Last summer, the press around the world vied with each other to reprint the statement of a retired American general, who was once connected with the supply of the army. Steve Anderson argued that air conditioners alone cost the Pentagon a very lump sum when he was in a position of responsibility during the Iraqi operation. The purchase, installation and operation of climatic equipment "ate" about twenty billion dollars a year. The main reason for this is the specifics of logistics and energy supply. Often there is no way to connect the power grid of the military to the civilian one and you have to transport diesel generators from the States far away, and sometimes even fuel for them. The climate of the Middle East, combined with the cost of transportation, ultimately leads to very, very considerable costs. Brigadier General Anderson himself made his own proposal to save on air conditioners - to cover the fabric of the tents with heat-insulating material. Thus, the cost of production of textiles will slightly increase, but the cost of air conditioners and "fuel" for them will decrease, while the tent is made once and is used for many months and even years.
It should be noted that Anderson was not the first to draw attention to the low energy efficiency of the modern American army. A little earlier than the General's statements, the Pentagon published an approximate plan to improve the efficiency of fuel and energy consumption. It is curious that the American military decided to start this work not only for purely financial reasons. As you know, the United States buys most of its fuel abroad, so it turns out to be 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 finished products. For almost a year, US military analysts have spent on working out a more detailed plan, as they call it, the "Road Map". On March 6 this year, a new document appeared on the official website of the American military department.
The OESY (Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan) is based on three main areas, without which, according to 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 during operations, including at a great distance from 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 mankind “loves” oil the most of all resources, for some countries these American intentions may look very ominous;
- Guaranteeing the energy security of the American armed forces in the future. Here it is planned to consolidate and develop success in the field of economic efficiency of technology and the creation of completely new technologies.
If all the measures described in OESY can be implemented in their best manifestation, then the US military will be able to conduct hostilities around the world, and exactly with the capabilities with which they were sent there, and will be less dependent on supplies. On the one hand, one can rejoice for the "ji-ai", because it will be much easier for them to fight, but on the other - where exactly will they fight without dependence on the supply of resources? Against the background of recent talks about Syria, Iran and other "unreliable countries", all this looks, at least, ambiguous.
First of all, while 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%. The OESY plan demands even bigger numbers from the Marine Corps. The ILC will have to cut their spending by as much as a quarter. But they also have different terms - they need to do it before the 25th year. In addition, in terms of one soldier, energy consumption by 2025 should be reduced by one and a half times, in the first place it concerns the marines. It looks like the brave guys from the Marine Corps will have a hard time. If a decrease in resource consumption by 10-15 percent for aviation or the fleet looks real and not very difficult, then 25%, by which the entire ILC will have to tighten the belts, and minus a third for each individual marine, due to some characteristics of these troops, can be perceived with a healthy skepticism.
However, savings alone, even if tough, will not save much. Radically new technologies are required, for example, waste recycling. For this, for a couple of years, under the auspices of the Pentagon, work has been underway on the Net Zero project. The concept of this project is based on three “substances” - water, waste and energy, and their interaction is based on the idea of minimizing or even completely eliminating the difference between consumption and production. By 2020, it is planned to launch serial production of Net Zero installations. They will have to recycle and purify used water, recycle garbage, etc. The cost of such a device, for obvious reasons, has not yet been announced. And the beginning of the tests is not a matter of today or even tomorrow. Most likely, the Net Zero installation will include water purification systems similar to those used on the International Space Station, as well as a mini-power plant that burns garbage and generates electricity. If a power plant is not superfluous anywhere, then water purification is relevant for hot and arid regions such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
In addition to saving and recycling, the US military intends to use other methods to improve energy efficiency. For several years now, the troops have been using Power Shade tents and tents in limited quantities. Solar panels are mounted on their fabrics, connected to batteries and voltage stabilizers. 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 panels and accumulators 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 in the early 80s, the idea of a compact nuclear reactor was tested, designed to supply power to military bases and similar objects. However, then all the advantages of such systems could not outweigh the disadvantages and design problems. For more than twenty years, this idea was forgotten. In March 2011, the Pentagon again remembered about compact low-power reactors. Currently, a number of companies and scientific organizations are trying to create such a power plant, but nothing has been heard of any success in this field. Most likely, it will again come to a comparison of advantages and disadvantages, after which fatal problems will again send small reactors under the carpet.
Another area of modern development concerns alternative fuels. Biofuels are considered as an "additive", and possibly also as a substitute for kerosene and diesel fuel in the future. 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 renewed not only in the aviation formations of aircraft carriers. The ships themselves will be converted to new fuel. By 2017, it is planned to begin the transition of the fleet to diesel fuel, half diluted with fuel from biological raw materials. The fleet transfer program received the index GGF (Great Green Fleet). It is impossible to say how effective this fuel change will be, but the zeal of the command allows us to assume great benefits from it. However, it should be noted that biofuel still has one serious drawback - the existing production technologies do not yet allow bringing its price to the level at which the choice between oil and biological raw materials will be taken for granted. But the agricultural sector of the United States will be able to provide enough 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 years another half a billion will be transferred for these needs.
Fuel for the fleet is still at the stage of development due to the peculiarities of diesel engines. The fact is that not every type of biofuel is suitable for this type of power plant. But with aviation fuel mixture, things are much better. In theory, a turbojet engine can use any atomized fuel. Therefore, in the field of aviation alternative fuels, work has already reached the stage of testing on real airplanes and helicopters. F / A-18 Hornet and F-22 Raptor fighters, the A-10C Thunderbolt II attack aircraft and even the C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft have already flown on kerosene with a product from camelina seeds. In addition, UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters can fly on a mixture of hydrocarbon and biofuel. At the moment, tests of the new fuel are being completed, and by the end of this year it is planned to certify it and start using it in combat units.
Projects OESY, GGF and Net Zero fit well into the current strategy of the Pentagon. The current US Secretary of Defense L. Panetta did not manage to stay in his post for a year, but has already made a number of serious proposals. Among other things, he intends to do everything to reduce the cost of the armed forces as much as possible, of course, while fully preserving the defense capability. This intention is understandable: the freed up finances 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 item is a global plan, calculated for ten years. By the beginning of the twenties of this century, it is planned to save almost half a trillion dollars in unnecessary, unpromising and ineffective areas, which will be spent on promising and important projects. Yes, only this economy is a double-edged sword. At one end, freed up finance, and at the other, an energy efficiency program nestled comfortably. The American military energy, like many other "industries", is rather conservative and significant investments of money will be required for its noticeable renewal. Moreover, the benefits of the first several tens, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars can only appear after some time. Will the energy saving program become a victim of saving money resources?
