The US military's job is to protect the United States from its military bases and on the front lines "in theater of war". Energy is one of the critical determinants of how well DOD can fulfill it’s job. Just in 2012, we have had three military bases lose power due to unexpected electric grid outages. On the front lines, we lose a large portion of our soldiers and contractors, ferrying fuel to the front lines for electricity and transportation. Soldiers carry around from 20 – 60 pounds of batteries in the modern fighting force. Diesel engines make noise, leave a heat signature, and when they malfunction. Drop fuel. The integration of renewable energy and on-site distributed generation has spanned over four Administrations and supported by both political parties, with the first such conferences in the early 1990’s, and now embraced by all three services and the last three Secretaries of Defense. The concept is quite simple, just like portfolio theory in stock investing. The military needs to have the maximum options to reduce costs which including transporting and ferrying fuels, reducing het and noise signatures, insuring maximum operating times with the least amount of operations and maintenance, and most importantly, lightening the soldier’s equipment weight and increasing their agility. All new technologies and weapons systems cost more in the beginning and as they scale lower in cost – from the giant one room mainframe computers to the handheld microprocessors as stark examples. We can no longer afford outages at military bases due to squirrels and downed power lines, not our special forces troops being found by the noise and vibration of their diesel generators or have our mile long fuel convoys be sitting ducks for our enemies with the ensuing loss of life. Attempts by either party to make renewable energy a political football undercuts our Defense capabilities. The programs underway are sorting out and improving deployable systems for our Defense and Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Missions. Let the defense and security professionals do their jobs.

The US military's job is to protect the United States from its military bases and on the front lines "in theater of war". Energy is one of the critical determinants of how well DOD can fulfill it’s job. Just in 2012, we have had three military bases lose power due to unexpected electric grid outages. On the front lines, we lose a large portion of our soldiers and contractors, ferrying fuel to the front lines for electricity and transportation. Soldiers carry around from 20 – 60 pounds of batteries in the modern fighting force. Diesel engines make noise, leave a heat signature, and when they malfunction. Drop fuel. The integration of renewable energy and on-site distributed generation has spanned over four Administrations and supported by both political parties, with the first such conferences in the early 1990’s, and now embraced by all three services and the last three Secretaries of Defense. The concept is quite simple, just like portfolio theory in stock investing. The military needs to have the maximum options to reduce costs which including transporting and ferrying fuels, reducing het and noise signatures, insuring maximum operating times with the least amount of operations and maintenance, and most importantly, lightening the soldier’s equipment weight and increasing their agility. All new technologies and weapons systems cost more in the beginning and as they scale lower in cost – from the giant one room mainframe computers to the handheld microprocessors as stark examples. We can no longer afford outages at military bases due to squirrels and downed power lines, not our special forces troops being found by the noise and vibration of their diesel generators or have our mile long fuel convoys be sitting ducks for our enemies with the ensuing loss of life. Attempts by either party to make renewable energy a political football undercuts our Defense capabilities. The programs underway are sorting out and improving deployable systems for our Defense and Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Missions. Let the defense and security professionals do their jobs.

While alternatives and renewables receive a great deal of the public's attention, energy efficiency is at times overlooked as a key way the Department of Defense is improving energy performance. Reduced energy demand is one of our cleanest energy sources. Meanwhile, it helps our military fulfill its security mission, allowing DoD to shrink the force structure required to deliver and protect fuel supplies abroad. Benefits include lower risks to our troops and more resources for core operations. As the Defense Science Board explained in More Flight – Less Fuel, “The payoff from reduced fuel demand in terms of mission effectiveness and human lives is probably greater than for any other energy user in the world.” America’s chemistry industry can help. Through our many energy-saving solutions, we make it possible for our military to use more efficient and diverse energy sources, enhancing national energy security.

One of DoD’s prime targets for energy savings is buildings and other structures – so-called “fixed installations” – and for good reason. The Department operates more than 300,000 buildings and 2.2 billion square feet of space in the United States and overseas. In 2010, it spent $4 billion for facilities energy –26 percent of its energy budget. Installing high-efficiency insulation and HVAC systems, energy management control systems, new roofs, and improved lighting have the potential to dramatically improve facilities’ energy intensity.

Energy storage is another great example. Our military purchases and stocks hundreds of different battery types, including lithium-ion batteries used in guidance systems, submersible vehicles and ballistic vests. It is also exploring the use of fuel cells, which could offer lightweight, portable power packs that allow soldiers to plug in all their gadgets in one place and avoid toting heavy replacement batteries for each device. Some fuel cell demonstration projects have already taken place, and in 2009, the Army began shipping small numbers to Afghanistan.

And the Department of Defense has at least eight waste-to-energy plants or demonstration projects in operation. This advanced technology involves converting municipal solid waste, including plastics and other materials, into energy. Plastics have a 25 percent higher energy value than coal and can be used for electricity, synthetic gas, and liquid fuels. To use a statistic from the civilian world, if we were to recover the energy value of all non-recycled plastics now sent to landfills in a year, we could produce enough fuel for six million cars or enough electricity for 5.2 million households for one year.

Innovations from the chemistry industry are integral to the U.S. military’s energy initiative. Advanced batteries, solar-powered tents made with flexible photovoltaic panels, auxiliary power units for aircraft and tanks, and fuel cells – all start with chemistry. At fixed installations, chemistry is needed for high-performance insulation, lighting, roofing and energy control and management systems. And chemistry is helping to ensure the United States unlocks the energy content in non-recycled plastics and other materials – a win for energy security and a diverse energy portfolio.

By making energy efficiency a priority, leaders at DoD are being smart, strategic and innovative. The chemistry industry joins them in the effort to create a strong, secure and sustainable future for the United States.

This week the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to restrict efforts by the Department of Defense (DOD) to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. This will hurt the DOD’s efforts to protect its budget from oil price shocks, diversify its energy mix and ensure security of supply. This is a step backwards.

The Department of Defense is one of the largest institutional energy users in the world, consuming more than 300,000 barrels of oil per day. Volatile global oil supply patterns create heightened exposure to price fluctuations. This instability was highlighted in a landmark report by the Defense Science Board entitled “More Fight–Less Fuel,” which recommended that the Pentagon initiate energy innovations to reduce risk to soldiers and enhance the military’s long-term energy security.

True to form, DOD responded in forceful fashion. A recent Pew report highlights the military’s investments and efforts in vehicle efficiency, energy efficiency, renewables and advanced biofuels as a way to diversify its energy sources and reduce demand and costs. A part of this strategy is the implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed last August by the Departments of defense, energy and agriculture. The agencies committed to jointly invest $510 million to spur production of advanced aviation and marine biofuels to power military and commercial transportation. These investments – to be matched by the private sector - will be made through the Defense Production Act, which was enacted in 1950 to enable the federal government to partner with domestic industry to meet national security needs.

This MOU is a core component of improving the military’s readiness capabilities and reducing fuel costs. DOD’s overall energy budget in 2012 was $16 billion. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, DOD accrued $5.6 billion in unanticipated fuel costs (not budgeted) for military operations and maintenance.

In early May, Rep. Conaway of Texas offered two amendments to the armed services authorization bill that set up a battle in the Senate Armed Services Committee this week over the military’s clean energy initiatives. The first amendment would have exempted DOD from Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Passed overwhelmingly by Congress, including many of the same members now opposing the measure, and signed into law by President Bush, Section 526 states that DOD and other federal agencies are not permitted to purchase fuels with higher life-cycle emissions than those of conventional petroleum fuels. Thankfully, Section 526 was protected today in the Senate Defense Authorization Bill.

Conaway’s other amendment prohibits DOD from using funds to move forward on the advanced biofuels MOU. Sadly, by a slim majority, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to restrict funds to be used for the purchase of alternative fuels.

Meanwhile, U.S. advanced biofuel producers have made rapid progress toward cost-competitiveness. Per gallon cost of test quantities of advanced biofuels under Navy contracts have declined more than 90 percent over the past two years and will continue to decline as these technologies scale to commercial production. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the premiere clean energy data and analysis firm, forecasts that advanced biofuels will be cost competitive by 2018. A key factor in that forecast is DOD’s continued commitment to reduce use of foreign oil and increase use of American advanced biofuels.

Without the Pentagon's commitment --- signaled by Section 526 and the MOU--- it will be much harder and take much longer for the private sector to build these refineries on their own. With advanced biofuels or any other emerging sectors, investors want to make sure that there is a long-term demand signal before investing.

Congress should support policies that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil not undermine them. There is too much at stake for the nation’s energy future to do anything less.

Advanced energy increases the military’s operational effectiveness – that’s the only rationale that matters. Over the past decade, numerous U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) analyses have cited the military’s traditional approach to energy as a strategic risk. In response, DoD has taken steps to diversify energy sources – including renewable energy, advanced batteries, and hybridized microgrids – in order to make the military a safer, better fighting force. Limiting the military’s energy choices strictly on cost, as some in Congress propose, would be a step backward for the military and would put the lives of American fighting men and women at risk.

Like it or not, today’s military runs on energy. Trucks, tanks, and generators run on diesel fuel, while computers and other electronics run on batteries. In combat situations, both have to be delivered to the front lines, creating huge security risks on supply lines and burdens on our soldiers. The full cost of fuel – procurement, transport, and protection – can be as high as $400 per gallon by the time it is delivered to a remote Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Afghanistan; one out of every 50 military fuel resupply convoys in that country sustains a fatality or serious injury. Fuel supply security further upstream is also a constant strategic concern: a significant portion of the fuel used by the military is shipped through exposed “chokepoints” such as the Strait of Hormuz, which separates Iran and Oman by a scant 34 miles at its narrowest point.

Beyond fuel supply and delivery vulnerabilities, high and volatile energy prices are also a budgetary burden. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, has said that every $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil results in a $31 million increase in the U.S. Navy’s energy costs. As a result, the two-year price range for petroleum of $71-117/barrel from 2009 to 2011 presented a $1.1 billion range in budgeting uncertainty.

Compounding the strategic risks facing commanders on the front lines is “DoD’s reliance on a fragile commercial grid,” which Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, recently said, “places the continuity of critical missions at risk.” Even in the U.S., military bases are located in many remote locations, and as the launch point for critical military operations such as drone missions, cannot risk blackouts from grid failures or sabotage. On-site renewable energy generation and microgrids increase reliability and safeguard military security.

As Navy Secretary Mabus explained in a recent speech, “Seeking out some viable energy options isn’t a fad... We’re doing it because we have to do it to be a more effective fighting force. The reasons are strategic, the reasons are tactical, and the reasons are essential to our national security.”

Putting it another way: Why shouldn’t our armed forces reap the rewards of American ingenuity and technological innovation?

For more information, check out Advanced Energy Economy’s infographic on how advanced energy makes our military more effective: http://www.aee.net/index.cfm?objectid=DF075390-5F2A-11E1-8D94000C29CA3AF3

The goal of the military should be to protect the United States. Asking it to switch to more use of renewable energy will raise the costs to U.S. taxpayers and do little for the environment or for energy security of supply. In addition, U.S. petroleum consumption has declined by 7.8% over the 2005-2010 period while domestic production has risen by 6.5% over the same period. For example, if the military uses more biofuels, the costs to the taxpayer will also rise since biofuels contain less energy per gallon than fossil fuel. Aviation fuel made with biofuels is substantially more expensive than convention fuel.

Having the military switch to more use of renewable electricity will raise costs to taxpayers since renewable energy is more expensive and has to be backed up with conventional generation. See Tables 2 and 3 in my recent testimony for data on higher costs of renewable electricity.

After the 2012 State of the Union, the Secretary of the Navy said the Navy would add 1GW of renewable electricity generation by 2020. ACCF estimates suggest this conversion to renewable electricity would cost the U.S. taxpayer a substantial amount each year. For example, if the Navy substituted wind for electricity produced by natural gas, the cost would be an additional $226 million per year. If solar were used, the additional cost would be over $1.0 billion per year.

A wiser approach would be for the military to pursue natural gas for both transportation and electricity generation, since U.S. natural gas production is up sharply in the last several years and prices have dropped. Such a switch would tend to be more cost-effective than efforts to switch to biofuels and renewable electricity.

The Department of Defense is embracing clean energy for pragmatic reasons, not political ones. Clean energy strengthens the military’s ability to save lives, reduce costs, and secure the nation. Surely these are metrics that all Americans—regardless of their political party—can respect.

The military’s energy choices have real and grave consequences. For every 50 convoys of fuel brought into Afghanistan, one Marine is wounded or killed. Making military equipment more fuel efficient will protect soldiers and make our armed forces more nimble.

Relying on oil, meanwhile, is costing the military enormous amounts of money. For every one-dollar rise in the cost of oil, another $30 million gets added to the Navy’s energy bill. This year’s price spike is going to cost the Navy $1 billion in unanticipated expenses. In a market this volatile, America can’t afford to ignore alternatives.

The Air Force spends about $6.7 billion on jet fuels each year, for instance. This spring, an Air Force F-22 broke the sound barrier flying on a plant-based biofuel blend, supplied by a company in Montana. At its Los Angeles base, the Air Force is replacing its fleet of general purpose vehicles – including sedans, trucks and buses -- with plug-in electric vehicles. Investments like these will help make the military less reliant on oil.

Detractors tend to focus on high upfront costs of developing new technologies. True, emerging technology can be expensive. But our highly advanced military is already a product of DOD’s forward looking technological investments. Its past achievements include GPS, the internet, and microchips. There is no reason that modernization efforts should exclude clean energy strategies that reduce long term costs or foreseeable risks. Meanwhile, these investments provide an important economic stimulus when we need it, with wide-reaching spillover benefits across the civilian population.

Additional civilian jobs are a welcome development, but that isn’t motivating the DOD anymore than political agendas are. Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn 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.”

(These comments were co-written by Buis and Growth Energy Board Co-Chair Gen. Wesley K. Clark (Ret.)

Our nation is dangerously dependent on foreign oil. We import some 9 million barrels per day, or over 3 billion barrels per year; the U.S. military itself comprises two percent of the nation’s total petroleum use, making it the world’s largest consumer of energy and oil imports. Of U.S. foreign oil imports, one out of five barrels comes from unfriendly nations and volatile areas, including at least 20 percent stemming from the Persian Gulf, including Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Further, our nation heavily relies on hot-beds of extremism, as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria are our third, fourth, and fifth, respectively, largest exporters of oil. How dangerous is this? Very!

Not only does America’s huge appetite for oil entangle us into complicated relationships with nations marred by unstable political, economic, and security situations, it also gravely impacts our military, who risk their lives daily to protect foreign energy supply routes. Because of our addiction to oil, we have been in almost constant military conflict, lost more than 6,500 soldiers and created a whole new class of wounded warriors, thousands of whom will need long-term care funded by our government. One in eight soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq from 2003-2007 were protecting fuel convoys, with a total of 3,000 Army casualties alone. We maintain extra military forces at an annual cost of about $150 billion annually, just to assure access to foreign oil - because we know that if that stream of 9 million barrels per day is seriously interrupted, our economy will crash.

That's what I call dangerously dependent.

Even worse, according to a new Bloomberg Government analysis, Pentagon spending on fuel is dramatically increasing. This will force the military to dedicate even more funds toward energy costs, at the expense of other priorities, like training and paying soldiers. In fact, every $.25 increase in the cost of jet fuel makes a $1 billion difference in the Department of Defense’s bottom line – a debt that will be passed along to the American taxpayer.

And if that's not enough to make you want to avoid foreign oil, then consider this: every dollar hike in the international, politically-rigged price of oil hands Iran about $3 million more per day, that their regime can use to sow mischief, fund terrorism, and develop missiles and nuclear weapons.

Enough is enough! We have domestic alternatives that can protect American interests, and promote prosperity and security – including, more domestic oil production, using natural gas and biofuels, like ethanol, as fuel, converting coal to liquid fuel, and moving as rapidly as possible to vehicles powered by green energy.

By introducing clean energy and fuel alternatives, this would rapidly reduce both the strain of securing foreign energy supply routes in unstable regions, as well as unnecessary economic and political entanglement with volatile regimes. It is imperative the U.S. military leverage its position as a leader and enact pertinent energy policies to best enhance American energy – and national – security.

There are ample opportunities from the top-down for the increased use of clean energy across the country. One of the easiest, most overlooked, opportunities for implementing such a policy lies right at home: American families need American fuel choices. Ethanol continues to provide savings at the pump, with the latest figures showing the domestically-produced fuel reduces wholesale gasoline prices by at least $1 per gallon. Increasingly replacing oil with ethanol-blended fuels would translate to a long-term reduction, and thus elimination, of imports from volatile nations. Installing Flex Fuel pumps at stations across the U.S. would provide American families the convenient choice to purchase cheaper, better fuel. The military should lead by example and introduce Flex Fuel pumps at U.S. bases to provide Americans better access to better fuel. This simultaneously enhances the military’s ability to invest back to America, as the increased use of home-grown ethanol will bolster the domestic economy and local infrastructure.

As one of the largest energy consumers, the U.S. military should be at the forefront of diversifying the American energy basket. Improving American families’ access to economically responsible, alternative fuels is an effective and efficient way to incorporate clean energy into the U.S. defense structure. By starting at home, the military’s leadership will guide Americans to reduce the dangerous overreliance on foreign oil, improve American energy security, and ensure the country’s prosperous, safe future.

To reduce its reliance on petroleum-derived fuels, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years to develop, test, and certify renewable fuels—that is, liquid fuels manufactured from renewable sources of energy like vegetable oil from seeds or algae, animal fat, or various types of biomass. Renewable fuels derived from hydrogenated renewable oils are produced by processing animal fats or vegetable oils (from seed-bearing plants such as soybeans, jatropha, and camelina) with hydrogen. Various types of algae also have high oil content and are another possible source of oil for hydrotreatment. Fifty-fifty blends of hydrotreated oils have been successfully demonstrated in flight tests sponsored by the commercial aviation industry, and laboratory analyses and testing strongly suggest that hydrotreated renewable oils can also be formulated for use in tactical weapon systems. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that appreciable amounts of these renewable oils can be affordably and cleanly produced in the near future.

Animal fats and waste vegetable oils may offer an affordable low-greenhouse-gas route to hydrotreated renewable oils, but currently available commodities are already used for other commercial purposes. Because the supply of these feedstocks is limited, substitutes would need to be found for use in other applications, and the substitutes may cause additional greenhouse gas emissions. Production potential is also an issue with animal fats and waste oils: The available supply of these feedstocks will likely limit production to no more than 30,000 barrels per day, which is less than two-tenths of a percent of the 18 million barrels of liquid fuels that are consumed each day in the United States.

With regard to feedstock vegetable oils, to keep lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions at levels lower than those of petroleum-derived fuels, these oils must be derived from crops that do not compete with food production and that minimize nonbeneficial direct and indirect changes in land use. Jatropha and camelina are often mentioned as ideal plants to meet these requirements, but there exists little evidence to back these claims. Even if low-greenhouse-gas approaches can be established and verified, total fuel production is likely to be limited. Producing just 200,000 barrels per day (about 1 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption) from these crops would require an area equal to about 10 percent of the croplands currently under cultivation in the United States.

Advanced approaches using algae or other microorganisms may offer a sustainable approach for producing hydrotreated renewable oils suitable for military applications. However, technological development challenges suggest that it is highly unlikely that these advanced approaches will constitute an important fraction of the commercial fuel market until well beyond the next decade.

Given the extremely small quantity of such fuels available on the global market, DoD investments in large-scale testing and certification of hydrotreated renewable oils are premature and should be discontinued.

These comments were submitted in the Alternative Fuels for Military Applications by James T. Bartis and Lawrence Van Bibber, RAND Corporation, 2011, MG-969-OSD, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG969.html.

We all can agree that national security is dependent on stable energy supplies. However, stable energy supplies shouldn’t mean redirecting military resources into R&D for biofuels. A huge supply of natural gas is already available for low-cost military transportation needs. Rather than redirecting the Pentagon to develop more speculative approaches, let civilian R&D and market forces work on developing other transportation fuels alternatives. Today’s biofuels are too expensive and inefficient. The much more direct approach to securing energy supplies is providing access to America's huge oil resources. Rather than keeping 97% of our oil resources off limits and sending our young men and women oversees to protect foreign supply, as is my experience in Desert Storm, we should produce our own oil. American oil companies have dramatically increased production the last few years, and have directly helped reduce imports from 61% to 45%. We can develop meaningful supplies here and now while increasing our national security.

You can’t argue with the hard facts of today’s success of America’s domestic advanced biofuels industry. We’re moving from the beaker to the barrel in record time.

The technology is here today and we are already producing and delivering commercial gallons of advanced drop in fuels right now, replacing the entire barrel and more importantly, can and have been used in today's fighter jets, commercial airliners, trains and cars. We have both commercial and demonstration projects across our nation that are successfully deploying a wide array of innovative technologies.

Our real world commercial success has been significantly helped by the continued partnership and commitment with the federal government. In particular, the U.S. Department of Defense is demonstrating great foresight by putting itself in the technology drivers seat by making smarter investments in alternative energy that include advanced biofuels, investments that will ultimately strengthen America’s national security.

DOD’s strategic move to advanced biofuels is a matter of national security. DOD is one of the world’s largest consumers of fuel, representing close to 2 percent of annual U.S. petroleum use. In 2008, it purchased $16 billion worth of fuel, using 119 million barrels of petroleum. Together, with the private commercial airline industry, DOD uses 1.5 million barrels (63 million gallons) of jet fuel per day. Armed with just these few facts, you can see that our nation’s defense is at the mercy of the market just as much as we are when we pull up to the gas station.

So, let’s be clear, today’s success of advanced biofuels and its promising future cannot be ignored. America cannot afford to step back in time to failed policies and have future generations pay for that mistake. We can only be assured to have a secure energy and economic future when the United States has an all of the above energy policy in which a robust advanced biofuels industry is a part.

[Steve McCain co-authored this article. He's a retired Air Force Colonel who coordinates the national security and energy public policy practice at K&L Gates.]

No entity in government knows better than the Department of Defense (DoD) that the lack of energy security poses a national security threat to the United States. The geostrategic importance of energy has long been recognized. As the federal government's largest energy user, DoD also has a huge stake in reducing our dependence on unreliable supplies of energy and securing low-cost power.

Clean energy can and should be an important element of any such national energy/security policy. Academia and the mainstream media exhort the populace to act now to develop alternatives to our current energy practices, and yet solutions seem slow to emerge. The DoD is well-positioned to be a leader on clean energy development, and has historically been an early adopter of new technologies. The Pentagon, for example, should seek to leverage smart microgrids, advanced biofuels, energy storage, solar, ocean, wind, geothermal, nuclear and other innovative technologies to reduce our vulnerability to foreign sources of power and energy.

Although many suggest that Secretary Panetta should not be taking a lead role in alternative energy, DoD, in cooperation with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, can catalyze market actions and accelerate the commercialization of viable, sustainable energy solutions (such as drop-in biofuels) for the warfighter and Americans more broadly.

DoD should not withdraw from recent opposition to its alternative energy initiatives; a kite rises against the wind. Investment by the military in alternative energy technologies, even in times of constrained budgets, can produce needed return on investment over the coming years. DoD rightly seeks to improve its public-private financing processes and procedures. As defense budgets decline, efforts to improve energy efficiency and reduce the agency’s huge energy costs are ever more important. Among federal agencies, DoD has a proven track record of managing complex systems and supply chains, and working to apply the work of research laboratories toward real-world applications.

Although it's tempting to play politics with the “energy issue” in an election year, we should not wait to overcome a challenge so pivotal to the future success of our nation. Private industry will provide the lion’s share of clean energy investment, but DoD can carefully augment these initiatives to resolve military requirements for lighter, more portable power sources, cleaner and more energy dense fuels, and reliable cost-effective energy solutions for our facilities at home and our forward operating locations abroad.

Americans are starting to connect the dots between energy, security and our future, while other countries are seeking an edge in alternative energy production. A national energy policy that leverages U.S. innovation and our vast natural resources is vital to our continued economic prosperity and national security. If we can reach a unified vision, we are poised to lead the world's clean energy economy.

Our military has a single objective: to keep America safe. It’s an objective the military can only accomplish if they have secure sources of energy to power and move their forces around the world, which is why the Pentagon is investing in renewables, efficiency, and biofuels programs to cut fuel use and establish true energy independence for our armed forces.

The U.S. military accounts for 2% of our nation’s petroleum use and 93% of the U.S. government’s energy use, making them the largest institutional energy user in the world. For every $10 rise in the price of oil, the Department of Defense must come up with an extra $1.3 billion annually, which must be diverted from training, maintenance, and other mission-essential programs.

That’s why the military has invested in a wide range of energy independence programs across all branches of service. Smart grids connected to renewable energy sources ensure military bases don’t go dark if the electric grid fails. Solar panels at remote forward operating bases in Afghanistan reduce the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed to resupply troops on the front lines. Many such programs are already saving both money and lives—and are becoming increasingly effective as the military continues these vital investments.

One particularly promising effort is the military’s investment in biofuels, which will help reduce the military’s reliance on unstable and unfriendly oil-producing regimes by making domestically produced fuels widely available and cost-competitive. Those investments are already paying off: the Navy predicts that advanced biofuels will cost about the same as conventional diesel by 2020 if the military continues to invest.

Unfortunately, not all in Congress realize how critical these efforts are. The version of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act recently passed by the House contains language that would prevent purchases of fuel that are currently more expensive than diesel, which would deal a critical blow to biofuels development. Troublingly, it appears that the opposition to military clean energy investments is based not on keeping America safe, but on scoring political points by preventing a perceived win by the White House—even when that win would mean a stronger military and a more secure country.

Energy security is critical to the readiness of our military. As the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert said recently in a letter to Senator Mark Udall on the issue, investing in biofuels “is a prudent and judicious course of action,” and hampering their production would “impede America’s energy security.” Clean sources of energy can play a critical role in the energy independence of our military—but only if national security, not partisan politics, guides our defense policies.

When it comes to U.S. military spending, cost-containment is the watchword of the day. If our armed forces can utilize more “clean” energy and at the same time reduce fueling costs for military vehicles, by all means this goal should be pursued. But the only alternative fuel that’s likely to produce significant cost savings is natural gas. With gas prices expected to remain below those of gasoline and diesel for the foreseeable future on a gallon-equivalent basis, converting light military vehicles to compressed natural gas (CNG) and heavy vehicles to liquefied natural gas (LNG) makes a lot of sense.

What’s more, if the Department of Defense commits itself to purchasing more natural gas and more natural gas vehicles, these policies, in turn, will help stimulate the build-out of a national infrastructure that can support greater use of CNG and LNG in the civilian sector.

There are three reasons for the Department of Defense (DOD) to be interested in biofuels—to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and reduce vulnerability. These are legitimate goals and should be pursued through a well thought out and rational Research-and-Development (R&D) program. But it’s not appropriate to use military needs to push a clean energy agenda that has failed in the civilian sector. Packaging the issue as a national security rationale is a Trojan Horse that hides another attempt to promote a specific energy industrial policy. Over the past four decades such initiatives have demonstrated a record of failure and waste.

As part of the military’s push for green initiatives, both the Navy and Air Force have set goals to obtain up to 50 percent of their fuel needs from alternative sources. The underlying rationale is to reduce US dependence on foreign oil. But the Rand Corporation, the preeminent military think tank in the nation, recently conducted a study, Alternative Fuels for Military Applications; it concludes, "The use of alternative fuels offers the armed services no direct military benefit." It also concludes that biofuels made from plant waste or animal fats could supply no more than 25,000 barrels daily. That’s a drop in the bucket considering the military is the nation’s largest fuel consumer.

Additionally, there is no evidence that commercial technology will likely to be available in the near future to produce large quantities of biofuels at lower costs than conventional fuels. The flipside of that argument is that the cost of conventional fuels is uncertain because of dependence on imports from unstable sources. While that is true, it misses the point. For example, our reliance on imports from the Persian Gulf is declining and could be less if we expanded our own domestic production. Until alternatives that are cost competitive can be developed, DOD should look at alternative ways to reduce price volatility, just as large commercial users do.

The second reason for pursuing alternative fuels is related to the first. Greater efficiency reduces costs by reducing the amount of fuel used. The military has been pursuing this goal for some time, as has the private sector. DOD total energy consumption declined by more than 60% between 1985 and 2006, according to Science 2.0. Improvements will continue because of continued investments in new technologies, especially in the private sector, which has market-driven incentives to reduce the cost of fuel consumption.

Finally, there is the argument that somehow replacing conventional fuels with bio-fuels will reduce supply chain vulnerability and save lives. Rand also addressed this issue from both the perspective on naval and ground based forces. It concluded that there is no evidence that a floating bio-fuels plant “would be less expensive than using either Navy oilers or commercial tankers to deliver finished fuel products.” It also dismissed the concept of small scale production units that would be co-located with tactical units. It concluded, “any concepts that require delivery of a carbon containing feedstock appear to place a logistical and operational burden on forward-based tactical units that would be well beyond that associated with the delivery of finished fuels.”

Future military needs are met by a robust R&D program carried out by the services and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Letting that agency and the services invest in future technologies to meet their specific service needs and maintain our military strength without political meddling is in the nation’s best interest. Advances in military technology that has civilian applications eventually enters the market place. Take for example the DARPA’s research into improved military communication that eventually developed into internet technology that revolutionized how we communicate and obtain and use information. If DOD pursues research focused on lower costs, greater efficiency, and more secure fuel supplies, the civilian economy will eventually benefit.

At a time when the military if faced with substantial budget cuts, allocating scarce resources to pursue so called “clean energy” objectives is worse than wasteful. It borders on a dereliction of duty.

No one needs to tell consumers about the importance of energy security. They see it every week when they fill up their cars. But to our men and women in uniform around the world, energy security is synonymous with national security.

As the Senate Armed Services Committee marks up our version of the 2013 defense authorization bill this week, one of the key provisions under scrutiny will be how we approach the military’s use and development of alternative-fuel technologies. Some of my colleagues in Congress believe the military should not invest in alternative fuels.

But I strongly believe this approach is short sighted. Our military has to be in the vanguard of developing and deploying energy technologies.

The rising and unpredictable cost of energy takes a steep toll on our armed forces. Our military consumes over 300,000 barrels of oil every 24 hours, and when the price per barrel goes up by a single dollar, the annual Pentagon budget jumps by more than $130 million – and the barrel price has risen $72 dollars since 2001.

When the DOD needs to balance rising fuel costs with savings from elsewhere in its budget, it pulls funding from operations accounts that delay equipment repairs, reduce mission capabilities and hamper our troops’ ability to do their jobs.

What’s more, our reliance on fossil fuels forces our military to protect oil production and open fuel-supply lines in the Middle East that are extremely vulnerable to attack. Attacks on fuel convoys are a very visible reminder of the money, fuel and lives we lay on the line to keep oil flowing.

With unpredictable costs and the dangerous implications of our dependence on oil, it is clear to me that alternative energy is not only good for our economy — it also strengthens our national security.

Our military has always been on the technological cutting edge, but rumblings in the U.S. House of Representatives call into question Congress’s commitment to making sure our armed forces are the most advanced in the world. Alternative energy sources like biofuels, tactical solar arrays, and state-of-the-art batteries are ready for use today, but election-year political grandstanding blocks a crucial way forward to make our fighting forces better than ever before.

That is why I am working to support the Defense Department’s efforts to research, develop, test and evaluate renewable energy technologies. Our military leaders recognize that saving energy saves lives.

The solutions that hang in the balance could reduce the fuel being used, get convoy trucks off of dangerous roads, and allow troops to focus on their primary mission. Case in point: Marines using solar panels instead of heavy batteries to run their computers and lights can now carry more ammunition and be more nimble in the combat theater. I think such funding that helps protects our troops while increasing their fighting capabilities is money well spent.

The United States has always maintained our strategic superiority in the world by refusing to be satisfied with the status quo. Our energy policy — for consumers at home and our military — should take the same approach. We can’t afford to wait until the next energy crisis or national tragedy forces our hand. We need to change the geopolitics of energy in our favor now, so that our military and our economy are not beholden to just one fuel source – especially one in somebody else's backyard. It is time that Congress recognize that choosing between energy security and national security is a false choice – they go hand in hand.

The U.S. military uses almost every form of energy in a number of different ways in order to carry out its mission. Some applications are comparable to those in normal civilian life – such as heating or air conditioning for office buildings in downtown Washington, D.C., gasoline for on-base cars and trucks in Japan, or lighting for warehouses in Germany. Other applications are incredibly unique and certainly much less pedestrian – like fuel for high performance jets or tactical vehicles (we might call them tanks) in remote locations, electric power for communications equipment in mountain outposts, diesel fuel for Naval vessels on the Indian Ocean and uranium for vessels under it.

The military applications that are more or less analogous to everyday civilian applications have similar constraints to those of their civilian counterparts. That is, what will be the cost of the renewable energy supply and how does it compare with the alternative – be it electric power from the grid or fuel oil from a regional refinery? In these situations, decisions become a balancing act between budgetary considerations (will the renewable alternative cost more than conventional sources and blow the budget? And, if so, where will the incremental funding come from?) and policy considerations (do renewables help or hinder the military’s mission? And, are there broader national policy objectives mandating renewables that need to be considered?). At a time when all military budgets are tight, and many military facility maintenance budgets are under-funded (never, however, in a way that affects mission readiness), it becomes difficult for the military to materially support renewables when the cost of renewable energy is substantially higher than the alternatives. Given the geographic variation in the availability of renewable resources, renewables are cost effective in some locations, but not in others. Where renewables are cost-effective, the military can (and does) use renewables as part of their regular course of doing business. In situations where renewable sources of energy are more expensive than conventional alternatives, it seems unfair to ask the military to shoulder extra costs at the expense of much needed maintenance or other activities, unless incremental funding is provided to support the extra costs associated with the renewable implementation decision.

Beyond this, the military does have a couple potentially interesting roles to play in accelerating the commercialization of renewable technologies:

• Some applications unique to the military have significantly different economics than civilian applications. Getting fuel oil for generators to a forward operations base in Afghanistan is a long, involved, risky, and expensive supply chain process. When flexible, portable photovoltaic panels can recharge batteries at these far-flung bases, they are much more cost-effective than the conventional alternative (recall the news report about $600/gallon price for fuel oil delivered to a forward operations base). For such applications, the mission requirements make renewables cost-effective and it makes sense for the military to move forward on its own, without additional external policy mandates.
• The scale of military energy purchases can provide sizable early market purchases offering stability to new market entrants. Naturally, this can only occur where the technical risk of the renewable alternative is known or is manageable. Examples of such sizable renewable purchases include the U.S.Navy’s bulk purchase of biofuels and the U.S. Army’s large-scale push into renewables for domestic on-base electric power supply. As there are few other consumers that could have comparable scale of purchases, this is a distinctive role of the military.

It is here that the gorilla comes out to play as there are no easy answers:

Can clean energy fit into the military’s mission? Yes. Should the military fund clean energy when mission needs and cost effectiveness dictate it? Yes, and it already is doing this. Can the military serve as a catalyst for the country to shift to cleaner energy sources? Yes, but… Should the military shift resources to renewables that are not cost-effective in order to support broader national energy policy goals when mission needs do not dictate it? No, unless incremental funding is made available.

While the military can play a role, it should not be required to shift needed resources away from its core mission for national energy policy goals. Incremental resources to support these broader energy policy goals should come from alternate sources and flow to the military consistent with the role it is being asked to play.

So, what kind of car does a 500-pound gorilla drive? Anything he wants. You can be the one to tell him, “no”.

As Third Way explains in a digest being released this week by our National Security Program, the Pentagon’s efforts to reduce energy demand and find alternative energy sources could keep rising fuel costs from encroaching on the budgets of other important defense programs. And the payoff could be massive. The Air Force has already been able to implement behavioral and technology changes that will reduce its fuel costs by $500 million over the next five years. The Army has invested in better energy distribution systems at several bases in Afghanistan, which will save roughly $100 million each year. And, using less than 10% of its energy improvement funds, the Department has begun testing advanced biofuels for ships and planes. This relatively small investment could eventually provide the services with a cost-effective alternative to the increasingly expensive and volatile oil markets.

These actions are critical to the Pentagon’s ability to focus on its defense priorities. As Secretary Panetta recently pointed out, he’s facing a $3 billion budget shortfall caused by “higher-than-expected fuel costs.” The Department’s energy costs could rise even further if action isn’t taken. DOD expects to spend $16 billion on fuel next year. The Energy Information Administration predicts the price of oil will rise 23% by 2016, without a major disruption in oil supplies, like the natural disasters, wars, and political upheaval the oil producing states have seen during the last dozen years. Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s planned budget, which will remain flat for the foreseeable future, will require significant adjustment to the Department’s pay-any-price mindset, even if sequestration does not go into effect. Unless energy costs are curbed, they could begin to eat into other budget priorities for DOD.

In addition, the Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board acknowledges that using energy more efficiently makes our forces more flexible and resilient in military operations, and can provide them with greater endurance during missions. Also, by reducing energy demand in the field, DOD can minimize the number of fuel convoys that must travel through active combat zones, reducing the chances of attack to avoiding casualties and destruction of material. At our domestic bases, DOD is employing energy conservation, on-site clean energy generation, and smart grid technology to prevent disruptions to vital activities in case the civilian grid is damaged by an attack or natural disaster. The bottom line is, developing methods and technologies to reduce our Armed Forces’ use of fossil fuels and increase the availability of alternative energy makes our military stronger. That’s why the Pentagon has decided to invest in these efforts. End of story.

The Department’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and incorporate alternative energy are just now hitting full stride, after several years of setting up the offices and procedures that will be needed to accomplish its goals. But these efforts have already produced tangible benefits to military capability and cost-cutting. Because of their clearly-demonstrated value, DOD energy initiatives have (for the most part) been able to deflect a handful of attacks from politically-motivated opponents of clean energy. Congress should continue to support these initiatives, and provide the services with the tools they need to modernize their energy systems, improve capability, and cut costs.

Though the military has an impressive record for developing technologies to meet its frequently unique requirements, adopting biofuels is unlikely to help meet any mission other than earning political brownie points.

There are three reasons offered for why the military should spend money on biofuel development: (1) reducing battlefield exposure for fuel transportation, (2) decreasing dependence on volatile petroleum markets, and (3) restricting funding for hostile regimes and terrorist organizations. However, conventional fuels offer superior solutions for all three goals.

Switching to biofuels to reduce expensive and dangerous convoys makes no sense at all for one simple reason: Biofuels have lower energy density than conventional fuels and so will require more expensive and dangerous convoys. Biofuels are not produced at the battlefield.

The problem with dependence on volatile commodity markets is that commodity prices sometimes spike upwards. But the biofuels are more costly than the petroleum-based fuels—even when petroleum prices are high. Switching to more costly substitutes is hardly a reasonable solution. The Air Force spends about $35 per gallon for its bio jet fuel—10 times the cost of conventional fuel.

The entire U.S. military currently consumes about 360,000 barrels per day of petroleum-based fuel, with 175,000 barrels per day (or less) going to the Air Force’s jets. A single platform in the Gulf of Mexico (Thunderhorse) produces as much petroleum as these jets consume and at a much lower cost than the biofuel replacements.

The Keystone XL Pipeline would bring enough petroleum from a very secure Canada to meet our total military consumption two or three times over. The same story holds for other potential sources of conventional petroleum, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Air Force’s target is to replace about 26,000 barrels per day with biofuels. Whatever energy security that may provide could be doubled by a single well in the Gulf of Mexico.

As a strategic policy, switching the military to biofuels can only make our enemies think we are not serious. If the entire military consumption were switched away from petroleum, that would cut worldwide demand by 0.4 percent. This cut would reduce revenues to oil producers by about 1.5 percent. Let’s hope biofuels are not anti-terrorism Plan A.

Though some energy technologies that are too expensive for general civilian use may make sense for the military, biofuels are not among them. The military needs to rethink its biofuels program.

Recent hearings on Capitol Hill suggest that there is a bit of confusion about the military’s efforts to research, develop and test renewable fuels. Critics charge the Navy and the other services with being co-opted by a green agenda – adopting biofuels for the sole purpose of combating climate change and promoting eco-friendly interests. But that is not it at all. Although being environmentally sustainable and improving energy security are not mutually exclusive, the military’s efforts are first and foremost about improving mission effectiveness and ensuring that our soldiers, sailors and airmen have access to the fuel they need to conduct their operations and protect U.S. interests.

The U.S. military is overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels, with nearly 80 percent of its energy coming from petroleum fuel. This dependence brings both fiscal challenges and concerns about assured access to energy resources. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in 2008 that “Every time the price of oil goes up by 1 dollar per barrel, it costs us about 130 million dollars.” Moreover, the potential for petroleum supplies to be disrupted by a conflict abroad or a natural disaster at home raises the risks for the military to rely solely on petroleum to fuel the force.

These are compelling reasons to invest in alternative sources of liquid fuels. In an era of fiscally constrained budgets, improving energy efficiency and diversifying fuel sources through investments in renewable fuel, as well as the electrification of non-combat vehicles, can help insulate the Department of Defense from dramatic petroleum spikes that divert scarce resources away from other pressing priorities. Moreover, developing non-petroleum energy sources that perform the same as conventional fossil fuels can provide the U.S. military emergency energy supplies in case a crisis chokes off access to petroleum for any particular length of time.

To hedge against uncertainty with petroleum prices and supply, the Department of Defense is investing research and development dollars in energy conservation and efficiency programs, as well as renewable biofuels derived from hydro-treated algae and camelina feedstock in an effort to develop a drop-in replacement (i.e., chemically equivalent) to petroleum that will provide military logisticians an alternative liquid fuel that can bolster assured access to energy and at a potentially affordable price.

Affordability is a sticking point for congressional critics who are seeking to constrain the military’s ability to procure biofuels unless they are cost competitive with conventional petroleum. For example, the Navy’s energy program procures biofuel at a higher cost than the Defense Logistics Agency contracts for petroleum. However, critics seem to ignore the fact that these fuels are still in the research and development phase. Prices are expected to come down significantly once the effort shifts to commercial production. Indeed, the prices have declined dramatically in just the few short years that the Navy’s energy program has invested in biofuel. The Navy’s initial purchase of advanced biofuel for testing and evaluation in 2009, for example, cost US$424 a gallon for 20,055 gallons of biofuel. In 2011, the Navy announced its largest purchase ever of 450,000 gallons of advanced biofuel for approximately US$26 a gallon for continued testing and evaluation, 94 percent in savings compared to the first purchase.

But what should critics make of the military’s investment in cleaner fuels such as carbon-neutral algae biofuel versus dirtier fuels derived from coal-to-liquid technology? Put simply, it is an effort by the military to hedge against strategic uncertainty associated with climate change.

Despite the perennial debate around anthropogenic climate change, there is broad consensus within the scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global climate change. Moreover, there is increasing recognition within the security community and the Department of Defense in particular that climate change will affect the global security environment in ways that could impact the military’s facilities, missions and capabilities. In its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense concluded that climate change “may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world,” potentially increasing the demand on the U.S. military to conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions in vulnerable countries that carry strategic significance for the United States (e.g., Indonesia).

Keeping in mind that the military’s investments in energy are driven first and foremost by a need for fuels that perform the same as petroleum, a secondary driver for the military’s investments in energy should be the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help manage the potential risks associated with climate change, including challenges that military is charged with responding to.

Although these efforts are not nearly enough to reverse climate change, these energy investments help demonstrate that addressing energy security and climate change are not mutually exclusive. This could have knock-on effects in the private sector by encouraging others to adopt carbon-neutral fuels and mitigate the impacts of climate change over the long term. In November 2011, for example, United Continental Holdings, Inc. followed in the Navy’s footsteps by announcing that it would begin procuring 20 million gallons of algae-based biofuel annually beginning as early as 2014. Although it is difficult to judge on balance the longer term trend developing here, this is a positive development.

The bottom line: Clean energy investments will allow the U.S. military to protect U.S. national security interests by managing the risks associated with petroleum dependence and potential climate-related security challenges. Both are good for the military and the nation.

Over-reliance on foreign oil creates unnecessary budget risks that can reduce our nation’s military readiness. In a time of severe budget constraints, it makes no sense to leave our military at the mercy of foreign oil producers and their control of world oil prices. American companies are working hard to commercialize advanced biofuels that can help the military meet it fuel needs domestically. If we want a robust domestic biofuels industry, then the U.S. military should help lead the way to energy and national security.

Because the United States is so reliant on foreign oil, we are effectively allowing other countries to determine whether we build ships and planes and how much training our troops receive. We’ve already seen the U.S. military forced to shift its budget to pay for skyrocketing fuel costs. In 2011, the Pentagon paid $148 per barrel for oil, a 26 percent increase in cost from the previous year. To pay this unplanned higher cost, the DoD had to shift $3.6 billion in its annual budget. That shift came at the cost of new equipment and training for our troops, reducing military readiness.

But suppose the opposite had occurred, with the Pentagon planning for oil to be higher in price and seeing the price drop. Would the Pentagon be able to again shift its budget back to the purchase of equipment and troop training? It’s unlikely. U.S. military operations are demanding more and more energy, as the Pentagon seeks to protect U.S. soldiers with more heavily armored equipment.

The volatility of world oil prices and its impact on the U.S. budget is a severe threat to our national security. Yet, some Members of Congress continue to block the military from taking a leading role in achieving energy security.

We would never rely on another country to build our ships, our planes, or our vital military equipment or to train our troops. A domestic advanced biofuels industry producing energy at a stable, predictable price over the long-term could act as a counterbalance to world oil prices. The strategic, national security benefits of building a domestic biofuel capacity that can be independent of world oil prices is sufficient to justify a military role in leading this effort.

The United States has responded to similar challenges in the past and ensured that we maintain a domestic capacity to produce vital materials. In 1987, the U.S. government recognized that a domestic computer chip industry and domestic competitiveness in computer technology was a national security need. The U.S. Congress, in DoD legislation, formed SEMATECH (SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology) a research and development consortium of U.S. semiconductor firms, including AMD, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Motorola, NCR, and Texas Instruments. SEMATECH was funded in its first five years with $500 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

There are additional examples – such as production of aluminum and titanium – where the United States recognized a national security need, set a policy course and got the job done. The United States can and should build a domestic biofuels industry to protect our national security. There are many individual companies working toward the goal, making large investments and recording significant progress. If Congress clears the path for them to work with the military, they can build a commercial scale industry that offers stable fuel prices.

Earlier this year, I went to visit a wounded airman I had met overseas. He admitted that he didn't understand what my job was, as a DoD energy official.

When I told him that my job was basically to get fuel trucks off the road and out of the line of fire, he nodded.

"That's what I was doing when we got hit," he noted. "I was doing route clearance for a fuel convoy."

Energy is critical for the US military -- every mission needs a steady, reliable supply of some kind. But the way DoD uses energy today is raising the risks to our forces and hurting military effectiveness. It is also raising our costs: DoD spent $16 billion on fuel last year, an increase of more than 200% in about a decade.

So first and foremost, "clean" energy means the same thing for DoD as any other kind of innovation: it means a better military force. It means success in our missions. And if we do it right, it means we will save money. If the past is any guide (think GPS and the Internet), it will also mean cross-over innovations for the civilian economy.

Some of DoD's most important energy initiatives right now aim at reducing the demand for energy -- getting some of those fuel trucks off the battlefield. Near-term initiatives include improved power generation and distribution, more efficient shelter systems, and lightweight, ruggedized solar.

There are initiatives focused on other domains, as well, such as shipboard hybrid electric drives and more efficient aircraft engines, which let our destroyers and planes operate longer, sailing and flying further. The Department's Operational Energy Capability Improvement Fund provides seed money for R&D to support such efforts, with a goal of creating sustained, cost effective programs within the military departments.

Altogether, DoD plans to invest about $1.4B in 2013 to improve energy use in military operations, almost 90% of which will boost energy performance or efficiency. The remaining 10% will expand and secure our supply options, including with alternative and renewable energy.

In a future where US forces may face adversaries with precision weapons and a desire to limit our freedom of movement and access on land, sea, in the air, space, and cyber space, continued energy improvements will be critical. DoD is incorporating energy efficiency into future equipment, and looking at technologies that range from fuel cells to solar unmanned aircraft to small modular nuclear reactors. We are taking steps to improve the security of our electricity supplies, such as incorporating microgrids and renewable energy onto our bases.

At the same time that DoD is posturing for a changing global strategic environment, we are also posturing for a changing global energy environment. Domestic oil and gas supplies are at their highest levels in decades, but we are still part of a global market, with rising competition for resources and contracting sources of supply, including countries such as Iran and Venezuela. All of these factors suggest that oil prices will continue to be volatile, supplies will not be secure, and energy will continue to shape geopolitics and the global commons.

The Department, therefore, is also investing in alternative fuels, albeit on a fairly modest scale right now. For the long term, our forces will need alternatives to petroleum, particularly for our legacy fleet of ships and planes, which will be with us for decades to come. That is why the military departments are positioning themselves to take advantage of these fuels when they are cost-competitive with conventional fuels, including by certifying equipment to operate on alternatives.

While President Obama has provided important leadership for all of DoD's energy efforts, many of these efforts span both the Bush and Obama administrations and have broad bipartisan support in Congress, including from a newly formed Defense Energy Security Caucus.

The bipartisan support will be important for DoD as we look to improve the energy security of military missions and US forces. And while DoD will undoubtedly benefit national energy security in the process, we can't do it alone. Both parties and indeed all Americans will have to stand with the armed forces to get the nation to an energy secure future.

(These comments were submitted by Suzanne Hunt, President of HuntGreen LLC and Senior Advisor to the Carbon War Room where she leads their renewable fuel and aviation work.)

The Carbon War Room teamed up with the world's largest scientific publisher, Elsevier, to catalog and analyze advanced renewable fuels supply chain companies globally. There are thousands of companies; small innovators as well as large companies like Neste, Honeywell, Shell, BP, Total and dozens more that are investing billions of dollars and taking a long-term view of energy markets and resource constraints. While currently there are a handful of commercial scale advanced biorefineries that could supply drop-in fuels to the military, and there are several significant deals that are close to getting done, the advanced drop-in renewable fuel industry is largely pre-commercial. It is akin to the computer industry when computers were the size of a large room and cost millions to build. The industry is poised to take off but needs project finance in order to scale up and drive down costs. In today's financial environment this is hard to come by and companies often need strong off-take agreements (for fuel) with creditworthy counterparties in order to secure the needed finance. The US military is uniquely able to play this critical role in launching this industry which is vital to national security and arguably economic prosperity. They have played this role successfully many times before, and as with computer chips, cell phones, GPS, and so many other transformative technologies, the American people will benefit and the government will save money in the medium and long term.

Recently, the Clean Air Task Force and our colleagues at The Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, assessed the opportunities and challenges at the U.S. Department of Defense for accelerating a national and even global transition to advanced and clean energy technologies.

Building on background papers, a workshop, new research, and a previous project that articulated foundational principles for federal energy innovation policies, this report identified the sources of DoD’s success in fostering new technology that can be applied to both civilian energy innovation efforts and future defense-related energy efforts.

Unlike most other agencies, including the Energy Department, the Pentagon is the ultimate customer for the new technology it helps create, spending some $200 billion each year on R&D and procurement. The implications of DoD’s role as customer have not been widely appreciated, as:

· DoD, uniquely in government, supports multi-year, billion-dollar “end to end” innovation efforts that produce technology that is continuously tested, deployed and refined on bases and in the field, providing real world feedback that leads to increases in performance and reductions in cost. By contrast, most of the federal government’s civilian energy innovation efforts involve research loosely connected at best with the few commercialization efforts that it supports.

· DoD and its contractors know how to bring together multiple innovations to achieve system-level advances leading to big performance gains (examples range from nuclear submarines to unmanned aircraft to large-scale information systems). This systems approach is precisely what is needed to advance clean energy technologies.

· Relatively stable, multi-year funding allows the Pentagon to pursue “long cycle” innovation that is necessary for large, capital- intensive technologies and supports a highly capable contractor base that can respond to changing national security demands.

· The Pentagon’s scope and budget has allowed it to experiment with new and creative innovation tools such as the well-known Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, which has produced extraordinary technological breakthroughs; and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, which develops and demonstrates cost-effective improvements in environmental and energy technologies for military installations and equipment.

· Because of DoD’s size and demands for performance and reliability, it is unique among government and private sector organizations as a demonstration test-bed. Smart-grid technologies and advanced energy management systems for buildings are already poised to benefit from this aspect of the Pentagon’s innovation system.

· DoD has collaborated effectively with other federal agencies, including the Department of Energy and its predecessors (for example, to advance nuclear energy technologies). Continuing competition and cooperation between DoD and DOE will spur energy innovation. 
DoD’s innovation capabilities can enhance U.S. national security, improve U.S. international competitiveness, and spur global energy restructuring and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

At the same time, while providing enormous opportunities to develop and test energy efficiency technologies and small scale distributed energy appropriate to forward bases, the Pentagon is unlikely to become an all-purpose hub for advancing all categories of clean-energy technologies, because its energy innovation activities will be sustainable only where they can support the nation’s defense capabilities.

Therefore, many other large-scale technologies that are of great importance to improving the environment, such as carbon-free central station generation or zero carbon transportation, may not as easily fit with DoD’s mission. Possible exceptions might include small modular nuclear reactors that can be used for producing independent, non-grid power at military bases, or, conceivably, zero-carbon liquid fuels other than anything resembling current generation biofuels. 


In any case, the challenge for military-led energy innovation is to further define and delineate avenues for improved clean-energy performance that are linked to the national strategic mission. History shows that when such linkages are strong, DoD’s innovation capabilities are second to none.

But perhaps the more important lesson from this work is that a serious American program of civilian energy innovation could profitably look to Pentagon history for clues about how to succeed. Stable and significant funding; “end to end” thinking on long innovation cycles; procurement of advanced energy technology at commercial scale as well as research and testing; and institutional experimentation and diversity using multiple institutional channels – these have been important reasons that the United States has the most lethal and effective military arsenal in world history. If we’re serious about maintaining American superiority in the energy technology domain, some of this “defense innovation DNA” needs to be replicated or adapted to meet the challenge.

(These comments were submitted by David Roberts, staff writer for Grist.)

To understand the promise of renewable energy for the U.S. military, it helps to start as far from Washington, D.C. as possible. (This is true for most forms of understanding.) Start far from the politicians, even from the military brass, far from the rooms where big-money decisions are made, far out on the leading edge of the conflict, with a small company of Marines in Afghanistan's Sangin River Valley.

Not long ago, for a three-day mission out of a forward operating base in Afghanistan, each Marine would have humped between 20 and 35 pounds of batteries. One of the reasons Marines are so lethal in such small numbers today is that they are constantly connected by radios and computers. But radios and computers require a constant supply of batteries, brought by convoy over some of the deadliest roads on earth and then piled on the backs of Marines in highly kinetic environments.

In late 2010, India Company, from the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, tried something new. They packed Solar Portable Alternative Communications Energy Systems, or SPACES -- flexible solar panels, eight square inches, that weigh about 2.5 pounds each. One 1st Lieutenant from India 3/5 later boasted that his patrol shed 700 pounds.

"We stayed out for three weeks," he said, "and didn't need a battery resupply once."

This is a small example, of no great economic or geostrategic significance, yet it carries a profound lesson. It is a lesson that, in the unfolding age of energy insecurity, can be expressed as something like a universal law: reduced dependence on energy supply lines means greater autonomy, flexibility, and effectiveness.

The U.S. Marine Corps prides itself on being the U.S. military's ship-to-shore expeditionary force -- light, fast, and lethal, able to deploy quickly and operate autonomously in hostile or austere circumstances. So they have been the most sensitive to the chafing restrictions of what Gen. James Mattis, a Marine commander in the first Iraq war, famously called the "tether of fuel."

That tether, the convoys crisscrossing Iraq and Afghanistan, not only slows the Marines and restricts their range of motion, it also gets them killed -- one killed or wounded for each 50 convoys or so. And it is wildly expensive. By the time fuel is convoyed up through Pakistan or down through Russia, over the Hindu Kush mountains or across the Amu Darya river, and out from the big bases to the forward bases, sometimes on helicopter, fuel that costs the Marines $3 a gallon at the pump can reach a "fully burdened cost" of as high as $400 a gallon. It's fair to say that Marines running diesel generators at forward operating bases in Afghanistan are using some of the most expensive fuel in the world.

With that in mind, Marines are field testing insulated tents, portable solar panels, LED lights, and systems to purify and cool local water. I reported on their efforts for a story in Outside last year, and every source I spoke to had the same thing to say: there may be some grumbling about the energy effort in the middle ranks, from officers set in their ways, but among young Marines on the front lines, and among the brass in the top ranks, there is nothing but enthusiasm.

It isn't about "greening" anything or cooling the climate. "Other people are busy saving the planet; this is about saving Marine lives," Col. Bob Charette, director of Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office, said recently. "I’d kiss a polar bear if it meant getting one Marine off an IED-filled highway."

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has said that both the Navy and Marines will reduce fossil fuel consumption by half by 2020. The Army and Air Force have also adopted aggressive goals. The military gets it: reduced dependence on energy supply lines means greater autonomy, flexibility, and effectiveness. It's not only true in the theater of war. It's true for the great military fleets at sea and in the sky. It's true for military bases in the U.S. or across the world, dependent on civilian power grids subject to attacks or blackouts.

And it's not just true for the military. In a time of rising fossil fuel prices and increasingly apparent climate dangers, the tether of fuel binds all of us -- homes, businesses, communities, and whole economies -- to a future of vulnerability and instability. Using less energy and generating more of our own is about more than dollars spent or saved. It's about self-determination. That makes for a more effective military and a more secure, productive society.