Climate Change Shaping Navy Plans

Climate Change Shaping Navy Plans

Continuing with the green theme at this week’s Naval Energy Forum in McLean, Va., Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said there is no denying the link between fossil fuel use and global warming.

While one expects climate change to be discussed at a forum devoted to finding ways to improve the Navy’s energy efficiency, it was still a bit of surprise yesterday to hear the CNO link carbon emissions to rising sea levels so matter-of-factly.

Perhaps my surprise is a sign of being so tightly enmeshed in the Washington D.C. political circus that one forgets climate change denialists are now a fringe element and that responsible parties have moved on to addressing the consequences of a real threat.

The Navy has set up a climate change task force to examine rising sea levels and other implications of a hotter planet on future naval operations. Roughead said the Navy expects littoral areas, site of current and future naval operations, to change “markedly” as sea levels rise. Global weather patterns are also changing due to deforestation in parts of the Pacific which will lead to larger and more damaging storms.

Global warming is opening previously icebound sea lanes in the Arctic, although it will be decades before transportation becomes profitable and danger free for shipping companies, he said, as there is still a lot of ice in the northern reaches. Nevertheless, “as we begin to think about going north, it requires different ship designs, ice hardening, the environmental systems, heating and air conditioning, to operate in that area, need to be different.” There will definitely be a race for resources on the Arctic sea bed and the Navy must plan accordingly for that new theater of operations, he said.

Echoing comments made earlier in the day by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Roughead said the Navy must become more energy efficient as rising fuel costs are cutting into his operating budget. All future shipbuilding decisions must factor in a ship’s lifetime operating costs, he said.

I asked him if that calculation will change the number of nuclear powered vessels in the fleet. Not necessarily, he said, as nuclear power plants are “very expensive to build, very expensive to maintain and very expensive on the human capital side.” With some vessels, “you are solidly in the nuclear side” when platform lifetime operating expenses are calculated. With smaller ships, such as the Littoral Combat Ship, he hopes for advances in non-fossil fuels to bring down operating costs.

He worries about losing nuclear power plant operators to the private sector. “Leaders of some of the major nuclear manufacturers and operating companies tell me that: ‘When we grow we know where we’re going to get our operators and maintainers, and that’s the U.S. Navy.’ So that drives the cost of people up.”

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

Good Morning Folks,

t appears that what Sec. of the Navy Mabus is saying here, but not saying, is that the USN is going to have fewer weapons centric platforms in the future then even now. I believe him to be correct. The RMA that every one has been babbling about for a couple of decades has finally come and to their credit the USN, credit must go to Admiral. Mullens here, is probably the most forward thinking military organization in the world on what the RMA really is.

The transformation is moving military affairs from weapons centric platforms and systems, to network centric platforms and systems. The USN long ago came to the realization, that at sea battles between ships of opposing countries are history.

The dangers to US Naval vessels at sea are not some other countries aircraft, surface ship of submarines, the USN has absolute dominance of the three dimensional battlefields of the seas, but some country, group or organization breaking into it C4ISR and making it fleets physically inoperable.

Climate change is part of the RMA. The biggest concern along with future energy needs and sources, is the creation of new theaters of operation for the USN. Among the places American ship will have to is a Northwest passage through Canadian waters, Canada is to small of an economy to be able to secure this on their own. Patrols in new arctic energy and mineral mining areas that today are still under ice and are still subject to claims over territorial sovereignty to name just two of the new AO’s of the USN.

This will have to be done with fewer ships, smaller crews and more technological advanced (from what we have today) weapon systems, many of the weapons that might be used won’t even be fired for the ship that controls them, such as a submarine launched missile that will come under the operational control of an Ages III DDS, who will hand it off to a CIA UAV controlled from somewhere in CONUS, to score a precision hit thousands of kilometers away.

The US is several generations ahead of it closest rivals the Russians, who lack the resources to develop these new network platforms, and the Chinese who are still trying to figure out what it all means and have yet to fully understand weapons centric platforms and systems. The closest country to challenging the USN is Japan which is co-developing many of these network centric systems with the United States.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

“Continuing with the green theme at this week’s Naval Energy Forum in McLean, Va., Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said there is no denying the link between fossil fuel use and global warming. ”

The CNO said that because either: 1. He is completely ignorant of the subject and unwilling to do research for himself; 2. He is unable to read and therefore not current with the fact that more and more climatologists are indeed calling this a global “cooing” period; or 3. He is too busy kissing President Obama’s butt to think for himself.

From the American Geological Institute.

“A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real…The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments*, “found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role”.

And from NASA:

“Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth’s surface. Since the late 1800’s, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.”

And from the NOAA.

“Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.”

As a kid I fought. My coach taught me not to close my eyes. “That won’t make your opponent go away.”

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Can the Navy get new ships by sucking up to the global warming nuts? Otherwise this sounds like a waste.

I agree with reducing oil use based on the fact that it is a limited resource, and don’t like actual pollution, but the Navy shouldn’t give a damn about cutting CO2 emissions and that nonsense.

When the global warming cult is changing military policy it’s a clear sign how far gone America is. We are done, the leftists have won.

Climate Change Shaping Navy Plans

Thanks for sharing

Yeah! Looking for ways to reduce costs in operations as well as reducing the reliance on POL’s refined from foreign oil is really, really stupid. NAVY, what the hell are you thinking?

“I agree with reducing oil use based on the fact that it is a limited resource, and don’t like actual pollution, but the Navy shouldn’t give a damn about cutting CO2 emissions and that nonsense.“
IOW–I like to save money, and don’t like pollution, but we shouldn’t do these things even if they make sense because liberals would like that.

The Army was talking about and studying global warming and climate change and the potential effects on operations for over twenty years now.
This stuff has been freely available to any US citizen for years as it wasn’t classified.
“When the global warming cult is changing military policy it’s a clear sign how far gone America is. We are done, the leftists have won.“
So tell us all, why do you think the DoD hates America?

You mean a massive bureaucracy with thousands of government hacks clamoring for tax hikes for a pay raise? They can be trusted? They will say or do anything because the pressure comes from the liars at the top, specifically Professor Obama and his gestapo team.

I too am all for getting off oil, and I know our Navy uses nuclear power, but is Professor Obama going to stop that?

As to the global warming cult, the belief in this lie will destroy American business as we know it.

Green? GREEN NAVY!!!!!! LOL Can’t help but imagine fabric and wood. Oh man this is rich.

Keep drinking the koolaid Byron Skimmer. Your comment really reveals how out of touch with operational realities you are.

Yes I am sure the PLAN is oh so concerned that their ASBM is earth friendly and their carrier will be green.
What rubbish. Obama is guting our forces. Now in addition to global warming social redistribution we hav global warming power projection redistribution.

Wow. Just wow. The vitriol is exceeded only by the sheer nutty crazyness.

GW since the late 1800’s??? Doesn’t anyone understand that the late 1800’s were the last years of the little ice age???
The little ice age lasted until 1850 and the current temps are still not as high as during the middle ages warm period.
Those that listen to people predicting what the temp will be in 2100 aren’t paying attention to the fact that these same people cannot accuratly predict what the temp will be 10 days from now.

Naval Task Force Energy appreciates the comments and attention to our recent energy forum. To learn more about our efforts toward energy efficiency and alternative fuels, please follow us on Facebook at http://​tinyurl​.com/​y​h​8​k​ffs and on Twitter @NavalEnergy

How much fuel does the Blue Angels waste away every day having fun?

Global warming is a scientific fact. Science doesn’t deal in left vs right or Faux News vs Facts.

So is evolution.

Hate to tell you this facts are facts no matter how many “think tanks” and oil and gas lobbyists disagree with it.

That said, deal with it.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

global climate fluctuations are a fact. man made global warming is a THEORY. it has not been proven and there is not enough data to tell either way. the earth getting warmer isnt necessarily a bad thing either ever wonder why GREENland isnt so green and Scotland at one time had vineyards, the earth has been much warmer than it currently is. there are special interest groups on both sides. if you think “big environment” doesn’t have its own lobbyists and its own agenda you are blissfully ignorant. that said, imported oil is a great weakness and a major operating cost, anything done to mitigate this logistical weakness and make us more cost effective is good.

No, global warming is NOT scientific fact. What IS scientific fact is that the global temperature has risen & fallen many, many, many times & man has had NOTHING to do with it.

Global warming isn’t science, it is a great big scam.

“Faux News vs facts”? Fox News is more accurate than most of the “news” these days, but I guess you are a MSNBC fan. And what the hell does evolution have to do with the United States Navy?

There should be no cuts to our ability to project power for the sake of the theory that CO2 production is causing global warming. Destroyers and cruisers are going to be big to do their job, and if they have to use plenty of fuel, so be it. If we were really serious about getting off foreign oil we should be building nuclear power plants and remove Carter-era restrictions preventing the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

Saving on fuel and using localy available fuels (nuc, gas, oil) is smart. Using Global Warming as an excuse is not. Dr Hanson (of hockey stick fame) beleived ing Global Cooling before he belived in Global “Warming”.

all nuclear navy is the answer

Mr. Russ selectively quotes the people who support his view, as do other folks in this game, including a lot of educated people. Global warming being equated to manmade causes is totally not proven. I agree that some temperatures are rising, and I agree that they are falling in some places. Can anyone give me ANY specific, proven, factual data that compares to the data currently collected with sophisticated collection and analysis from 1200 B.C.? How about the 4th century? OK, how about 1400? Get the idea? The earth warms and cools and, even many of the “90%” agree that the earth was warmer before combustion engines and such.

This isn’t exactly on topic, but deals with the Navy. Ok, the Navy only asked for one DDG-51 destroyer (along with an DDG-1000), but the Senate (or House) ADDED another DDG-51 to the Defense Bill. So, how can they do that???? Sure, it means an extra Destroyer, which is great, but the Navy didn’t ask for it, meaning they will have to hire a full crew and extra resources. What is going to happen because of this addition?

We need to go all nuclear.The future is all electric drive ‚all nuclear propelled.We actually use 1 generation reactors in the navy.We need to go to 4 gen reactors.The generation four is a revolutionary design.The very first experimental reactors used a system called a fast spectrum, to have really fast neutrons that could break up not just what we think of as enriched uranium, uranium-235, but also uranium-238, depleted uranium. So instead of getting less than 1% of the energy out of uranium, these fast reactors get about 99.8% of the energy out of it which means they’re incredibly more efficient in terms of using the uranium resource. And actually we’ve mined enough uranium already to run the whole world in these reactors for about 500 years.We may run out in 50,000 or so years if we powered the whole world by uranium, but then we’ve got about four times as much thorium to use as well. So the argument that we’ll run out of uranium is a dead one.

Advocates of the thorium fuel cycle point to its numerous advantages over the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle.Advantages: Increased nuclear fuel resources thanks to the production of 233U from 232Th; Significant reduction in demand for the enriched isotope 235U;Very low (compared with the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle) production of long-lived radio-toxic wastes, including transuraniums, plutonium and transplutoniums;Possibility of accelerating the burnup of plutonium without the need for recycling, i.e. rapid reduction of existing plutonium stocks;
– Higher fuel burnup than in the uranium-plutonium cycle;
– Low excess reactivity of the core with thorium-based fuel, and more favorable temperature and void reactivity coefficients; Thorium could replace U-238 in conventional LWRs, and could be used to bred new nuclear fuel in specially modified LWRs.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement