Archive for the ‘DoD Energy’ Category

While there has been much excitement about the sheer size of the Pentagon’s plans for deploying renewable energy, a recent study from DoD’s Office of Installations and Environment on solar applicability on bases in the California, Colorado and Nevada bases offers both optimism and caution for deploying solar in DoD agencies.

Of specific interest, 7000 megawatts (MW) of solar energy (about seven nuclear power plants) can be produced on only four military bases located in the California desert. This is enough energy to meet two thirds of the current DoD wide electricity consumption.

DoD Energy - "We have the Land & the Demand"

The year-long study, conducted by the consultancy ICF International, looked at seven military bases in California and two in Nevada including Fort Irwin, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, the Marine Corps’ Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, Edwards Air Force Base, Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms and Naval Air Facility El Centro.

It finds that, even though 96 percent of the surface area of the nine bases is unsuited for solar development because of military use, endangered species and other factors, the solar-compatible area is large enough to generate more than 30 times the electricity consumed by the California bases, or about 25 percent of the renewable energy that the State of California is requiring utilities to use by 2015.

The caution here is that assumptions are routinely made about the land-mass that is available on military installations and extrapolations to solar energy market size without any regards to mission compatibility with base question. This includes missions such as live ammunition training, maneuver training, test and evaluations and a multitude of other vital activities.  This study shows the fallacy of making high level extrapolations of land-mass-to-market size for the renewable energy industry.

According to the study, the largest amount of economically viable acreage is found at Edwards Air Force Base (24,327 acres), followed by Fort Irwin (18,728 acres), China Lake (6,777) and Twentynine Palms (553 acres).  ICF found little or no economically viable acreage on the other California bases (Barstow, El Centro and Chocolate Mountain) or the two Nevada bases because the military’s use of the land is incompatible with solar development.

As usual with any military renewable energy report, the study finds that private developers can tap the solar potential on these installations with no capital investment requirement from DoD, and that the development could yield the federal government up to $100 million a year in revenue or other benefits. Private developers can draw on California incentives and subsidies to make these projects economically feasible. But in places like Texas where there are no state subsidy programs and bases pay a blend rate of $0.05/kWh, the solar viability extrapolation may result in a much smaller market unless DoD can find common ground with developers on providing monetary benefits for energy security. More on this in my next blog.

US Department of Defense agencies are leading the nation on the renewable energy front. With plans to have 25% renewable energy use by 2025 and spending $15.2B on DoD energy in 2010, this is a significant and growing market place for the solar energy industry.

DoD energy is segmented into basing power (mostly electricity), operational energy (mostly liquid fuels) and non-tactical vehicle energy.

Operational energy is consumed in forward-deployed situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan among other locations globally.  While a significant amount of diesel

Marines Expeditionary Energy Office Demo at Twentynine Palms, CA.

and JP-8 fuel is used to provide localized power and transportation (Marines = 200,000 gallons per day in Afghanistan), batteries are large part of the picture for soldier power.

A great piece in Outside magazine, “The Marines Go Renewable”, tells the story of how the marines are leveraging renewables, particularly solar, to keep their quick and lethal response capabilities. The main issue has been the Marines outrunning their fuel support systems, requiring a slow down and diminished effectiveness. The problem is the result of their using 3X the amount of batteries and fuel since 1998 to power electronics (command, control & communications) now common in front line operations. Photovoltaic solar technologies in various quick deployment and size configurations have enabled the average marine to reduce the amount of batteries and fuel required on the front line by almost 50%, which has significantly increased speed and effectiveness.

A great quote from the article: “Seeing a picture of a grinning Marine standing next to a still-functioning solar panel riddled with bullet holes makes it difficult to cast renewables as an effete liberal preoccupation.”

Eliminating batteries, winning contests.

Personally, seeing some of the products in use, such as foldable and packable solar PV chargers, has been satisfying, as I worked on these initial products back in 2004. At the Natick Soldier Systems Center, some of the first foldable and portable solar chargers took shape and the skepticism among most of the DoD energy elites and military was strong. The idea that batteries could be replaced by portable PV was a hard sell. As one uniformed person said, “when in a kill or be killed situation, batteries are the only way I trust to stay alive”.

Fortunately, these PV products have demonstrated that soldiers are more secure and can operate more efficiently and lethally.  They are now being deployed widely both in the Marines and the Army. A good example is their prominence in Katherine Hammack’s, (Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations, Energy and Environment) recent Army energy transition presentations, which can found here. (3 minute mark)

Operational Energy - More Capablity, Less Energy Risk

In an effort to better use energy resources to support their strategic goals, the country’s broader energy security goal, lower risks to the warfighter, and more efficiency use taxpayer resources,  the Department of Defense released its first ever “Operational Energy Strategy” on July 14^th.

While the document is fairly high level with many topics and not much detail, it does give the reader a good idea of where DoD is heading. The overall messages are more capability with less fuel, having lower risk via a more diverse energy mix, and increasing effectiveness with less cost. The main goal is energy security using a number of strategies including energy efficiency, energy storage, microgrids, renewable energy, bio fuels and alternative energy. PV solar energy figures prominently in this strategy given its modular nature and ability to add significant value at the soldier, forward deployed and supporting base levels of renewable energy transitions.

The document describes and implementation plan within 90 days that ”will include specific targets and timelines for achieving this strategy in the near-, mid-,and long-term”.