Energy must be efficient, or Money, kerosene and air conditioners
Last summer, the press around the world vied with each other to reprint a statement by a retired American general, who was at one time connected with the supply of the army. Steve Anderson argued that when he was in a responsible post during the Iraqi operation, only air conditioners cost the Pentagon a very lump sum. The purchase, installation and operation of climate technology "ate" about twenty billion dollars a year. The main reason for this is the specificity of logistics and energy supply. Often there is no possibility to connect the military electrical network to the civil one and it is necessary to carry diesel generators and sometimes fuel for them from the United States to distant lands. The climate of the Middle East in combination with the cost of transportation in the end and leads to a very, very considerable cost. Brigadier General Anderson himself made his proposal for saving on air conditioners - to cover the fabric of tents with insulating material. Thus, the expenses for the production of textiles will slightly increase, but the costs for air conditioners and “fuel” for them will decrease, and the tent is made once and used for many months and even years.
It should be noted that Anderson was not the first to pay attention to the low energy efficiency of the modern American army. A little earlier, the statements of the General Pentagon published a rough plan for improving the efficiency of fuel and energy consumption. It is curious that the US military decided to start this work not only from purely financial considerations. As it is known, the USA buys the majority of fuel abroad, therefore, they are dependent on imports. If such dependence of commercial enterprises is more or less acceptable, then the armed forces should become completely “independent” or at least need less imported raw materials and a finished product. For nearly a year, US military analysts spent on working out a more detailed plan, as they called it, the Road Map. 6 March this year, a new document appeared on the official website of the US military.
The OESY (Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan) plan is based on three main areas, without which, in the opinion of the brightest heads of the Pentagon, it will not be possible to improve the situation with fuel and energy in general in the future. These three points look like this:
- Reducing the dependence of troops on energy resources in conducting operations, including at a great distance from the bases. This direction implies a number of measures to reduce fuel consumption while maintaining all other parameters;
- Increasing the number of sources of resources, as well as ensuring their uninterrupted supply. Given the fact that modern humanity of all resources “loves” oil most of all, for some countries, these American intentions can look very ominous;
- Guarantee the energy security of the US armed forces in the future. It is planned to consolidate and develop success in the field of efficiency of technology and the creation of completely new technologies.
If all the measures described in OESY can be implemented at their best, then the US military will be able to conduct combat operations around the world, and with exactly the capabilities with which they were sent there, and will be less dependent on supplies. On the one hand, you can rejoice at the GI, because it will be much easier for them to fight, and on the other, where exactly will they fight without dependence on the supply of resources? Against the background of recent conversations about Syria, Iran and other “unreliable countries”, all this looks at least ambiguous.
First of all, as long as there are no appropriate technologies, savings will be achieved by simple optimization of work and the like. As a result, by 2020 aviation should reduce fuel consumption by 10%, and the fleet - by 15%. OESY requires even larger numbers from the Marine Corps. ILCs will have to cut their expenses by as much as a quarter. But their terms are different - they need to do this before the 25th year. In addition, in terms of one soldier, energy consumption by 2025 should be reduced by one and a half times, primarily for marines. It seems that the brave guys from the Marine Corps will have a hard time. If the reduction in resource consumption by 10-15 percent for aviation or fleet looks real and not very difficult, then 25%, which will have to tighten the belts of the entire ILC, and minus one third for each individual marine due to some features of these troops can be perceived with healthy skepticism.
However, the mere saving, even if tough, will not save much. Requires radically new technologies, such as recycling. To this end, a couple of years under the auspices of the Pentagon, work has been going on on the Net Zero project. The concept of this project is based on three “substances” - water, garbage and energy, and their interaction is based on the idea of minimizing or even completely eliminating the difference between consumption and production. Before 2020, it is planned to launch mass production of Net Zero installations. They will have to recycle and purify used water, recycle garbage, etc. The cost of such a finished device, for obvious reasons, has not yet been announced. Yes, and the beginning of the trials so far is not the case today or even tomorrow. Most likely, as part of the installation of Net Zero will be systems for water purification similar to those used on the International Space Station, as well as a mini-power plant that burns debris and produces electricity. If the power plant is not superfluous anywhere, water purification is relevant for hot and arid regions, such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
In addition to saving and processing, the US military intends to use other methods to improve energy efficiency. For several years, troops in limited quantities used tents and tents of the Power Shade system. On their fabric are mounted solar panels connected to batteries and voltage regulators. Thanks to the "electric stuffing" of such a tent, it is possible to use various equipment and office equipment in it, of course, within reasonable limits - solar batteries and batteries have limitations on the output power. In addition to using the energy of the sun, it is proposed to use the energy of the atom. Back at the start of 80, the idea of a compact nuclear reactor designed to power military bases and similar objects was tested. However, then all the advantages of such systems could not outweigh the disadvantages and design problems. For more than twenty years, this idea has been forgotten. In March last year 2011, the Pentagon again recalled the compact low-power reactors. Currently, a number of companies and scientific organizations are trying to create a similar power plant, but so far nothing has been heard about success in this field. Most likely, it will again come to a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages, after which the unrecoverable problems will send the small reactors under the cloth again.
Another area of modern development concerns alternative fuel. Biofuels are considered as “additives” and, in the future, as substitutes, for kerosene and diesel fuel. Airplanes and helicopters in the future will have to fly on a mixture of aviation kerosene and camelina seed fuel. The proportion of the mixture is one to one. In the fleet, fuel will be updated not only in aircraft carrier aircraft connections. The ships themselves will also transfer to the new fuel. By the year 2017, it is planned to start converting the fleet to diesel fuel half diluted with fuel from biological raw materials. The fleet translation program received the GGF (Great Green Fleet) index. It is impossible to say how effective this fuel change will be, but the zeal of the command suggests a great benefit from it. Only, it should be noted, biofuels still have one serious drawback - existing production technologies still do not allow bringing its price to the point where the choice between petroleum and biological raw materials will be taken for granted. But the agricultural sector of the United States will be able to provide such a quantity of raw materials that will significantly reduce dependence on foreign energy supplies. In recent years, the Pentagon has invested several hundred million dollars in the development of biofuels, and in the next 3-4, they will transfer half a billion more for these needs.
Fuel for the fleet is still at the development stage due to the characteristics of diesel engines. The fact is that not every type of biofuel is suitable for this type of power plant. But with the aviation fuel mixture, things are much better. In theory, a turbojet engine can use any sprayed fuel. Therefore, in the field of aviation alternative fuel, work has already reached the stage of testing on real aircraft and helicopters. F / A-18 Hornet and F-22 Raptor fighters, A-10C Thunderbolt II attack aircraft and even the C-17 Globemaster III were already flying on kerosene with a product of camelina seeds. In addition, helicopters of the UH-60 Black Hawk family can fly on a mixture of hydrocarbon and biofuels. At the moment, testing of a new fuel is being completed, and by the end of this year it is planned to conduct its certification and begin to use it in combat units.
OESY, GGF and Net Zero projects fit well into the current Pentagon strategy. The current US Secretary of Defense L. Panetta did not have time to stay in his post for even a year, but he has already made a number of serious proposals. Among other things, he intends to do everything to ensure that the costs of the armed forces are reduced as much as possible, of course, with full preservation of defense capability. This intention is clear: the freed finance can be directed, for example, to the social sphere or left “inside” the military department and invested in increasing the military potential. Now in the program for the future of Panetta and the Pentagon headed by him, a special point is the global plan for ten years. By the beginning of the twenties of the current century, it is planned to save almost half a trillion dollars in unnecessary, unpromising and inefficient directions, which will be directed to promising and important projects. But only this saving is a double-edged sword. At one end of it, freed up finance, and at the other, a program for increasing energy efficiency is cozy. The American military energy, like many other "sectors", is quite conservative and for its noticeable renewal will require considerable investments. Moreover, the benefits of the first few tens, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars can manifest themselves only after some time. Wouldn’t the energy saving program be a victim of saving money?
It should be noted that Anderson was not the first to pay attention to the low energy efficiency of the modern American army. A little earlier, the statements of the General Pentagon published a rough plan for improving the efficiency of fuel and energy consumption. It is curious that the US military decided to start this work not only from purely financial considerations. As it is known, the USA buys the majority of fuel abroad, therefore, they are dependent on imports. If such dependence of commercial enterprises is more or less acceptable, then the armed forces should become completely “independent” or at least need less imported raw materials and a finished product. For nearly a year, US military analysts spent on working out a more detailed plan, as they called it, the Road Map. 6 March this year, a new document appeared on the official website of the US military.
The OESY (Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan) plan is based on three main areas, without which, in the opinion of the brightest heads of the Pentagon, it will not be possible to improve the situation with fuel and energy in general in the future. These three points look like this:
- Reducing the dependence of troops on energy resources in conducting operations, including at a great distance from the bases. This direction implies a number of measures to reduce fuel consumption while maintaining all other parameters;
- Increasing the number of sources of resources, as well as ensuring their uninterrupted supply. Given the fact that modern humanity of all resources “loves” oil most of all, for some countries, these American intentions can look very ominous;
- Guarantee the energy security of the US armed forces in the future. It is planned to consolidate and develop success in the field of efficiency of technology and the creation of completely new technologies.
If all the measures described in OESY can be implemented at their best, then the US military will be able to conduct combat operations around the world, and with exactly the capabilities with which they were sent there, and will be less dependent on supplies. On the one hand, you can rejoice at the GI, because it will be much easier for them to fight, and on the other, where exactly will they fight without dependence on the supply of resources? Against the background of recent conversations about Syria, Iran and other “unreliable countries”, all this looks at least ambiguous.
First of all, as long as there are no appropriate technologies, savings will be achieved by simple optimization of work and the like. As a result, by 2020 aviation should reduce fuel consumption by 10%, and the fleet - by 15%. OESY requires even larger numbers from the Marine Corps. ILCs will have to cut their expenses by as much as a quarter. But their terms are different - they need to do this before the 25th year. In addition, in terms of one soldier, energy consumption by 2025 should be reduced by one and a half times, primarily for marines. It seems that the brave guys from the Marine Corps will have a hard time. If the reduction in resource consumption by 10-15 percent for aviation or fleet looks real and not very difficult, then 25%, which will have to tighten the belts of the entire ILC, and minus one third for each individual marine due to some features of these troops can be perceived with healthy skepticism.
However, the mere saving, even if tough, will not save much. Requires radically new technologies, such as recycling. To this end, a couple of years under the auspices of the Pentagon, work has been going on on the Net Zero project. The concept of this project is based on three “substances” - water, garbage and energy, and their interaction is based on the idea of minimizing or even completely eliminating the difference between consumption and production. Before 2020, it is planned to launch mass production of Net Zero installations. They will have to recycle and purify used water, recycle garbage, etc. The cost of such a finished device, for obvious reasons, has not yet been announced. Yes, and the beginning of the trials so far is not the case today or even tomorrow. Most likely, as part of the installation of Net Zero will be systems for water purification similar to those used on the International Space Station, as well as a mini-power plant that burns debris and produces electricity. If the power plant is not superfluous anywhere, water purification is relevant for hot and arid regions, such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
In addition to saving and processing, the US military intends to use other methods to improve energy efficiency. For several years, troops in limited quantities used tents and tents of the Power Shade system. On their fabric are mounted solar panels connected to batteries and voltage regulators. Thanks to the "electric stuffing" of such a tent, it is possible to use various equipment and office equipment in it, of course, within reasonable limits - solar batteries and batteries have limitations on the output power. In addition to using the energy of the sun, it is proposed to use the energy of the atom. Back at the start of 80, the idea of a compact nuclear reactor designed to power military bases and similar objects was tested. However, then all the advantages of such systems could not outweigh the disadvantages and design problems. For more than twenty years, this idea has been forgotten. In March last year 2011, the Pentagon again recalled the compact low-power reactors. Currently, a number of companies and scientific organizations are trying to create a similar power plant, but so far nothing has been heard about success in this field. Most likely, it will again come to a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages, after which the unrecoverable problems will send the small reactors under the cloth again.
Another area of modern development concerns alternative fuel. Biofuels are considered as “additives” and, in the future, as substitutes, for kerosene and diesel fuel. Airplanes and helicopters in the future will have to fly on a mixture of aviation kerosene and camelina seed fuel. The proportion of the mixture is one to one. In the fleet, fuel will be updated not only in aircraft carrier aircraft connections. The ships themselves will also transfer to the new fuel. By the year 2017, it is planned to start converting the fleet to diesel fuel half diluted with fuel from biological raw materials. The fleet translation program received the GGF (Great Green Fleet) index. It is impossible to say how effective this fuel change will be, but the zeal of the command suggests a great benefit from it. Only, it should be noted, biofuels still have one serious drawback - existing production technologies still do not allow bringing its price to the point where the choice between petroleum and biological raw materials will be taken for granted. But the agricultural sector of the United States will be able to provide such a quantity of raw materials that will significantly reduce dependence on foreign energy supplies. In recent years, the Pentagon has invested several hundred million dollars in the development of biofuels, and in the next 3-4, they will transfer half a billion more for these needs.
Fuel for the fleet is still at the development stage due to the characteristics of diesel engines. The fact is that not every type of biofuel is suitable for this type of power plant. But with the aviation fuel mixture, things are much better. In theory, a turbojet engine can use any sprayed fuel. Therefore, in the field of aviation alternative fuel, work has already reached the stage of testing on real aircraft and helicopters. F / A-18 Hornet and F-22 Raptor fighters, A-10C Thunderbolt II attack aircraft and even the C-17 Globemaster III were already flying on kerosene with a product of camelina seeds. In addition, helicopters of the UH-60 Black Hawk family can fly on a mixture of hydrocarbon and biofuels. At the moment, testing of a new fuel is being completed, and by the end of this year it is planned to conduct its certification and begin to use it in combat units.
OESY, GGF and Net Zero projects fit well into the current Pentagon strategy. The current US Secretary of Defense L. Panetta did not have time to stay in his post for even a year, but he has already made a number of serious proposals. Among other things, he intends to do everything to ensure that the costs of the armed forces are reduced as much as possible, of course, with full preservation of defense capability. This intention is clear: the freed finance can be directed, for example, to the social sphere or left “inside” the military department and invested in increasing the military potential. Now in the program for the future of Panetta and the Pentagon headed by him, a special point is the global plan for ten years. By the beginning of the twenties of the current century, it is planned to save almost half a trillion dollars in unnecessary, unpromising and inefficient directions, which will be directed to promising and important projects. But only this saving is a double-edged sword. At one end of it, freed up finance, and at the other, a program for increasing energy efficiency is cozy. The American military energy, like many other "sectors", is quite conservative and for its noticeable renewal will require considerable investments. Moreover, the benefits of the first few tens, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars can manifest themselves only after some time. Wouldn’t the energy saving program be a victim of saving money?
Information