions for better energy security. Many of those solutions apply technologies available today or in the near term and only require the support, resources and integration into existing equipment. Exciting times are ahead, and we will soon be seeing a wide application of innovative alternatives to how the military consumes energy.

Reader Comments

Mon, Nov 22, 2010

It's about time to start leaving the generators behind. a couple of year ago in a builder's magazine (Fine Homebuilding) one builder was spending to much on gas for generator when off grid. He built a small building that could be transported to sites (extra large dog house, put in batteries and inverter, attached solar and wind generator and had no lack of power to power all equipment used in building homes. also might want to put recharging outlets on vehicles, so troops being transported could their devices.

Mon, Nov 22, 2010 1SG Doug Newsom Little Rock Arkansas

About the article on DOD plugging "alternate" power sources into the Battlefield. On July 14, 2008 I wrote the Office of Inspector General, US Department of Energy in referance to our FOB and others not using Energy efficient rated appliances, LED lighting and Low water Usage plumbing. Our Contractors on site were not bound by any means to be Energy Compliant. In an Email from the IG's office, I was told that "Federal agencies required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Oreder 13423 and Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 23 to procure energy consuming product that are Energy Star-qualified or FEMP-designated . One exception to this requirement is for combat applications. "The term (energy efficient) 'produc' does not include any energy consuming product or system designed or procured for combat or combat related missions." "There are similar clauses in both the Executive Order and FAR, A forward base in Iraq would be considered part of a combat related mission and therfore exept from this requirement." After getting this email (have many of these from other agencies I contacted) I realized that someone like me is not going to get anything changed through the bureaucratic bull, SO I submitted an Army Suggestion Form (never heard anything back from) and went to talk to the Readiness Management Systems (RMS) Contractor Rep on our FOB and explained my plan to cut fuel/water consumption. At first I felt resistance, however over a couple of months, cigars and constant badgering, I got him to realize the importance and how RMS could stand out from the other Contractors in country. RMS started to put in LED lights across our FOB as others burned out, they started putting them in buildings to replace the Flourescent lights. LED lights didnt use as much electricity or produce the heat as other lights did. I left IRAQ before I could see further results, however I know that at least I helped lower the amount of Fuel that we used each month, 600,000 gallons @ $9 per gal and maybe helped inputting them in the right direction. However it may all be, I was and still am dissapointed in the Governement, those who I work for still, not taking me seriously and or even following up with me. Douglas E Newsom, 1SG US Army National Guard - ARKANSAS.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Please type the letters/numbers you see above