<http://fusion.google.com/add?source=atgs&feedurl=http://feeds.feedburner.com/SohbetKarbuz>
Image removed by sender.
_____
<http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2010/11/fueling-future-force.html>
Fueling the Future Force
Posted: 01 Nov 2010 10:04 AM PDT
The <http://www.cnas.org/> Center for a New American Security,
Washington, D.C. think tank, published a report entitled
<http://www.cnas.org/node/5023> "Fueling the Future Force" in
September 2010. The report was authored by Christine Parthemore and
Dr. John Nagl. The latter is the President of the CNAS and is a
retired Lt. Colonel.
The CNAS report start with a recommendation that Department of Defense
"must prepare now to transition smoothly to a future in which it does
not depend on petroleum." A good start which admits that this is no
small task since petroleum accounts for three-quarters of DoD energy
energy consumption and that many of today's weapons and transportation
systems are unlikely to change dramatically or be replaced for
decades. But its reasoning is not convincing -"the petroleum needed to
operate DOD assets may not remain affordable, or even reliably
available, for the lifespans of these systems."
In my opinion, DoD will never ever be short of petroleum even if it
costs too high. And that CNAS argument "DOD cannot be assured of
continued access to the energy it needs at costs it can afford to pay
over the long term" is not justified simply because I cannot imagine a
news headline saying "US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is stopped
sine DoD cannot afford fuel costs." Let be realistic. Money will
always be there.
Then comes the second recommendation: "To ready America's armed forces
for tomorrow's challenges, DOD should ensure that it can operate all
of its systems on non-petroleum fuels by 2040." Well, there is no way
whatsoever that DoD can do that in 30 year time frame! Indeed, CNAS
report admits that "transitioning away from petroleum dependence by
2040 will be enormously difficult" but switching from coal to
petroleum to nuclear power in ships as a historical example is a
misnomer. Navy can go all nuclear if it wishes to do so but the
subject of CNAS report is DoD. And there real headaches are aircraft
and on-road vehicles.
Anyway, how the DoD is assumed to run on non-petroleum based fuels by
2040? According to CNAS the development, testing and evaluation of
renewable fuel would guarantee DOD's ability to operate worldwide in
the event of petroleum scarcity or unavailability. To me this argument
is really farfetched!
Now let me focus on the arguments of CNAS. By using the
reserve-to-production (R/P) ratio CNAS argues that "given projected
supply and demand, we cannot assume that oil will remain affordable or
that supplies will be available to the United States reliably three
decades hence." I would not argue that
<http://energystandard.blogspot.com/2008/08/rp-ratio-is-completely-useless.html>
R/P ratio is completely useless but it is surely a misleading concept.
In any case I agree with the remark of
<http://www.energybulletin.net/print/54428> Mason Inman that
emphasizing R/P ratio in the CNAS report shows the authors' lack of
understanding of oil supplies and depletion.
CNAS report is rightly critical of the so-called first-generation
biofuels, created from food crops. But the second-generation
alternative suggested is not as reliable as CNAS claims. As the 2007
Biofuel Watch report put is straight
<http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf> Second
Generation Biofuels are An Unproven Future Technology with Unknown
Risks.
CNAS claim "using distributed renewable energy at overseas and forward
operating bases to displace petroleum in powering generators" is
premature. Yes, growth in renewable energy supply availability in
times outpaced expectations thanks to subsidies and government push
through legal and regulatory changes and federal requirements. But
this is valid for the US and some other developed countries. How many
of the future conflict prone countries have any plan for biofuels? And
how environmental friendly is transporting biofuel from the country it
is produced to the country it is consumed: And how cost-competitive it
is? Can or will DOD be able to procure biofuels in the countries it
operates? How realistic is it, even in 3 decades in the Middle East?
Note that Congress mandated that federal agencies should not invest in
fuel sources whose lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions higher than
their current fuel sources. Congress should clearly indicate which
fuels should be looked at and which to disregard.
CNAS report correctly underlines that improving energy efficiency must
be part, not the goal, of its energy strategy. Gains in efficiency are
necessary and important, but there is a danger that too heavy focus on
energy efficiency will mask an increasing reliance on fuel that poses
further risks to the Department of Defense. Efficiency should
therefore be treated as a means and an operational enabler.
CNAS report recommends 12 guiding principles to develop a DoD energy strategy:
1. Set a common energy goal
2. Establish clear energy guidelines
3. Plan for an uncertain future
4. Demand for new fuels for old equipment
5. Continue to increase alternative fuel use at domestic installations
6. Invest for maximum impact
7. Save energy, keep the change
8. Understand that energy is not free
9. Promote s shared vision of DoD's energy future
10. Engage allies in the energy transition
11. Streamline energy management
12. Plan for the worst
Although the text in each element should be shaped better and filled
with more logical and realistic concepts, each title is important. It
is pity that CNAS paper was filled with unnecessary things. A paper
solely on these 12 elements would have been a very valuable work.
Any transition away from petroleum must take into account of
financial, operational, technological and tactical and strategic
gains. Any talk about moving beyond petroleum must put mission first.
DoD does not have a luxury of sacrificing performance, resilience,
agility and flexibility for the sake of going "green" energy security.
The DoD runs on oil and will do so in the next 3 decades. Period.
Image removed by sender.
11/02/10 00:34:00
--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!
No comments:
Post a Comment