Military changes way it uses energy
THE WASHINGTON POST
PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR STATION, Md. -- With the Navy's Blue Angels and their F/A-18 Hornets arrayed in a neat line behind him, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced that they would perform in the Labor Day Air Expo using a 50-50 mix of a plant-based biofuel and conventional fuel.
"It's part of our process to move to alternative energy all across the Navy," Mabus told reporters gathered on the sun-baked runway before him on Sept. 1. "The main reason we're moving toward alternative fuels in the Navy and the Marine Corps is to make us better war fighters."
As the nation's single biggest energy consumer, the Pentagon has many reasons to want to diversify its fuel sources. Mabus and others said the move toward alternative energy is about national security and assured sources of supply.
In addition, with oil supplying 80 percent of the military's energy, the effect of price fluctuations ripples quickly through the system. Each $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil adds more than $30 million a year to the Navy's energy costs, officials said.
So the Pentagon is pressing ahead with an ambitious program to change its energy use. Its spending on renewable energy increased 300 percent between 2006 and 2009, from $400 million to $1.2 billion, and it is projected to reach more than $10 billion annually by 2030, according to a report issued last month by the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate.
The Defense Department has pledged to obtain 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025.
In doing so, it has provided a new target of opportunity for environmentalists and "green" businesses now that climate legislation has failed and renewable-energy subsidies have come under fire, most recently with the collapse of solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra.
But Mabus said he is more focused on the fact that a Marine is either wounded or killed for every 50 convoys of fuel brought into Afghanistan than on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"That's just too high a price to pay," he said in a phone interview, adding that when it comes to lower carbon emissions, "It's a good byproduct, but it's a byproduct."
While the military's goals promote energy independence, it remains unclear how much some of them will cut greenhouse gas emissions. Navy guidelines dictate that the advanced biofuels it will buy cannot pollute more than petroleum, but they do not say the Navy needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a specific amount.
Several of the Pentagon's goals don't apply to theaters of military operations, where it uses heavy and inefficient equipment such as tanks, some of which average less than a mile per gallon.
Mabus has outlined a series of ambitious goals for the Navy and Marine Corps, including ensuring that 50 percent of the services' energy supply comes from alternative energy such as biofuels and solar power by 2020, cutting fossil fuel use by its noncombat vehicles in half by 2015 and reducing fuel consumption on ships 15 percent by 2020.
Other branches have more modest energy goals. The Air Force aims to use alternative aviation fuels for half its domestic aviation needs by 2016, and cut total aviation fuel use 10 percent by 2015.
The scale of the military's energy consumption, along with its purchasing power, gives its policies tremendous effect.
And in many ways, the military is better positioned than other branches of government to address such long-term challenges as energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
"One thing the Department of Defense is really good at is risk management and longterm strategic planning," said Bob Barnes, a retired Army brigadier general who now focuses on the intersection between conservation, energy and national security as a senior policy adviser to the Nature Conservancy.
The Pentagon began discussions about its dependence on fossil fuels and the potential risks associated with climate change with its allies during President George W. Bush's administration, and it has continued to talk strategy with top military officers in Britain and elsewhere.
"On both sides of the Atlantic, we've recognized there are new sets of energy threats and challenges that we face," said Rear Adm. Neil Morisetti, the climate and energy security envoy for Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its Defense Ministry, during a recent visit to Washington.
Not all of the Pentagon's renewable-energy projects have gone smoothly. Last month, the Energy Department announced a conditional commitment to back a $344 million loan for a $1 billion project to install solar panels at 160,000 locations on 124 military bases throughout the country. But in late September, Solar City, the company that won the contract to put in what Energy Secretary Steven Chu described as "the largest domestic residential rooftop solar project in history," announced it would not meet the Sept. 30 loan guarantee deadline.
The delay could imperil the project.
Some question whether the government should be financing such projects rather than allowing the free market to determine whether the technologies succeed or fail.
Jack Spencer, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, asked why "the Pentagon has to be compelled to engage in those programs with mandates and forced spending. ... Leading a green revolution is not a legitimate mission for our armed forces."