Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Volvo Cars and partners launch One Tonne Life experiment in Sweden | Main | Faurecia expands in China with new joint-venture for automotive exteriors »

Print this post

RAND study concludes use of alternative fuels by US military would convey no direct military benefit; recommends energy efficiency instead

25 January 2011

If the US military increases its use of alternative jet and naval fuels that can be produced from coal or various renewable resources, including seed oils, waste oils and algae, there will be no direct benefit to the nation’s armed forces, according to a new RAND Corporation study. Any benefits from investment in alternative fuels by the US Department of Defense will accrue to the nation as a whole rather than to mission-specific needs of the military, the researchers concluded.

The US Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force have all expressed a clear interest in being early users of alternative fuels in their tactical weapon systems, the RAND authors note in their report, “Alternative Fuels for Military Applications”. However, RAND researchers James Bartis and Lawrence Van Bibbe concluded it makes more sense for the military to direct its efforts toward using energy more efficiently. Providing war fighters with more energy-efficient equipment such as aircraft or combat vehicles improves operational effectiveness, saves money and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, they said.

If the services are indeed to use alternative fuels in tactical weapon systems, these fuels must be able to substitute for one or more of the three petroleum-based distillate fuels that currently support the majority of military operations: the two military jet fuels, JP-8 and JP-5 (“JP” stands for “jet propellant”), and naval distillate (F-76). From the perspective of technical viability, a number of alternative fuels can meet this requirement. But uncertainties remain regarding their commercial viability—namely, how much these fuels will cost and what impact they may have on the environment, particularly in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite these unknowns, the Department of Defense is currently directing substantial resources—both dollars and personnel—to testing and certifying alternative fuels for use in tactical systems. The services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Defense Logistics Agency Energy (DLA Energy) are also sponsoring and conducting technology- development activities aimed at identifying advanced methods of producing alternative fuels.

—Alternative Fuels for Military Applications

“To realize the national benefits of alternative fuels, the military needs to reassess where it is placing its emphasis in both fuel testing and technology development. Too much emphasis is focused on seed-derived oils that displace food production, have very limited production potential and may cause greenhouse gas emissions well above those of conventional petroleum fuels.”
—James Bartis, lead author

In response to a congressional directive for a study on alternative and synthetic fuels, the US Department of Defense asked RAND to analyze whether alternative fuels can meet the needs of the nation’s military in a climate-friendly and affordable manner. RAND also was asked to examine the goals and progress of the efforts of the Army, Navy and Air Force in supporting the development of alternative fuel production technology, and in testing and certifying alternative fuels for military applications. Specific topics included:

  • Opportunities to produce alternative fuels in a way that reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, including the use of clean energy alternatives such as nuclear, solar, and wind energies for powering the conversion processes.
  • The military utility of concepts for production of alternative fuels in or close to the theater of military operations compared to domestic production.
  • The goals and progress of research, testing, and certification efforts by the Department of Defense related to the use of alternative fuels in military vehicles and aircraft.
  • The prospects for commercial production of nonpetroleum military fuels.

To analyze the efforts in the area of alternative fuels, the RAND team reviewed available documentation and technical reports; contacted key firms; and conducted in-depth interviews with representatives of DARPA, DLA Energy, and relevant organizations in each of the services.

The findings and recommendations presented in this report are those of the research team. In some cases, these findings conflict with views held and actions taken by the Department of Defense organizations involved in alternative fuel research, testing, and certification.

—Alternative Fuels for Military Applications

Major topics of the report include: Opportunities to Produce Alternative Fuels with Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions; The Military Utility of Forward-Based Alternative Fuel Production; Goals and Progress of the Military Departments; and The Prospects for Commercial Production.

Opportunities to Produce Alternative Fuels with Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The study concluded that Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels are the most promising near-term options for meeting the Department of Defense’s needs cleanly and affordably. If FT fuel production is to occur without compromising national goals to control greenhouse gas emissions, however, the following must hold, according to the report:

  • For biomass-derived FT fuels, the biomass feedstock must be produced in a sustainable manner; specifically, its production should not be based on practices that lead to sizable emissions due to direct or indirect changes in land use. If this is achieved, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions can be near zero.

  • For coal-derived FT fuels, carbon dioxide emissions at the FT fuel production facility must be captured and sequestered. If this is achieved, lifecycle emissions can be in line with those of petroleum-derived fuels.

  • For FT fuels derived from a mixture of coal and biomass, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration must be implemented. The biomass must also be produced in a sustainable manner. If this is achieved, lifecycle emissions can be less than half those of petroleum-derived fuels. In particular, a feedstock consisting of a 60/40 coal/biomass blend (by energy) should yield alternative fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are close to zero.

Considering economics, technical readiness, greenhouse gas emissions, and general environmental concerns, FT fuels derived from a mixture of coal and biomass represent the most promising approach to producing amounts of alternative fuels that can meet military, as well as appreciable levels of civilian, needs by 2030. But whether this technology will reach its potential depends crucially on gaining early production experience—including production with carbon capture and sequestration—in the United States. At present, no agency of the US government has announced plans to promote early commercial use of FT fuels derived from a mixture of coal and biomass.

—Alternative Fuels for Military Applications

Other conclusions in this area are:

  • It is highly uncertain whether appreciable amounts of hydrotreated renewable oils can be affordably and cleanly produced within the United States or abroad. Hydrotreated renewable oils are produced by processing animal fats or vegetable oils (from seed-bearing plants such as soybeans, jatropha, or camelina) with hydrogen. Various types of algae have high oil content and are another possible source of oil for hydrotreatment. Fifty-fifty blends of hydrotreated oils have already been successfully demonstrated in flight tests sponsored by the commercial aviation industry. Laboratory analyses and testing strongly suggest that hydrotreated renewable oils can also be formulated for use in the Department of Defense’s tactical weapon systems. Technical viability is not an issue, the authors emphasized.

    Considering (1) the very limited production potential for fuels derived from animal fats and waste oils, (2) the highly uncertain prospects for affordable, low greenhouse- gas fuels derived from seed crops, and (3) the early development status of algae-based concepts, hydrotreated renewable oils do not constitute a credible, climate-friendly option for meeting an appreciable fraction of military fuel needs over the next decade. Because of limited production potential, fuels derived from animal fats, waste oils, and seed oils will never have a significant role in the larger domestic commercial marketplace. Algae-derived fuels might, but technology development challenges suggest that algae-derived fuels will not constitute an important fraction of the commercial fuel market until well beyond the next decade.

    —Alternative Fuels for Military Applications

  • Nuclear, solar, and wind energy technologies may offer important benefits in the production of military, as well as civilian, alternative fuels. Nuclear, wind, and solar energy offer electric power without emitting appreciable amounts of greenhouse gases. For the near- and mid-term alternative fuel options (i.e., hydrotreated oil from animal fats and vegetable oils, and FT liquids), electric power is not an important input to the production process, but hydrogen is. If sufficient hydrogen is available, nearly all of the carbon in the coal or biomass feedstock to a Fischer-Tropsch plant would end up in the fuel products and not in the air, eliminating the need to capture and sequester carbon dioxide, the authors said. In addition, the use of hydrogen in an FT plant could nearly triple yields of liquid fuels.

    For hydrotreated oil from algae, a longer-term option, climate-friendly sources of electric power could be used directly in the processes of cultivating the algae and extracting the oil, because electricity is required for mixing, circulation, and management of water and nutrients.

    —Alternative Fuels for Military Applications

  • The beneficial hydrogen derived from nuclear, solar, and wind energy technologies is not an economically viable option over the near- to mid-term.

The Military Utility of Forward-Based Alternative Fuel Production. Concepts for forward-based alternative fuel production do not offer a military advantage, the authors find. Although concepts have been proposed for alternative production systems—including position in forward operating bases, floating platforms, and small-scale units co-located with tactical units—all of these have logistical or cost barriers, according to the study.

In short, traditional systems, in which fuel is produced outside the theater and then shipped in, continue to be the most practical in terms of military utility.

—Alternative Fuels for Military Applications

Goals and Progress of the Military Departments. Defense Department goals for alternative fuels in tactical weapon systems should be based on potential national benefits, since the use of alternative, rather than petroleum-derived, fuels offers no direct military benefits, according to the report.

...there are nationally important benefits to be gained from the use of alternative fuels. If the Department of Defense were to encourage early production experience, government decision makers, technology developers, and investors would obtain important information about the technical, financial, and environmental performance of various alternative fuel options. If favorable, that information could lead to a commercial alternative-fuels industry producing strategically significant amounts of fuel in the United States. Once established, a large, commercially competitive alternative fuel industry in the United States and abroad would weaken the ability of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to assert its cartel power. Lower world oil prices would yield economic benefits to all fuel users—civilian and military alike. Lower prices would also decrease the incomes of “rogue” oil producers, and thereby likely decrease financial support to large terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizballah.

—Alternative Fuels for Military Applications

The study found that current efforts by the services to test and certify alternative fuels are “far outpacing” commercial development. Given where industry is in the process of developing these fuels, the authors said, some of these efforts—at least at the current levels of funding and personnel—may be premature.

Should the Department of Defense continue to support the development of technology to produce alternative fuels, it should consider consolidating and strengthening management and shifting support to longer-term goals, the report said. Finally, the authors noted, to cost-effectively promote early industrial production of alternative fuels, the Department of Defense needs extended contracting authority for fuel purchases.

The Prospects for Commercial Production. Overall, the RAND team concluded, within the United States, the prospects for commercial production of alternative fuels that have military applications remain highly uncertain, especially over the next decade.

Specific recommendations include:

  • The Department of Defense should complete testing and certification of Fischer-Tropsch liquids for use in 50/50 fuel blends, but testing at higher concentrations is not appropriate considering the very limited commercial production anticipated over at least the next decade.

  • Minimize resources directed at testing and certification of hydrotreated renewable oils, including oils derived from seed crops (e.g., camelina) and algae. Testing and certifying these fuels in high-performance propulsion systems used by the military is simply not on the critical path for resolving the uncertainties associated with these fuels.

  • Considering the absence of military benefits, the Department of Defense and Congress should reconsider whether defense appropriations should continue to support the development of advanced alternative fuel technologies.

  • If the Department of Defense is to continue to support alternative fuels, its role and the Department of Energy’s role need to be clarified.

  • For technical, logistical and security reasons, research directed at advanced concepts for forward-based production of energy should focus on electric power as opposed to specification-grade military fuels for use in weapon systems.

The RAND investigation was limited to alternative fuels, as opposed to the whole of energy use across the Department of Defense. But this study can be placed within the broader context of an overall energy strategy for the US military. The RAND team’s finding that the use of alternative fuels offers the armed services no direct military benefit is consistent with top-level findings of recent studies on military energy issues by the Def est served by efforts directed at using energy more efficiently in weapon systems and at military installations. In this regard, the services’ energy programs are clearly, and appropriately, placing the greatest emphasis on measures that would increase the efficiency of energy use.

—Alternative Fuels for Military Applications

Research for this report was sponsored by the Defense Logistics Agency-Energy and was conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

Resources

January 25, 2011 in Algal Fuels, Aviation, Biomass, Biomass-to-Liquids (BTL), Coal, Coal-to-Liquids (CTL), Lifecycle analysis, Policy | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef0148c7f9541b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference RAND study concludes use of alternative fuels by US military would convey no direct military benefit; recommends energy efficiency instead :

Comments

RAND seem blissfully unaware of the military advantages of producing fuel at home, rather than relying on a long logistical chain to obtain it from countries which may become hostile, and of the advantages of a secure supply.
This is rather odd since the history of the World wars can be drawn in terms of securing, maintaining and substituting for supplies of fuel, and the eventual collapse of hostile powers occurred when their access to fuel was denied.

The RAND researchers are indeed a bunch of fools. When our troops are in combat, the last thing we want them thinking of is the MPG of their M1A1 tanks. I want troops to have more energy than they would ever need available to them - with the capability to use alternatives for tactical/strategic advantages. But if they are using alternatives they should have massive amounts of that alternative energy available to them also. It's all about projecting the maximum amount of combat power to the front lines as possible.

Fuel efficiency gains might be useful, but if the US had had a way to produce clean, tasty drinking water in Iraq hundreds of American lives would have been saved. Nearly half of those truck convoys that were regularly attacked were carrying water.
Also in an environment like Iraq, a solar array linked to a battery park would have given BEV's a reliable energy source that again did not have to be shipped in by at risk truckers and escort teams.
But I think that the key word in this study is that there was no DIRECT military benefit. The indirect military benefits would be noticeable, and the military could possibly build technology that could be applied in a less expensive way in the civilian world.

There is considerable utility in using solar arrays to charge the many battery powered gadgets the army has.
The PVs are quieter, and do not require diesel to be trucked long distances. This is a clear win in sunny places like Iraq+Afghanistan.
What they are saying is that there is no specific military benefit to using synthetic fuels. You cannot plant a few acres of camelia around your firebase and wait a year or two, you still have to truck the fuel across hostile territory.
More efficient (or lighter) vehicles, using hybridisation would make a lot of sense as it would require the trucking requirements, as stated above.
Pure Evs wouldn't work as the demands are too variable - some days, nothing, other days, a long trek, and you cannot recharge PVs quickly.
As stated, hybridisation would work well, + possibly designing vehicles with less extreme performance requirements, bearing in mind their place of use.
You are no longer designing for the north European plain with short supply lines.

Obviously, the bigger picture is to use less fuel nationally (everywhere, not just the US), so you don't have to fight wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
But that is not what they were asked to research.

They ("they") should look seriously at multi fuel vehicles to use the now abundant Natural gas - this would cut imports to the US quicker than anything I can think of.
(+You could still hybridize the new generation vehicles.)

One of the main reason to maintain very strong military forces is to fight oil wars. Using locally produced alternative fuels would not be in their favor. Simple logic??

HarveyD nailed it. Maintaining 'very strong military forces' means many bid/no-bid rich multi-millionaire corporate officers.

It brings tears that each occupying US soldier costs taxpayers a $1,000,000 annually to supply. That money could be the difference between dignity and dog food for a hundred American families.

Then, if our soldiers return, most declare they accomplished nothing and battle ongoing delayed stress disorder or worst.

"How many terrorists have you met?" is a line from the movie "Brazil".

HarveyD nailed what...a Michael Moore talking point? As for waive-the-white-flag / class-envy kelly - thank God people like that are (have been) few and far between in America or else Hilter would have taken over the world. It brings tears that we spent a trillion dollars on an "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" that our children & grandchildren will be paying for, that has done nothing to recover & little to invest.

The Rand study seems to be unaware of history. The main reason the U.S. won the battle of the Bulge was that German tanks ran out of fuel, because U.S. bombers were wrecking their their synth. fuel plants and the russians were taking back the oil fields in the east, like Romania. The german airforce was grounded in 1945 due to fuel shortages.

Glad to hear them (Rand) emphasize the importance of "efficiencies". Vehicles & equipment that use less fuel (whether fossil or alternative) are as important as developing alternative fuels.

Gee, the Rand Corporation saying we shouldn't get off oil and just "stay the course." What a shock. We might as well as the Heritage Foundation what's wrong with liberal policies.
Dumbasses. You notice they blind-sided the solar angle for the military. Too bad every single general, colonel, or quartermaster will tell you that eliminating the fuel supply line in times of conflict will be THE deciding factor in how our military operates in the future.

That being said --
ejj - Hitler? Please, put your teabags away. When you have to pull Hitler's name out of your ass to make an argument, you've already lost it.
danm - The loss of fuel for Germany's troops was a large factor in their losses. But don't discount that we made it a war of attrition. The Germans had far superior tanks to the US, but we had more of them. If they had ten tanks, we had twelve. We wore those suckers down!

Aside from the preposterous inclusion of CCS, this internal document confirms business as usual. Surprising these guys don't see CTL as viable.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/ industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." General Dwight D. Eisenhower

ejj, you think we got our US $584 billion/58,000 dead's worth from the Vietnam War?

Is ANY American safer after occupying Iraq and "the graveyard of empires" for decades and $1,1443,000,000,000+?
http://costofwar.com/en/

Bleeding US financially dry in THEIR country IS the enemies plan and we're playing along.

@ ejj

"or else Hilter would have taken over the world."

If I hear bullshit like this again I'll be ready to puke.

Hitler didn't have the landing craft to cross the English Channel let alone cross an ocean. His interest was in the East.

Besides Britain, France, Portugal, Holland, Belgium had already conquered the world in case you hadn't noticed.

It was Uncle Joe who dreamed of spreading the Communist Paradise all over the globe. That's why we fought the Cold War. The fool FDR helped him until he fianlly dropped dead. Thank God.

One million+ e-drones, each dropping a dozen small bombs every day, could do a better job than one million ground soldiers without a single fatality or liquid fuel.

Small Sea craft or converted drone carriers could be used to launch and control the active drones from many Km away.

Mass produced drones should cost a lot less than large tanks etc.

Ground fighting, where required, could be done by e-robots.

ejj - Hitler declared war on the US. Did either Iraq or Afghanistan declare war on you? Nope. Who is trying to take over the world now?

By the way, it's quite laughable that World War 2 is portrayed as a battle between good and evil, with evil being the book burning Germans considering jews subhuman. Makes me wonder who was good on the allies side:

1. The UK? A nations having many colonies without any democracy, a country that actually invented the concentration camp in the Boer war?
2. France? Another colonialist power oppressing in countries like Algeria?
3. The USSR under comrad Joseph Vissarionovich? No explanation needed.
4. The US? Where instead of jews, colored people were for all practical purposes considered subhumans?

Another thing mentioned in all textbooks is it was Hitler who started World War 2 when he invaded Poland. Why? Because the UK was under Treaty to protect Poland. Two things to consider:

1. How selfless of the UK to offer protection to other countries.
2. Who invaded Poland on 17 September 1939?

If your answer to question to is Germany, think again. It was the USSR. Did the UK declare war on the USSR? No. So did Germany start World War 2? Nope, the UK did, using Poland as silly excuse.

First of all, it's not either or, but both. Ask a military commander what would be better: Aircraft or naval vessels, and he would say "both!" Ask him which strategy should be prepared for, and he would say "both, plan A and plan B!" Efficiency and Alternative energy.

Secondly, the current worldwide trend towards alternative fuels will lead to local differences in type of available fuels. If the military is not prepared to utilise these, troops may one day find themselves with supply lines cut, in a position similar to the ancient mariner: Fuel, fuel, everywhere, nor any drop to burn.

Thirdly, only a small part of total military energy consumption is actually used during combat and other times when military advantage is most important. The majority of military consumption is in peaceful and non militarily critical situations.

Fourthly, alternative energy is currently a national priority in the US, and the military is not an exception. The military is also bound to follow national policy.

Although the study's findings are valid within the very narrow scope of the study, military advantage of alternative fuels, its recommendations inappropriately draw conclusions outside the narrow focus of the study without regard to the additional externalities.

RAND seem blissfully unaware of the military advantages of greenwashing.. after all wars are won in the minds of the taxpayers back home.

A comment was made about how expensive it is to fund a soldier in a combat zone and that the money could be better spent elsewhere --- my point, using one example, when obviously there have been many throughout history, is that freedom isn't free and that the US military is the only thing protecting 350 million relatively free people from terror and invasion from foreign powers that would love to take over and not have America be free anymore. Did you see the standing ovation during the SOTU address last night when Obama commented along the lines that they would rather live in the US than any other country on earth? And the US military means nothing for protecting our way of life and deterring enemies? Stupid.

The time may have come to modernize defense. Foot soldiers are too vulnerable, specially in mountainous and tropical jungle countries. Cost and casualties are too high. Pilot less e-planes (e-drones?) could eventually do a better job on a 24/7 basis and they could be controlled directly from home land. Of course, that would mean a major change in military culture and it will not come easy.

HarveyD, please consider the vulnerability of any e-enabled fighting force to one suitcase sized EMP device.

No, I rather think it far more effective and economical to use diplomacy for future conflict resolution. Unless they are unruly alien types who cannot grok human experience... in which case we go to the dark energy devices...

As I've said before, the best way for the US military to deal with energy efficiency and related issues is to STAY HOME. It's really simple, STOP interfering in foreign countries as you did in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the proxy wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola & Mozambique (along side Apartheid South Africa).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group