If President Obama decides to send another 20,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, the Department of Defense will also have to figure out how to send along another half-million gallons of fuel a day to support them. Since the end of World War II, the use of petroleum-based fuels has risen 175% to 22 gallons per solider per day. In 2008 U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan burned through 25 million barrels of oil.
It’s more than a conservation issue. More fuel consumption correlates directly to more deaths. So asserts a new report by Deloitte Consulting on the military’s energy security. “The biggest game changer for reducing casualties is reduction in convoys,” says retired Air Force General Charles Wald, the lead author of the report. Fuel convoys are easy targets for roadside bombs, which have accounted for nearly half of American deaths in Iraq and almost 40% of deaths in Afghanistan.
Even though convoys are the big culprit, the Deloitte report calls for a concerted effort to reduce petroleum consumption and adopt renewable and green energy alternatives across the entire military. Though this recommendation may be in line with green politics, it doesn’t seem quite right.
In reality, reducing petroleum use in specific areas (like humvees and diesel-burning power generators) has the potential to save far more money and lives than trying to cut consumption of the biggest gas guzzlers (planes and ships). Jet fuel hogs up 58% of the 120 million barrels of petroleum fuel the military burns through every year. The Navy’s marine diesel is second at 13% of demand. To reduce oil use, the Air Force has certified B-52 bombers to run on synthetic jet fuel made of coal and is looking at biofuels. The Navy is testing algae-derived diesel in ships.
It might feel good to use an alterna-fuel, but because most airstrips and harbors are relatively easy to supply it would do nothing to reduce the casualties incurred by trucking diesel to battlefields. If the intention is to use coal-derived fuels to reduce reliance on foreign oil it would be far more cost-effective for the government to open up coastal areas to oil drilling. More domestic oil isn’t something the Deloitte report recommends, though Gen. Wald concurred in an e-mail exchange that it would help. “Any measure that decreases our nation’s dependency on imported oil is positive,” he says.
Frankly, the greatest emphasis should be on reducing fuel consumption on land, not just to power humvees and tanks, but also electric generators. During peacetime, generators powered by liquid fuels burn 26 million gallons a year. In wartime, figures Deloitte, that has jumped to 357 million gallons (roughly 8.5 million barrels) a year.
What’s it cost to get this fuel to war zones? Like the rest of us, the military currently pays between $2 and $3 a gallon for fuel. But that’s just a starting point. Add in the cost of an unprotected fuel convoy and the price climbs to $15 a gallon. But in war there’s no such thing as an unprotected convoy; in June 2008 attacks, accidents and pilferage from convoys led to the loss of 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons. The report figures that once you factor in ground and air protection for a 950-mile round trip this “fully burdened” cost approaches $45 a gallon.
Wald says in the short term the most lives will be saved in Iraq and Afghanistan by aggressive fuel conservation. In the medium term, solar power combined with improved battery storage systems will make a difference, as will military vehicles with hybrid electric engines.
At last, a true case can be made for Federal subsidies to support innovative solar power. It might not make sense to install solar panels on the roofs of suburban tract homes already connected to the power grid, but imagine remote bases in Afghanistan powered by lightweight, flexible solar panels built right into tent fabric, or unfurled as easily as extending an umbrella. Nellis Air Force base has a 14-megawatt solar installation. The Army intends to build a 500mw solar plant at Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert.
A real life-saver for our fighting forces in the decades to come: portable nuclear reactors. Nuke-powered aircraft carriers and submarines are old hat. It’s not far-fetched to think that hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel a year and hundreds of lives could be saved by miniature, impregnable nuclear reactors that could be remote-detonated by satellite if they ever fell into enemy hands.
Who is going to build these fantastic new gadgets? Wald says all the prime defense contractors will grab a piece of the military’s green energy budget. He expects them to work hand-in-hand with innovators like Solozyme, Bloom Energy,