arizona.openrepository.comarizona.openrepository.com/.../10150/608583/1/Thesis.docx · Web viewThe...
-
Upload
trinhkhanh -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of arizona.openrepository.comarizona.openrepository.com/.../10150/608583/1/Thesis.docx · Web viewThe...
The Future of Energy Efficiency in Marine Corps Forward Operating Bases
By: Jon AsheimMentor: Dr. Bryden Cais
SBE 498Spring 2016
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Data…………………………………………………………....…………………………………........ 12Flexible-Rollable Solar Arrays: Renovagen MultiGen……………………..... 12Advanced Fuel cells: Tesla Motors Powerwall………………………………… 15Atmospheric Water Generation: Aqua Sciences………………………………. 17
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
Results………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21Renewable Solar Energy……………………………………………………………….. 21Fuel Cells…………………………………………………………………………………….. 22Water Systems…………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………….……. 25
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………….……... 25
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
2
Abstract
Marine Corps forward operating bases (FOBs) operate in austere conditions where
the reliance on resupply from main bases is a necessity. A FOB in Afghanistan requires at
least 300 gallons of diesel fuel a day, in which each gallon delivered requires 7 gallons of
fuel to get it there by convoy (US Army Corps of Engineers). Extensive resupply convoys
offer a tactical disadvantage, especially when there is one Marine casualty for every 50
convoys (Reichert, 2011).
Private sector innovations in energy efficiency can offer a solution to inefficient
energy use and Marine casualties from IEDs – improvised explosive devices. Data analysis of
private sector innovations in the fields of flexible solar, fuel cells, and atmospheric water
generation, provide direction into the future of sustainable forward operating base design.
Each of the proposed innovations outscore current systems by vast margins in a weighted
energy efficiency scale and therefore have the potential to elevate the energy efficiency of
forward operating bases.
Energy efficiency, in the case of the Marine Corps, is a combat multiplier. If they are
able to free themselves from the burden of their increased energy use, they gain the ability
to operate more aggressively, push deeper, and fight as a lighter, more lethal force.
Key Terms: FOB - forward operating base
Expeditionary – deployed forces
3
Introduction
Unless we reduce our reliance on energy at our forward most combat outposts, the
Marine Corps, and combat operations as a whole, will continue to be restricted by the
logistical supply chains needed to satisfy our force’s gluttonous demand for energy. To
quote General Mattis:
- “Unleash us from the tether of fuel”
- (Reichert, 2011)
Energy intensive systems are what have allowed our military to enhance its capabilities,
but they also present a weakness to our warfighting operations. Energy efficiency,
therefore is a combat multiplier in its ability to shave off the excess bulk that accompanies
energy intensive operations. Cutting off bulk means enhancing our maneuverability and
lethality.
The Marine Corps is a branch in Department of Defense, the single largest consumer
of energy in the U.S. (Reichert, 2011). While the Marines are the smallest consumers of the
branches, they operate under a tight budget, often forced to choose between fuel or
ammunition. The vehicles, computers, radios, and optics systems required for the elevated
pace of the modern battlefield have become increasingly energy intensive. The war
machine has become so advanced that it is heavy and less agile, slowed down by its
advanced mechanization and dependence on fuel supply lines.
Recent innovations in the private sector in the areas of flexible solar arrays, power
cells, and atmospheric water generation, have potential military applications in that they
can make FOB’s more energy efficient. This paper will explore innovations in three
4
alternative energy technologies within the private sector and gauge their potential to
elevate the energy efficiency of a forward operating base.
Methodology
This paper takes a quantitative approach at comparing the energy efficiency of
current Marine Corps FOB systems to the proposed cutting edge innovations of the private
sector. Each of the three proposed innovations is paired with its current Marine Corps
equivalent and then scored using a multi-criteria analysis table developed to measure the
efficiency of each system.
The data surrounding the Marine Corps’ current systems was gathered from
military documents and official government websites. Specific parameters of the solar
energy systems and fuel cell technology used by the Marine Corps was gathered from the
Office of Naval Research, as well as the Expeditionary Energy Office of the Marine Corps.
The official company websites of Tesla, Renovagen, and Aqua Sciences offered most
of the numerical data regarding the capabilities of each of their respective technologies.
Used to confirm these specifications were articles from sources such as the Army as well as
a number of engineering websites.
This research is designed to propose the potential superiority, in efficiency, of
technologies developed in the private sector over current Marine technology. The analysis
is generated using multi-criteria analysis tables that scores both current and proposed
systems in order to reveal which is the most efficient overall.
The information of this paper is presented in a series of sections. The literature
review explains the growing pertinence of the energy issue faced by our combat force. It
5
provides statistics and background information on our growing fuel consumption and
inefficient practices and explains why these issues must be resolved. The paper then moves
to a data portion where the private sector innovations are introduced using detailed
parameters. They are then compared to current Marine Corps FOB systems in multiple
energy criteria. The results of each comparison are illustrated in respective multi-criteria
analysis tables. From these tables a conclusion table is used to compare the current energy
practices with the proposed private sector innovations. The final sections will take the
form of the conclusion, limitations, and recommendations, as a result of the proposed
innovations.
Literature Review
The data surrounding this topic reaches as far upward as the North American Treaty
Organization (NATO) and the energy strategies of its forces, down through the US
Department of Defense and finally to the data collected on the ground, in theater, by the
Marine Corps regarding the energy efficiency of its Forward Operating bases.
When addressing the energy efficiency in Forward Operating Bases, one must first
understand the energy strategies of NATO and the Department of Defense. To build a
proper argument, this paper will first explore the problems encountered by forces much
higher than the Marine Corps, in order to gain a greater understanding of just how strong
of an influence an energy efficient FOB can have on the entire war-effort.
NATO
6
The movement towards the energy efficiency of our nation’s military is a trickle-
down effect that begins with the highest power: The North Atlantic Trade Organization.
They have at their disposal high tech stealth aircraft, nuclear naval ships, nearly impervious
vehicles, and advanced communications networks that operate at lighting fast speeds.
These advancements put NATO at the cutting edge of warfare and have allowed the
organization to impose its will across the globe. NATO is a political power intended to
resolve conflict whether that be politically or by force. Power projection has been a key
factor in diffusing the unsanctioned violence that has grown in the middle east. To combat
terrorism, NATO has deployed its advanced, energy intensive forces. This energy has come
at an expense and can no longer be overlooked. Critics to military energy consumption
have speculated that the concern for energy could trump our military strategy (NATO,
2013). This means that operations have become strategically impaired, tethered, to
logistics and the concern for fuel. The battlefield must be a place of total strategic
dominance; we cannot afford to be held back by our overuse of energy.
Power projection in theater has become increasingly expensive for a number of
reasons. NATO is spending more money than ever on fuel because of the rising price of
petroleum. In 2005 the US Department of Defense spent $ 8.8 billion for 130 million
barrels of petroleum supplies. In 2008, the DoD spent US$ 17.9 billion for 134 million
barrels. For almost the same amount of petroleum purchased in 2005 the DOD paid almost
twice the price in 2008. Adding to this is NATO’s steady growth of energy consumption as a
result of the increased mechanization of fighting forces. From 1997 to 2010 the US armed
forces saw a 255% increase in the amount spent on petroleum, nearly $13.2 billion dollars’
worth (NATO, 2013).
7
Another factor that has increased fuel consumption is the security needed to keep
the flow of fuel steady to our operational outposts. 24/7 365 days a year these outposts
must have a steady and secure availability of fuel. This demand requires additional
manpower, taking troops away from the actual fight and focusing much of it on the security
and protection of convoys and storage spaces. The DoD estimates that it is paying in
upwards of $40 per gallon of petroleum (Reichert, 2011).
NATO recognizes the energy efficiency efforts taken by the United States military.
The growth of fuel alternatives such as unconventional gas and oil have been explored by
the United states as a source that is cheaper and more available, resulting in a more
sustainable fuel source. European nations see fuel alternatives as failing to produce any
performance advantages and so they remain skeptical (NATO, 2013). The Navy has
developed one of the most notable energy efficient strategies in the entire NATO alliance by
installing stern flaps, that cut back on drag, which saves around $450,000 a year. The
Marine Corps is another organization receiving praise from NATO. The ExFOB –
experimental forward operating base program is described by NATO as having the most
ambitious research projects to date in the fields of energy efficiency (NATO, 2013). This
type of efficient thinking is critical to the war efforts of both NATO and the US Department
of Defense who, during the past decade, have identified the growing need for an energy
efficient force.
DoD
8
The Department of Defense is the main entity in control of the energy used by our Armed
Forces so it is of great importance to the energy usage of Forward Operating Bases. In the
past the DoD’s stance on energy was that effectiveness takes precedent over efficiency,
which resulted in energy being a necessary expense, not an investment issue (Haggerty,
2008). The DoD is the nation’s largest consumer of energy and has updated its strategy of
energy management to meet the growing demand of our operational forces. The new
strategy is built around the Department’s recognition of energy’s ability to enable
worldwide missions while also acknowledging it as a potential vulnerability (Department
of Defense, 2016). The 2016 operational energy strategy will work to accomplish the
following:
Increase future warfighting capability and combat effectiveness through
investments in energy innovations.
Identify and reduce logistics and operational risks by examining the potentials of
energy harvesting and renewable energies.
Enhance mission effectiveness of the current force by adding flexibility to our fuel
supply and improving the way we handle our energy.
Important to understand is that these objectives are sent down to each of the
branches of the DoD and implemented within each mission specific role. The Marine Corps
is required to comply with these objectives and adopt the strategies of the DoD.
These strategies are a result of the DoD’s overdependence on fuel and the
vulnerability this poses. According to Alan Haggerty, former Deputy under Secretary of
Defense, logistics consume about half of DoD’s personnel and a third of DoD’s budget. In
Iraq and Afghanistan 80% of the convoys are for fuel. In 2008 nearly half the casualties
9
were from convoys. (Haggerty, 2008) (Reichert, 2011). Such extensive energy and sacrifice
is too great for something as trivial as fuel. The energy required to sustain operations in
theater is now threatening the lives of our Marines and the solution lies in decreasing the
demand, and increasing the efficiency of our combat outposts on the forward edge.
Marine Corps
To put the Marine Corps into perspective; they are the speartip of US foreign
diplomacy, first to fight. They come from Spartan roots and are most at home fighting in
austere conditions with the odds stacked against them. However, they have recently
distanced themselves from the lean and mean mentality due to their technological
advancements in warfighting.
When it comes to current battlefield strategy, the Marines project their power on
the ground with forward operating bases and ground-fighters on the forward edge. This
strategy has become extremely energy intensive and dangerous for re-supply convoys. Just
to put the increased energy demand into perspective, the period from 2001-2011 saw a
250% increase in radios, 300% increase in computers, 200% increase in number of
vehicles, 75% increase in the weight of vehicles, and a 30% decrease in miles per gallon of
the vehicle fleet (Reichert, 2011). This places an enormous strain on the supply chain in the
transportation of liquid logistics and opens up vulnerabilities for the enemy to capitalize
on.
Another factor at play is the remoteness of a forward operating base. Some FOBs
take convoys longer than 18 hours of driving through dangerous terrain to reach. These
forward positions are so far downstream from main bases that their fuel requires fuel, in
other words the logistics activities themselves consume fuel. This is known as the fuel
10
multiplier. For example, it takes 18 hours for a convoy to travel 40 miles through
Afghanistan from the large installation of Camp Leatherneck to Camp Now Zad, a FOB on
the forward edge (Regnier, 2013). These supply routes are laden with IED’s and enemy
ambushes. The effects of energy usage of an outpost this far downstream are multiplied
upstream. Any differences in energy use changes the amount of resupply convoys needed
which typically means lives at risk.
The Marine Corps forward operating bases on the extreme forward edge have
arguably the greatest effects on the logistics. Any decrease in consumption on their end far
downstream is multiplied upstream, resulting in fewer re-supply convoys and fewer
casualties. Efficiency at the tip of the spear is where it is needed most. Energy efficiency of
forward operating bases is crucial for the safety of our Marines overseas therefore
enhancing their efficiency is of highest priority. Innovation in alternative energy systems is
needed and the private sector is the place to look. The leaders in battery power,
photovoltaic arrays, and water generation, can elevate the efficiencies of current systems.
The subsequent section will explore the current and proposed systems, identifying their
capabilities and limitations.
11
Data
Private Sector Innovations with Potential Military Applications
Flexible-Rollable Solar Arrays: Renovagen MultiGen
The solar arrays currently in use by the Marines in theater are called the GREENS
which stands for Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System. They are
stackable solar panels paired with the EARLCON battery system. The whole package comes
in a small shipping container and is readily deployable. When deployed, the GREENS
system can generate 300 watts of power or 1.6kWh of continuous energy, enough to power
the lights and computers of a small command center (Reichert, 2011). Any excess solar
energy from the photovoltaic array or excess energy generated by the diesel generators is
stored in the battery system. In a way this system acts like a hybrid vehicle and is able to
reduce the fuel consumed by generators. Another advantage is that when the generators
power off and the batteries take control, the base is quieter; more tactical. (USMC
Expeditionary Energy Office, 2012)
Marine Corps GREENS solar array (USMC)
12
In terms of flexible solar arrays, the Marines have adopted canvas powershades
with built in flexible photovoltaic cells that cover their tents. These reduce the internal
temperature by 10-15 degrees while generating 1-2 kilowatts of energy to run the lights or
charge batteries for radios and computers. Another flexible solar system in use is the
SPACES system which stands for the Solar Portable Alternative Communication Energy
System. This small flexible system can be rolled up and carried in a pack to charge small
batteries when on patrol (Reichert, 2011).
Marine flexible solar SPACES powershades (USMC)
The private sector has seen innovation in flexible photovoltaic solar technology,
most notably is the ROLLARRAY technology developed by Renovagen. The technology acts
like a giant spool of flexible photovoltaic cells that wind up into a large container. The
company claims that this system offers 10 times greater power generation than other
transportable solar systems and can be deployed in a matter of minutes. The ROLLARRAY
technology comes in two forms; a smaller unit and a larger one. The smaller MultiGen unit,
the size of an air pallet, boasts a 9kWp – 18kWp (kilowatt-peak, or peak power) with a
53kWh (kilowatt/hour) lithium battery storage capacity. The larger unit, the IsoGen, is the
13
size of a 20-foot shipping container and houses a 200m long, 5m wide spool of flexible
photovoltaic panels. This system can currently generate 200kWp and is predicted to
generate up to 600kWp when the integration of more efficient solar cells becomes possible
in the future (Renovagen Ltd, 2016).
Renovagen MultiGen rollable solar array (Renovagen Ltd, 2016)
According to the Office of Naval Research the Marine GREENS system is a 1,600-watt
photovoltaic array and is paired with a 40kWh hybrid battery system. The MultiGen by
Renovagen generates 18kW, that’s 18,000 watts. That is more than 10 times the generation
of the current GREENS system. Another advantage is that the MulitGen system can be
deployed in a matter of minutes, faster than the set up of an array of solar panels used by
the GREENS system. The company that develops the MultiGen system is currently looking
for military funding and contracts. Their technology is suited for austere off grid conditions
such as remote military installations and is currently still in the field testing phase
(Renovagen Ltd, 2016).
14
Advanced Fuel cells: Tesla Motors Powerwall
Fuel cells are energy banks that pair to renewable energy sources or generators, and
store energy when excess is generated, delivering it as needed. They can draw power from
generators and then run operations more efficiently when the generators are turned off.
Compared to traditional generators using diesel or other fossil fuels, fuel cells are 83%
more efficient (Reichert, 2011). Fuel cells promote the use of renewables like solar and
wind. The solar energy generated by forward operating bases can go directly into a fuel cell
to be stored for future use or emergency situations.
The current battery system used by the Marine Corps is the EARLCON system which
is an 8,468-pound shipping container that houses large lead acid batteries. The system can
deliver 40kWh of energy to power a FOB. The problem with this system is that it is limited
by its battery technology. Lead acid batteries require much more maintenance than lithium
ion batteries and are less energy dense (Lombardo, 2015). This means that for the same
amount of space, lead acid batteries store less energy than lithium ion batteries.
Marine EARLCON battery system (US Army Corps of Engineers)
15
The leader in lithium ion battery technology is Tesla Motors. The company has
recently developed a commercial fuel-cell capable of powering a home at night from the
electricity drawn from solar panels during the day. Each Powerwall battery has a 6.4 kWh
storage capacity and these batteries can be linked in series to store more energy, up to
90kWh (Lombardo, 2015). This super battery uses Tesla’s state of the art lithium ion
technology made famous by their automobiles. The Powerwall weighs only 214 pounds,
delivering high amounts of power for something so light.
Tesla Powerwall lithium ion battery (Tesla Motors , 2016)
The military application of Tesla’s fuel cell has been examined by the Homeland
Defense and Security Analysis Center-HDIAC (HDIAC, 2016). They propose that a fuel cell
like the Tesla Powerwall has the potential to reduce energy cost by mitigating military base
energy consumption. If paired with renewables and diesel generators they can work as a
micro grid to bring power when and where it is needed most. The typical FOB in
Afghanistan utilizing solar energy requires 20kWh of power (Briley, 2009). If several
Powerwalls outputting 6.4kWh are paired together, the batteries have the potential to
16
create up to 90kWh of storage, double that of the Marine Corps current EARLCON system
which stores up to 40kWh. Because the Powerwall is made up of energy dense lithium ion
batteries, achieving the storage capacity of the EARLCON system can be done using less
weight. In warfare, portability is a major constraint so a system composed of lighter more
powerful Powerwalls is superior to the heavy EARLCON system. (Office of Naval Research,
2010)
Atmospheric Water Generation: Aqua Sciences
According to the Marine Energy Assessment Team, it takes 7 gallons of fuel to
transport one gallon of water to Marines in Afghanistan (US Army Corps of Engineers). The
Marines’ current water system: trucking it to forward operating bases by the bottle.
According to Army articles, the Department of Defense is examining the potential mass-
deployment of Atmospheric Water Generation- AWG. This is a process of taking water out
of the air, particularly difficult in the desert (Army-Technology.com, 2015).
The company Aqua Sciences has pioneered an atmospheric water generation
process that uses concentrated salt compounds to extract water from the air. Their claim is
that they can do it where others cannot, even in the most adverse conditions. Currently
they produce a shipping container sized AWG unit that produces 2,600 gallons of water per
day for disaster relief and mining sites. They have a current contract with the Army,
developing a system suited for their needs. A Marine in theater requires 5.2 gallons of
water a day (Lash, 2011). This means that the Aqua Sciences systems can provide water for
500 Marines a day, enough for a battalion sized FOB, by extracting it from the air alone
(Aqua Sciences, Inc., 2015).
17
Aqua Sciences’ Emergency Water Plant (Aqua Sciences, Inc., 2015)
Discussion
The Proposed Innovations
The private sector innovations are chosen because they are at the forefront of their
respective fields. Tesla Motors, Renovagen, and Aqua Sciences produce systems with
technology capable of elevating the current energy efficiency of Marine Corps forward
operating bases.
The roll able solar array developed by Renovagen is designed for applications in
environments that are isolated from the commercial grid. The photovoltaic panels
incorporate new technology that allow them to be stored on a roll able spool inside of a
compact container while still generating large amounts of energy (Renovagen Ltd, 2016).
This is very applicable to the current military situation in places like Afghanistan and Iraq
that require power generation on site in remote locations. The Marine Corps can deploy the
MultiGen system much faster than their current GREENS solar panels, creating forward
outposts virtually anywhere and powering them efficiently in a matter of minutes.
18
Reducing the construction time of forward operating bases is a tactical advantage because
operations can be conducted as soon as the base has energy. Because the MultiGen system
is capable of generating more power than the GREENS solar array, it can reduce the
dependence on diesel generators and overall fuel consumption. Reduced fuel demand
means less re-supply convoys, leading to less Marines at risk of being hit by IED’s. Marine
welfare is second only to mission accomplishment. The MultiGen solar array has the
potential to increase the combat capabilities of forward operating bases while also
increasing the welfare of the Marines transporting fuel across supply lines.
The Tesla Powerwall is a super battery that utilizes the advancements made in the
electric automotive field to develop a lithium ion fuel cell capable of mass energy storage.
The storage capacity of this advanced battery is very high in relation to its weight.
Outfitting FOBs with this technology means that they will be easier to transport while at
the same time possessing more storage capacity than the current EARLCON system. The
Marines are exploring ways to lighten their load and reduce the bulk of their operating
forces. From a strategic standpoint it is always a disadvantage to have movements
restricted in any way. The lightweight, powerful Powerwall technology can increase the
maneuverability of our combat forces and therefore has great applications in forward
operating base design (Tesla Motors , 2016).
The Marines use possibly the most inefficient means of water sourcing that there is.
Not only is their use of bottled water inefficient, the waste generated is another problem in
itself. Disposing of the plastic water bottles is problematic and just another thing for
leaders to worry about. Generating water from the air the way Aqua Sciences’ water station
does is a means of water sourcing directed at remote installations where water supply is
19
questionable or non-existent. For the Marines to adopt such a system they would simply
have to locate the shipping container systems on their forward operating bases and power
them via diesel or solar. Producing water on-site is a smart way of outfitting Marines with
needed drinking water while at the same time reducing convoys dedicated for the resupply
of water bottles (Aqua Sciences, Inc., 2015).
The Marine Corps has an Expo each year called E2C or Expeditionary Energy
Concepts, in which they field test private sector innovations developed to increase the
energy efficiency of expeditionary forces. The latest E2C was designed to explore potential
advancements in squad-sized small unit water purification, energy storage for mobile
micro-grid applications, energy scavenging technologies, and combat trauma wound
systems. These are all focused on small mobile patrol units that operate outside the wire of
forward operating bases. These technologies are proposed to be capable of increasing the
mobility of small ground units (United States Marine Corps, 2016). While these
advancements have the ability to decrease the energy demand and increase the
maneuverability of small mobile units, focusing on the massive fuel consumption of
forward operating bases can offer a greater push to achieving a near self sustaining combat
force.
Results
20
Multi-Criteria Analysis of Potential Private Sector Innovations vs. CurrentMarine Corps Systems
Based off a Scale weighted from 1-5, 5 meeting the greatest criteria and 1 meeting the lowest criteria
Renewable Solar Energy Systems
Solar Type Power Generatio
n
Mobility BatteryCapability
Durability Deployment time
Total
Current GREENS
2 4 3 4 2 15
Renovagen MultiGen
5 4 4 3 5 21
Analysis based off the following statistics: The MulitGen Rollable solar array by
Renovagen generates 9kWp-18kWp, is transported in a small air pallet container, has a
53kWh lithium battery storage capacity, can withstand 80mph winds, and can be deployed
in two minutes (Renovagen Ltd, 2016).
The Marine Corps GREENS solar array generates 1600W (1.6kWp), are stored in
shipping containers, are paired with a 40kWh hybrid generator, and have to be set up
individually panel-by-panel (Office of Naval Research, 2010).
Fuel Cells
21
Fuel Cell Type
Battery Material
Storage Capacity
Durability
Transportability Maintenance
Total
EARLCON(Current)
3 2 4 2 2 13
Tesla Powerwal
l
5 5 2 4 5 21
Analysis based off the following: The EARLCON energy system uses lead-acid batteries
which are inferior to Lithium-Ion batteries in that they require continued maintenance
year round, and degrade in harsh environments. The lithium ion technology led by Tesla
Motors yields a higher energy density than lead acid batteries; meaning that for the same
amount of space, Lithium Ion batteries have a higher capacity than lead acid batteries.
Currently the only disadvantage to the Tesla Powerwall is its durability which would have
to be made more combat capable if implemented in forward operating bases. The
EARLCON delivers 40kWh of energy in an 8,468 pound shipping container. The Tesla
Powerwall can deliver 6.4kWh of energy in a module that is only 214 pounds. Combining
Powerwalls can produce a storage capacity of 90kWh, and will be less than 4,000lbs
(Lombardo, 2015) (Tesla Motors , 2016)(USMC E2 Update 2012).
22
Water Systems
Type Transportability Fuel Requirement
Lives Risked Total
Plastic Bottle(Current)
1 1 1 3
Aqua Sciences Atmospheric
Water Generation
4 4 5 13
Analysis based off the following: Each gallon of bottled water transported to a forward
operating base requires 7 gallons of fuel to get there (US Army Corps of Engineers). The
disposal of plastic bottles is also a pressing issue for combat outposts. The system
developed by Aqua Sciences atmospheric water generation takes water out of thin air and
requires only charged salt and energy to do so. The shipping container sized element
houses the entire system including the battery power source. The Army is currently
working with Aqua Sciences on their own military grade system, something the Marines
must explore in order to reduce the amount of transported bottled water and Marine
casualties (Aqua Sciences, Inc., 2015).
Comparison: Current Systems vs. Proposed Systems
Current SystemsEnergy System Points Awarded Total pointsGREENS 15
31EARLCON 13Bottled Water 3
Proposed SystemsEnergy System Points Awarded Total pointsMultiGen Solar 21
55Tesla Powerwall 21Aqua Sciences AWG 13
Conclusion
23
The conclusion generated by this study illustrates the superiority of the proposed
advancements in the private sector over the current Marine Corps energy systems. The
Current systems generated a score of 31 out of 65 points based off of the multi-criteria
analysis tables. The proposed systems scored 55 out of 65 points in the multi criteria
analysis tables. The proposed systems are therefore found to be more energy efficient than
the current systems. The Marine Corps of the past has valued effectiveness over efficiency,
this way of thinking must be altered, placing more value on energy efficiency in order to
decrease the dependence on energy and increase lethality. If the Marines were able to
adopt these proposed innovations they would see a decrease in fuel demand downstream
in forward outposts, a reduction in the amount of resupply convoys, and a potential
reduction of IED casualties.
Although this study is a lighthearted exploration into the future of efficient forward
operating bases, its ideals run much deeper. In part this study was meant to expose the
reader to the issues of IEDs that have been taking the lives and legs of our young men
overseas for more than a decade. This ugly problem may have no remedy, but the ethos of
sustainable design can mitigate our losses. Sustainability is a powerful weapon in our
arsenal. The Marines must learn to master it or continue to see their ranks slowly taken by
roadside bombs. Our success in future conflicts will be determined not by our tactics, but
by our intelligent use of energy and logistics.
Limitations
24
The data on the proposed private sector innovations was limited due to the fact that
the technologies are new and have not yet been formally reviewed by outside
organizations. The information gathered surrounding the capability of the new technology
was most often extracted from each respective website and assumed to be accurate.
Obtaining a government contract is often an extremely difficult process for private
organizations and takes years of field testing before technologies can move to official
military production. The innovations proposed must be found to be combat effective by the
DoD and Marine Corps.
Recommendations
The Marine Corps must more aggressively seek innovations from the private sector
to enhance their energy efficiency. Current systems have the ability to be replaced with
more efficient technologies. The DoD and Marine Corps must shorten the process of
receiving a government contract so as to include the technology offered by the private
sector.
Bibliography
25
Aqua Sciences, Inc. (2015). Our Products: Emergency Water Plant. Retrieved from Aqua Sciences Inc. Web Site: http://www.aquasciences.com/products_eng.shtml
Army Capabilities Integration Center. (n.d.). Power and Energy Strategy White Paper. DC: Department of the Army.
Army-Technology.com. (2015, October). Army-Technology. Retrieved from Army-Technology.com.
Briley, E. (2009). Department of Defense: Renewable Energy and Tech Transfer. Harvard University Extension School.
Cave, e. a. (2012). Sustainable Design of Forward Operating Bases. London: University of Bristol.
Department of Defense. (2016). DoD 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. DC: Department of Defense.
Haggerty, A. (2008). S&T and Maneuver Warfare: A Current Success and a Future Challenge. Alexandria: Department of Defense.
HDIAC. (2016). Homeland Defense & Security Information Analysis Center. Retrieved from HDIAC Web Site: https://www.hdiac.org/node/1683
Lash, F. (2011, May). National Defense. Retrieved from nationaldefensemagazine: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/may/pages/marinestakestepstoavoidcostlybottledwaterresupply.aspx
Lombardo, T. (2015, May 3). Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers. Retrieved from Engineering.com:http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/10057/Teslas-Powerwall-by-the-Numbers.aspx
Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office. (2011). Marine Corps Expedionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan. Washington: U.S. Marine Corps.
McKenna, P. (2011, March). MIT Teschnology Review. Retrieved from technologyreview.com: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/423255/hybrid-power-for-the-frontline/
NATO. (2013). New Energy Ideas for NATO Militaries: Building Accountability, Reducing Demand, Securing Supply. NATO Parliment Assembly.
26
Office of Naval Research. (2010). Media Release: Solar Energy Powers Marines on Battlefield. Retrieved from Office of Naval Research: http://www.onr.navy.mil/en.aspx
Regnier, e. a. (2013). The Fuel Multiplier in Multi-Stage Supply Chains. Monteray: Defense Resource Management Institute.
Reichert, e. a. (2011). From Barracks to the Battlefield. DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.Renovagen Ltd. (2016). Products: Rollarray MultigGen. Retrieved from Renovagen Ltd
Website: http://www.renovagen.com/?services_category=products
SEIA. (2013, May 17). Enlisting the Sun: Powering the U.S. Military with Solar Energy 2013. Retrieved from seia.org: http://www.seia.org/research-resources/enlisting-sun-powering-us-military-solar-energy-2013
Tesla Motors . (2016). Powerwall: Tesla Motors. Retrieved from Tesla Motors Website: https://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall
United States Marine Corps. (2016). Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office. Retrieved from Marine Corps Web Site: http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/e2o/E2OHome.aspx
United States Marine Corps. (2016). Request For Information (RFI). DC: Expeditionary Energy Concepts 2016.
US Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.). Power and Energy Considerations at Forward Operating Bases. DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.
USMC Expeditionary Energy Office. (2012). USMC Expeditionary Energy Office Report on Expeditionary Energy Data Collection within Regional Command Southwest, Afghanistan. DC: USMC Expeditionary Energy Office.
27