When the US Marine Corp establish themselves a new home in Darwin, they will bring some seriously green equipment and ideas to our shores. This is because in the three years of his Presidency, Barack Obama has actively led the US Department of Defense to embrace renewable energy and a strategic awareness of climate change.

Carbon offset helicopters. Photo:Herald Sun

The officer in charge of greening the marines is Colonel Bob ‘Brutus’ Charette, a career soldier. As Director of E2O, the Expeditionary Energy Office, Colonel Charette has been on the road in 2011 with a fascinating presentation that shows how seriously America’s defense force is fighting its fatal addiction to oil.

The Colonel jokes that when his commander told him to establish the E2O he said that his only qualification is wasting energy, as a jet pilot and commander.

The Marine Corp has been given the task of reducing its energy intensity 30 per cent by 2015 relative to a 2003 baseline. Meanwhile in Canberra’s Parliament House, or Planet Quacko as it is affectionately known, there has been intense debate about a miniscule 5 percent carbon emissions cut by 2020. The USMC also has an objective to increase the percentage of renewable electrical energy consumed to 25 percent by 2025.

The impact of these energy goals is to make the marines faster (“Lighten load” as Charette puts it), more frugal (“reduce footprint”) and thus more lethal (“more tooth less tail”).

In some deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel demands account for more than 60 per cent of convoys. Minimising these trips can save fuel, energy, carbon emissions and lives. Renewable energy substitutes for conventional batteries can reduce the cost of remote operations.

Colonel Charette provides a graphic case study comparing the batteries used in a three-day company patrol in 2001 to 2011. In 2001, 54 batteries, worth $4,000 provided 160 Watts of electricity. In 2001, 754 batteries were needed, providing 1255 Watts, for a cost of $117,000—a price increase of more than 2400 per cent. .

Over the past year the E2O has run a systems analysis of energy use, started cultural change programs, investigated potential useful technologies and tested equipment at bases in America. The program is designated EXFOB or Experimental Forward Operating Base. One test involved sending a company out on a three-week patrol without any battery resupply. Two patrols were reliant on renewable energy only.

US defense policy follows a rolling 4 year planning cycle, called the Quadrennial Defence Review. The latest review (2010-2014) has integrated climate change into the strategic landscape at all levels, as a ‘threat multiplier’. The idea is that global warming increases the adversity of all scenarios, increasing uncertainty and hence, risk.

The other half of the equation is security of energy supply. The DOD is the largest user of energy in the United States. It makes up 80 per cent of the US Government’s total energy consumption. To maintain its ability to project power in an age of declining oil supplies and carbon constraints the DOD has embarked on a service-wide effort to measure and reduce its carbon and energy bootprint.

Systems that pass the muster in training environments graduate to field testing at forward operating bases in Afghanistan. One of these battle-approved systems is SPACES—a solar-powered battery charging kit that is used by Marine forces rotated through Afghanistan. 

Marines who took part in the EXFOB exercises gave glowing reviews of SPACES and other technologies such as PowerShades, fabric field shelters embedded with solar PV cells. PowerShades are light, portable structures that provide shade for soldiers during the day, while generating upto 2 kW of energy for ventiliation fans, lights, computers, communications and battery recharging.

Sergeant Gregory Wenzel took part in the Mojave Viper EXFOB exercise that tested the PowerShades said,  “As far as disadvantages, I really haven’t seen any… You don’t need any fuel, it’s much quieter than a generator but can still power any electrical asset you need.”

The US military is proving what clean energy advocates have been saying for years: renewables are for winners, fossil fuels are for fools. Australia’s nuclear fan club and fossil fuel lobbyists frequently complain that solar is no good when the sun goes down. Tell that to the marines.

If only Australia’s press were less distracted by Canberra, they might start reporting on the real advantages of renewables.

The US military’s cleantech push has spillover benefits for society. On the technological level, US military R&D, field-testing and procurement policies are already driving diverse streams of cleantech innovation. On the political level, the climate security agenda shifts the ‘frame’ in which we understand renewable energy to one of self sufficiency and technological progress.

When the case for renewables is made on the grounds of national security, the arguments of climate denialists and delay merchants are bombed back to the Stone Age. Labor Member for Wakefield Nick Champion has put the climate and security challenge in simple terms:

Climate change sceptics have a profoundly irresponsible approach to our national security because their ideology does not allow them to acknowledge the potential threats we may face, and their denial of the evidence could leave our nation unprepared for a hostile and uncertain future. Make no mistake; if you’re a self-confessed climate sceptic then you’re as soft as butter on Australia’s defence.

In Australia’s simplistic media-political landscape, ‘green’ is the ultimate soft issue and war is the ultimate hard issue. But as the US Marine Corps demonstrates, energy conservation and renewable energy are now a critical national security concerns.

Most commented

40 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      04:54am | 18/11/11

      There are perfectly good logistical reasons for reducing the energy consumption of any military force. Trying to turn that into some sort of justification for a political agenda is drawing a long bow indeed.

      When greenies start promoting the only practical mid-term solution to carbon emissions - nuclear energy - then I’ll start taking them seriously.

    • Trevor says:

      06:46am | 18/11/11

      “When greenies start promoting the only practical mid-term solution to carbon emissions - nuclear energy - then I’ll start taking them seriously. “

      As an avid Erick disciple I’m confused. I thought AGW was a hoax so climate scientists can keep collecting pay cheques? Now addressing it is the only thing that will make him take the greens seriously? I think my head is going to explode.

    • Mark G says:

      07:04am | 18/11/11

      “There are perfectly good logistical reasons for reducing the energy consumption of any military force. “

      Exactly right Erick. There is a famous military saying.

      “An Army marches on its stomach.”

      In modern terms this has translated to:

      “An Army marches on its oil.”

      It doesn’t matter how well your soldiers are trained or how good your technology is. The army comes to a screeching halt as soon as you run out of energy. The more economical an Army is the longer it can last in the field. The Germans learnt this at the Battle of the Bulge in WW2. They had better trained troops, better equipment and most of all the had the Tiger 2 tank (Also know as the King Tiger) The tank was Awesome and could single handily take out a platoon of Shermans without blinking. But they spent 50% of their time in servicing and had the highest fuel consumption of any main battle tank of the day. The burn so much fuel and required so much maintenance support to follow them (parts and recovery vehicles) that there actual battlefield effectiveness was not only limited but was actually dangerous. Dangerous because they would easily break through the allied lines but then break down on the other side. In the case of the Battle of the Bulge they broke through the lines and begun to cause utter devastation but their supply lines couldn’t even come close to keeping up with their advance and as such most of them ran out of fuel and broke down. From this point they were nothing but sitting ducks for the allied counter-attacks. Economy is a lesson that the Germans learnt long ago. 

      Nuclear submarines are another good example. They can stay submerged for upto 6 months. This is purely because the are nuclear powered and dont need to constantly go back to port to restock their fuel supplies.

    • iansand says:

      07:05am | 18/11/11

      Sorry Erick.  I have corrected your first sentence.  It should read “There are perfectly good reasons for reducing the energy consumption of anything”.  Unfortunately it makes the rest of the paragraph look a bit sillier than it already was.

    • Erick says:

      08:31am | 18/11/11

      @Trevor - I never claimed that AGW was a hoax. I said that the science was flawed, that there needs to be more open debate, and that we shouldn’t overreact to the possible threat.

      Of course, the greens say AGW is a dire threat, perhaps even an existential one. If they really believe this, they should be pushing for nuclear power to replace fossil fuels. But they aren’t, so I can’t take them seriously.

    • neo says:

      09:15am | 18/11/11

      Great, good for the Army, good for the environment, win win. Progress.

    • Dan Cass says:

      11:01am | 18/11/11

      You invent a little nuclear reactor that a USMC Company can shlep up a mountain and you’ll get a Nobel Prize!

      I’d take that seriously LOL

    • Dan Cass says:

      11:01am | 18/11/11

      You invent a little nuclear reactor that a USMC Company can shlep up a mountain and you’ll get a Nobel Prize!

      I’d take that seriously LOL

    • John the Zombie says:

      05:27am | 18/11/11

      Yep and the day solar energy powers a Abraham tank call me. If you look at the history of the USMC they have always lead the way in improvising and been able to kill (yes that is thier job) the enemy with limited resources.

    • iansand says:

      08:14am | 18/11/11

      However, if other things are not using fuel the Abrams tank will go further on what is left.

      I am sure the Army has worked out how much fuel it takes to get a litre of fuel to the Abrams tank at the front, and how many men.

    • neo says:

      09:19am | 18/11/11

      Know what we need? A Tesla tank. And a mammoth tank.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:39am | 18/11/11

      They’ve ‘led the way’ in the utter stupidity of ‘making do’ with limited resources AND higher casualties.

      We should never ever emulate a ‘making do’ philosophy when it comes to our troops and the equipment and training they need to ‘do the job’ they volunteered to do. ‘Making Do’ costs lives. We must ensure that ANY soldier who leaves our shores is given every possible tool and every possible training advantage to do their job safely, professionally and as quick as possible.

    • Dan Cass says:

      11:02am | 18/11/11

      Yeah John, you are tough and intelligent and the USMC are not. What a Troll!

    • Trevor says:

      06:43am | 18/11/11

      Military Forces seem to be the only organisations seriously preparing for Peak Oil. The US and German militaries in particular.

      We should heed there actions as proof the the powers that be are aware of, and take very seriously, the threat that Peak Oil poses to energy-intensive Western Civilisation.

    • Trevor says:

      08:59am | 18/11/11

      Correction, ‘...THEIR actions.’

    • Trevor says:

      08:59am | 18/11/11

      Correction, ‘...THEIR actions.’

    • Mark G says:

      01:27pm | 18/11/11

      I think is one of the few environmental issues that both the left and right agree on.

    • Alf says:

      06:46am | 18/11/11

      I wonder if they have done the math on the ratio of fuel per successful engagement (ie. bad guys per litre).

    • Mark G says:

      07:08am | 18/11/11

      Alf,

      They dont have than but they do have a statististic for good guys per deployment. Even the carriers expect to loose a few sailors each time the depart on their 6 month (or so) world tours.

    • gobsmack says:

      06:58am | 18/11/11

      I’m picturing a Flintstones version of an abrams tank.

    • Dan Cass says:

      05:22pm | 18/11/11

      HAHAHA. And extinct species of Angry Birds as munitions!

    • Fiddler says:

      07:27am | 18/11/11

      Maybe all this is true, but the way the Australian Army will do it is to just not use our vehicles. Or come up with some idea like in exercises using a landrover and pretending it is a tank.
      I remember when were were told to reduce the amount of blanks we used having to go out on exercise and shout “bang”. I almost quit because of that.

    • Mark G says:

      08:02am | 18/11/11

      Fiddler,

      Were you in a reserve unit? I am obviously in the luxury end of the Army. I have never had that problem. If fact we used to randomly fire off our excess blank rounds at the end of an exercise until they told us to stop doing it.

    • Fiddler says:

      09:29am | 18/11/11

      @ Mark, yeah I was but the shortage was army wide at that point (about 2000 I think???)
      But then on other occasions yeah we would have to line up and burn through masses of rounds “cause otherwise we won’t get as many next time” I believe this has slightly rectified as the army has become a lot more operational of late (and not so much living in the 1970’s)

    • Lee Enfield says:

      10:41am | 18/11/11

      The only ammunition shortage I have experienced was H.E for the 84mm Anti Armour weapons. In terms of rifle and machine gun ammunition, both blank and live, grenades, 66mm rockets, 40mm grenade rounds, para flares and star clusters, never experienced a shortage from 1996 to 2002.
      I would say that in nearly most instances, we were given far more than we required, as we had many a yippee shoot.

      Any ammuniton shortages between 1996 and 2002, certainly didn’t affect my battalion.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:41am | 18/11/11

      Oh it went back to the 80’s all right….yelling ‘bang’ and the old ‘Helicopter’ insertions that involved Unimogs and some bloke swinging a waterbottle around with a water bottle tied to it…...

    • Trevor says:

      03:03pm | 18/11/11

      We used to bury our excess 105mm rounds at the end of each excercise to ensure we would get the same quota next time!

      Don’t do to much off-the-track-digging in Shoalwater Bay!

      No option to quit either in the regs!

    • mick says:

      07:38am | 18/11/11

      Is there nothing other than Obama posts of late.  Give it a break Punch team.  Show some imagination guys.

    • MarkS says:

      08:15am | 18/11/11

      Using renewables to supplement batteries & fuel powered generators is about the level that present renewable technology is useful & competitive. Used to supply lots of cheap power to non mobile households, it is an expensive failure.

    • Dan Cass says:

      05:18pm | 18/11/11

      Totally wrong. Wind is bringing down electricity (yes DOWN) in EU and Australia already.

      Solar is cheaper than fossil fool power for consumers around the world and will beat both gas and coal (without a carbon price) over the next several years.

      Fossil fuels are subsidized up the kahoona already.

      You (claim to) want a level playing field? Bring. It. On.

    • Brian says:

      09:06pm | 18/11/11

      Very strange, Dan, just yesterday there was a news article that said that Holland was moving away from wind power as it could no longer afford to subsidise it.

    • L. says:

      08:23am | 18/11/11

      Utter crap..

      The fuel used will be the same regardless.

      When I was in the army, my combat load lessened due to an advances in technology..lighter radios, lighter batteries, lighter assult rifle, magazines and ammunition, the net result was zero, as I was asked to simply carry more batteries, ammunition and other sundey equipment.

      The US marines will be the same.. more fuel efficient, but theuywill be asked to do more, as they can now go further.

      It’s the way the military operates.

    • neo says:

      09:22am | 18/11/11

      Uhh, so at all times, you had more ammunition and batteries than you ever had before. That’s not a net result of zero, that’s a great benefit to resources you had without having to carry extra weight wink

    • MarkS says:

      10:34am | 18/11/11

      More ammo is good

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:44am | 18/11/11

      Add the weight of your TBAS now to that as well wink

    • L. says:

      01:08pm | 18/11/11

      “hh, so at all times, you had more ammunition and batteries than you ever had before. That’s not a net result of zero, that’s a great benefit to resources you had without having to carry extra weight “

      Actually, the weight probably went up…

      My ammo and batteries meant I could stay out for longer.. staying out for longer means more food and water to carry :-0

      My point was, while my kit grew lighter, the capability increase expected nullified the saved weight.

      Save fuel economy will be the same.

    • Anonymous two hours ten minutes says:

      04:36pm | 18/11/11

      President Obama visited only Darwin And Canberra.
      Darwin came into being through evolution and Canberra came into being by creation.
      He wants his troops and arms to destroy them both so that Australia can be saved from itself!.

    • Bob Williams says:

      07:55am | 03/02/12

      Any news about A defector’s mysterious disappearance?

    • Camila Nell says:

      02:45pm | 03/02/12

      Negative news - Syria’s ‘mutilation mystery’ increases…

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @MichaelHJHall: Going into weekend thinking how critical it is for people to stay #humanasleaders while the system does what it can to s…

Lucy Kippist

@heldavidson Me too! But have always been to scared to say that :)

Lucy Kippist

RT @heldavidson: @lucyjk @lucyjk times a million when it precedes "yarn". Actually I hate "yarn" on its own too. Unless you're talking abou…

Paul Colgan

RT @BusInsiderAU: Here's Kevin Rudd's Detailed Logic For His Change Of Heart On Gay Marriage - http://t.co/X4DHsVh50K

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter