1
DoD’s Energy Challenge as Strategic
Opportunity
John Simpson, P.E. LEED AP
Senior Fellow – Rocky Mountain Institute
Sustainable Design Engineer
US General Services Administration
Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings
www.rmi.org , www.gsa.gov
jsimpson@rmi.org or john.simpson@gsa.gov
Climate and Energy Symposium
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
23 March 2010
Copyright ⓒ 2010 Rocky Mountain Institute. All rights reserved. Internal .PDF reproduction licensed to US Navy
2
Energy: DoD’s soft underbelly...revealing a source of strategic advantage
• The Department’s mission is at risk, and huge costs are being paid in
blood, treasure, and lost combat effectiveness, due to:
• Pervasive waste of energy in the battlespace
• Fixed facilities’ 99+% dependence on the highly vulnerable
electricity grid
• Solutions are available to turn these handicaps into
revolutionary gains in capability, at similar or lower capital cost and
at far lower operating cost, without tradeoff or compromise
•Adopting those means to achieve two vital new capabilities—
Endurance and Resilience—can benefit enormously from
harnessing the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ speed, focus, and
innovation—most of all in mobility, the biggest fuel-user
3
Two new proposed capabilities (formerly known as ―strategic vectors‖):
Endurance and Resilience
Feb 08 Defense Science Board report More Fight—Less Fuel
(www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf) urged that
current strategic vectors (Speed, Stealth, Precision, Networking) be
augmented by two more
• Endurance
• Resilience
See ―DOD’s Energy Challenge as Strategic Opportunity,‖ in press, JFQ
2Q10
4
Is this trip necessary?
One inefficient 5-ton a/c uses ~1 gal/h of genset fuel. The truck’s 68-barrel cargo can cool 120
uninsulated tents for 24 h. This 3-mile convoy invites attack. (Photos aren’t all in the same place.)
• The ideal expeditionary force is bred to be like a Manx cat—no tail
• In the example above, efficient and passive or renewable techniques do the
the task (comfort) with no oil. No gensets, no convoys, no problem. Turn tail
into trigger-pullers. Multiply force. Grow stronger by eating our own tail.
• Current example: the $146M, 17-Mft2 sprayfoaming in Iraq, saving over half
the air-conditioning energy, pays back in 67–74 days at $13.80/gal FBCF. Next
steps: load-balancing, superefficient gensets & a/c; cooling without electricity?
• We didn’t buy Endurance in the past: when designing everything that used
energy in the battlespace, we assumed fuel logistics was free and invulnerable;
fuel would automagically appear, both in theater and in wargames
• Now we know better, so we’ll value fuel 1–2 orders of magnitude higher
5
The hidden costs of fuel logistics: the tail is eating the tooth
• Logistics uses 1/2 of DoD’s personnel and 1/3 of DoD’s budget
• ≥50% of tonnage moved when the Army deploys is fuel
• Fuel/warfighter rose 2.6%/y for past 40 y, proj’d 1.5%/y to 2017
• Of ~$1M/warfighter-y cost in Afghanistan, ~$0.20–0.36M/y is fuel
• Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (not yet electricity too!) and associated
energy KPPs are mandatory (NDAA 09) and helpful reminders, but
FBCF omits the two biggest losses: lives and missions
6
Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel—though often 1–2 orders of
magnitude higher than unburdened cost—is not only
incomplete but understated
Initial OSD guidance, though improving, still appears to omit:
• full support pyramids
• multipliers from in-theater to full rotational force strength
• actual (not book) depreciation lives
• full headcounts including borrowed and ?contractors
• full Air Force and Navy lift costs to/from theater
• possibly recursions on FBCF of the fuel that delivers fuel
Some treat garrison costs as dilutive, not additive, to FBCF
Some analysts average peacetime with wartime costs, or even
assume a peacetime OPTEMPO
DSB 08: ―FBCF is a wartime capability planning factor, not a
peacetime cost estimate.‖
Aim: fully count all assets and activities that won’t be needed, or
can be realigned, if a given gallon need no longer be delivered
7
Military energy efficiency brings five big benefits at once
1. Force protector
2.
Force multiplier
3.
Force enabler
4.
Key to transformational realignment - from tail to tooth
5.
Catalyst for leap-ahead fuel savings in the civilian
sector
Bottom line:
fewer casualties, more effective forces, safer world
8
Prospecting for energy-saving winners: where to look
• The most total fuel can be saved in aircraft: they use 73% of DoD’s oil
• Savings in aerially refueled aircraft and forward-deployed ground
forces save the most delivery cost and thus realignable support assets
•The greatest gains in combat effectiveness will come from fuelefficient ground forces (land and vertical-lift platforms, land warriors,
FOBs)
• Savings downstream, near the speartip, save more fuel, because
delivering 1 liter to Army speartip consumes ~1.4 extra liters in logistics;
in expeditionary Afghanistan, that number may be ~7 (British Army est.)
• So these are all worthy objectives—for different reasons—and they’re
not mutually exclusive
9
Prospecting for energy-saving winners: design principles
The biggest energy savings in any platform (anything that directly
or indirectly uses energy in the battlespace) will:
• Come from radical, clean-sheet redesign—not incrementalism
• Optimize whole systems for multiple benefits, not isolated components for
single benefits, to make big savings cheaper than small savings
• Strongly emphasize major reductions in weight, then drag, then onboard
energy burden—before improving energy supply or propulsion
• Use downsizing and simplification of energy supply systems to pay for (or
more) the savings in weight and drag, reducing direct capital cost
• Not assume diminishing returns or tradeoffs; they are generally signals of
poor design integration or a misstated design problem
Not one of the 143 briefs to the DSB 08 study disclosed a tradeoff
between energy efficiency and combat effectiveness or force protection
Let’s look at some civilian examples, then their military implications
Details: www.rmi.org/stanford, www.oilendgame.com, and www.10xE.org
10
11
A 2004 roadmap for eliminating oil use by the 2040s
www.oilendgame.com
12
A realistic solution at an average cost of $15/bbl
Petroleum product equivalent consumption
(million barrels/day)
Source: Lovins, Amory B. et al. Winning the Oil Endgame. 2005 Rocky Mountain Institute.
www.oilendgame.com. Technical Annex 23. * Illustrating 10% substitution; 100%+ is feasible
U.S. Oil Use and Import, 1950–
2035
government projection (extrapolated after 2025)
end use efficiency @ $12/bbl
plus supply substitution @ $18/bbl (max < $26/bbl)
plus optional hydrogen from leftover saved natural gas
and/or renewables*
Efficiency
first...
Petroleum use
Petroleum imports
... then
substitution
13
Vehicles use 70% of U.S. oil, but integrating low mass and drag
with advanced propulsion saves ~2/3 very cheaply
150 mi/h, 94 mpg
14
Each day, your car uses ~100× its weight in ancient plants.
Where does that fuel energy go?
13% tractive
load
0%
87% of the fuel energy never reaches the wheels
20%
Engine
Fuel Loss
Energy
Idle Loss
40%
80%
60%
Aerodynamic drag
Rolling resistance
Acceleration, then braking resistance
100%
Driveline loss
Accessory loss
• 6 % accelerates the car, ~0.3% moves the driver
• At least two-thirds of the fuel use is caused by weight
• Each unit of energy saved at the wheels saves ~7-8 units of fuel
in the tanks (~3-4 w/ a hybrid)
So first make the car radically lighter-weight- then decompound
15
its mass!
―Institutional Acupuncture‖ –– implementation is underway
• RMI’s 3-year, $4-million effort has led and consolidated shifts
Need to shift strategy & investment in six sectors
Aviation
Heavy Trucks
• Alan Mulally’s move
from Boeing to Ford
• Eagerness from
workers and dealers
Military
Fuels
Finance
• Schumpeterian
―creative destruction‖
• Emerging prospects of
leapfrogs
Cars and light trucks
• ―Feebate‖ promotion
16
―We must leave oil before it leaves us.‖
—Fatih Birol, Chief Economist, International Energy Agency, 2008
17
18
1989 U.S. electricity-saving potential:
~75% at an average technical cost ~1¢/kWh (2008 $)
19
Lovins House, Old Snowmass, Colorado, 1984
–47˚F with no heating/cooling
equipment, lower construction
cost
mid-1980s savings: ~99% of
space- and water-heating energy,
~90% of household electricity, 10month payback
20
Inside, a tropical environment with 32 banana crops, no furnace
21
Integrative design in retrofitting the Empire State Building
22
Lighting&
Plugs
Empire State Building:
integrative retrofit design
$8.7 M
minus$17.4 M
VAV
AHUs
DDC
Controls
Radiative
Barrier
Windows
$2.7 M
Chiller Plant
Retrofit
$2.4 M
$5.6 M
$4.4 M
Annual
Savings
$4 M
23
Cost
Conventionally, saving energy costs more and more
Savings
24
Cost
Conventionally, saving energy costs more and more
Savings
25
Cost
But integrative design can achieve expanding returns
Savings
26
World’s electricity usage
Worlds
Electricity
Usage
27
World’s electricity usage
Worlds
Electricity
Usage
60% Motors
28
World’s electricity usage
Worlds
Electricity
Usage
30% Pumps and Fans
29
Saving electricity in industry: motors, pumps, and pipes
30
69% less pumping power, lower capital cost
31
Energy efficiency: start downstream
Coal Energy
Input
Power
Plant
Grid
Motor &
Drivetrain
Pump &
Throttle
Pipe
Energy
Output
100 Units
-70%
-9%
-12%
-55%
-20%
10 Units
32
Energy efficiency: start downstream
100 Units
10 Units
33
Energy efficiency: start downstream
50 Units
5 Units
34
Examples from RMI’s industrial practice (>$30b of facilities)
35
Electric shock: low-/no-carbon decentralized sources are rapidly eclipsing
central stations; renewables got 56% of 2008 global power investment
Wind
36
The global power market is shifting rapidly to distributed resources
Output additions
from nuclear fell
behind PVs’ since
2007 and may
never catch37up
RMI is envisioning the shape of, stability of, and transition path to
an all-renewable, all-distributed electricity system...starting today
Current System
Energy
Efficiency
& Renewables
Next Generation Utility
Energy Efficiency & Renewables
Renewables
& Distributed Generation
Natural Gas & Oil
EDV & DR
Coal and Nuclear
Coal and
Nuclear
EDV = electric drive vehicles
DR = demand response
38
Two key policy innovations
1. Feebates (fee + rebate) for efficient cars
•
Revenue-neutral, size-neutral, more profitable for
automakers
•
More effective than fuel taxes or efficiency standards
•
Highly successful in France, now proposed for 20 other
products; could be applied to new buildings
2. Decoupling and shared savings for electricity & gas
•
Aligns utility’s interests with customers’ interests
•
Long successful in 2 US states; spreading: adopted for
electricity (gas) in 8 (18) states, pending in 11 (5)
39
Five implementation myths
1.
―It isn’t happening—why not?‖
2.
―Solutions must await global
agreement‖
3.
―Pricing carbon is the essential first
step‖
4.
―Public policy = taxes, subsidies, and
mandates‖
5.
―Public policy is the only, or the
strongest, key‖
40
Design to win the future, NOT perpetuate the past
New design space
Present design space
Define the end point
Development targets
Risk management
Market introduction
Economic insight
Customer relationships
Technology introduction
Integration payoff areas
First production
variant
Foundation
Platform
41
Only puny secrets need protection.
Big discoveries are protected
by public incredulity.
—Marshall McLuhan
42