Editor's note: This is the third of a three-part series focused on virtual energy storage. Part I delved into the way buildings can be used as batteries. Part II detailed how virtual energy storage has the potential to revolutionize energy delivery by allowing energy demand to match variability in supply.
With an annual energy bill in excess of $21 billion, the U.S. military is the largest consumer of energy in the world. As a result of its massive energy expenditures – and because, in the words of a senior military official, the fragility of the “grid leaves Department of Defense (DoD) vulnerable to service disruptions and places continuity of critical missions at serious and growing risk” — the U.S. military has set ambitious targets to reduce energy use and deploy renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, however, the DoD has fallen short of recent facility energy intensity and renewable energy consumption goals.
Virtual storage can help close this gap, enabling DoD to achieve its goals through increasing renewable generation, at lower cost than conventional energy solutions.
“Saving energy saves lives”
The U.S. military is a leading early adopter of green building design, renewable energy, energy efficiency and microgrids because these design strategies strengthen U.S. security, and are cost effective. The U.S. Navy, for example, has set a target of having half its bases be zero net energy (and largely self-sufficient) by 2020 through a combination of energy efficiency, clean energy generation and smart controls. How the military achieves this and how it addresses power storage challenges will have a significant impact on the cost effectiveness and resilience of U.S. military installations — and will hold important lessons for the rest of the economy.
The graphic below illustrates how each branch of service plans to reduce its fuel consumption, and/or add renewable fuels and electricity to their usage over time. The Navy and Marine Corps have set the most aggressive targets. It is planning to reduce non-tactical vehicle petroleum fuel use by 50 percent and increase the use of alternative fuels 10 percent by 2015 simultaneously, and have 50 percent of its installations net zero energy with renewables by 2020 (EPAct 2005 EISA 2007, E.O. 13423).
US Military Energy Transition
As the largest energy consumer in the world, the DoD has realized the value and practicality of energy efficiency, officially codifying it as “a force multiplier” in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. This should come to no surprise to those familiar with DoD’s track record of technological innovation, which includes advances such as Geographical Positioning Systems (GPS) and the Internet.
Advances in energy — such as increasing the use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand — simultaneously enhance military operational capability in forward-deployed combat environments while generating enormous cost savings to military installations. All the while, these efforts make our troops and mission critical systems more secure and reduce risks associated with climate change. As stated succinctly by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Saving energy saves lives.”
Next page: Microgrids as salvation
I am appreciative that the US
I am appreciative that the US DoD is trying to lead the charge on implementing more renewable energy technologies. And indeed, just like all the other sectors, until we overcome the materials science/engineering on storage, all will be challenged to develop creative agile applications for managing demand response. One operative drew my attention, but I guess this is to be expected because of the nature of the military mindset, 'environmental threats.'
It bothers me that the environment is perceived as a threat. A threat to (wo)man's quality of life? I find the disconnect utterly confounding between (wo)man and nature–especially where (wo)man think s/he can assert control or absolutely predict the indifferent forces of Mother Nature, for example, the weather.
I would hope there could be more mindful language when immersed in the debate and dialogue. I think instead of perceiving the environment as a threat, (wo)man needs to take responsibility for what we have caused while taking action/generating alternatives.
Advocating violence is repeatedly cited as evidence that we're advocating mass murder. It seems to play well because it reinforces another story: that environmentalists are anti-human – they love the natural world and hate the people who infest it. I would ask all who read this article to consider framing the role of the environment in a more mindful manner in the future. After all...
“We belong to the Earth, it does not belong to us. We did not weave the web of life; we are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” – Chief Seattle, 1854