SAS12: Navy’s ‘green fleet’ adds combat power

SAS12: Navy’s ‘green fleet’ adds combat power

The Navy again fired back at critics questioning if the money invested into “going green” will steal away needed funding from shrinking coffers without increasing sea power capabilities.

Tom Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of energy for the Navy, said it’s quite the opposite at the Navy’s League 2012 Sea-Air-Space Exposition. Investing in renewable energy and alternative fuels provides the Navy and Marine Corps better combat power. If the Navy reduces the nation’s dependence on foreign oil along the way, that’s great, but it’s not the focus, Hicks said.

The Navy has received pressure from Congress to justify it’s energy conservation efforts since a RAND report was published in January  stating that biofuels will not help the Navy for at least another decade. The Navy continues its work to develop biofuels, but Hicks also pointed to the renewable energy work by the Marine Corps to help forward deployed Marines depend less on supply convoys.


Using solar panels, rechargable batteries and water purifiers, the Marine Corps can keep Marines in the field longer, Hicks said. Saving money on energy costs helps, but it’s still about keeping these Marines less dependent on the dangerous convoys driven by troops and contractors in Afghanistan.

One Marine is lost for every 50 convoys driven. That’s unacceptable, Hicks said.

President Obama set a goal for the Navy and Air Force to each achieve one gigawatt of renewable energy by 2020. Hicks said the Navy is on pace to reach that goal. The Department of Energy estimates that one gigawatt of energy could power 800,000 homes.

Pursuing alternative fuels and renewable energy will save the service money, Hicks said. The Navy spends between $4 billion and $5 billion each year to power its ships and aircraft. As budgets comes down, steaming and flying less is not an option, Hicks said.

He estimated that the average energy project for the Navy takes six to eight years before the service sees a return on its investment. Hicks understands that Congress is looking for savings wherever it can and is not eager to pursue additional spending without a quick pay back.

“Saving money is good but this is more about increasing military capabilities,” he said.

Join the Conversation

“President Obama set a goal for the Navy and Air Force to each achieve one gigawatt of renewable energy by 2020. Hicks said the Navy is on pace to reach that goal. The Department of Energy estimates that one gigawatt of energy could power 800,000 homes.”

A possible, if partial, solution here could be,
solar paneling every usable sq foot of flat roof throughout every “sun belt” military installation around the world.
Hawaii should have an abundance of solar capability, enough to at least power every light in every building 24–7 (bateries over night), even heat uch of their water.
(Ft Greeley, AK, not so much.)

But a majority of southern US and international tropical/equitorial installations should offer some level of incentive to harness more sun power.

Wind would be another option: we just need to convince more not-in-my-backyard whiners that those wind turbines scattering along their horizons are a good thing.
And for those near-coastal areas, why not more tidal power?

Other nations are harnessing sun, wind, and tides for more energy. Why should we, the supposed forefront of world technology, fall behind in harnessing these resources?

Environmentalist are just religious zealots. The “green fleet’ is a scam designed to enrich Obama’s corrupt friends and further their anti-human eco-freak agenda.

Typical, despicable Obama thievery.

Finally.…a long term solution to a problem that may actually help our country. I find it absolutely hilarious that anybody in the general public or military would be against this. Decentralizing the sources of energy which our military consumes should be a priority. Even if we do have 50 years left of oil…its going to get more expensive the more scarce it is. This means less money for the shiny new toys and pay and more to make them go.

Also there is NO known replacement for petroleum based aviation fuel (which is also used to powers a lot of our weaponized blue water Navy and armored vehicles). If our supply of crude based petroleum ever gets cut off for an extended period of time say “Goodbye” to air supremacy and dominance of the oceans. Please think strategically without obvious ideological machinations.

I can see both sides but I am going to fall on the one that is going to shrink the number of fuel convoys my friends have to die for.

The “green fleet” has been in development since the early Bush years.

Even a 10 year payback would be about 10% per year, which is guaranteed…good luck finding such low risk and great returns on Wall St! We’d be foolish not to invest in any project with a 10 year payback. More companies are paying the upfront installation cost, so we just pay standard market rates and the companies sell the excess at premium prices to others at peak demand.

We’ve already flown planes with biofuels (fine for wet climate bio supplies, bad if desertification), but if DoD doesn’t do initial R&D, who would over the next 10 years? When oil prices get high enough, markets will force change, but what if instead of a gradual rise we’re hit with a very painful oil shock that sinks the economy,..again

Secretary Chu was saying some stuff like this. Look how that turned out.

Typical republican ignorance…

*required

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

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.