Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Share

By Will Rogers
Best Defense military fuels correspondent

While the Navy has long been a forward leaner in promoting environmental stewardship, today's test flight of a biofuel blend in its F/A-18 Super Hornet is all about promoting national security. At CNAS we have spent a great deal of time studying energy security and speaking to officers from the Navy, the Air Force, the Army and the Marine Corps who are acutely aware that energy security and national security are inextricably linked. The U.S. military is the largest consumer of energy in the federal government. And its outsized dependence on energy means that the military cannot get its mission done without access to fuel. The Navy's efforts to diversify which fuels it uses in its aircraft means that it's attempting to reduce its vulnerability to fuel supply disruptions, price spikes and the consequences of energy use -- whether that's in how the global oil trade affects geopolitical considerations or the emissions contributing to climate change. Also note that the Air Force just tested a 50/50 biofuel blend in both engines of an A10-C Thunderbolt II, largely aimed at the same goal of diversify which fuels it has to rely on -- seeing as it depends on three times as much fuel as the Navy to conduct its missions.

At the same time, the Navy is looking at fuel options that may reduce its carbon emissions and its contributions to global climate change. Indeed, the Navy is gaining a better understanding of how climate change may affects its facilities, capabilities and missions -- with observable changes in a melting Arctic. Its investment in alternative, greener fuels is not to achieve environmental ends, per se. Those are a happy and welcome coincidence, but the bottom line for the Navy is that it needs to do what it can to ensure its capability to provide for America's defense and be a global force for good. It is clear that global change in all aspects of our energy systems and environment are affecting U.S. security, and I think it's great that the Navy (and DOD broadly) is thinking about how to secure the nation in the face of these long-term trends.

We'll have a big report out on this soon.

Thomas Duchnicki :: Location Scout/flickr

EXPLORE:MILITARY
 

CMEYERGO

8:25 PM ET

April 22, 2010

PR BS

The Soviet Navy is long gone, yet our Admirals keep half the fleet underway even today so they can pretend they are at war. This burns up fuel, ships and crews. That is the real story. And what about the Blue Angels jet fighter team that tours the nation demonstrating waste?

It takes twice as much energy to produce biofuels than they produce. Its all wasteful BS. For example, why burn coal to produce jet fuel, when it costs half as much to refine home heating oil? Then use coal to produce the home heating needs required by the millions of outdated home heating oil furnaces so everyone save lots of money and reduces pollution?

 

ADMIRAL

10:52 PM ET

April 22, 2010

Its Called Peak Oil

The military knows they will need alternative fuels. None of this is new. The Army Corps of Engineers came out wirth a report on Peak Oil in 2005. The US will need to import 93% of its oil by 2030.

There is tons of information on this topic. Read Colin Campbell at ASPO. Read the Oil Drum. Blood for oil is the name of the game. The DC boyzs are now starting to spin PO. Mattis came out of the closet a few weeks ago or so. Oil shortages by 2012 according to Mattis and his boyz at JFC. Goodbye HAPPY MOTORING. The US Military actually believes its own BS that they are not fighting and getting killed for oil. Not funny.

 

MONKEYBOY

12:24 PM ET

April 26, 2010

Behind the Curve

I believe Argentina has already powered Jets with Bio-Fuel.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More