Alternative Energy and Propulsion Power for Today's U.S. Military

The U.S. military has the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world, but they are fueled and mechanically powered by old technologies. Given the mission of the U.S. military, it is without question the largest oil-using organization of its kind in the world. More than half of the Department of Defense's (DoD's) fuel budget is spent on fueling the U.S. Air Force. The Navy consumes about one-third of defense oil resources, and the Army uses about 12%. Twenty-five percent of military energy is used to power and heat buildings and facilities. The remaining 75% is consumed for mobility purposes.

Of the total U.S. government liquid fuel use, about 97% is consumed by the DoD, making that agency the world's single-largest fuel-burning entity. It is certainly understandable why the U.S. military uses such a great deal of fuel for mobility to conduct tactical operations. The Air Force is focused on airlift and platforms that can deliver strike packages from the air. The Navy and Marine Corps are focused on sealift and sea-delivered strike packages. The Army has a mission focused on maneuvering and fighting, and seizing and holding terrain. This is a simplification of the respective service missions, which are quite broad, complex, and very much interrelated, but it illustrates the need to explore alternative energy to satisfy the operational necessities of our military.

Alternative Energy Research

The Army is replacing the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), a battlefield vehicle that gets as few as 4 miles per gallon in city driving and 8 miles per gallon on the highway, and a great deal worse over cross-country terrain. The Army wants to see a HMMWV replacement that weighs 30 to 40% less and uses proportionately less fuel.

Since the Air Force uses the most petroleum-based fuel, it is leading the way in alternative fuel research. The Air Force is qualifying new types of fuel derived from both natural gas and coal. In 2006, a B-52 bomber flew with one engine mount using a newly produced liquid fuel derived entirely from natural gas. Due to the nature of the manufacturing process, the fuel contains virtually no sulfur and hardly any heavy metals, which is good for prolonging engine longevity when compared to jet fuel derived from refined petroleum. In ground-based testing, the engines that burned this fuel did not experience any measurable loss of performance and required less maintenance. All services could benefit from this research if synthetic fuel could be used in ground tactical vehicles, helicopters, and other support systems.

With the Navy being the second-largest DoD user of petroleum-based fuels, it is experimenting with ship designs and construction techniques that are anticipated to produce vessels ten to 100 times more efficient than in
years past. Some novel ideas envision certain future classes of Navy ships using masts and sails, with the sails and the exterior of the hulls coated with photovoltaic cells, all with the goal of reducing the requirement for liquid mobility fuel.

Both the Navy and the Air Force are among the largest generators and consumers of "green energy," almost all of it derived from windmills. This helps to reduce the burden of procuring petroleum fuel for base operations, and allows them to focus resources toward the petroleum needs of their mobile tactical and operational systems.

The payoff to the DoD, in terms of mission effectiveness and human lives, is probably greater than for any other energy user in the world. More efficient platforms would reduce the burden of owning, employing, operating, and protecting the people and equipment needed to move and protect fuel from the point of commercial purchase to the point of use. Not only will there be direct savings in energy cost, but combat effectiveness will be increased and resources otherwise needed for resupply and protection redirected.