Pentagon's green-energy initiatives face GOP skeptics

A Marine wears knee braces and a backpack, designed to harvest energy from his movements, last month in Twentynine Palms, Calif., during an exhibition of the military’s green energy technology.
A Marine wears knee braces and a backpack, designed to harvest energy from his movements, last month in Twentynine Palms, Calif., during an exhibition of the military’s green energy technology.

TWENTYNINE PALMS, Calif. -- At a sprawling desert base, a Marine recharged his radio's batteries simply by walking, while nearby his peers examined a rocket artillery system and a drone -- both powered by the sun.

Navy and Marine Corps officials accompanied by green energy executives showcased the energy-harnessing knee braces and other innovations at a renewable energy demonstration at Twentynine Palms Marine Corps base, one of many such events that have taken place at military bases across the country as part of the Defense Department's shift away from fossil fuels under President Barack Obama's administration. The Pentagon has invested millions over the past decade in energy-harnessing measures ranging from hybrid-electric ships to wind turbines.

While a growing number of military leaders have declared global warming a national security threat, the strategy clashes with President-elect Donald Trump's vow to end policies that run counter to the interests of fossil fuel producers. Trump has chosen a Cabinet with climate change skeptics, though his pick for defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, has advocated green technology to curtail risky fuel-supply runs for troops in conflict zones.

It's not known if Mattis would support buying alternative fuels for ships and aircraft, which are among the military's biggest petroleum users. He didn't respond to requests seeking comment.

Republican lawmakers have lashed out at many of the green initiatives for the Defense Department -- one of the world's largest energy consumers -- especially the Navy's Great Green Fleet that deployed ships run partly on biofuel.

Military leaders say alternative energy makes soldiers more agile and effective on today's battlefields.

At the recent demonstrations, a Marine wore knee braces with tiny generators that transformed the energy he produced from walking to recharge batteries. The technology allows troops to generate their own power for as long as three days. The event also featured an M777 howitzer and a drone, both of which use solar power.

"To do something other than continue these programs would be a mistake," said Joe Bryan, the Navy's deputy assistant secretary for energy. "My expectation is that will be recognized no matter where people are on the political spectrum."

Rising sea levels threaten Navy bases worldwide, and it would be "shortsighted" for the military not to address climate change, Bryan said.

Trump's transition team did not respond to questions about whether it would end the strategy.

Republican lawmakers have said the Pentagon has propped up the alternative energy industry, investing in programs that are not sustainable. The Defense Department has been working toward generating 25 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2025. The Navy and Marine Corps set a goal to draw half of its power from renewable energy sources by 2020.

GOP legislators have criticized the Obama administration for spending roughly $120 billion on climate change initiatives while helping to put in motion $1 trillion in defense cuts.

"I hope the new administration allows the U.S. military to focus on the most important defense issues like fighting [the Islamic State], defending from Iranian and North Korean belligerence, and guarding against aggression from China and Russia," Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck said in a statement. "Our military should use the most cost-efficient fuel sources, rather than burning money on green energy experiments."

The most contentious initiative has been the purchase of biofuel for ships. Critics say while ships may leave port with a biofuel mix, they still must rely on foreign oil in many places near battlefields, and the plant-based fuel has become more expensive than traditional fuel.

According to a 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office, Congress' research arm, the Pentagon paid $58.6 million for 2 million gallons of alternative fuel from 2007-14, or about $29 per gallon. At the same time, it spent $107.2 billion for 32 billion gallons of petroleum, paying about $3 per gallon.

Legislators passed a law in 2012 prohibiting the Pentagon from buying biofuels in bulk unless the price is competitive with that of petroleum.

As a result, the Great Green Fleet's carrier strike group set sail in early 2016 using a mix of 90 percent petroleum and only 10 percent biofuels made from beef fat. The Navy originally aimed for a 1-1 ratio.

A Section on 01/15/2017

Upcoming Events