FIGHTING FUEL: The F-16 pictured here burns 28 gallons of jet fuel a minute when its afterburners are engaged--much of it made from imported oil.
Image: U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Flexible solar cells now power communications equipment used by U.S. Marines fighting in Afghanistan's Helmand Province, enabling them to shed 315 kilograms worth of batteries while on foot patrol. But an F-16 fighter jet flying over Miramar training base in California burns 105 liters of jet fuel a minute with its afterburners engaged whereas the C-17 cargo consumes 11,350 liters an hour.
That heavy reliance on oil—much of it imported—presents a real challenge to the U.S. military. As Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., put it in an address to the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-e) conference here on March 2: "We are reliant on our adversaries for our national security."
That's why the U.S. Defense (DoD) and Energy (DoE) departments are partnering on initiatives to further develop and test energy-storage technologies first developed by ARPA-e. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced two such development and deployment partnerships on March 2 for power electronics modules and batteries capable of storing megawatts of power—both to be funded by a requested $25 million each from DoD and ARPA–e in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
"Twenty-five million dollars is the cost of one H-1 helicopter," Mabus said. "The change that $25 million from DoD and ARPA–e can generate, can multiply that one helicopter hundreds and thousands of times."
Mabus was referring to saving both lives—for every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan and Iraq, one soldier or Marine is killed or wounded, according to a U.S. Army study—and money. The DoD fuel bill came to some $14 billion in 2010. "For every dollar the price of a barrel of oil goes up, the Navy spends $31 million more for fuel," Mabus noted. "Our dependence on fossil fuels creates strategic, operational and tactical vulnerabilities for our forces."
The Navy has taken a lead in attempting to change that, setting a goal of deriving half its energy needs from non–fossil fuel sources by 2020 as well as making half of its bases energy self-sufficient. Already, the Navy has ordered some 150,000 liters of jet fuel derived from Camelina—an oil-seed plant like canola—and more than 75,000 liters of diesel like fuel for ships from algae, an order the U.S. Air Force has matched by requisitioning 150,000 liters of bio–jet fuel. "The Navy has taken delivery of its first algae-based jet fuel. We're not talking about some environmental weirdos, we're talking about the Navy," former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) noted in an address to the ARPA–e conference on March 1. "Why should a dried up little country with a crazy dictator like Libya play havoc with America's energy future?"
And the Navy's first hybrid electric-drive ship—that uses electric motors for speeds under 12 knots—saved some $2 million in fuel costs on its maiden voyage from Pascagoula, Miss., to San Diego. "Changing the way we produce and use energy is fundamentally about improving the national security of this country," Mabus said, noting the Navy's history of fuel switches—from wind to coal in the 19th century and coal to oil supplemented by nuclear over the course of the 20th century. "I am confident—as we lead again in changing the way we power our ships and aircraft—that the naysayers who say, 'it's too expensive, the technology is not there,' are going to be proven wrong again."
That is exactly what ARPA–e—and more broadly the goals set by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu—could prove. "You cannot decouple energy and national security," says ARPA–e Director Arun Majumdar. Via the ADEPT (Agile Delivery of Electrical Power Technology) and GRIDS (Grid-scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage) programs, ARPA–e aims to prove the energy-storage technologies that the Navy and other armed forces need. "We want to develop storage and do that with batteries, flywheels at the cost of $100 per kilowatt-hour, [and] use it anywhere in the world."
And ARPA–e is exploring opening new research programs to turn scientific advances into deployable technologies in the areas of advanced biofuels, natural gas and thermoelectrics, among others. "We should fund ARPA–e at $1 billion per year," said Charles Holliday, former CEO of DuPont and member of the American Energy Innovation Council, which attempted to lay out a vision for the U.S. energy future in 2010.
But U.S. lawmakers currently won't commit that kind of money. In fact, the U.S. Congress is debating whether the ARPA–e program should continue to receive funding and, if so, how much—although Sens. Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.), Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) and Mark Udall (D–Colo.) all expressed support for the fledgling agency during addresses at the summit. "Many programs are never funded at their authorized level, let alone higher," Murkowski said. "Every program has to live within its means."
Proposals for ARPA-e in 2011 range from $50 million in a budget proposal from the House of Representatives to a $550 million request in President Obama's budget. "We will be working with Congress on the programs that are the most important for the future of the United States, and will put us in the best position for our economic prosperity," Secretary of Energy Steven Chu noted in a press conference here on March 1. "We have our own priorities, whether we get the president's budget or not."
And that means taking into account the human health impacts of fossil-fuel burning as well, argued Schwarzenegger, noting that 100,000 people die prematurely each year because of smog and other air pollution, which also sends 6.5 million people to the hospital with respiratory issues. "One in six children in central California walk around with an inhaler. That's what we do to those kids," he said. "The suffering and expense of petroleum deaths needs to be recognized."
In fact, regardless of funding, improving the security of U.S. energy supply—and thereby national, environmental and economic security—has become a priority for both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. "You have become the sharp end of the spear," Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman told the ARPA–e summit attendees. "It is the kind of innovation you are pursuing that will spell the difference between success and failure."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add Comment1 man killed in 24 fuel convoys?! Time and money are wasted transporting fuel across deserts. Perhaps there is a better way to go about acquiring and testing their fuel, and possibly saving lives:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://rta.biz/
"The Navy has taken delivery of its first algae-based jet fuel. We're not talking about some environmental weirdos, we're talking about the Navy,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo we aren't talking about environmental weirdos - we are talking about the economically incompetent. At $800/gallon for this algae based jet fuel contact - economically feasibility is not even on the most remote development horizon. This is the kind of poor economic, technical, and critical thinking skills that bankrupted California - of course the military doesn't have to deal with economically feasibility - yet. With 95% of human food produced with petro-chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fuels and packaging to get food from field to consumers mouth - our politicians done get that peak oil - really means peak food.
After 80 years of trying to develop biofuels - it is abundantly clear that any significant energy production with biofuels is going to require petro-chemical fertilizers which will compete with food production. Only 3% of the countries wastes can be used for biofuels because of logistics, spatial, climatic and economic feasibility. It is also clear that the spatial footprint for any competitive biofuel production will require more than 200 times the same space as the existing petroleum industry and that biofuel will not even be carbon neutral considering it's requirement for petro-fertilizers. That isn't green folks - much less economically feasible.
The only alternative energy sources that make environmental and economic sense are solar and solar related wind, tide, and wave. Solar is an off planet energy source that will be there as long as solar system exists, requires no petroleum for operation, and has no carbon emissions. Recent break-throughs in nano-particle solar cells at 65% efficiency will bring solar energy costs well below current market prices for petroleum. That is where our main alternative energy should be. Even then we will probably still need modern nuclear reactor designs to transition between petroleum and complete use of solar energy.
The fact that this country does not have a coherent alternative energy development plan reflecting the above facts, should tell you that our political leadership is bought and paid for through corporate special interests. Unless we stop special interest election funding and under the table payoffs of our politicians with special rewards like lobbying jobs when they leave office our democracy will remain just as dead - as it is now. Unless we become better informed and more qualified voters nothing will change.
And why are we still in Bush's two wars and driving our debt into the trillions? Get out of his two wars and we will not have a debt or pay $800 dollars for a barrel of oil for the military.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@duggerdm: What is the source for your information? Is that $800 per barrel for an experimental fuel that will become less expensive under mass production?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow James, you know the military industrial complex won't like that...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrivate industry and our universities can handle the research. Wikileaks videos (seen worldwide) clearly show we are making serious problems with our military dollars by killing many innocent people for no reason other than flexing our military muscle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur present movement to quit further spending on the military will strengthen us in the long run.
The article says that for every 24 fuel convoys "one soldier or marine is killed or wounded", not killed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe crisis on energy is almost over with with the developement of antimatter. Ive been working on it for many years and have just been proven right. This is going to be as important as the wheel, or flight even more if you ask me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&¬e_id=10150101877458909#!/note.php?note_id=10150099909858909
someone's been watching too much "Ancient Aliens"....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy look for new stuff when the old stuff worked great till it was banned. I'm speaking of Hemp, Only 6 percent of us soil would be needed to supply all of our energy needs from hemp seed oil. Google or youtube Henry Ford Hemp Car. Also can make fabric, plastic, paper and rope. 1 acre of hemp makes the same amount of paper as 4.2 acres of trees and only takes 4 months to grow. Its also full circle recyclable. needs no fertilizers and barley any water so it cause grow almost anywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore the 1900's it was ILLEGAL NOT TO GROW HEMP, you where also allowed to pay your taxes with hemp.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere sure is a lot of ignorance running amok on these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing the inventor of Gravity Control I would propose that we change the power production in the whole country to the system that uses this simple invention, which had it's origin in my discovering the technology of the Flying Saucer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE.G. A one thousand ton weight can be lifted 1000 feet using only a few hundred watts of power, using some car batteries..
When it comes down, it can with the proper machinery and generator produce hundreds of kilowatts.
People should have two cars.
One all-electric, using regular car batteries, that will will let you travel about 150 km. Recharge at home. A gas car for long trips.
A town would construct the building or silo, the weight,
the proper machinery and Generator according to plans supplied. Then the Gravity Control device will be installed and leased to satisfy the taxman and investors. No noise, wind,solar, air, water or nuclear power is needed. It can be constructed anywhwere, from Arctic to Sahara.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2005-02/0275.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Vendicar Decarian", aka: Scott Nudds, has escaped from the asylum again
Thanks goodness the problem has been finally taken seriously. I must admit it is enormous. Yet, every journey begins a single step. For the first time I have impression that the scale of the problems about replacing fossil with other energy sources (ignoring temporary the problem about over-populated world)has become widely recognized. Humanity must put every effort in order to do something about it. Otherwise ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid, messing with the genetics of this microbe could be very dangerous. If a genetically modified strain entered the general environment, what do you think the end result could be? Hydrogen is the lightest gas & finds its way to the upper atmosphere. Some of it escapes into space. A runaway process would be disastrous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have already seen the unintended consequences of things like bio fuel. Hydrogen can be safely produced cheaply using off peak nuclear power. I suggest this is a process that should be advocated.
I realize that a technology that is so simple and inexpensive, that a High School Kid can understand it would not be of any interest to high salaried engineers. Sorry about that people. Go back to your outdated costly system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat aircraft could have been powered with the technology of the Flying Saucer and gone faster or could go as slow as a Piper Cub. When I wrote to the US Airforce if they were interested in my (patented) invention, I got answered with an insult by some minion with the rank of Colonel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously they were sure that Flying Saucers do not exist.
Maybe they are waiting for the Chinese to catch up.
Do not worry, they will.
When it comes to the Armed forces... please, dam it, use nuclear (when ever possible) and please try to make arrangements, that the closed cycle molten salt reactor will be used to reuse that waste fifty times over (thus making Yucca, and the much longer lived actinides, obsolete).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it comes to the military, investigating ways to store energy though, Ya, go all out for diffuse solar and wind power. There is more jobs doing installation IF it is robotically made (by giant oil like companies).
So the question really comes down to this:
Is thorium (and spent LWR fuel) fission much more energy secure than the intermittents (and there compelling need for battery storage a magnitude of order cheaper)? Or are the fissions really a serious proliferation concern which justifies its apparent attrition?
It amazes me that you haven't been assassinated yet for pointing out the truth. While I frequently disagree with you, there are times when your clarity of vision is astounding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill waiting for a financial prospectus from you. If you have this wonder invention and a working prototype that you can demonstrate, I can get you the funding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy personal guess is that you are either very bored and messing around or that you are delusional. If you are not then you should follow through.
While hydrogen does indeed escape from the atmosphere, it isn't that hard to find extra-planetary sources to replace what we lose. My guess is that the algae probably would have limited ability to survive in the wild anyway. I have opposed the hydrogen fuel movement primarily because the current method requires petroleum for production. If we can make hydrogen without oil then I'm all for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry David, I had not checked back on this page in over a week.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I made the point about a runaway event is that it was just such a runaway event that caused the early Earth to gain oxygen. Before primitive life developed with the ability to release oxygen from CO2 there was practically no oxygen. When it was released, this proved poisonous to most early life. It was only later that higher organisms developed that not only tolerated oxygen but required it to exist. If you had a runaway system that split water, you would end up with a loss of hydrogen plus much higher oxygen content in the atmosphere. A high oxygen content would have many downsides including lowering combustion temperatures resulting eventually in everything capable of combusting, doing so. In the earlier world, the high oxygen levels resulted in many metals oxidising & precipitating out of the oceans. This led to the vast deposits of Iron Ore we have today.
A quite different problem, shared with all these schemes that ultimately rely on solar energy to power them, is the vast areas that have to be covered in ponds to give the quantities to make it worthwhile. Where do you put them that would not divert land & water use from some other valuable use? It is actually stored solar energy that you are producing & when all the energy conversion figures are accounted for, it simply is not viable. Same goes for other bio fuel ideas.
Yes & energy density. It would be about thirty years ago that there were numerous excited announcements about breakthroughs in hydrogen storage via metal hydrides. Seems to have withered on the vine. The main problem at the time was that the hydride had to be heated to a fairly high temperature, from memory about 600 degrees, before the hydrogen was released. Another problem was that the hydride could only be cycled a limited number of times before its capacity degraded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStorage of energy really is the Holy Grail. There is a strange resistance to using plantation wood via distillation. Thousands of vehicles were powered via wood producer gas during the war when I was a boy in Australia. Pollution was a bit of a concern for vehicles & of course energy density. There is about the same energy in a cubic foot of wood as in a gallon of petrol. Aluminium releases hydrogen when exposed to an acid or an alkali & the resultant oxide can be re processed but it is not economical either. Algy will not work because it requires large pond areas exposed to sunlight in controlled conditions plus the energy required for processing. It is nothing new. Gets a re run every ten years or so.
If I'd be the US military with that budget I'd put all my money into fusion technology. Effective, limitless and free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately. We are still a very primitive species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShort term self interests and crisis management prevails.
The attitude of 'crisis management' creates the crisis in the first place.
We all know that this is self destructive!
But we do it anyway!!