skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Clean Power plan
Safe Chemicals

Peter Lehner’s Blog

Military moves ahead on smart energy investments - and there's "not a shred of political correctness" to it

Peter Lehner

Posted May 2, 2012

, , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

Last month, the U.S. Army announced the opening of a 30,000-square foot research facility in Michigan for developing fuel cells, hybrid systems, battery technologies and advanced alternative fuels for the next generation of vehicles. Under Secretary of the Army Joseph Westphal described the benefits of the lab in his dedication speech:

The work done [here] will make our Soldiers’ loads lighter, reduce their energy requirements, and reduce the number of Soldiers we put into harm’s way to supply energy. This facility will not only make us more efficient and save resources, but will save lives in combat as well.

This sounds like (and is!) a win-win for the military and the planet, but some people aren’t happy. Recently, critics in Congress have tried to discredit the military’s energy initiatives, claiming that the Department of Defense is succumbing to a green fad, or even trading favors with clean energy businesses. Critics wrongly allege that our military’s investments in clean energy and energy efficiency are undermining national security.

The facts do not support these allegations.

convoy 4.JPG

Above, fuel convoys on slow roads in Afghanistan make an easy target. Source: Lt. General Steven Anderson presentation (here)

There is strong evidence that the military’s efforts are saving lives, saving money and improving mission effectiveness. I have blogged here, here, and here about the military’s leadership on climate, efficiency and clean energy action, and why it makes sense for DoD, the nation’s largest energy consumer, to make these investments. Here’s a quick glance at how the military’s smart energy policy is making things better already on the battlefield and in the budget:


  • The Navy alone uses 30 million barrels of oil per year. When oil climbs just $1 per barrel, the Navy is charged an extra $30 million. This year’s price spike is going to cost the Navy $1 billion unplanned for. In response to these uncertainties, President Obama, with strong support from military officials, has proposed doubling the Department of Defense’s efficiency spending to $1 billion in his budget for 2012. This is a smart policy recommendation that should be supported by practical thinkers on both sides of the aisle.


  • On the ground, meanwhile, the Pentagon spends $20 billion a year air conditioning tents and other temporary buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan. The tab is more than NASA’s entire budget! The service, of course, is an absolute necessity—our soldiers deserve a good night’s rest after carrying 80 pounds of gear all day in 120 degree weather. However, the voracious appetite of our inefficient generators requires nearly continuous shipments of diesel by way of highly dangerous ground convoys. It takes 18 days to drive fuel from Karachi, Pakistan to our bases in Afghanistan on slow-moving roads—an easy target for enemies and thieves—at an average cost of $30/gallon for each shipment delivered. In some years, these convoys are responsible for as many as one third of battlefield casualties, or 1 soldier for every 24 shipments, and have cost 1,300 American deaths already in Iraq and Afghanistan in 10 years. Yes, you read that correctly: 1,300 Americans killed transporting fuel. In one year alone, 2010, we lost 47 fuel convoy drivers. An investment of $95 million in spray-foam insulation for tents in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to save $1 billion—as  well as many soldiers’ lives. We need more of this.


  • Finally, thanks to a tiny investment last month of $2 million in portable solar, the Navy Seals will soon be able to power up along the way, purify water, and even refrigerate medical supplies and provisions. This will improve the Seals’ self-sufficiency and further reduce the need for dangerous convoys to remote outposts.


These investments are common sense. Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn (ret.) stated bluntly to Scientific American last month that “There is not a shred of political correctness in what the military is doing with energy efficiency or renewable energy.” Or, as Navy Secretary Ray Mabus puts it: “we’re doing this for one reason—to be better war fighters.”

Detractors tend to focus on high upfront costs of developing new technologies. True, R&D can be expensive—but can you imagine where we’d be today without the military’s investment in creating GPS, the internet and microchips? And, at another angle, these investments provide an important economic stimulus when we need it, with wide-reaching and very positive impacts across the civilian population. DOD’s commitment to making bases and vehicles more efficient and toward advancing new energy generation, storage, transmission and alternative fuels technologies is creating jobs and economic opportunity.

Please stay tuned for more about these and other exciting developments underway at the Department of Defense.

Share | | |


Sandra.HaydenMay 3 2012 04:50 PM

Exactly! "Detractors tend to focus on high upfront costs of developing new technologies." NRDC policy opposes the National Ignition Facility which is making significant progress towards fusion energy. Whilst I do not support nuclear weapons or stockpile testing, the NIF would redeem itself several times over if it does produce fusion ignition. How can we get NRDC to take a fresh look at the NIF?

Ben DunayMay 3 2012 06:05 PM

Peter, awesome article!

Your air conditioning stat hits home and makes me laugh. The hottest I've ever been in my life was waking up in a tent in Baghdad after the A/C stopped working while I was mid-slumber. This was in the middle of the day in August, (the tent was transient billeting for those of us en route to our units), and I woke up soaked through my uniform. I'll never forget it!

I wrote a post recently about my experience in Iraq and the tie to our energy use in combat. You can check it out here:

I think you hit the nail on the head - it's the operational military requirements that are driving the clean tech adoption, which is why the energy market is here to stay in DoD. All great stuff, and I'm super happy to see it all happening. Great development in so many ways.

Great article, Peter, keep 'em coming!

Dr. James SingmasterMay 8 2012 02:11 AM

Unfirtunately, nothing DOD or EPA is presently doing will save us or the world from being overwhelmed by our massive ever-expanding messes of organic wastes. The biowastes are an already harvested forever biofuel supply line that DOD, EPA , and various environmental groups such as NRDC do not recognize as being a resource to get control of CC and more importantly environmental pollution by drugs, toxics and germs that escape due to the present mishandling of those wastes. I have made over a dozen statements here and more elsewhere that a process called pyrolysis can be applied to these ever-expanding messes to go carbon and energy negative, the only way we can get control of CC. And the process will destroy germs, toxics and drugs so that mishandling of the wastes in dumps can not lead to those hazards escaping. Think of the billions of $$$ no longer having to be spent trying to have dumps comply with EPA's present rules and regs-- BUT we still have messes with EPA having to put limits of several hormonal drugs showing up in some drinking water systems. If some group talked about a program for making those wastes into a resource, I am sure that Congress and Obama would listen up fast, and GOPers would have no way to counter any action that saves and/or makes money.. Dr. J. Singmaster

Comments are closed for this post.


Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit

Feeds: Peter Lehner’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In