Defense Environment Alert -- Pentagon leaders may broaden their efforts to improve energy conservation and efficiency beyond their traditional emphasis on savings at installations to also focus on weapon systems.

At the same time, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), who is concerned about a long-term decline in oil production and also chairs a House Armed Services Committee panel, is pressing the Defense Department to adopt more energy-efficient Navy vessels, including consideration of an all-nuclear Navy.

DOD sources say Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is the driving force behind an upcoming directive to reduce energy consumption and improve efficiency, including in weapon systems. The department “is continuously looking for ways to improve energy efficiency in operations, platforms and vehicles,” a Pentagon spokeswoman says in response to written questions.

But it is unclear how the issue will be addressed in the directive; several departmental groups are involved in discussions on the document.

“What’s in there is up in the air,” one DOD source says.

England told a House panel March 14 that DOD would soon issue guidance aimed, in part, at addressing energy conservation issues. “One aspect of that guidance does deal with the energy situation and what steps can we take both now and in the future regarding energy,” he told the House Armed Services Committee. But at this point, he told the panel, “We do not have a comprehensive answer to that problem long-term.”

While England announced the guidance's development, sources say DOD is now planning to develop a directive -- a document that carries more legal weight.

A departmental focus on improving energy conservation in weapon systems would represent a change from the current DOD emphasis on reducing energy consumption at its facilities. One observer familiar with the Pentagon's energy programs says there appears to be “growing recognition” within the department that the energy conservation issue is much broader than facilities.

While the Defense Science Board in 2001 said the department could significantly reduce costs and boost performance and environmental benefits if it were to make fuel efficiency a priority across its weapon platforms, more recent factors, such as the Gulf Coast hurricanes and rising fuel costs -- seem to be spurring a focus on the issue. At the time, the DSB found fuels’ true costs when delivered far into the battlefield could reach hundreds of dollars per gallon.

DOD’s increased interest also follows a memo from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to his senior deputies last December, where he underscored his desire to improve energy conservation within the Pentagon, particularly within its mobile systems.

Rumsfeld’s Dec. 14, 2005, memo responded to direction given by President Bush in a memo to all federal departments in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, sources say.

“We should be doing all we can to pursue energy initiatives through fuel-efficient vehicles, advanced battery technology, or hybrid power trains," Rumsfeld suggested to his senior deputies in the memo. "It really is a national security issue, and we are an enormous part of government consumption.”

While Rumsfeld questioned whether energy conservation was considered in DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review, defense officials say it was not. His memo suggested a possible centralized point within DOD to work on these issues.

England, in response to questions from Bartlett at the March 14 hearing about the QDR’s role in addressing energy consumption issues, said toward the end of preparing the QDR, “this did become an issue for all of [us] in the department, including the secretary.”

Also as part of its energy conservation agenda, DOD recently began a series of energy seminars, or “conversation[s] about our national [oil] addiction,” aimed at holding a dialogue on what energy conservation measures are achievable, according to an invitation to the next seminar and the DOD source.

“Just as the Defense Department played a critical role in forging the information revolution in past decades, so can the department play a similar critical role in fueling the energy revolution in coming decades,” reads the invitation. DOD’s acquisition and force transformation offices in March began hosting the seminars, with this month’s slated to feature Bartlett speaking on “peak oil.”

But one observer questions the motives behind the Pentagon's initiatives, noting the push does not make sense from a risk management perspective, given the small amount DOD consumes compared to the rest of the country. Some of the remedies “seem to be a bit of an overreaction,” the source says.

According to a Naval Research Advisory Committee study on which senior DOD officials were briefed last October, the government’s oil use in fiscal year 2003 represented about 2 percent of total U.S. oil consumption, with DOD accounting for about 91 percent of the government’s consumption.

The main consumer within the military is aircraft -- which accounts for 73 percent, according to the study, cited in recent Congressional Research Service testimony given to Bartlett’s subcommittee. Ships accounted for 8 percent, ground vehicles 15 percent, and installations -- the main focus so far of DOD’s energy conservation efforts -- 4 percent, the testimony says.

Meanwhile, Bartlett, who chairs the House Armed Services projection forces subcommittee, is urging Navy officials to consider moving toward an all-nuclear Navy as a way to address rising oil prices and foreign oil dependence.

In his opening statement at an April 6 subcommittee hearing, Bartlett stressed that given the price of crude oil, a nuclear version of a large-deck amphibious ship is now more cost-efficient than a fossil-fuel version, when comparing lifecycle costs. Bartlett is a major advocate of DOD transitioning to alternative energy sources and adopting more energy-efficient measures to meet its energy needs, calling it at an earlier hearing "the challenge of the future."

Under the direction of Congress, the Navy is analyzing alternative propulsion systems for its vessels, including nuclear, fossil fuels and other forms of energy, Navy officials said in written testimony at the April hearing. The study “will consider technologies such as nuclear power, gas turbines, diesels, fuel cells, mechanical drive, electrical drive, various types of propellers and podded propulsor systems, as well as other innovative concepts,” according to the testimony, from Rear Adm. Stephen Johnson, Navy director of undersea technology, and three other high-ranking naval officers.

They emphasized, however, that one size does not fit all when it comes to choosing an optimal power system for all classes of ships. Important factors are “mission requirements, service life, operational tempo, operational profile, and the assumed cost and availability of fuel.” For submarines, however, non-nuclear options do not meet the Navy’s operational requirements, they noted. Most of the Navy’s aircraft carriers are also nuclear-powered.

Historically, fuel oil has not been expensive enough to consider nuclear propulsion for surface ships based on cost, the officers testified. But increasing fuel costs may change that equation.

According to a Naval Reactors study cited in recent testimony given by a CRS defense specialist, the price of Marine diesel fuel would have to be $80 per barrel for the life-cycle costs of nuclear and fossil-fueled versions of LHA/LHD-type large-deck amphibious assault ships to be equivalent. And it would have to be $205 per barrel to reach that break-even state for large surface combatants, such as cruisers and destroyers, says Ronald O’Rourke of CRS.

As of February, the price of the Navy’s diesel was $84 per barrel, he said, adding that the nuclear option may be worth considering for at least some classes of these ships.

According to the 2001 DSB report, the Navy has sought to improve its weapon platform fuel efficiency since 1977, but has primarily focused on legacy systems and has not given a high priority to fuel efficiency in future system design.

Suzanne Yohannan is senior editor of Defense Environment Alert, where this article first appeared.