Center for a New American Security

As another leg of my trip to NREL and NORTHCOM a few weeks ago with colleagues Commander Herb Carmen and Will Rogers, we swung by the Air Force Academy to check out their energy work. My biggest take-away may be that they have the largest, best-equipped S&T labs I’ve ever seen at a university. It definitely plucked my nerd heartstrings.

But to get to the real point, here is the Academy’s energy vision (pdf):

The 2008 United States Air Force Academy Energy Strategic Plan details a vision to improve our stewardship of fiscal and natural resources, by becoming a leader in the world of renewable energy and involving the 8,200 cadets, faculty and employees of USAFA. The vision is to be a “Net-Zero” electricity installation by 2015 and a carbon-neutral installation by 2025. These challenging and lofty goals raise the bar for the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense and the nation.

Love the linking of energy and climate goals. Notably, they have several key enablers of success at work here: leadership instruction; some motivated individuals; a good partner in their local utility; and funding from the stimulus package. These ingredients have to date added up to their thorough mapping of their alternative energy potential, lots of ongoing research and a solar installation on its way.

The DOD Energy Blogger, himself an Academy grad, described another important aspect of this location back in December thusly:

…tons of potential for cadet learning and culture change. All of which should impact the AF more broadly as the grads move out into leadership positions in the "Real Air Force."

Cheers to that, and while I don’t undermine its importance, I’m thinking that lessons learned they might share from working with a willing utility partner may be even more important for fellow Air Force and DOD installations better meeting energy requirements – something I studied up on about a year back but haven’t been paying as much attention to as of late. If anyone knows of any good research on how different types (or regions) of utilities are or are not integrating renewable, let us know. In the meantime, thumbs up and thanks to the Air Force Academy.

Photo: A 200-milliJoule pulse laser at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO. The laser is used for a variety of experiments, including tests to determine how "pushing" sulfur into a silicon-based solar cell increases the cell's efficiency. Courtesy of Rachel Boettcher and the U.S. Air Force.

Yesterday I made the journey over to the Hill to check out an interesting hearing for the House Armed Services Committee Readiness Subcommittee over energy management and initiatives on military installations. The hearing, overseen by Chairman Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), heard the testimony of four Defense Department officials: Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; Mr. L. Jerry Hansen, Army Senior Energy Executive; Mr. Roger M. Natsuhara, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; and Mrs. Debra K. Tune, Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics.

The opening testimonies from the four defense representatives can be accessed here: DOD; Army; Navy and Air Force. The hearing can be viewed here.

Rep. Ortiz started on two colossal renewable energy projects that the military services have undertaken, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada and Fort Irwin, California. Despite his evident pride in renewable projects such as this, the initial concern of the hearing was how these and other energy initiatives have the potential to affect DOD operations and readiness negatively. Specifically, he cited the potential for wind farms and solar arrays to disrupt military training and radar, weakening both in-theater and homeland effectiveness.  Each witness named this as a potential concern in their respective testimonies, which prompted Ortiz to inquire as to any established basis of information or study to support these concerns. Dr. Robyn noted that, to her knowledge, no projects have gone forward that have created any such problems.  Natsuhara followed later with a reasonable statement what concerns them most is what is not known about the effects of most projects, but none of the panelists were able to offer any data supporting, or disproving, the concern for radar disruption.

Yesterday was full of fun with the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY2011 budget. Here are the natural security-related exchanges from the transcript, beginning with Secretary Gates confirming that DOD is indeed working on alternative energy:

Senator Begich (D-Alaska): I'm trying to rapid-fire these, knowing my time is limited. Do you still -- in your DOD presentation of the budget, do you still have a very robust -- another issue separate -- alternative renewable energy program?  I know that's been a big plus, to be very frank with you, with the military. You have been leaders in this area.  Are you still fairly in your mind aggressive in this arena?  

Sec. Gates:  Yes.  

*            *            *
In this line of inquiry, Senator Jeff Sessions seems quite concerned with fuel costs. Rather than drilling Admiral Mullen on this point, he could refer to page 87 of the QDR, which states that “DoD must integrate geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and axquisition processes. To address these challenges, DoD will fully implement the statutory requirement for the energy efficiency Key Performance Parameter and fully burdened cost of fuel…”

Senator Sessions (R-Alabama):  With regard to our procurement of major weapons systems, I know that the Department of Defense, Admiral Mullen, has focused on life- cycle cost. And I guess you would agree that things such as fuel and maintenance are important factors to evaluate if you're going to evaluate the cost of a weapons systems over a period of years.

Adm. Mullen:  Yes, sir.  

Senator Sessions:  I know we did that on the tanker aircraft, and in fact, fuel and that sort of things are counted as evaluating that aircraft. Are you -- should that be applied to a procurement program like the Littoral Combat Ship, that the cost of fuel over its lifespan, should that be accounted for?

Adm. Mullen:  I've long been concerned about lifecycle costs; I think, Senator Sessions, you know that, long before now.  And the secretary pointed out, and I think very importantly, in his opening statement, that the programs that he cut last year actually had some lifecycle value, focused on about $330 billion.  As far as what's in an RFP and what it's going to be focused on, that's something that I really can't comment on if that RFP is --

Senator Sessions:  Well, I don't know, we've got our RFP in the Littoral Combat Ship that I'm told does not have factor for fuel costs.

Adm. Mullen:  But you know more about it than I do.  I haven't seen it.

Senator Sessions:  Well, if that's so, would you be willing to look at it and ask questions, if that's a wise decision?

Adm. Mullen:  Again, I've -- as I've said, I've been -- long time I've been concerned about lifecycle costs.  Actually, one of the, I think, weaknesses of the acquisitions system is typically the line is not involved in it.  The uniform side is not involved in it.  So I'm not involved from that -- from that point of view --

According to The Los Angeles Times, the Air Force Real Property Agency has agreed to lease 3,288 acres of land at Edwards Air Force Base to Fotowatio Renewable Ventures to stand up a massive solar array project that is estimated to have a production capacity of up to 500 megawatts. The project would be the largest energy Enhanced Use Lease for the Department of Defense, and the largest solar project in the United States. Construction is slated to begin in 2013. 

Photo: Edwards Air Force Base. Courtesy of the U.S. Air Force.

Christine Parthemore and Will Rogers released their working paper, Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and the Quadrennial Defense Review, this morning. The working paper provides observations on how the Department of Defense incorporated climate change into the 2010 QDR and some possible outcomes of that process. "When the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is sent to Congress on February 1st, it will offer an unusual opportunity to shift how the national security community views climate change," write Parthemore and Rogers.

To learn more about the "Promoting the Dialogue" project, click here.

• PR Newswire cites a poll that indicates that the Chinese people worry more about climate change and food and water security than traditional military threats.
• The United Nations renewed sanctions on the Congo preventing the export of minerals despite misgivings about their effectiveness, the Wall Street Journal reports.
• Uzbekistan withdrew from the Central Asian power grid citing energy security concerns, Xinhua reports.
• The U.S. Air Force has announced that they will abandon their efforts to drive the market of coal-to-liquid technology, according to the Guardian.
• According to The Washington Post, China and the United States are pressuring India to set commitments in advance of Copenhagen.

• The DOD Energy Blog reports on solar-power projects being implemented at various U.S. military installations.
• Foreign Policy writes that the number one most overlooked story of 2009 is the Northeast Passage of the Arctic opening for commerce (not that it was overlooked by us!). 
• Scientific American features a story about the best ways to adapt to the dangers of a warming climate.
• Stars and Stripes (along with MSNBC) reports on the tanker heading to the United States that was recently hijacked by Somali pirates—with $20 million of oil inside.
• The world's largest oil companies may finally be closing real contracts in Iraq almost seven years after the American-led invasion there, according to The New York Times.

Last night I attended a conference on nonvascular polyphyletic plantlike organisms, alternately eukaryotic and prokaryotic. These are commonly known as algae, which is useful to those of us who mostly took classes like “Nonproliferation and the International Trade in Nuclear Materials” or “War and the Nation-State.” The event was part of a CNA series called The Energy Conversation, which bills itself as “a network of 'energy-smart' advocates working together to build the foundation for horizontal communications and whole of government solutions to complex energy problems.” Noted.

There were plenty of national security types in the room, including some in uniform, along with engineers, alternative energy entrepreneurs, and one memorable oceanographer (more on him later). The first speaker, Chris Tindal, the Deputy Director for Renewable Energy in the Naval Energy Office, gave an overview of the Navy's energy profile (25% of DoD's total energy use, which is itself 93% of the U.S. government's consumption). Like all the other services, the Navy is now keeping three considerations in mind with regard to energy, as he explained: lifecycle costs, the fully-burdened cost of fuel, and the energy footprint of any contractors receiving Navy money.

U.S. Airmen attached with the 1st Special Operations Wing prepare to evacuate a C-130 Hercules aircraft at Hurlburt Field, Florida on 8 November as Hurricane Ida prepares to make landfall. If hurricanes become more frequent and more intense with climate change, the U.S. Air Force and the Department of Defense may have to reassess their standard operating procedures in the wake of a changes in the operating environment.

Photo: Courtesy of Senior Airman Jason Epley and the U.S. Air Force.

When we travel, we like to compare what we learn about the effects of climate change to a great report on regional effects that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) issued earlier this year. Two weeks ago, Sharon and I traveled to Hawaii to conduct interviews and meet with representatives of PACOM and the military services in support of two of our ongoing projects, so I checked out the projected regional effects for Hawaii in preparation for a blog post on just that.

For the record, the report indicates that the Pacific Islands have already witnessed increases in average temperatures and sea levels for decades, and likely future changes in store for Hawaii include rising ocean surface temperatures, more heavy downpours and alterations in the timing of its rainiest seasons. But I didn’t speak much to people about their thoughts on these or other climate projections; the concerns of many of those I spoke with were a bit different.

Beyond just climate change, many who work on environmental issues or are charged with certain environment-related work for the U.S. military seem far more focused on sustainability broadly – for all natural resources and in the face of a changing world climate. Most individuals I spoke with about energy also spoke of water concerns. Almost everyone we met with knew the story of how Hawaii became highly petroleum dependent (it used to use biofuels for electricity before its sugarcane industry faded) and how that story related to land use and agricultural production. This holistic view stems from Hawaii’s status of being so, well, islanded. Its vulnerabilities run deep and are comprehensive, and this seems to have had the effect of promoting an equally comprehensive view of how susceptible their environment is.