Energy Conservation Comes Of Age On The Battlefield_brent M Eastwood

AMERICAN.COM A Magazine of Ideas

Energy Conservation Comes of Age on the Battlefield By Brent M. Eastwood Wednesday, January 17, 2007 Filed under: Science & Technology

Fuel-efficient technologies could save lives by lightening the loads military supply lines have to carry. It’s not your father’s war. The grunt in Vietnam humped a ruck that carried everything he owned for weeks at a time. He slept on the jungle floor with a poncho or if he was lucky a poncho liner. He smiled grimly while using his ever-present Zippo—alternately burning off leeches or lighting a steady stream of Winstons. He may have worried about fuel for his Zippo, but fuel efficiency, renewable fuel, and fuel alternatives were the furthest thing from his mind. Today, the same figure carries a GPS device, night-vision goggles, and a close-combat optical with a laser designator on his M4 carbine. All these gadgets require scads of batteries. Some of today’s soldiers can even pull out a solar array and use a photovoltaic process to recharge them. The millennium grunt comes back from the night’s patrol to his CHU (pronounced “chew”)—a containerized housing unit made in Dubai—that serves as a 21st century foxhole complete with air conditioning, power outlets, and an Internet connection. He receives his operations orders in an air-conditioned command tent that attempts to blast cold air in the middle of a 130-degree inferno—the epitome of energy inefficiency. Our soldiers and marines deserve these modicums of comfort, but at what cost? Power generators need diesel fuel to keep the cold air pumping and the Internet humming, not to mention the fuel needs for combat essentials like Humvees, Abrams tanks, and Apache helicopters. This quest for fuel and mega-watts costs money, time, and personnel. The military calls it a “tooth-to-tail ratio.” Remote forward operating bases (FOBs) that house the grunts (the teeth) require an increasing amount of logistical support (the tail.) This puts logistical and

support personnel in the line of fire. They man fuel convoys and run the gauntlet on a daily basis—convoys that must be alert for the next improvised roadside explosive, the next ambush, the next RPG, the next shaped charge, the next suicide bomber. More and more soldiers, marines, and civilian contractors are getting wounded and are dying to “keep things more like home.” Fortunately, the Department of Defense is aware of these issues and is addressing them. Some of the brightest engineers, designers, consultants, and the soldiers themselves are coming up with innovative solutions for fuel efficiency. Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer requested proposals for alternative power sources in July of last year. His idea was to use solar or wind power at FOBs, allowing some of the convoys carrying fuel to stay off the roads. This in turn would reduce casualties. “One third of the DoD budget is spent on logistics concerning fuel re-supply,” explains Scott Pugh of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), an energy think tank. “What if you could make the remote bases and living quarters two times or three times more efficient? What if you could make military vehicle platforms lighter and more efficient? With that kind of fuel conservation thousands of personnel dedicated to logistics could be removed from harm's way.” One fuel-efficiency challenge lies with legacy vehicles such as the Abrams line of tanks that are used throughout the Middle East by the US and its allies. The Abrams M1A1 has no auxiliary power unit (APU) which means its gas-turbine engines must idle to power the tank’s ventilation, power, lights, and cooling. This brings fuel efficiency down to an average of 0.3 to 0.6 miles per gallon. The newer A2 model has an APU which allows it to shut down the gas turbine engine when the tank is stationary. Pugh says more and more A1s are being retro-fitted with an APU to improve fuel performance. Another development with the next-generation Humvee design should also improve fuel performance for military vehicles. The Georgia Tech Research Institute is producing the ULTRA AP (Armored Patrol) vehicle. Pugh says its design team consulted with combat veterans repeatedly during construction of the prototype. The new vehicle is half the weight with better gas mileage and it is more survivable. There are plans for a hybrid-propulsion model as well. The Army Future Combat System also promises a line of vehicles with a lighter fuel-efficient platform. The Army procurement process has been given a shot in the arm with the Army Rapid Equipping Force (AREF) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. AREF’s mission is to identify soldiers’ combat equipment needs and immediately (within 90 to 180 days) supply the battlefield solution. For example, Maj. Gen. Zilmer’s request for alternative power sources went to AREF and as a result new hybrid power stations will be sent to FOBs this spring. AREF personnel serve with soldiers and marines in the field and they take requests for new equipment directly from the battlefield. “The military developed the GPS, jet engines, and the Internet and these technologies were spun off into the commercial sector,” says Pugh. “We see the military leading the way in fuel efficiency innovations.” In a war that has serious repercussions for US energy dependence at the strategic or macro-level, innovations in fuel efficiency have percolated up from the micro or

tactical level. Pugh and others at RMI see the military as taking the lead in fuel-efficiency technology—this technological know-how can help revolutionize the private sector in energy conservation. Brent M. Eastwood is an Adjunct Professor at George Mason University School of Public Policy. He is also President of Personal Identity Solutions Inc., a biometrics firm in Northern Virginia.