The Homeland Defense & Security Information Analysis Center (HDIAC) regularly develops state of the art reports (SOARs) in order to provide a compendium of scientific/technical articles that summarize the most current state of research in topic areas of importance to the Department of Defense (DoD). These SOARs are a means of satisfying user needs for authoritative information directly applicable to their ongoing work.
Alternative Energy is one of the HDIAC’s eight technical focus areas and was chosen as the subject of this report due to its importance to the DoD. Alternative Energy is composed of novel, nontraditional, and emerging sources and technologies for harvesting, generating, storing, transmitting/ transporting, and reusing energy to sustain growing energy needs, including that of the DoD.
The National Security Strategy of the United States recognizes that U.S. energy dominance will ensure that markets are free and U.S. infrastructure is resilient and secure while simultaneously guaranteeing diversified access to energy and good environmental stewardship. Additionally, the National Security Strategy offers five priority actions under the step “Embrace Energy Dominance,” three of which (Ensure Energy Security, Attain Universal Energy Access, and Further America’s Technological Edge) demand the development of alternative energy resources.
By design, the National Defense Strategy supports the National Security Strategy; it outlines an operational environment where “every domain is contested – air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace,” and emphasizes that the “homeland is no longer a sanctuary.” Preparing for the battlefield of 2025 and sustaining resilient installations necessitates the assured delivery of cyber-secure fuel and power in contested environments against near-peer competitors. In today’s technology-dependent environment, energy requirements are inseparable from DoD’s mission requirements.
Energy is an essential enabler of military capability, and the DoD depends on energy-resilient forces and facilities to achieve its mission. In FY 2018, the Department consumed over 85 million barrels of fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and contingency bases at a cost of nearly $9.2 billion. Further, recent research shows that the U.S. military consumes more liquid fuels and emits more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries. At over 500 worldwide military installations, the DoD spent $3.4 billion in FY 2018 on energy to power over 585,000 facilities and 160,000 non-tactical vehicles. In FY20, the DoD requested more than $3.6 billion for the execution of operational energy initiatives. These investments procure new or upgrade existing equipment, improve propulsion, adapt plans, concepts, and wargames to account for increasing risks to logistics and sustainment, and enhance the role of energy considerations in developing new capabilities.
In addition to its critical role in installation support and management, energy is a decisive enabler on the modern battlefield. Over the last two decades of near continuous combat, the U.S. military has become a more lethal and networked force; however, this has come at a price of increased fuel consumption. This has, in turn, increased the logistics footprint and weight of the force, hindering mobility and responsiveness as well as driving up costs. Further, resupply of fuel to forward operating bases in austere locations puts lives at risk and commits precious combat forces to security missions – it places Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines squarely in harm’s way as forward deployed forces seek to keep fuel flowing to key warfighting enablers such as generators, aircraft, tanks, and trucks. Tactically viable alternative energy solutions including solar, wind, hybrid, kinetic recovery, nuclear, and biofuels for use at remote, austere locations can ultimately reduce the combat load and create a more agile and lethal force at lower cost and risk. This will support the needs of dispersed and highly mobile forces by enhancing the operational versatility of assets traditionally dependent on fossil fuels.
This SOAR reviews the current state of a selection of novel, non-traditional, and/or emerging sources and technologies for harvesting, generating, and reusing energy. It offers synopses of new programs; summaries of significant technological breakthroughs and technology applications; highlights of outstanding developments; and impacts to the DoD.
I believe the different versions of nuclear fusion currently under development. These technologies do rely on nuclear fission as a base. It is possible that there is nuclear fusion currently being developed that does not have this reliance. Note: I do not follow news related to fusion closely and I am personally not aware of such a tech.
Overall:
– With fusion, there is going to be reduced dependency on nuclear fission. However, we still have stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel all over the world. My uneducated guess is that programs like Terrapower are very important. Because storing the spent nuclear fuel in deep/underground caves for tens of thousands of years (or more) does not seem like a viable strategy (Leak, contamination, non-terrestrial impact (lower probability – but still), ill-intent e.t.c)
– If, say breakthroughs in fusion are indeed to be had. Here, it is important to anticipate how society will change. I would think that we are going to need breakthroughs in genetics, synthetic biology. As well, outer space would have to open up. Because if we just have a breakthrough or breakthroughs in the domains of energy *and* if we keep swapping nature to wealth. Then, in light of such a potential reality, we may end up speeding up the destruction of the ecology. I believe that Mr. Stephen Hawking did some calculations here. However, I am not sure if these claims are verified. https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/earth-will-turn-into-fireball-in-less-than-600-years-stephen-hawking/61548300 It does make sense though, if we have an increasingly connected population and the cost of procuring goods (and services) keeps plummeting (Zero marginal cost society) via Jeremy Rifkin. In light of such a reality, the overall rate of energy consumption is going to go up. The question, again is, what about the other cycles that we need.
– Also, I did not see Thorium here as an option in the report. I once read a book on the potential prospect of making use of Thorium as a source of energy. I believe the radioactivity is not as bad as uranium and is shorter lived (I do not know by what margins). https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/?sh=5e9a578b1d80
Thank you for your comments. Thorium can be used to produce nuclear fuel, but there are disadvantages associated with its use. The primary one that comes to mind is the proliferation risk associated with U-233 that results from the decay chain of Th233 (after Th232 absorbs a neutron). Just as U-235 and Pu-239, U-233 is special nuclear material and can be used to make a nuclear weapon.
Why does it take 5 Billion dollars to make a new Gigafactory. In theory, creating the second Gigafactory should be much cheaper. If it’s not cheaper, than that means that Tesla is sourcing parts from other contractors. And if that is true, then that means opportunity for a new energy company to emerge.
But again, it goes back to the point I raised above. Is energy abundance actually a good thing, realizing that we continue converting nature into wealth. And that conversion cycle, in all likelihood has an upper limit.
I hadn’t seen any cost data on Tesla’s Gigafactories. Knowing that they will be built in various locations (Nevada, Texas, Germany, etc.) could mean that they would source parts from different contractors, which could account for costs not coming down significantly as each factory goes up.
Wait, we can send energy from orbit to surface. With zero negative impacts on the climate? Wouldn’t this change the nature of wind currents?
Check out this webinar by Dr. Paul Jaffe of the Naval Research Lab: https://www.hdiac.org/podcast/power-beaming/
NRL’s reports on these topics indicate that delivering energy without moving or employing mass and the prospect of collecting clean, continuous, abundant sunlight in space and distributing it globally present compelling capabilities for remote installation energy resupply, disaster response, and power for the developing world.
My uneducated guess is that no one resource should be massively leveraged. Be it solar, wind or geothermal.
Doing so will have unintended consequences which may be very difficult to deal with.
– If humans relied excessively on wind turbines in their existing form. Then doing so will have a net retrogade effect on insect and bat populations. This has the potential of destabilizing the ecosystem at the expense of getting more energy via wind turbines.
– Same with solar. Plus, the prospect of altering wind and ocean currents, if too much of energy is harnessed at one particular concentrated point on earth. Plus, perovskite, in it’s existing form is carcinogenic. I am not sure by what factor. But if we place solar tiles or solar panels with perovskite in it, then that’s bad. Also, if the solar panels are going to generate heat and this is going to go on top of all the roofs, then the honey bee and insect population will further decline. Same for other delicate creatures (including other insects and birds).
– With geothermal: We may begin to scale this technology, but a point may arise when we have taken a lot of energy from the layers underneath the crust. However far off such a reality may be.
I think there should be a mix of solutions. And care should be meted that there is no or very very less longer term impact on the surroundings.
It’ll certainly be important for governments to properly regulate the siting of these various renewable energy plants and platforms after thorough environmental studies are completed.
Ocean thermal energy sounds like a bad idea. Because there are tiny living creatures in the ocean. So if ocean water is pumped through a construct in larger numbers, then this may kill these tiny creatures. Dr. Craig Venter knows about these lifeforms. He sampled waters in the different parts of the world and found that the vials were full of tinier lifeforms.
I think you folks should talk to Dr. Steven Chu (Former DoE). Also Dr. George Church and Dr. Craig Venter.
I believe that making synthetic fuels should be part of the energy mix. But then:
– You need some kind of a technology to be able to sequester the CO2 that is released back. And this is not going to come from spreading basalt rock or sucking up gigatonnes of CO2 via a network of suction machines. I am arriving at these and other conclusions from a very uneducated perspective.
– Concurrently, some kind of a being has to be engineered. Something that will swap CO2 with Oxygen. Maybe like an engineered diatom or something. As long as it is safe to do so.
Thank you for the suggestion. We’ll attempt to reach out to them. If you know their contact information it would be great for us to have. Alternative Energy is one of our eight technical focus areas here at HDIAC, and we’re always looking for subject matter experts who can provide interesting products to the HDIAC user community, including webinars, podcasts, articles for our state of the art reports, etc.