A Growing Military Concern...
Posted by Heading Out on November 29, 2006 - 1:19pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: army, corps of engineers, darpa, fischer-tropsch, jet fuel, west point [list all tags]
Without ready alternatives to replace ever more costly and scarce oil, we are entering an age of uncertainty and insecurity unlike any other that could include economic stagnation or even reversal. Although the military will always have access to the fuel required for national security missions, the costs will rise substantially in the near future and require the reallocation of resources from other critical mission elements and programs.
The true cost of moving fuel, however, is even higher In 2004, during periods of heavy equipment movement, it is estimated that the military used over 4 million gallons of fuel per day in Iraq. This estimate is for both U.S. and coalition forces; however the majority of this fuel is used by the U.S. Army. To meet this need, DOD uses in excess of 5,500 trucks to deliver fuel from Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan. In comparison during World War II, on 24 August 1944 during Operation "Red Ball", Allied Forces used 1.8 Million gallons per day.The paper concludes that a significant effort must be made to change the culture so that energy efficiency is both a factor in equipment design, and also in use, both in the direct facets of the military mission, and in the support train that must provide for it.
The concern extends beyond the Army and West Point, we have noted in earlier posts the report from the Corps of Engineers (pdf file) that discussed this topic. More recently, at the beginning of July the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) issued a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) on Biofuel Generation. The overall concern is because the military is currently using around 400,000 bd.
In fiscal 2004, the U.S. military consumed 144.8 million barrels of fuel, spending $6.7 billion, according to the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). Last year it consumed only 128.3 million barrels, but spent $8.8 billion, as the average price per barrel rose by almost 50% to more than $68. For 2006, DESC estimates the military will need 130.6 mb and pay more than $10 billion for it.
The DoD has largely standardized on jet Fuel (JP-8) as the common fuel for the services, and it occupies more than 70% of the purchase requirements. Jet fuel has two significant relevant requirements in the military specification, one relating to energy content, and one to cold flow characteristics. (Fuel must flow at minus 50 degrees, the temperature at the height at which jet aircraft fly).
Recognizing the need for a new source, DARPA issued this BAA, anticipating that biodiesel (though would be willing to accept a demonstrated alternative) would be a likely source for sustainable economic production of jet fuel. However DARPA also recognizes the factor of cost and so it seeks a process and source that will be both secure, and of sustainable price, into the foreseeable future. They anticipate that this will, for those reasons, be from a biological origin.
To illustrate the need for a new process, rather than existing technology, they used soy bean oil as an example source. The conventional method for turning biodiesel to JP-8 uses the Fischer-Tropsch process. This path has been evaluated by the Government and was found to have an efficiency of between 8 & 15%. Assuming 10% for illustration, means that 10 gallons of soy fuel are required for 1 gallon of JP-8. If soy oil costs $2 a gallon, this give the source fuel cost alone for a gallon of JP-8 to be $20.Further this does not address the potential increase in price of the oil as the need for an additional 160 million gallons a day impacts the market. Neglecting the latter issue, DARPA is first concerned to find a process that will be at least 60% efficient (bringing the fuel stock price down to around $3 a gallon), with the hope that it can be ultimately brought to 90%.
In addition to the technology required to make the conversion (which must be validated to supply DARPA with 100 liters of JP-8 in 18 months), the agency is concerned to ensure that there is a plan in place to provide a sufficiency of fuel at the required price, when needed (the production plan) and a plan must also be in place to commercialize the product and thereby (since DoD only uses around 17% of the national jet fuel need, the rest going to commercial planes) to reduce long-term the cost of the fuel to DoD.
Putting these three different events together it would appear that the military are definitely becoming more concerned to ensure that they are going to be sufficiently mobile into the future. They, rather obviously, are not convinced that the supplies of fuel that they need, are going to be there from conventional sources. It will be interesting to see how fast this "conversion" moves to other agencies.
my boy turns 7 in 7 days, po, gw, gmo, laugh just to keep from cryin
my best to all toders.
If anyone can create a 60% or even 90% efficient conversion process, DARPA would be one agency I'd bet on. DARPA has deep pockets and a large, pre-existing research culture that doesn't have to be assembled from scratch either.
Further, while biofuels cannot scale to replace the "easy motoring utopia" (to quote Kunstler), biofuels definitely could fill most or even all of national defense liquid fuel needs. Those needs remain a small fraction of our total national consumption. The article notes that DoD used 128 million barrels total in 2005. For reference, the United States as a whole used about 7 billion barrels in 2005. Military usage is a small fraction of our total consumption, under 2% total nationally. In other words, we may be able to have our national defense but it doesn't look like we'll have our easy motoring lifestyle.
Historically, the US Department of Defense has been very aware of energy issues for a long time though these issues are coming to the forefront now. They already are using wind and solar power in camps in Iraq and are actually asking for more such generators instead of liquid fueled ones because the "green" generators reduce security issues compared to liquid fuel generators.
Finally, this is a positive sign, at least for the United States. For all its warts and foibles, when the Pentagon stirs on a topic, people listen and react. A DARPA project is a very positive development, in addition to the private commercial work that goes on now anyway.
How would the citizens feel about 'toiling in a field' for fuel to power the military part of the military-industrial-congressional complex? Claims of 'give me the privilage of liquid fuel because my work is needed for keeping the military running' would be fast and furious.
Meanwhile, otheres would point to claims of fraud and greed (tax the war profiteers ring a bell? How about 'we can't find 2.1 trillion in the Pentagon budget'?) Not to mention funding and fuel for unpopular military actions.
I'm thinking coal.
It's been done before (Nazi Germany), the technology is there, our supply is clearly there. It's only a matter of time. Somewhere I was reading (no link) that some researcher was working on making a coal-based liquid fuel capable of aircraft temperature tolerances and getting favorable results.
Now what will make more sense in the plausibility department. The military trying to appropriate 16% of this country's arable lands to their fuel needs or buying existing coal supplies/opening new ones? Door number 2 makes more sense.
Too bad for central appalachia and the intermountain west but oh well, got keep fighting them terrorists.
Seriously folks, coal is gonna be the military's go-to fuel of the future (if indeed there is a future for our high-energy military operations.)
I've not seen any breakdown of the effect of peak oil on policing efforts, but would citizens want to keep street lights on VS lights in their own homes/power for the sewage plants? How about for keeping patrol cars running?
And, even more scarry - how about 'its cheaper for the US of A to use a nuke/some biological VS boots on the ground' equation.
sigh Wet cats. Sack. sigh
128 million barrels of fuel would require ~250 million barrels of biofuel.
According to wikipedia, one can get 3.3 barrels of biofuels per acre by using mustard (much better than soybeans). So the military would require about 75 million acres of farmland at present rates of oil use. (presumably they could cut way back by becoming far more efficient and conservative.)
There are at present about 470 million acres of arable land in the US. So the military would require about 16% of it for transportation alone.
Once again we come up on the limits to "the present way of doing things".
The interesting thing is that the truth about the challenge our civilization is facing is emerging in places that one might not expect. The key is for environmentalists and military strategists (as well as the rest of us) to work together so we all don't end up eating old shoes for dinner (unless of course your worldview calls for eating old shoes, more power to you, mine doesn't.)
Cassandra
CassandraOil, your points...
"Clearly the Navy has more successfully adapted to the post Peak Oil environment",
"Yes, I know, aircraft carriers and all."
For various reason, I have never been a fan of nuclear energy. Yes, it will work, and yes, it makes loads of concentrated power, and I do not have any great disdain for it, I just don't think it makes sense in the civilian power market.
However, as Hyman Rickover understood when he created the nuclear navy, in military applications, nuclear has much to give, beside just weapons.
If it should ever become needed, nuclear applied to the oil shale and tar sands would assure enough energy to run a vast military machine seemingly forever, if no other drain were to be made on the fuels in question. The military know it, we the public know it, and our enemies know it.
The two deciding and crucial factors are wealth and will. It might not be cheap. On the other hand, if the EROEI of conventional fossil fuels continued to rise, it could actually be a bargain, from a dollar cost standpoint, if you lay aside environmental and safety aspects. This brings us to the point of will, that is, at what point would a military establishment exceed the tolerance of it's own people in it's practices and be seen as a greater threat than any enemy. A major nuclear accident or environmental catastrophe could bring a breaking point, at which point the military would have to decide whether it should resist it's own people to hold on to power, or to pull back from the most radical methods. The Red Army in the U.S.S.R faced something of exactly that nature in it's final days, before the culture the army was defending collapsed, thus ending the validity of the Soviet military. But there seems to be no indication whatsoever that the barrier to the military having fuel is a technical one. In closing it must be remembered that no other military in the world has an exemption from the need for energy if they intend to stay viable and competitive.
If I had to pick a military to bet on, it would be one that has a supply of crude oil, natural gas, coal, untapped alternatives like shale oil, landspace for biofuel, an advanced technical and nuclear sector inside it's own area of control. a large electric power grid with hydroelectric as a stable strategic area in which to build munitions and other technology and an educated workforce. Yep, The United States strategic situation is still dammed hard to top. In fact, it's the one area of our cultural heritage and destiny we have expended the effort to maintain.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
As a matter of fact, our God is bigger than anybody else's, as noted by the man who is currently Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warfighting Support. (What a great job for a self-professed follower of Jesus Christ - 'Warfighting Support.' You just can't make this stuff up.)
Besides, war makes a nation great. It says so right in this German book from the 1920s - oops, wrong book. Or the writings of some short French guy from the early 1800s - oops, wrong again. I meant the Constitution, which is just chock full of information about how to make napalm and cruise missiles, while giving the president power beyond any restraint, to ensure liberty and justice for whoever the president thinks deserves it.
No, Americans are pretty clueless about war means, and they honestly think Hollywood's version of it is real, while blocking any attempt to show the reality of war from its citizens, as such imagery is just too disturbing to be broadcast.
As a final note - the part about 'anti-American' is in jest, as is the part about napalm and cruise missiles. Sadly, the rest is more true than not, and is not in jest at all.
"You can't say Americans are not
more violent than other people?
No!
All those people killed in shootings
in America?
Shootings. That doesn't mean Americans
are more violent than other people.
We're just better shots. "
Whit Stillman - Barcelona
... "That's what's great about
getting involved with a foreigner.
You can't take it personally.
What's really terrific is that when we act
in ways which might objectively...
...seem assholish, or incredibly annoying,
they don't get upset at all.
They just assume it's some
national characteristic.
I was simply dealing with the technical aspect of energy, not the larger moral/cultural/philospophical discussion of war in general. Even most Americans will agree that our latest adventure was ill thought out from the start, leaving aside the ethical issues.
War is a waste and a mistake by someone whenever and wherever they occur. It is seldom in history that a country gets to say "Dang, I'm glad we got in that war". They are best avoided if possible.
We live in interesting times. War is a waste of resources, and the one thing that most of us agree on here at TOD is that resources may be in short supply in the world for the foreseeable future. Have we reached the age in which war, like giant showy cars and houses are a luxury we simply can't afford?
If so, do we have enough sense to realize it?
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
So, will we continue to compete for a diminishing resources, even though competition through warfare will deplete those resources at an even faster rate? Or are we capable of learning behaviors different from what got us this far.
Don't ask me what outcome I would bet on, but we really have no choice but to try and achieve the latter.
Tony Verbalis
After any war, the US Tendency has always been to go isolationist.
In times past, the US has been able to afford to do just that because it was blessed with resources and a level of self sufficient primary commercial activity (lumber, metals, oil, coal, grain, fruit, livestock etc.) These commodities had its own internal markets (cloth mills, steel production, shops on main street, gun and tool makers, excellent furniture and cabinet makers etc. Oh, and some very fine small town architecture)
ps , I have a few pieces of your colonial style furniture. It is elegant, functional, and still works.
So, with all this intrinsic wealth and three thousand miles from the nearest threat on either side, The US was in a unique position to withstand the tempests of the world. It got you in pole position after the Great War and confirmed your position as the climax industrial civilisation after the Second World War.
After Iraq, the isolationist tendency will gain ground, except that this time, the US is interdependent on globalised trade; especially for raw energy.
This garden of eden , capable of ignoring the world's problems is now fatally flawed: Your offshoring-capitalists have wrecked your ability to look after yourselves. Do you know (for example) where your filter masks come from in the event of avian flu breaking out?
- Thats right, you have offshored it to SE Asia (the place where they are likely to have first call, and you can whistle for help). Same goes for plastic syringes.
You have offshored your entire strategic wealth. All in the name of globalisation, and all due to the prancing of the wealthy b(w)ankers, economists and financial managers.
(talk about the 'empty raincoat'...)
Truly, at some point in the future, you will consider shooting these creatures through both lungs with cross hatched ammo. And all because they sold you all down the river.
But by then , it will be too late. They will have made a pile and you will be outside the lifeboat.
I think I am looking at the demise of the greatest nation on earth (how many others have planted a flag on the moon?).
And all for a handfull of a rich, preppy elite who turned you all over for a percentage.
It really is time you got a grip on your nationhood and took back what they have stolen from you.
Still. Fly the flag, buy junk, send your boys and girls to fight in criminal wars and be returned physically and psychologically mutilated.
But dont forget: your doing it for men and women who wear the enamelled 'old glorys' on the lapels of their hand made suits.
Have a nice day :-)
Quite good actually and quite accurate in general.
Yes, it was the yuppies that did it. The yups that the boomers raised. Gave them everything. Plenty of 'timeouts' and soccer, with mom in the drivers seat of the SUV mind you and papa taking the stick over his back yet pissing it all away for a easy piece of female pleasure(I won't use the word ASS here though) but its a better fit(sexual revolution ,doncha know).
So what we have are a bunch of whining, spoiled , thumbsuckers who have been sheltered by mum from the realities of life and given the formula for destroying life.
How could it have turned out differently? They moved into the workerbee bullpens and right on into mgmt. They became the egoistic , short term goal, risk adverse assholes of corporate Amurka. They watched Clinton for the right moves and along with his sidekick Ron Brown showed how it was all done.
We inherited this mess. Now we will die with it. The ones who did it should be the ones to take the first incoming rounds and by golly I think they will, praise be to Allah , be he so merciful for finally setting the ending act up.
Yes its all over and we understand that each time we travel to Grannies house for Thanksgiving, even though the young pups threw her in a nursing home long long ago and grabbed her assets as well. Travel like I did along the interstates and watch the pitiful madness we are. The utter total absolute stupidity of Amurka and the generation who spawned such ignorant abhorrent,suckass lifestyles.
I spent four days doing this and was amazed at what I hadn't seen in a while. Its like they say here. We are dead. Not a chance in hell. We are dead Amurkans walking or better who just haven't stopped driving as yet.
Its was fun for the 'Class of '57' while it lasted. Rock and Roll, Elvis, trips to the moon, teenangels, hot rods and .........finally the exit.. for the fat lady is truly singing. Singing her fat ass off. Next the curtain falls.
airdale--locked down tight on the farm
P.S. I admit freely that both of my offspring are to blame just as much though I was not a boomer. I took the stick. Each day I fought the good fight and lost. The MSM took care of that. Divorce in the offing took the rest. Children who spit on your ideas and thoughts about how to live properly. Yes I fought and lost. Now its me, the dogs and the farm.
P.P.S. Screw you Dr. Spock and your buddy Dr. Phil. Jerks!
Use foreigners.
See French Foreign Legion and how many times they have been deployed into combat. Puts the US to shame !
Alan
Doubleplus Cassandra.
The idea that we start the downslide and everything else stays equal, that oil is simply more expensive, I don't buy it. An aircraft carrier, nuke powered or not, won't go anywhere without its convoy. Likewise, oil tankers will only move in convoys. We won't be able to make dacron to make sails for sail powered oil tankers. We won't be able to rebuild the entire infrastructure.
The DOD report highlights conservation, life-style change, substitution and deprivation. That four letter word - LESS. And LESS in a context of social unrest.
cfm in Gray, ME
The only way a Powerdown type strategy will work is if the military is willing to come into your house and kick your ass should you use more than your share since people are, more or less, wired to cheat when it comes to these things.
There is an inherent irony here in that many "peak oil activists" came out of the anti-war or peace and justice movements.
Sadly, Jay had it right about these matters.
Better lets cut the military budget in half, that will help them with their fuel problem.
It is a waste of time discussing the possibility of running out of oil during times of war. Any invading that has been done recently has usually been my nuclear powers and NOT on their soil - it's all been about sovereinty, empire and 'Democracy'.
From Vietnam to the Falklands to Iraq to Iraq to Iraq to bosnia to Afganistan. None of these wars were neccesary and they did not serve in direct defence of our countries. Any sheeple who believe that these wars were sold on anything more that empty propaganda, feel free to Baaaaaaa.
This is the important point: Backed into a corner by a major force and unable to defend ourselves using conventional weapons we would quickly go nuclear.
There is no doubt on this. However there is really no-one to defend ourselves against as no-one is attacking us.
Try this as an excercise. List the top causes of death in the western world 1-1000. Where do you think 'caused by foreign enemy' comes on this list. At a guess i'd say it's not even in the top 1000.
It's all B****T.
To sum up. If we want to wage phony wars then yes we need lots of oil.
Marco.
Depends. I'd say that if it was an Iraqi citizen writing up that list that "caused by foreign enemy" comes right at the very top.
Cheers!
Marco.
GWII has used a fair amount of energy to conduct, has lost the USA and the UK a fair amount of international goodwill and has secured the USA and UK zero energy resources for the future. So it looks like the ERoEI of this adventure is close to zero.
In fact, the goodwill may have helped secure energy else where, and its loss probably sticks the ERoEI of GWII into negative territory - competing with hydrogen in that regard.
There are of course no energy shortages, just huge amounts of energy waste. I'm still a great fan of imposing massive tax on US gasoline, setting an engine size limit and speed limit for cars and trucks and for costing airline tickets based on the mass of the passenger.
VOTE FOR ME
1. strategic - the US military needs a lot of oil, and the infrastructure to put that oil where it burns it.
But the US (civilian) economy is an inefficient user of oil, and there is a lot of oil production on the North American mainland (tar sands, conventional etc.).
So in a national emergency the US military can always get oil. American civilians can conserve oil, and there are domestic supplies.
However, if the price of oil is $150/bl, this has budgetary issues. Oil consumption would 'crowd out' necessary military expenditure in other areas, and would probably lead to reduced spending on training (which is utterly vital).
There is precedent. When the Soviet Union collapsed, its Navy ships were unable to leave port due to fuel shortages, and all military activities were severely curtailed (for the same reasons). An army that doesn't train and exercise, will rapidly lose its combat edge.
2. operational - the US military is configured around a high fuel burn rate.
US Armoured Brigades burn fuel faster than any other mechanised formations in history.
Getting that fuel to the M1A1 Abrams tanks, the M2 and M3 Bradleys, all the support vehicles and the Blackhawk helicopters is a major operational challenge. If you have to airlift it, you are spending several gallons of fuel to get 1 gallon into the hands of the troops.
The Abrams in particular is almost unique on world battlefields: a gas turbine engine with very poor fuel economy. A design for a new, easier to repair, more fuel efficient engine was deleted due to Budgetary Constraints.
In effect what it leaves you with is an operational nightmare, with long supply lines of fuel trucks which need protection from insurgents, and enemy air and artillery power. Remember Private Lynch? She was part of a maintenance battalion that got lost and ran into enemy forces.
The greatest achievement of the invasion of Iraq was keeping the troops fuelled during their drive across the desert to Baghdad.
The greatest risk now to US forces is that their supply lines run through potentially hostile country, with loads of ambush points and more bridges than can be sensibly defended.
3. tactical
See 2. The battlefield mobility of US forces can be severely restricted by fuel shortages.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60.htm
).
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
note the M1 has twice the horsepower 1500 v. 750hp. (and gas consumption even worse due to the gas turbine). The 70 ton weight of the M1A2 limits tactical mobility, especially in Third World countries where the bridges can't take the weight.
The M60 had the typical flaws of a US tank: very high profile, which meant you could see it all over the battlefield (conversely, it means you are better in a hull down position because you don't have to move to shoot from the turret).
The Armoured Personnel Carrier from the early 1960s to the mid 1980s was the M113. And there are still more M113s in service than M2/M3s.
The Stryker is interesting, because it is a reversion to wheeled vehicles (very controversially) and therefore should have a lot better fuel economy.
At this point, the civilian leadership has been using the military to dominate the world, with emphasis on strategic locations like the middle east. If the costs grow larger than the benefits, the civilian leadership will change its strategy.
After peak oil, when we are firmly on the downslope, there will be some very difficult choices in Washington. If it gets to the point where the military cannot ensure energy supplies, when the costs outgrow the benefits, I have no doubt the leadership would seriously consider pulling back to "fortress america".
If we aren't fighting overseas to preserve inflows of strategic goods (like oil), then there isn't much use for M1 tanks and F-15s. Sitting mothballed, they don't use any fuel at all.
This adds more weight to the fact that the CERA report was blowing smoke. Why would our best military minds even be researching this if we had ample supply of conventional oil for the next 40 years?
Speaking broadly, the military isn't that interested in the economics, per se - they too are very interested in what comes out of the pipeline in the end.
Obviously, when talking to people in charge of a budget process, they talk in budget terms. But when looking at a map, they worry about such non-theoretical problems as whether a few thousand fanatic Iranians on foot with RPGs can cut the fuel supply lines supporting tens of thousands of American soldiers. By the way, the answer to that concern is yes, in case anyone is wondering - and then we bomb Iran, and then Iran shuts the Straights of Hormuz, and then the price of oil skyrockets, and the amount of oil coming out of the pipeline declines - see how the military view of things works?
Peak oil is just a factor in their outlook, and has been for decades, at least since the 'Carter Doctrine.'
An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and
Its Implications for United States National Security
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Pentagon-Climate-Change1oct03.htm