The U.S. Army is getting serious about saving energy.
The service plans an ambitious series of energy-efficiency projects, including buying thousands of battery-powered cars for Army posts, construction of solar and geothermal power plants, and conservation measures.
The service is also setting up a senior energy executive who will "build a team that will work across the Army and try to break down the stovepipes," Army Secretary Pete Geren said.
Geren approved the creation of that team, called the Army Senior Energy Council, on Sept. 26.
The new body will create an "energy strategy" for Army energy use by installations, camps, vehicles, aircraft and weapons, according to the Army's Senior Energy Council Charter, dated Aug. 21. Defense News obtained a copy.
The council will develop ways to measure energy use and savings, then meet several times a year to evaluate the service's progress. Comprised of more than two dozen senior civilian and uniformed leaders, the body will be co-chaired by Gen. Pete Chiarelli, the Army's vice chief of staff, and Keith Eastin, the service's assistant secretary for installations and environment.
The Army will announce the effort at the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington Oct. 6-8.
One aim is to decrease combat units' thirst for fuel.
"Our soldiers require energy in almost every aspect of taking the fight to the enemy," said Paul Bollinger, the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for energy and partnerships. "To be a truly expeditionary force we must greatly reduce or eliminate the fuel umbilical cord."
Ultimately, officials intend to spend several million dollars and reap several hundred million dollars - and eliminate millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions - over the next few decades.
The initiatives are outlined in a Sept. 25 briefing document, "Army Energy Initiatives Project Proposals" by Bollinger's office. Defense News obtained a copy.
In 2006, DoD consumed 110 million barrels of premium fuel and 3.8 billion kilowatts of electricity at a cost of $13.6 billion, according to the 2009 Defense Appropriations Act, citing findings from the Defense Science Board.
As for the Army, "70 percent of the tonnage the Army ships into battle is associated with fuel logistics," the act said.
"We want to think about energy efficiency when thinking about acquisition," Geren said after an address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "How do you look at the life-cycle cost of a weapons system? What is the challenge of delivering fuel to some remote area of Afghanistan?"
It's easier to save energy at installations than on the battlefield, one analyst said.
"The places for the maximum gains are all associated with managing fuels or saving energy at fixed installations. This includes things like using electric cars along with geothermal and solar power. It is much tougher to do something like this in the field," said Daniel Gouré, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Va.-based think tank. "Alternative energy systems work for light vehicles, but we have not come up with a way to move a tank without using diesel."
Gouré said the gas-guzzling Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle and trucks like the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck will be around until mid-century.
The Future Combat Systems vehicles are slated to get better gas mileage, but only 15 of the Army's brigades will be FCS-equipped by 2030.
"There will be a high demand for fossil fuels for the foreseeable future for the Army," Gouré said. ■
The Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is ready to test a few components that soldiers may have in their hands by 2010.
Help
