Powering the Future
Meeting the Increased Energy Demands of Modern Military Forces
Operational energy plays a critical role in modern military operations, supporting the increased power demands of advanced technologies and equipment. This edition of our newsletter explores the challenges faced by the military in power generation and distribution, the scarcity of fossil fuels, current service strategies, and potential technological solutions that can revolutionize operational energy.
Increased Power Demands and Challenges
Step into a modern command post or tactical operations center and you’ll be greeted with tons of technologically advanced equipment: ultra high definition large screens depicting various drone live-feeds, plotters for printing large scale graphics, projectors, and very power-hungry computers used for everything from terrain analysis to processing, exploitation, and dissemination of intelligence from previous drone feeds, to basic word processing.
Thirty years ago, such a command post probably had 1-2 computers, a printer, a coffee maker, and 1-2 light bars. Most of the work was done using maps with acetate overlays. But today’s force has become reliant on the technology and is the most enabled and lethal ever seen.
Unfortunately, it comes at a cost.
Power demands have clearly risen to monumental levels. Bagram Airfield—the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan, required around 60 MW of power near the end of the war. Of course, that was a mature theater—not an expeditionary one, meaning that we brought in plenty of equipment that won’t be there for large scale combat operations. Bagram had restaurants, gyms, movie theaters, and more. Still, the massive power demand is illustrative.
For reference, 60 MW is roughly enough power for 40,000 American homes.
To achieve this massive energy output, Bagram required more than 100km of distribution cabling and 600 substations.
Each year, the military uses more than 30,000 GWhs (or 30 million MWh) and around 1.4 billion gallons of fuel.
These massive numbers require significant sustainment efforts and contribute greatly to global energy requirements.
Speaking of, globally, we’re using 161 million GWh/year - and that number keeps climbing by 30% every twenty years. 83% of global energy output still comes from fossils, and at the rate we’re burning them, we’ll exhaust known deposits by around 2060 (and likely yet-to-be-discovered deposits by 2100)!
In other words, we need new technologies that not only will power our military forces, but also for the greater global good, to avert catastrophe.
But I digress. The massive logistical tails associated with moving the large amounts of fossils around the battlefield are vulnerable to interdiction and disruption. If we are to build a force that is capable of disaggregated, decentralized, and agile operations, we need to reduce the sustainment requirements. One of the key steps to doing so will be to change the way we provide energy and power.
Scarcity of Fossil Fuels and the Need for Alternatives
As already mentioned, we’re on a crash course to exhaust known fossil fuel deposits rather quickly (sorry, while my kids think 40 years sounds like a long time, it’s really not).
Even if we find significantly more deposits than we expect (likely in undersea deposits), there are still massive challenges in transporting them to and within operational theaters.
Throughout the “GWOT,” the American military, along with our Allies, have enjoyed absolute supremacy. We were completely dominant over other forces, with no significant, organized military resistance (meaning state-sponsored militaries that could go toe-to-toe against coalition forces). Even then, our ability to transport supplies around the theaters was challenged by resistance movements. Guerrilla warfare, ambushes, IEDs all made moving fuel difficult—often requiring significant operations to protect the logistical efforts.
As we exhaust these resources, the scarcity will only increase the vulnerability.
Transitioning to more diversified power generation and distribution will not only enhance our operational resilience but it will reduce the logistical burdens and the vulnerabilities that we currently have (for a point of reference on how vulnerable we really could be, remember the 40km Russian convoy that ground to a halt in northern Ukraine last year while waiting for fuel, only to be decimated by Ukrainian air assets and fires). In other words, we can save lives this way.
Current State of Policy & Strategy
In good news, the DoD does take operational energy very seriously.
Both the department and the services have developed policies and strategies to address the challenges mentioned above and mitigate the risks. The department is addressing energy at both the operational but also the installation levels, knowing that the two are tied. Developments state-side will eventually make their way to operational capabilities, and savings on resources state-side will help mitigate scarcity forward.
To these ends, recent years have seen progress with the publication of the following:
And more
Technological Solutions for Operational Energy
There are some very promising technological developments happening that should encourage us all about the future of operational energy.
Nuclear energy is having a bit of a renaissance at the moment, and the development of small-modular reactors (SMRs) is largely at the heart of that renaissance. In full disclosure, I did a nuclear engineering track at the academy and have always been very pro-nuke. I still am. Nuclear energy is clean, safe, and abundant. It needs to be a centerpiece of our efforts to transition away from fossil fuels (both for the military and for our larger efforts).
The DoD is working with the Department of Energy and industry on the prototyping of a small, mobile reactor under the Project Pele. Such reactors will greatly enhance the flexibility and speed with which our forces can establish logistical bases and lodge ends in semi-permanent locales. And while we won’t see these on the forward edge of the battlefield, we can all still breathe a bit easier knowing that the development of Tristructural Isotopic (TRISO) fuel provides an additional layer of containment and security. Of course, Project Pele has more than its share of skeptics—most of whom remain woefully ignorant of the project and of nuclear energy, in general.
Another futuristic sounding, but technically feasible solution for operational energy comes from space. Space-based solar power (SBSP), first proposed by Isaac Asimov, has been researched since the 1960s, when Peter Glaser began demonstrating power-beaming capabilities using microwaves. The general ideas behind SBSP is that the sun is a nearly limitless energy source and that we can harvest the solar energy in space and then beam it down to earth using either microwaves or lasers. Certainly fantastical sounding, it is proven. CalTech beamed power down from space to earth, in a record first, last month. One of the often cited early use-cases for SBSP is military operational energy. Unfortunately, the United States is behind other countries on the development of policy concerning SBSP, and we’re playing catch up. Fortunately, we are still investing in the capabilities.
Closely related to SBSP are other power-beaming capabilities, albeit perhaps at shorter ranges. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is investing heavily in power-beaming through its Energy Web Dominance and POWER programs. These programs are focused on power distribution more so than power generation. But imagine a force that is able to use SBSP or SMRs to generate power, and then beams it around the battlefield to the point-of-need. That’s what these programs envision.
Another area that is holding promise is in improving the efficiency of existing systems. Improved battery efficiency, the use of optimized battery packs, sand energy storage, hydrogen fuel cells, all hold promise for improved operational energy.
Future Outlook
You’re likely tired of seeing me writing it but, further development to improve our operational energy capabilities relies on the critical collaboration between government, industry, and academia to advance these technologies.
Overall, there is much to be optimistic about, but we must continue to invest heavily in the research, development, and fielding of capabilities that will improve the forces’ flexibility while breaking our reliance on traditional energy sources. We will achieve major breakthroughs in the next few years that will revolutionize how we are able to fight and sustain operations.
Conclusion
As modern military forces face greater power demands, operational energy becomes a critical factor in mission success. By addressing the challenges in power generation and distribution, exploring alternative energy sources, and embracing technological solutions, the military can enhance operational resilience, reduce logistical burdens, and ensure energy security for its forces. Through collaboration, innovation, and forward-thinking strategies, the path is paved for a future where military operations are powered by sustainable and advanced energy solutions.
Keep building!
Andrew