Thanks to Doug for sending me this article. I think it is great that the military is transitioning towards alternative energy sources. It also makes strategic sense for our military to break the oil habit. We are a slave to the oil that comes from the middle east and elsewhere, and that certainly is one of our military’s weaknesses. To diversify our fuel sources or just switch to something that we could have more control over makes sense.
Now one idea that I read on some forum, was to grow our fuel at the various war zones we operate at. Why not ask the farmers who grow poppy in Afghanistan, to instead grow an oil producing plant, so we could power our diesel engines there? To create an industry that will provide jobs, give the farmers an alternative cash crop, and provide a source of fuel that can fuel our military and the local Afghan population(generators, businesses, taxis, etc.) Some in this discussion were even saying that you could actually convert the poppy into a fuel oil(I haven’t found out much more about this concept, but it is intriguing)
We could do the same thing in Iraq. We could introduce Jatropha(the seeds are thick with oil) in the delta areas, and create an industry for Iraqis. The Saudis have actually set up Jatropha fields that grow from sewage water. Or, if we were using mobile processers at the various camps, then we could process raw crude oil that is produced all over in Iraq. Although, I do not worry too much about Iraq and their ability to rebuild, because they are sitting on tons of oil. But still, it is an industry that we could help promote in Iraq and elsewhere that could provide alternative fuels and jobs in these various war zones.
Which brings me to my next point. The more we can make a Forward Operating Base or Remote Camp self sustaining, the better. In fact, it will save lives. The less convoy operations it takes to keep a camp running, equals less risk. We in the security industry can take the lead on this for the camps. Why haven’t we seen more solar panels at these camps or wind power devices? How about water processing plants to convert the local river/stream/lake waters? How about a mobile drilling unit, so they can tap into the ground for water? The more we can make these camps self sufficient, the better in my opinion. And when a camp is cut off do to an attack or whatever, at least they have the ability to survive on their own. It makes sense to me.
It just killed me to hear about convoys getting attacked that were trying to re-supply a camp. Is that the cost of doing business, or can we do it better and minimize risk? Sure there are costs with going towards solar and alternative energy sources, but compare that to the lives lost trying supply a camp with water and fuel and you can see my point? And plus, we are in the desert in most of our conflicts, so it totally makes sense to utilize that big energy resource in the sky.
And imagine if we had hybrid vehicles out at these camps? Most of the duties of these vehicles at security contractor based camps(CMC or TWISS), is just cruising or posting somewhere within that perimeter. We are not talking long distance traveling, we are talking short distance stuff, which is perfect for a electric based hybrid type vehicle. And imagine a vehicle that can quietly move around a site, and sneak up on the various fence lines and posts that they are in charge of? And then for the convoy operations, it switches back to fuel usage for the long haul. Hybrid vehicles would save on fuel use and costs, and would be tactically sound. But is the technology there, and could a hybrid vehicle also have armor and be protective? I think so, and I am sure the issues could be worked out.
Well anyways, just some thoughts about today’s war and our energy use. I think it is good to talk about such things and I enjoy exploring the possibilities. –Head Jundi
——————————————————————-
Jatropha oil is vegetable oil produced from the seeds of the Jatropha curcas, a plant that can grow in wastelands. Jatropha curcas grows almost anywhere, even on gravelly, sandy and saline soils. It can thrive on the poorest stony soil and grow in the crevices of rocks. -wikipedia
Military looks to synthetics, conservation to cut fuel bills
July 16, 2008
“Aim high” is the current Air Force motto for most things — except fuel costs.
That’s why the service is taking the lead in saving fuel and finding alternate ways of doing its job, reaching out and touching people, harming the nation’s enemies and helping the nation’s friends.
But with the price of jet fuel rising almost as fast as civilians’ gasoline, even in the wholesale quantities of the military, that reaching out costs more every day.
“We haven’t been told that we’re going to get a reduction in our flight hours we have submitted for next year,” said Col. West Anderson, the 2nd Bomb Wing’s vice commander. “That always could happen, but right now we have received no word that any of that is going to take place.”
The Defense Department is “probably the largest single user of petroleum products in the world,” so rising energy costs are a major concern, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a questioner at the Asia Security Summit in Singapore earlier this month.
“Every time the price of oil goes up by $1 per barrel, it costs us about $130 million, and frankly, my credit card limit is getting narrow on that,” Gates said.
Particularly in light of wartime operations, the impact is significant.
Not just pocket change
Defense Energy Support Center statistics show the military spent $12.6 billion on jet fuel, diesel and other fuels in 2007, with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan consuming $1.7 billion of that total.
Spiraling fuel costs in 2008 and their effect in fiscal 2009, which begins Oct. 1, have forced department officials to return to Congress for additional funding to cover the shortfall. But the department is increasingly looking to other options, Gates said, citing efforts ranging from synthetic fuels initiatives to fuel reclaiming aimed at curbing fuel demand as well as costs.
While it hasn’t cut back on the flight hours of the 60-plus B-52 bombers at Barksdale yet, the high flight of fuel prices is having an effect.
Each B-52 has a full load of about 50,000 gallons of JP-8 jet fuel. Fully fueled the fleet needs more than 3 million gallons.
“We’ve been exploring fuel savings, trying to lighten the loads that we carry on day-to-day training missions, so we get better fuel economy,” Anderson said. “We’re planning our missions more efficiently so were not using as much ‘drone’ time, don’t try to spend as much high-level time, (and) condense and pack the training into a tighter schedule.”
Barksdale has a fuel farm with four large tanks, each holding more than a million gallons of JP-8 fuel, the type now used on most military aircraft. The base is supplied by a pipeline that ties into national distribution lines. On base, a series of sophisticated pumps distribute the fuel through underground lines to hydrants embedded in the ramp, where crews pump it to airplanes using hoses or versatile folding pipe arrays called pantographs.
The number of sorties the airplanes fly, training and operational, is classified, but the airplanes are a daily sight over the base.
Barksdale also is exploring the use of natural gas and condensate from wells on its East Reservation, and with conservation on the vehicles that don’t fly, Anderson said.
“We’re looking at some hybrid-type vehicles,” he said. “In fact, some of the new staff cars we’re getting this year are hybrid, using a combination of electric and gas power. We are looking at smaller cars. For delivering mail and things like that, maybe we need some smaller ones like the ‘Smart cars’ for (use) around the base. We are also right-sizing our fleet, making sure we don’t have too many vehicles. We’re making sure we have enough vehicles out on the ramp, but not too many. We’re teaching people to shut the engines down rather than just let them idle. So there’s lots of cost-cutting and gas-saving programs that we’re working on right now to try to help alleviate some of the price of fuel.”
A change in schedule
Jessica D’Aurizio, spokeswoman for the 917th Wing, echoed the active-duty side report that flight operations have not been affected, but that some changes are being made scheduling reservists, who often have to drive long distances to get here.
“Some people have gone to a four-day workweek,” she said. “Some of our people drive in from far away and some drive every day. It’s smarter to do it only four days instead of five.”
Much of the conservation work goes on at level far above the pay grade of folks at Barksdale.
Over the years, there have been several proposals to replace the B-52’s eight jet engines, which hang under its wings in four graceful pods, with larger, more fuel-efficient turbofan engines, which in recent decades have given legacy airplanes, such as venerable KC-135 family of cargo-tankers, a new lease on life.
Proponents have argued that putting newer, more powerful and more fuel efficient jets on the bombers will allow them to fly farther, with a major benefit being lessened load on the thinly stretched air refueling fleet.
But proposals have been to lease engines, which the military has been reluctant to do. Arguments also have been made against outright purchase of the engines, so the proposals have largely fallen on deaf ears, at least until the recent ballooning of oil prices and resultant increases in fuel costs.
The Air Force has been more enthusiastic in pursuing alternative fuels for its fleet, with the B-52 the lead aircraft tested.
Biofuel and synthetic alternatives
In his last posting at Edwards AFB, Calif., former 2nd Bomb Wing Commander Curtis Bedke, now a major general, was involved with testing biofuel in the B-52. The fuel, a mixture of traditional JP-8 and a derivative of natural gas, passed high-altitude and low-temperature tests. Now Bedke commands the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, where more research is under way.
“It’s moving along at a steady pace, but much of the work is being done by the test folks and the program offices that own each airplane,” Bedke said. “We at AFRL basically confirmed the fuel is good, now they’re out doing the tests.
“We in AFRL are not only looking at the new fuels, but also at better engines. So, for example, the ADVENT program is looking at technologies that can actually make the engine adapt in flight to be more powerful for takeoffs and critical phases of flight, like a turbojet, and then transition to more like a turbofan with increase fuel efficiencies at cruise settings. Pretty cool!”
After testing the fuel blend in the B-52, it was tried on the C-17 Globemaster III. In March, a B-1B Lancer became the first Air Force aircraft to fly at supersonic speed using a 50/50 blend of synthetic and petroleum gases.
Meanwhile, engineers at Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee wrapped up alternative fuel testing on the first fighter jet engine in May. The test used a synthetic blend in the engine for the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon jets.
“The goal is to have every aircraft using synthetic fuel blends by 2011,” Air Force Maj. Don Rhymer, of the Air Force Alternative Fuels Certification Office, said. “By 2016, we hope at least 50 percent of this fuel will be produced domestically.”
Barksdale and McGuire AFB, N.J., have been selected as the first two bases to operationally test this fuel blend, though that has not yet begun.
More traditional measures to save fuel costs already are in effect here, though.
“Barksdale is currently using a grade of biodiesel called ‘B20’ which is made up of 80 percent conventional diesel and 20 percent processed vegetable oil,” said Staff Sgt. Michael Andriacco, a 2nd Bomb Wing spokesman. “This fuel is used in 95 percent of the diesel-burning vehicles on base. Barksdale is also testing another product called ‘O28’ diesel, which is a diesel blend consisting of 72 percent conventional diesel, 20 percent processed vegetable oil and 8 percent ethanol.”
Barksdale also is projected to receive added facilities to enable the addition of E85 gasoline, he said. E85 gasoline is an alcohol fuel mixture that typically contains a mixture of up to 85 percent denatured fuel ethanol and gasoline or other hydrocarbon.
Reclaiming, recycling, reselling
The base also reclaims fuel from aircraft and fleet vehicles, and recovery is a major focus in the Department of Defense. Defense Secretary Gates touted conservation measures in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee last month, citing work he witnessed during a May 1 visit to the Red River Army Depot near Texarkana, Texas. The depot contracts with a private company that retrieves gasoline, oil and other fluids in the Humvees, Stryker armored vehicles, tanks and other vehicles brought to the depot for maintenance, Gates told the senators. The company then refines and sells the fluids, with Red River Army Depot getting a share of the profits.
“So they make several million dollars back for the taxpayers simply by not throwing away these used fuel and petroleum products,” Gates said.
Gates called this an example of how the Defense Department supports broader conservation efforts.
“I think that we do have a contribution to make, but I would say that it is very much in a supporting role,” he said.
Retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Peyton Cole, a former 2nd Bomb Wing head and also a past squadron-level commander, said the focus on fuel cost shifts as you rise in the chain of command.
On the crew and squadron level, he said, “it wasn’t even a consideration. As a pure operator, I would show up at the jet with my crew and it would be fueled up and that was all I cared about.
“When I became a wing commander, I had to sign off on the wing budget and (fuel costs) were buried in the operation and maintenance budget. But the operators don’t pay any attention to the number. And at the wing level, it doesn’t change your day-to-day operations one whit. Once you get to a Numbered Air Force or higher level, you will probably find that the cost of fuel will start to influence your operational decisions.
“At the wing level, it really doesn’t come into play. Your allocated flying hours are based on requirements, and the requirements are based on how much you need to train. The military will get the fuel it needs to train and keep its people combat-ready. The last thing you’re going to do is cut back on training because of the cost of fuel.”
Anderson echoed that.
“We will not sacrifice training for other types of programs,” he said. “Training is always No. 1.”
Story Link Here