Assessing the Army Power and Energy Efforts for 

the Warfighter 

John W. Lyons, Richard Chait, and James J. Valdes 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University 

March 2011 
1 

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official 

policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the 

U.S. Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from 

unclassified materials. 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

John W. Lyons is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Center for Technology and 

National Security Policy (CTNSP), National Defense University. He was previously 

director of the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and director of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. Dr. Lyons holds a BA from Harvard and received his PhD 

from Washington University.

Richard Chait, PhD, is a Distinguished Research Fellow at CTNSP. He was previously 

Chief Scientist, Army Material Command, and Director, Army Research and Laboratory 

Management. Dr. Chait received his PhD in solid state science from Syracuse University 

and a BS degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

James J. Valdes is a Senior Research Fellow at the National Defense University’s Center 

for Technology and National Security Policy and the Army’s Scientific Advisor for 

Biotechnology. Dr. Valdes received a PhD in neuroscience from Texas Christian 

University and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes. He has 

published more than 120 papers in scientific journals and was a 2009 Presidential Rank 

Award winner.

Acknowledgements. Many people contributed to this effort. Interviews were held with 

representatives of several of the Army laboratories doing research in the energy field. 

These were uniformly helpful. We are grateful to the several external reviewers: Albert 

Sciarretta of CNS Technologies, Inc., John Pellegrino and John Carroll of the ARL’s 

Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate, and Mark Nixon and Elias Rigas of ARL’s 

Vehicle Technology Directorate. The support and encouragement from the U.S. Army’s 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (DAS(RT)) have been 

essential.
2 

Contents 

I. Executive Summary.....................................................3

II. Introduction.............................................................4 

III. Background............................................................ 5 

IV. Selected Recent Studies..............................................7 

V. The Current Army R&D Program ........................................... 14

a) Vehicles .................................................................................................................... 15

b) Power for the Dismounted Soldier ........................................................................... 17

c) Forward Operating Bases/ Combat Operations Posts............................................... 18

VI. Basic Research........................................................................ 20

VII. A Look Forward and the Role of Technology Forecasting... 21

VIII. Assessment and Conclusions ............................................... 23

IX. Recommendations .................................................................. 23

X. Appendices .............................................................................. 25

A. Taxonomy for Assessment and Forecasting ............................................................ 25

B. Listing of Technologies from the Logistics Management Institute ......................... 26

C. Summary Table from the National Research Council Report on Light Duty Vehicles

................................................................................................................................ 29

D. Three Tables from the National Research Council’s Report on Medium and Heavy 

Duty Vehicles ......................................................................................................... 30

 

 
3 

Executive Summary 

In this paper we review some of the landscape of research and development on power and 

energy as it pertains to the needs of the Army warfighter. We focus on the battlefield and 

consider questions related to vehicles, dismounted soldiers, and forward operating bases. 

The literature in the overall field of energy research is immense; we make no attempt to 

review all these reports but rather have looked at a few selected studies that focus on the 

military challenges. The context of the study is twofold: the National need to reduce the 

use of petroleum-based fuels and the Army’s need to reduce the logistical burden and 

hazards of moving said fuels on the battlefield. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan 

have highlighted the danger inherent in transporting supplies over terrain that is difficult 

to render safe from terrorist raids and hidden explosives. The Army seeks to reduce this 

dependence by improving the fuel efficiency for uses that cannot now be entirely 

supplied by alternatives. These efforts will also provide the opportunity to save a great 

deal of money and reduce the number of personnel in the logistics chain. Needless to say, 

there will still be convoys carrying other supplies to forward bases. However, any 

reduction in the amount of supplies convoyed will be desirable. 

We find, in the literature, many good studies on the military problem such as those done 

by the Defense Science Board, the Logistics Management Institute, and the National 

Research Council. The findings show that there are many technologies ready for 

adaptation for vehicles and dismounted soldiers. These are being improved upon 

incrementally in current science and technology (S&T) programs. Technology for 

forward operating bases (FOBs) has, until recently, not been a high priority area. 

However, there are some concepts that appear ready to be integrated and adopted through 

advanced development and technology demonstrations. The work on FOBs is a good 

example of a holistic approach to the problem; that is, considering a variety of 

approaches and integrating them into a system. Using computerized microgrids for 

sharing and leveling electricity demand on such bases will be a part of the solution. 

We have studied documents and interviewed a number of Army technologists to 

understand the current S&T program. The program is conducted in several Army 

laboratories as well as by the Army Research Office (ARO). The laboratories are, in 

general, focused on raising the readiness level of projects already in research or 
4 

development. ARO is pushing the frontiers in its portfolio of basic research. We believe 

that these programs would benefit from increased oversight and coordination. 

 The Research, Development, and Engineering Command of the Army Materiel 

Command has established two Technology Focus Teams that address this problem. One 

concentrates on electrical and electronics efforts and the other covers logistical and 

mobility technologies. Neither has any role in the work on power and energy being done 

at the Corps of Engineers. 

We believe there are two approaches to improving the efforts in the several laboratories. 

One is improvement in the coordination role of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Research and Technology. The second is conducting a formal technology 

forecasting effort using convergence concepts that would result in a roadmap to guide the 

evolution of the Army S&T program. We also recommend doing more long-term basic 

and exploratory research looking for significant breakthroughs in some of the challenges. 

We realize that this is risky in an area that has received so much research attention in the 

past. The hope is that with the technology forecast some new and unexpected possibilities 

will emerge.

Introduction 

Armies are dependent on power and energy. When these resources for any reason are not 

available on the front lines, everything is affected. The importance of petroleum-based 

liquid fuels in warfare became evident in 1892 when Rudolph Diesel developed his fourcycle spark ignition engine.1

 By 1909 the French had switched from coal to oil-fired 

ships. Japan’s inability to obtain sufficient petroleum to supply their war machine was 

one of the major reasons for their need to expand their dominion to include sources of 

petroleum. The logistics of warfare in World War II were a controlling factor in critical 

times. For example, in the European theater General Patton’s Third Army, on its dash to 

Germany, ground to a halt when it ran out of fuel. Similar shortages affected the Germans 

in the latter stages of the war, especially during the Battle of the Bulge. Fuel supply 

remains a challenge to logisticians in today’s conflicts. 

The Abrams main battle tank is reported to consume a gallon of fuel for every half mile 

traveled. The dismounted soldier is overburdened with nonstandard batteries; one or more 

is needed for each different device using electricity. Field commanders have long been 

seeking lighter, longer-lasting, and less expensive batteries that supply substantially more 

power per unit weight. These demands have intensified with the revolution in electronics 

that has brought various new capabilities in the form of devices that can enable vision at 

night, use lasers to designate targets at a distance, power small robotic vehicles, provide 

sensing and communications, and so on. More such devices are in development. It is 

therefore not surprising that the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 

 

1

 This historical material is from Kenneth Macksey, “Technology in War,” Prentice Hall Press, NY, 1986. 

See pages 47, 50, 57, and 144. 
5 

has recently made improvements in power and energy usage as one of the most desired 

outcomes needed by the warfighter.2

Research into improved efficiency in the Army’s use of energy has a long history. Some 

of this work has been in engine design, high power electronics, environmental control 

systems (ECUs), distribution, alternative power conversion (fuel cells and Stirling 

devices), and a considerable effort on chemical storage batteries. Not until recently has 

the effort broadened to include alternative sources of energy with much improved 

capabilities and efficiencies. Some of this is being done in parallel developments in the 

private sector; e.g., solar and wind energy, compact batteries for computers and handheld communications devices. There has been much progress and more is likely in the 

near future. In this report we review the Army’s technology efforts to weigh the balance 

and distribution of the effort and to place it in the perspective of the broader energy 

world. 

We begin with a background section that stresses the importance of oil over the years in 

geopolitics. This is followed by a review of some of the many studies on power and 

energy in the military. Next is a presentation of the current technical programs being 

conducted across the Army. Then we have a discussion of basic research, primarily at the 

Army Research Office, and a look forward with emphasis on technology forecasting. 

Finally we draw conclusions and assess the findings of our study and close with 

recommendations for the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and 

Technology. 

Background 

A very recent book by Reynolds details the critical role oil has played and is playing in 

geopolitics.3 The author begins with a discussion of the importance of imported oil in the 

US economy. He discusses the dollar outflow to oil producers around the world, the 

impact of this outflow on the trade deficit, and on the return of the dollars as foreign 

investment in the US. This leads into a summary of the geopolitics of oil production with 

an emphasis on the Middle East. This is a history going back to the beginning of the last 

century. The oil market governed US relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. The 

overthrow of the Shah of Iran turned the relationship of Iran with the US on its head. We 

maintain the support of the Saudis but only tenuously. Reynolds ascribes the two wars in 

Iraq ultimately to the oil dependence of the US. The US oil industry that began in 

Pennsylvania and flourished under the Rockefellers prospered until the demand 

outstripped US capacity. This was driven by the growth of the automobile and highway 

transportation. By 1973 the US had reached the capacity for domestic oil production. The 

Yom Kippur War and the US support of Israel led to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. 

 

2

 Col. R.C. Effiinger, Warfighter Challenges/Warfighter Outcomes, Presented at the Technology Planning 

Conference, Army Research Laboratory at Adelphi, MD, May 2010; Army Capabilities Integration Center, 

Research, Development and Engineering Command, and the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, Power and 

Energy White Paper, published by TRADOC, Fort Monroe, VA, April 2010. 3

 Lewis Reynolds, America the Prisoner, Relevance Media, Inc., Charlotte, NC, 2010. 
6 

Curtailment of oil shipments produced disruption in the daily lives of American 

consumers – from long lines waiting at the gas pumps to rising prices for gasoline. In 

1979 the Islamic revolution in Iran deposed the Shah, Saddam Hussein took power in 

Iraq, and the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The geopolitics was no longer the same. 

Rising oil prices on the international market were supported by increasing demand in the 

US, in China, and elsewhere. In the US, drilling could not keep up. Alternatives to an oil 

economy were pursued. Oil as a source of fuel (as opposed to a feedstock for the 

chemical industry) can be replaced by a number of sources depending somewhat on the 

end use. For electric power generating plants, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power had 

replaced oil. Coal now supplies 49% of US power plants; nuclear provides about 20% 

from 104 commercial reactors in the US. The US no longer relies on imported oil for 

power generation on the national power grid. But coal, nuclear, and natural gas are 

unlikely options for the Army; nor are they candidates for vehicles (or for the dismounted 

soldier). Except for nuclear, all energy sources arise directly or indirectly from the sun. 

Petroleum is one such. Others include solar, wind, and biomass. Wind turbines are 

beginning to spring up in various parts of the country. Solar units for home use create 

power either by direct conversion of the sun’s energy into heat by rooftop units or by 

direct generation of electricity using photovoltaic cells. 

Currently, the military is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States. On 

the battlefield, purchasing and transporting fuel is a major expense in dollars and in 

support troops. Convoys have become very dangerous. The Army wants to reduce the 

amount of supplies requiring convoys and hence the exposure of the personnel escorting 

them. It also wants to reduce the expenses associated with oil on the battlefield. This need 

coincides with the National need for reducing energy dependence on foreign sources. 

This dependence can be minimized by improving the efficiency of the systems using 

petroleum-based fuel and by replacing, for some applications, petroleum-based fuel with 

alternatives such as wind and solar – both direct conversion to heat and by producing 

electricity (by photovoltaics). We discuss later in this paper the conversion of waste to 

energy at forward installations. A related activity in the United States is the production of 

liquid fuels by fermentation (alcohol from corn) or by thermal and chemical conversion 

of non-food crops such as switch grass.4

In addition, biomass, derived from many sources, can be converted by fermentation as in 

the case of converting corn to alcohol or by thermochemical processes to synthetic gas – 

carbon monoxide and hydrogen (syngas). Syngas can then be converted to hydrocarbons 

or alcohols using catalysts and the resulting mixture separated by the same processes as 

are used today in oil refineries. Syngas can also be used directly as a fuel for generators. 

Commercial ventures began in Germany in World War II were based on research done in 

the 1920s. Germany had a dearth of oil and needed to change raw materials to coal and 

natural gas. German chemists had invented the process to make syngas and make 

hydrocarbons (the Fischer-Tropsch process). After the war, South Africa developed the 

process further. After the 1979 revolution in Iran, the Congress created the Synfuels 

Corporation (SFC) to develop the process to replace petroleum raw materials. However, 

 

4

 For example see the interest by the U.S. Navy in Federal Times, Newswatch, for October 18, 2010. 
7 

the SFC experiment came to naught as a world-wide recession and intensified efforts on 

energy conservation reduced the price of crude oil by one third. Synfuels work was 

abandoned. However, the process technology is useful in other biomass conversions. 

Along with the DoD, the US Departments of Energy and Agriculture are working on a 

variety of biomass conversions. The use of corn to produce alcohol is commercial but, 

Reynolds claims, there are limits to how much fuel can be produced this way. Other 

options include the use of waste products or growing high yield crops. Biomass from 

wood residues in forests and wood processing, combined with residues from farming, are 

one source. High potential crops are typically grasses such as switch grass. 

Biomass as a source of energy is the subject of a great deal of research and development 

and may ultimately produce liquid fuels to replace oil-based fuel. A new paper by 

Coffey5

 reviews some 15 technologies for replacing the use of oil for transportation. He 

concludes that, “if necessary, the United States can manufacture the transportation fuels it 

needs.” In terms of process efficiency and capital cost for production plant, he finds that 

steam reforming of methane to make methanol is the most attractive alternative. 

Methanol can then be transformed into gasoline. The various approaches to biofuels are 

limited both by available supply and high capital cost for the production facilities. For 

high energy, high power engines such as the military requires, he concludes that internal 

combustion engines will be the ones of choice. Coffey believes that biomass-based fuels 

may very well occupy a number of niche applications but by themselves cannot solve the 

total replacement of oil for transportation There seems little doubt that the biomass fuels 

can be utilized by current engines for ground vehicles. Gasification technology is used in 

the waste to energy projects being explored by the military. These are discussed in some 

detail later in this paper. We turn now to several studies on fuel efficiency by the Army 

for vehicles, for the dismounted soldier, and for isolated combat operations posts. 

Selected Recent Studies 

The world of energy research is vast, encompassing many scientific and engineering 

fields ranging from the conventional to the esoteric. When one tries to make a list of 

energy-related activities it becomes apparent some sort of systematic approach is 

necessary. (A search of “energy research” on Google turns up 110 million hits.) What is 

needed for the present study is an analysis that moves from the universe of energy 

research down to a few high priority needs of the Army. 

There are in the literature very many studies and reviews of power and energy in the 

military, some by outside groups including the Defense Science Board (DSB), the 

Logistics Management Institute (LMI), and the National Research Council (NRC) of the 

National Academies (of which we consider only a sample of the work of the NRC). A 

 

5

 Timothy Coffey, A Primer on Alternative Transportation Fuels, DTP 74, (Washington, D.C.: Center for 

Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, September 2010). 
8 

study by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) in the 1990s provides some of the basis 

for subsequent studies.6

In a study by the Defense Science Board, the top ten battlefield fuel users as of 2001 were 

as presented in Table 1 below7

. 

 Table 1. This list was derived from a combat scenario in Southwest Asia using 

 the Force Analysis Simulation of Theater Administrative and Logistics Support 

 (FASTALS) developed by the Army’s Combined Arms Support Command. 

 (These results will vary depending on the battlefield scenario. For example the 

 Abrams main battle tank has seen little service in Afghanistan.) 

The ARL studied the potential savings in fuel for combat vehicles. Ten combat vehicles 

were studied, including the Abrams main battle tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and 

the Apache attack helicopter. The study highlighted the much higher cost of fuel 

delivered on the battlefield compared to the price at the refinery – sometimes as much as 

$600 a gallon. The increased cost is in the logistics personnel and the extra fuel needed to 

transport the fuel to the user. A chart in the briefing shows: 

 

For every dollar spent on fuel delivered to an Army terminal in the U.S., ten 

dollars are spent on the battlefield [to move the fuel] for personnel costs for active 

troops, and another six dollars for reserve personnel costs. 

 

6 The Impact of Fuel Efficiency on the Army After Next, Army Research Laboratory briefing FEAAN1a , 

October 1998, , available from the Office of the Director, Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate, Army 

Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD. 

7

 See reference 14, p. 43.
9 

The ARL study predicted an increase in efficiency of 75% overall from known 

technology developments for all ten of the combat platforms. Technical areas included, 

among others, engines, transmissions, and light-weight materials for structural 

components and armor. The results highlighted the opportunity for cost savings and for 

improvement in the “tooth to tail” ratio on the battlefield. 

Table 2. Chart from the ARL study (Ref. 6) and cited by the DSB (See ref. 13, p. 18.) 

There have been several studies on power and energy for the Army by the National 

Research Council (NRC). Two studies focused on the needs of the dismounted soldier. 

The 1997 study8

 discussed both the potential sources of power and the potential reduction 

of power demand by the various systems carried by the soldier. The 2004 study9 is a very 

thorough review of power sources and loads (or sinks) for the dismounted soldier and for 

some sources for FOBs; e.g., for generators. It considers batteries, with emphasis on 

lithium ion systems and fuel cells, especially proton exchange membrane and solid oxide 

systems, and hybrids of fuel cells and batteries, sometimes coupled to a capacitor. 

Technology readiness levels are given as of 2003. Detailed comparisons of performance 

are presented in numerous graphs and tables. The study also considered power sinks for 

such as laser designators, microclimate cooling, and the proposed exoskeleton. This 

report is a primer on the state of the art as of 2004. 

 

8

 Board on Army Science and Technology, Energy-Efficient Technologies for the Dismounted Soldier, 

National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 1997). 9 Meeting the Energy Needs of Future Warriors, Board on Army Science and Technology, National 

Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2004. 
10 

The NRC has just published two studies on energy 

use in vehicles. One is on fuel economy for light 

duty vehicles (cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans); the second is on medium and heavy vehicles 

(heavy trucks, buses, semi-tractor trailers). While 

neither study is specifically directed to Army 

vehicles, most of the technologies can be applied to 

one or more categories in the Army’s vehicle fleet. 

The report on light duty vehicles has sections on 

spark-ignition engines, compression-ignition diesel 

engines, hybrid power trains, and non-engine 

technologies. (See Appendix C for the complete 

table from reference 4.) Estimates are made for 

likely fuel savings for each technology studied. 

Some examples are: 

• Intake valve modulation and overlap ca. 2% 

• Variable valve lifters 10 

• Cylinder deactivation 5-10 

• Direct gas injection (in header) 1.5-3 

• Turbo charging 2-6 

These savings are not additive. A key finding in the 

report is that, overall, there is the potential for fuel 

savings of from 6 to 11%. 

In a section on light weight materials the report 

states that extensive use of carbon fiber composites 

has the potential to save up to 50%. It also states that 

a mass reduction of 5-20% should reduce fuel use by 

3-12%. 

Unlike light vehicles, most heavy vehicles are 

designed for moving loads, so the calculation of fuel 

savings has to be based on a standardized load for 

each class of vehicles. The report discusses 

technologies for savings in fuel consumption for a 

variety of medium and heavy duty vehicles. 

Application areas: engine technologies for diesel and 

gasoline engines, transmissions and drive lines, and 

engine hybrids. Technologies for the rest of the 

vehicle include aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and 

vehicle mass. 

For any assessment of the cost of power and 

energy on the battlefield, it is important to 

determine the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF). 

The fundamental assumptions in calculating fuel 

costs have been a matter of debate. A parallel and 

related issue is the nature of the fuel required. As a 

general rule, military logistics typically favors 

simplicity, hence the ubiquitous use of JP-8 and its 

variants as an all purpose fuel. The use of JP-8 

therefore determines the cost and the availability of 

fuel. Estimates of this cost vary over at least two 

orders of magnitude. 

There are numerous important variables and 

assumption which underpin the FBCF. The first is 

the phase of operations. During expeditionary 

operations where facilities are negligible, fuel may 

have to be flown in by helicopter. A 2001 Defense 

Science Board Task Force paper, “More Capable 

Warfighting through Reduced Fuel Burden,” 

estimated that under a worst case, three-staged, resupply scenario using CH470D aircraft, the cost of 

air delivery would be approximately $400 per 

gallon. (However, see the higher figure of $600 a 

gallon from the ARL study.) During sustained 

operations, where fuel can be brought in by 

overland transport, this study calculated the FBCF 

at $40-$50 per gallon. Finally, during post-combat 

stabilization operations where local facilities are 

gradually brought back online, the cost might be 

expected to drop further. 

A second major variable is the type of unit or 

facility using the fuel. In the section on Forward 

Operating Bases (see page 20) we discuss the 

progression from Corps level installations to major 

forward operating bases (FOBs) to smaller FOBs 

and finally to combat outposts (COPs). The 

availability of fuel and the uses to which it is put 

vary greatly. 

Note that there are several models that have 

been used to estimate the FBCF. The Defense 

Acquisition Guidebook, in a chapter entitled “Fully 

Burdened Cost of Delivered EnergyMethodological Guidance of Analysis of 

Alternatives, and Acquisition Trade Space 

Analysis,” describes a set of variables which must 

be considered. These include the cost of fuel itself 

and the cost of the fuel delivery systems, as well as 

both a combat performance metric (i.e., which 

operational stage) and a non-combat “steady state” 

metric (i.e., peacetime). The seven step calculation 

process includes: commodity cost of fuel, cost of 

the primary fuel delivery assets, depreciation of the 

delivery assets, direct fuel infrastructure and 

depreciation, indirect fuel infrastructure, 

environmental cost, and other costs such as force 

protection. Other models such as Steve Siegal’s 

“Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel Methodology and 

Calculations for Ground Forces: Sustain the 

Mission Project 2” incorporate many of the same 

assumptions and variables and allow for “what if” 

scenarios and calculations of cost/benefit analyses 

for alternative energy technologies. 
11 

The report presents potential fuel savings by class of vehicle and by technology areas. 

Highlights in fuel savings for tractor trailers are: 

• engine 20% 

• aerodynamics 11.5% 

• rolling resistance 11% 

• transmission and drive line 7% 

• hybrids 10% 

• mass 1.25% 

For a gasoline powered pickup truck: 

• engine 20% 

• aerodynamics 3% 

• rolling resistance 2% 

• transmission and drive train 7.5% 

• hybrids 18% 

• mass 1.75% 

The gasoline engine figure is the potential over and above the current baseline design. 

Note the dominance of engine technologies and hybrids. (In Appendix D is a complete 

listing of technologies from reference 11.) 

Both reports describe the projected costs to add the new technologies and in some cases 

the difficulty in manufacturing. 

The NRC has also issued two policy studies on energy. In an energy summit of leading 

thinkers in the field, Amory Lovins is cited to the effect that “seven-eighths of the energy 

[a vehicle] uses never gets to the wheels. It is consumed in the engine, the driveline, and 

accessories, as well as in idling. Half of the remaining eighth either heats the tires and 

road or heats the air through which the car passes. ‘Only the last 6 percent actually 

accelerates the car and then heats the brakes when you stop.’ Furthermore, only a 

twentieth of the mass in a car is the person driving it. The rest is the heavy steel car. So, 

only 0.3 percent of the fuel burned by an automobile ends up moving the driver. ‘This is 

not very gratifying after 120 years of devoted engineering effort.’10 Lovins also pointed 

out that light-weight vehicles made from, for example, carbon fiber components to 

replace steel, have the potential to increase fuel efficiency of a car by a factor of two. He 

also maintained that by using a combination of technologies already demonstrated, 

including light-weight materials, efficiency could be increased by a factor of three.

The second NRC report is a further review of technology options for reducing energy 

consumption in the US.11 Part I is a policy review of technical options; Part II is an indepth assessment of the technologies. Part II is not yet available. The report has a full 

discussion of the practical barriers to adopting existing and new technologies. 

 

10 The National Academies Summit on America’s Energy Future: Summary of a Meeting. Board on Energy 

and Environmental Systems, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

11 America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation: Summary Edition, National Academy of 

Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2009. 
12 

The Defense Science Board issued two studies on energy during the past decade. In 2001 

the board examined the true cost burden of fuel on the battlefield.12 Two important 

findings were (1) that the Department of Defense (DOD) establishes a “standard fuel 

price” annually. The standard price does not reflect the cost to the Services of delivering 

the fuel to the ultimate consumer, such as a tank, ship, or aircraft, and (2) that fuel 

efficiency is not emphasized in the requirements and acquisition processes. This is 

similar to the point made in reference 2 pertaining to the multiplier that should be used on 

the refinery cost of fuel. The second report of the Defense Science Board13 describes the 

energy consumption of the Defense Department as follows: 

 “The Department of Defense is the largest single consumer of energy in the 

 United States. In 2006, it spent $13.6 billion to buy 110 million barrels of 

 petroleum fuel (about 300,000 barrels of oil each day), and 3.8 billion kWh of 

 electricity. This represents about 0.8% of total U.S. energy consumption and 78% 

 of energy consumption by the Federal government. Buildings and facilities 

 account for about 25% of the Department’s total energy use. DOD occupies over 

 577,000 buildings and structures worth $712 billion comprising more than 5,300 

 sites. In 2006, the Department spent over $3.5 billion for energy to power fixed 

 installations, and just over $10 billion on fuel for combat and combat related 

 systems. These figures exclude energy used by some contractors that performed 

 ‘outsourced’ DOD functions, but are as accurate as current accounting systems 

 permit.” 

The Board repeats its earlier recommendations about the need, in the acquisition process 

for new systems, to consider the true fuel cost burden on the battlefield. 

The DSB maintains that there are many promising technologies to improve efficiencies. 

It urges the DOD to pursue these aggressively and to emphasize battlefield management 

to take into account the important role that fuel management plays, not just in cost but in 

the opportunity to reduce the logistics tail and increase the fraction of troops available to 

fight the war. In addition the report calls attention to the risk involved in depending too 

much on the commercial electric grid at fixed military installations. The Board is 

concerned about the fragility of commercial grids and the impact on the military should 

power be interrupted. The report urges more investment in S&T to speed the 

development of new energy saving technologies. 

In 2007 the Office of Force Transformation and Resources, within the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, asked the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) 

 

12 More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden, Defense Science Board, Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C., 2001 

13 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy, “More Fight – Less Fuel,” 

Defense Science Board, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C., 2008.
13 

to develop an approach to establishing a DOD energy strategy. LMI’s report14 makes the 

point early on that “DOD’s operational concepts seek greater mobility, persistence, and 

agility for our forces. But, the energy logistics requirements of these forces limit our 

ability to realize these concepts.” This is similar to the points made in all the studies we 

have reviewed. The report focuses on needed improvements in DODs management 

policies and practices regarding energy and makes a number of recommendations. The 

report also says “Make energy a top research and development priority.” It recommends 

that the DOD begin by focusing on three areas: 

• Greatest fuel use (aviation forces) 

• Greatest logistic difficulty (forward land forces and mobile electric power) 

• Greatest warrior impact (individual warfighter burden). 

“DOD energy transformation must begin in the near term, addressing current practices 

and legacy forces, while investing for long-term changes that may radically alter future 

consumption patterns. We recommend a time-phased approach to reduce our reliance on 

fossil and carbon-based fuels. This approach includes the following: 

• Organizational and process changes that can be implemented immediately 

• Engineered solutions, to improve the efficiency of current forces and those 

nearing acquisition 

• Invention of new capabilities, employed in new operational concepts, for those 

forces yet to be developed.” 

The LMI report lists a number of technologies and evaluates them in terms of whether 

they are focused on (1) replacing fossil fuels, (2) reducing demand in military systems, or 

(3) cross-cutting; i.e., the technologies do both. They are also rated as to near term vs. far 

term. Details are in Appendix B. 

The report places energy challenges in three categories: greatest use, greatest difficulty, 

and greatest impact. The use category focuses on the demands of aircraft of all types. The 

difficulty category is operational fuel consumption and mobile electric power. The 

greatest impact is on battery weight for the soldier. There are brief descriptions of 

potential candidate technologies but not enough detail for a researcher. 

The LMI report is a useful review of energy management, energy policy, and energy 

technology. It is an example of the utility of a taxonomy in dealing with large numbers of 

characteristics of a topic and the many potential solutions.15 The Army has used 

something like this in its development of its current technical program. 

 

14 Thomas D. Crowley, Tanya D. Corrie, David B. Diamond, Stuart D. Funk, Wilhelm A. Hansen, Andrea 

D. Stenhoff, Daniel C. Swift, Transforming the Way DOD Looks at Energy: An Approach to Establishing 

an Energy Strategy, Logistics Management Institute, Report FT602T1, McLean, VA., 2007. 17 In Appendix A are three examples of this approach as applies to homeland security challenges (not 

energy related). These are studies that involved linking a large number of technologies to a broad set of 

needs or requirements. In all three, a similar kind of taxonomy was used. They began with a set of likely 

scenarios describing the problems to be addressed followed by a listing of the functional capabilities 
14 

We conclude this section by noting once again that the importance of the Nation’s and 

the military’s consumption of energy, and in particular of the use of petroleum as fuel, 

has stimulated a plethora of reviews and analyses, only a small sample of which are cited 

above. But from this brief look we can learn a great deal. First is the lack of a welldocumented basis for calculating the fully burdened cost of fuel. Nonetheless there are 

large amounts of valuable information. There is solid background on automotive research 

on fuel efficiency in vehicles. The same is true for power for the dismounted soldier. 

These technologies are well advanced and many are at the readiness levels required for 

pursuing fielding opportunities. Technologies for making forward operating bases less 

dependent on convoys of oil based fuels are less mature; more research and more 

demonstrations are needed. There are few signs of significant breakthroughs suggesting 

that more high risk research may be needed. 

The Current Army R&D Program 

The Army Warfighter Outcome for Power and Energy (WOPE)2 combines into one 

statement both a broad objective and a brief set of needed capabilities. Presumably the 

broadest objective would resemble that in several Federal agencies; namely, use less 

energy by being more efficient, reduce dependence on oil, reduce the cost of energy, and 

use renewable sources where possible. That would be followed by the functional 

capabilities one would need to meet the objective and provide some quantitative goals. 

Here is the WOPE statement as recently amplified for 2011: 

 “2011 WFO #3. Power & Energy - Enhance ground force effectiveness, 

flexibility, protection and freedom of movement by reducing the need to transport fuel; 

improving utility and local management of energy resources; and enhancing unit 

resilience in the face of uncertain energy situations. Dramatically reduce sustainment 

footprint, lighten soldier load and extend platform range/self-power endurance by 

combining component functions, increasing interoperability, improving energy 

efficiencies and storage densities, and integrating power management functions. Increase 

flexibility by expanded capabilities to utilize alternative energy sources, recycle energy, 

water and waste, and to redistribute resources among systems. Reduce size and number 

of soldiers and systems required in forward areas by deploying multi-function and 

unmanned systems, and expanding reach capabilities. Integrate power and energy 

situational awareness and management functions with Mission Command to optimize 

energy use and enable ‘energy-informed operations.’”18 

The detailed discussion of required capabilities includes the requirements, assessment of 

the status quo, and proposed solutions for enduring infrastructure, expeditionary base 

camps, platforms, and the individual soldier. It is a lengthy discussion of the Army’s 

 required to address these scenario(s). Gaps in capabilities were linked to likely technical approaches. Each 

technology was then assessed as to readiness, priority, funding needs, and availability of subject matter 

specialists to move a project forward. 
15 

dependence on power and energy at all levels and the need to make significant 

improvements. 

Whereas the LMI study sorted technologies by supply or demand, in this paper we 

choose to focus on three categories of energy use; namely, vehicles, forward bases, and 

the dismounted soldier. 

Much of the S&T work on power and energy in the Army is carried out in the Army 

Materiel Command’s Research, Development, and Engineering Command (RDECOM). 

RDECOM has established a set of Technology Focus Teams (TFTs) to help coordinate 

the technical work done in more than one laboratory or center. Two of these have been 

especially helpful in preparing this assessment: the Power and Energy TFT led by Dr. 

John Pellegrino of the ARL, and the Mobility and Logistics TFT led by Dr. Mark Nixon, 

also of ARL. We received printed material and held interviews with both gentlemen. 

These have been very helpful. 

Some details of the Army’s S&T program on power and energy were provided by the 

Army S&T Executive in June 2010.16 Dr. Killion discussed added funds from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.17 Some $75 M were provided for research, 

development, testing, and evaluation in the following areas: 

Ground vehicles 

Power and energy testing 

Silicon carbide 

Two new energy facilities 

New types of solar photovoltaic systems 

Smaller, lighter cogeneration and absorption environmental control systems 

Development of field-scale micro grids 

Vehicles. For the Army this consists of combat platforms (tanks, combat fighting 

vehicles, helicopters and unmanned aircraft, Stryker vehicles, and armed HMMWVs) and 

support vehicles all around the world. The latter are mostly trucks, tankers, and passenger 

vehicles. These are in support to the battlefield as well as in use at Army installations 

everywhere. Vehicles consume fuel, oil, and lubricants. The TFT on Mobility and 

Logistics enumerates work on light-weight stuctures, a number of project areas on 

engines including advanced cycles, modeling, and thermal management. There is work 

on combustion of alternate fuels and modeling of combustion. The focus in Army 

research has been on more efficient engines (diesels, turbines, rotaries, hybrids). Cost is a 

problem. More efficient turbine engines for the main battle tank have been available for 

many years but the conversion cost to these or to improved diesels is very high, high 

enough to have forestalled the investment. Alternatives such as bio-based fuels may 

 

16 Thomas H. Killion, Providing Soldiers the Decisive Edge: Power and Energy Technology, 44th Power 

Source Conference, Las Vegas, NV, June 2010. 

17 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, The 111th United States Congress, Public Law 111-5, 

February 17, 2009. 
16 

reduce the demand for petroleum but will not 

reduce the logistics burden and may not reduce 

the cost either.

Recent emphasis has been on optimized diesel 

engines where the potential fuel savings may be 

about 20%. Auxiliary power sources for use in 

heavy vehicles to save fuel when idling have 

been studied for many years; one design is 

scheduled for introduction for the Abrams main 

battle tank in the near future. Another advantage 

of using auxiliary power units is that by not 

idling the main engine they reduce the vehicle’s 

thermal signature. Much of the work on noncombat vehicle technology is either done 

cooperatively with industry or is adopted from 

commercial practice. The National Automotive 

Center (NAC) at the Tank Automotive Research 

Engineering and Development Center 

(TARDEC) in Detroit is an important means of 

collaborating with industry and of moving dual 

use vehicle technology into the Army. One trend 

for fuel savings is the conversion of accessory 

systems such as pumps for power hydraulics, air 

conditioners, and the like from direct takeoffs 

from the engine to electric power, thereby only 

drawing power from the battery/generator when 

the systems are in use. This is companion to the 

increased use of hybrid technologies. In the 

hybrids an electric variable transmission may be 

used to split power to the drive train and to the 

electric generation system. (See Side Bar for 

more details of the NAC program.) 

High capacity pulsed power sources are needed 

for certain weapons and protection capabilities 

on board platforms: directed energy weapons, 

electromagnetic armor, and perhaps some form 

of electrically propelled munitions. There are 

several approaches, especially capacitor banks or 

devices with very high rotational velocities. The 

latter in the form of compulsators (compensated 

pulsed alternators) have been extensively studied 

in the Army’s electromagnetic gun program. 

Another approach to storing energy is in high 

Industry-Government Initiatives at the National 

Automotive Center 

The National Automotive Center (NAC) is a 

component of the RDECOM’s TARDEC. The NAC is 

an important means of promoting collaboration 

between the Army and the automobile industry. The 

purpose is to share technology of interest to both parties 

(dual use) and to promote the development of new 

ideas. The following is from their Web site: NAC will 

serve as the Army focal point for developing dual-use 

automotive technologies and their applications to 

military ground vehicles. It will focus on facilitating 

joint efforts and collaboration among industry, 

government and academia in basic research, 

technology, industrial base development and 

professional development.1

Two initiatives are designed to press adoption of 

the latest technologies for non-tactical vehicles 

(automotive and light and heavy duty trucks). The 

proposal makes the point that across the US – public 

and private – “Medium and heavy trucks make up 4% 

of all vehicles nationwide, and consume 20% of the 

nation’s vehicle fuel. Medium and heavy duty trucks 

are very important to the Army because they are critical 

tactical assets and constitute about a quarter of its GSA 

fleet. Most importantly, the medium/heavy duty truck 

sector offers the greatest dual-use connection to the 

tactical fleet.” The Advanced Vehicle and Power 

Initiative is a proposed roadmap for converting the 

Army current fleet to one using the latest technologies: 

Qualifying advanced propulsion vehicles for this 

initiative are battery electric vehicles (BEV), hybrid 

electric vehicles (HEV), hybrid hydraulic vehicles 

(HHV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and 

fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV). The plan is for the 

Army to phase in these new vehicles over twenty years. 

It would reduce petroleum consumption by 2% a year 

until 2030 from a baseline of the use in 2005. This 

would reduce petroleum demand by 60% from the 

baseline. Fully realizing the AVPI would require $4.6 

billion in funding to offset the cost premium of 

adopting advanced vehicles and renewable energy 

systems vs. conventional petroleum-based energy 

supply systems. The proposal also suggests that excess 

electric power generated by the fleet could be 

“exported” to local Army installations.1

The second proposal from NAC is an effort to 

establish a US domestic production base of high-quality 

advanced automotive battery materials and components 

that have dual-use applications to both military ground 

and commercial vehicles by 2015. The proposal argues 

that most battery manufacturing capability now resides 

off-shore. The cost of the 5-year program is estimated 

at about $1 billion.1

Neither proposal discusses the technologies in 

detail, which makes it difficult to evaluate them for 

challenge and priority against other Army energy S&T 

work. Two examples of projects done jointly with 

private sector firms are described in a recent news 

letter.1

 (cont. on 17) 
17 

speed flywheels, but such would not appear to 

be a good way to develop sharp pulses of 

power. 

Power for the Dismounted Soldier. 

Commanders have long complained of the 

problems with conventional batteries for the 

soldier. The various electronic devices that a 

soldier carries usually require different models 

of batteries. Often the soldier must carry 

backup batteries such that the additional load 

is significant. Commanders want lighter, 

longer lasting, inexpensive power sources for 

the soldier. Research programs on the problem 

have included new forms of storage batteries, 

especially lithium ion types, and portable fuel 

cells. Progress over the last thirty years has 

been remarkable. The energy density of Li-ion 

batteries has increased by roughly a factor of 

two in the last decade. It is now in the range 

of 120 – 200 Wh/kg; by mid-century this may 

achieve a density of over 700 Wh/kg. These 

batteries are rechargeable. The higher the 

energy density the lighter is the load for a 

given output. The Army continues to develop 

this technology helped along by the adoption 

of Li-ion technology in commercial uses such 

as in electric vehicles and consumer 

electronics. The work is spread over several 

laboratories 

Work on fuel cells began in the nineteenth 

century; modern concepts date to the 1950s. 

Progress has been slow but steady. The Army 

is studying several designs, including direct 

methanol, reformed methanol, and polymer 

exchange membrane cells. Cells operating on 

methanol without reforming appear to be of 

most interest. Current status is 30 W/kg 

(available power draw) and 1,000 Wh/kg 

(energy density) and projected to 120 W/kg 

draw. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Construction Engineering Research 

Laboratory (CERL) of the Engineering 

Clandestine Extended Range Vehicle (CERV). An 

ultra-lightweight prototype devised by the NAC and 

industry partner Quantum Technology, the CERV is 

designed for fast-paced mobility operations in the field, 

including reconnaissance, surveillance, and target 

designation. Weighing 3,500 pounds and capable of 

carrying a payload of 2,000 pounds, the CERV 

incorporates an advanced all-wheel-drive diesel hybridelectric (HE) power train. The ultra-lightweight chassis 

allows the CERV to reach speeds of 80 mph and ascend 

grades of up to 60 percent. The vehicle has a torque 

rating of 5,000 foot-pounds and reduces fuel 

consumption by 25 percent compared with conventional 

vehicles of comparable size. 

Electronic Power Control and Conditioning 

Module (EPCC). Developed between the NAC and 

industry partner NextEnergy, the EPCC was designed as 

a battlefield electronics module capable of managing 

power from varying types or grades of power generation 

assets, including HEVs, wind turbines, solar panels, and 

electric generators. The EPCC then cleans and converts 

the power input into a single, efficient, consistent 50- or 

60-hertz alternate current output. Smart Load Interface 

Controller boxes assist with power management. The 

EPCC is undergoing testing and could potentially be 

used to transfer power from HEVs in the field to mobile 

hospitals and forward operating bases. Skalny believes 

the EPCC could play an important role in creating 

energy-independent bases. “At TARDEC, we always talk 

about energy in terms of layers,” Skalny explained. 

“While working with partners like NextEnergy for the 

EPCC, we are looking at concepts like this for national 

security and energy-independent bases. It’s something 

that we look forward to from a military standpoint, not 

just on the tactical vehicles side, but from the nontactical and administrative side on bases as part of an 

energy-independent base of vehicles connected to a 

grid.” 

1

 See http://tardec.army.mil/NationalAutomotiveCenter. 

aspx. 2 Advanced Vehicle and Power Initiative, A Government, Industry 

and Academia White Paper led by the U.S. Army’s and the Research, 

Development & Engineering Command’s 

Tank-Automotive Research, Development & Engineering Center, 

(TARDEC), Draft Four: May 25, 2010. 3 Advanced Automotive Battery Initiative, A Government, 

Industry and Academia vetted White Paper led by the U.S. Army’s and 

the Research, Development & Engineering TARDEC, Final Version: 

January 14, 2009. 4

 See http://www.TARDEC.info/GVSETnews, Army and Industry 

Partnerships, GVSET News, TARDEC, Vol. 7, Issue 2 (Mar 2010).
18 

Research and Development Center has fielded over 100 fuel cell demonstrations at many 

different Army installations.18 These are based on proton exchange membranes or 

phosphoric acid technologies. An interesting concept is called Silent Camp and involves 

generating hydrogen by electrolysis of water and then storing the gas until needed for 

feed to fuel cells. 

The Communications-Electronics RDEC (CERDEC) of the RDECOM is working to field 

portable charging systems based on solar energy for lithium ion batteries as well as a 

larger system using both solar and wind energy for forward operating bases. CERDEC is 

also working on lithium carbon fluoride batteries.19

Work continues on reducing power demand in electronics; this in turn will reduce the 

demand on the soldier’s power sources. 

Forward Operating Bases/Combat Operations Posts. An emerging concept is the 

convergence of “green practices” such as systemic sustainability and renewable resources 

with military operational needs. Operations in Southwest Asia have shown that, despite 

advanced logistics and host nation resources, two major energy related problems persist. 

The first is that access to fuel, especially during the early expeditionary phase of 

operations, can be difficult. The second is the cost and operational difficulties posed by 

waste disposal. Delivery of materiel to forward positions creates enormous volumes of 

waste, and its removal inflicts a costly and complex logistics and security overhead for 

U.S. forces. When military operations are viewed as a complex ecosystem, opportunities 

abound to use one problem (i.e., waste) to help solve the other (i.e., need for energy). 

Many of the biggest energy sinks such as environmental systems and stoves do not 

require high quality fuels such as JP-8 and could be run on synthetic gas and biofuels 

derived from waste-to-energy (WTE) technology. Many packaging materials could be 

redesigned to use biodegradable materials to further enhance the efficiency of WTE 

technologies. One experimental technology known as the Tactical Garbage to Energy 

Refinery, tested by the Army in Iraq, converts about 2,000 pounds of waste per day to 

synthetic gas and ethanol which are blended to power a 60kW generator set; or the 

ethanol could be used as fuel for next generation fuel cells.27 Putting this into perspective, 

a 550 person Force Provider Unit generates about 2,200 pounds of trash per day, making 

it an ideal match for this technology. Numerous other WTE and alternate power 

technologies exist, as do other energy conservation technologies such as “smart” power 

grids, efficient insulation, and more efficient electronics. The common denominator is to 

reduce fuel and energy requirements, which reduces the need to transport fuel, saving 

money and lives.

A major variable is the type of unit or facility using the fuel. As one progresses from 

Corps level installations to major forward operating bases (FOBs) to smaller FOBs and 

finally to combat outposts (COPs), the availability of fuel and the uses to which it is put 

vary greatly. Major installations with fixed or semi-permanent facilities and large 

 

18 Information provided from CERL’s F.H. Holcomb in an e-mail dated September 29, 2010. 

19 Jane’s International Defence Review, October 2010, p. 24. 
19 

numbers of personnel are power intensive, their daily electrical requirements being 

measured in megawatts, and use much of that power for air conditioning, stoves and other 

appliances, hot water, electronics, and major weapons systems. Large FOBs such as 

Camp Victory, Iraq, with a population of about 25,000 personnel, also generate enormous 

quantities of garbage including pallets, packing materials, plastic bottles, and food waste 

which must be disposed of. The Victory Base Camp complex runs eight incinerators 

continuously, with each consuming about 2,000 gallons of fuel per day. This contrasts 

with a COP, which typically has no hot water, hot chow, air conditioning, or large-scale 

waste handling, and where water is a bigger logistics problem than fuel. A battlefield 

energy audit conducted by the Marine Corps in Afghanistan in August 2009 concluded 

that seven times as many trucks carried water as fuel. 

There are a number of reasons why forward operating bases and combat operations posts 

should be independent, or nearly independent, of fuel supplied by convoys. First, of 

course, is to eliminate the exposure of the soldiers operating the convoys―exposures to 

improvised explosive devices and the like. Second is to reduce the logistics burden on the 

combat support command in terms of manpower and costs. And third is to enhance the 

mobility of the bases by reducing their day-by-day dependence on the fixed installations 

that supply them. Commanders, for example the Marine Commander in Anbar Province 

in Iraq, have called for reduced reliance on convoys, asking for power supplies based on 

solar and wind machines. 

The Marines have recently been experimenting with a set of components they call the 

ExFOB. They are currently testing the concepts in Morocco and at a base in California. 

The idea is to substitute wind and solar energy generators as much as possible for diesel 

powered generators, and to replace the convoying of bottled water with simple water 

purification devices using local sources of water. The Natick Soldier RDEC20 is looking 

at both sources of energy and demand for it at forward bases. They are looking at solar 

for both heating and electricity, waste to energy systems, and cogeneration of electricity 

and useful heat. They are seeking to reduce power demand by a combination of 

insulation, LED lighting, and flexible photovoltaics for, for example, coatings for tents (a 

proprietary product for this is called Power Shade). It is being studied by both the Army 

and the Marines. Natick received special funding for flexible photovoltaics from the 

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (the stimulus). 

In one study of the best means of handling the disposition of waste at small bases is the 

use of a combination of gasification and fermentation of the waste to produce two energy 

rich streams. One, a syngas from the gasifier and alcohols from the fermenter, appeared 

more attractive than just burying the waste at small installations or incinerating it at large 

permanent bases. The gases and alcohols contain more than enough energy density to 

enable their use to drive electric generators.21 The approach has been demonstrated in 

 

20 Information provided from NSRDEC’s Bindu Nair by an e-mail dated September 29, 2010. 

21 James J. Valdes, Jerry Warner, Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery, EWCBC-TR-713, Edgewood 

Chemical and Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 2009; also see Rebecca C. Wingfield 

“Waste to Energy Systems,” Engineer: The Professional Bulletin for Army Engineers, January-April 2009. 
20 

Iraq. Despite the usual difficulties in demonstrating a new process the results were 

encouraging. The process needs some further engineering and manufacturing investment. 

There are currently additional programs of converting military waste to energy.22 Some 

use pyrolysis of pre-dried solid waste; one uses depolymerization (of plastics and 

cellulosics by using supercritical water). This one is part of a Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency program called MISER (Mobile Integrated Sustainable Energy 

Recovery). Unlike the biomass to liquid fuel system from gasification and fermentation, 

these processes for use in forward operating units stop after the step in which syngas is 

produced. In these applications the syngas is fed directly into electricity generators. 

The above approach to reducing demand for liquid fuels at forward bases is an example 

of a holistic approach wherein several technologies are integrated to solve the problem. 

CERL is developing a computer model of the interacting energy systems of a forward 

base in a project called Virtual FOB.25 In 2008 the Corps of Engineers conducted a 

workshop on waste to energy conversion; the report23 provides a rundown of efforts by or 

for the Army at that time. 

Another means of integrating technologies is the use of microgrids, where electricity 

users in a local facility are tied together in such a way that management of supply and 

demand is possible.24

Basic Research 

Having just presented the current Army R&D program, it is well to look ahead. In the 

following sections, we look at the Army’s basic research efforts, while in the subsequent 

section we stress the importance of technology forecasting. The paper concludes with 

some closing remarks and recommendations.

The Army will benefit from more forward-looking research and development in power 

and energy. Most of the topics being addressed today are evolutionary additions to work 

that has been in the laboratories for a long time. (An exception is work on biomass to fuel 

programs, whether from natural biomass or from waste/garbage). Research to push back 

the frontiers is under way, but in large measure through research awards made by the 

Army Research Office (ARO).25 ARO has a broad portfolio of about 30 single 

investigator research grants to universities and grants to consortia of universities or 

universities with other private sector laboratories. One such is a portion of the program at 

 

22 Leigh Knowlton, “Small Scale Waste to Energy Conversion for Military Field Waste,” JSEM 

Conference, May 2008. See http://proceedings.ndia.org/jsem2008/abstracts/8207.pdf. 

23 F.H. Holcomb, R. Parker, T J. Hartranft, K. Preston, H.R. Sanborn, and P.J. Darcy, Proceedings of the 

1st Army Installation Waste to Energy Workshop, Engineering Research Development Center, US Army 

Corps of Engineers, August 2008. 

24 Information in ERDC-CERL Energy Initiatives, item 2a, 21 July 2010 from an e-mail provided by F.H. 

Holcomb, ERDC, CERL, in an e-mail dated September 29,2010. 

25 Information provided by David Skatrud, Army Research Office, in an e-mail dated October 2, 2010. 
21 

the Institute of Collaborative Biotechnology (ICB) at the University of California at Santa 

Barbara. At the ICB there are three energy-related projects in nanomaterials based on 

biologic principles. One is on bio-inspired large polymeric solar cells, another is on 

multi-layered nanostructures for new batteries, and a third is on making new membranes 

with controlled permeability (transport) for ions, electrons, or reactant molecules. ICB 

has a program on raising the thermal stability of cellulases for application in biomass 

conversions. ARO single investigator grants on power and energy cover the following 

categories of work: new materials, catalysis, chemical energy conversion, spectroscopy 

and optics, and understanding transport through membranes. The work includes batteries 

and fuel cells, biofuels from algae, and reforming JP8 for fuel for solid oxide fuel cells.26

Also there is work on solar photovoltaic technology, and ignition and combustion 

chemistry and physics. The CERL has done work converting solid carbon via pyrolysis to 

charcoal followed by oxidation by electrolysis in a molten salt.27

A Look Forward and the Role of Technology Forecasting 

Army researchers were asked to provide us with estimates of where some programs 

would be in five years. One is the development of microgrids for small installations so 

that power can be shared among all users. Thus sources with excess power can send it 

onto the grid for others to use. They need new computer technology and new algorithms. 

They envision systems converting waste to energy across the Army. As noted in an 

earlier section, R&D on this is underway. 

They estimate that by 2015 we will have vehicles powered by fuel cells and specialty 

hybrids. Power electronics based on silicon carbide should be improved in terms of 

producibility, cost, and performance. Alternate energy sources will come on slowly for 

the battlefield. On-vehicle power supplies for silent watch will be fielded. Work on 

auxiliary power sources has been in progress for a long time. It should be mature by 

2015. These projections will logically be part of a long-range forecast as developed in 

technology forecasting. 

Technology forecasting is a tool that helps shape the S&T portfolio by suggesting where 

significant developments are likely to occur. In 1992 the NRC published, for the Army, a 

broad study by experts of the many technical fields estimated to be of interest in the 

ensuing 25 or 30 years.28 The effectiveness of the study (STAR21) was evaluated by 

senior Army subject matter experts in a report published by the National Defense 

 

26 Many laboratories are working on solid oxide fuel cells as well as li-ion batteries. A few are noted in 

Advanced Materials & Oricesses, Vol. 168, No. 10, October 2010 on pages 20-21. 34 R.H. Wolk, S. Lux, S. Gelber, and R.H. Holcomb, Direct Carbon Fuel Cells: Converting Waste to 

Electricity, Construction Engineering Research Center, Engineering Research and Development Center, 

TR-07-32, September 2007. 

28 STAR21 – Strategic Technologies for the Army of the Twenty-First Century, National Research Council, 

Washington, D.C., 1992. 
22 

University.29 The results were sufficiently positive that the authors recommended such 

studies should be conducted every decade and made suggestions for improvements. In 

two succeeding reports more details were added including the value of using convergence 

ideas in the forecasting.30 

Looking for convergence of disparate disciplines is relatively easy in retrospect. An 

example we have used in the referenced publications is that of radar. The theory of 

electromagnetic radiation was developed by Maxwell in 1873 and the first experiments 

by Hertz in 1887. In 1922 reflection of electromagnetic radiation was observed by Navy 

researchers. However it was not until 1936 that a pulsed radar was built and 

demonstrated. The necessary adjunct technologies had only matured by this time; that is, 

the cluster of technologies including radio technologies, radiation sources and receivers, 

and various components needed to build these systems. Many of these were developed 

for some other applications but they converged in the realization of radar. 

Another example of convergence is the evolution of the long-rod penetrator used in antitank munitions. Materials research, penetration mechanics, mechanics of composites, 

modeling and simulation, sabot design and manufacturing technology – these all matured 

to make possible the M829A series of kinetic energy rounds, one of which, the Silver 

Bullet, played a key role in the tank battles in Desert Storm. (See the first paper in 

reference 37). 

The concept of forecasting such convergences is a fairly recent development. A 

significant report on one such study was published in 2002.31 In this report convergences 

were predicted in the fields of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information science, and 

cognitive science.32 Research in energy and power for the Army involves many separate 

disciplines; for example, power, energy, materials, physics, electrical engineering, and 

perhaps others. Forecasting them individually will not be sufficient to locate new 

possibilities. Instead the proposal is to compare each forecast with all or some of the 

others to determine where two or more may come together to enable something new and 

different to emerge. 

 

29 John Lyons, Richard Chait, and Jordan Willcox, An Assessment of the Science and Technology 

Predictions in the Army’s STAR21 Report, Defense & Technology Paper 50 (Washington, D.C.: Center for 

Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, July 2008). 30 John W. Lyons, Richard Chait, and James J. Valdes, Forecasting Science and Technology for the 

Department of Defense, Defense & Technology Paper 71 (Washington, D.C.: Center for Technology and 

National Security Policy, National Defense University, December 2009); John Lyons, Richard Chait, and 

Simone Erchov, eds., Defense & Technology Paper 73 (Washington, D.C.: Center for Technology and 

National Security Policy, National Defense University, September 2010). 31 The US-NBIC Report: Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W.S., eds (2002) Converging Technologies for 

Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive 

Science. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, 

http://www.technology.gov/reports/2002/NBIC/Part1.pdf 

32 Managing Nano-Bio-Infocogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society, edited by William 

Sims Bainbridge, National Science Foundation, and Mihail C. Roco, National Science Foundation, 

National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and 

Technology, Springer, 2005. 
23 

Assessment and Conclusions 

The Army has programs across a spectrum of applications. In this paper we focus on 

vehicles, dismounted soldiers, and forward bases. (We chose not to look at the 

vulnerabilities of large fixed bases that rely on external private power grids.) However, 

the Defense Science Board has expressed concern about this (see reference 13). This 

problem is not currently in the purview of the Army S&T program at RDECOM, which 

focuses on operational energy. The lead organization for research for Army installation 

energy S&T is the CERL. There is much work underway in the three areas in this paper, 

much of it incremental, building on work that has been underway for a long time. The 

program clearly addresses the concerns of the TRADOC and is thus in line with the 

Army’s priorities. The internal program on vehicles is consistent, in terms of topics, with 

discussions in the literature. The focus on batteries and fuel cells for the individual 

soldier is directed at the most pressing short-term needs. This area has been an active 

need and an active research program for many years. It now appears that the work is 

rewarding and the investment is sound; lithium ion batteries are now effective, for 

example, and promise to be very much more so in the next several years. The concept of 

reducing the amount of supplies requiring convoys by substituting alternate energy 

sources is development work focused largely on engineering the needed systems. 

Because of the way the programs are organized, there is no easy way to assess quality. 

Some of the work is subject to peer review in the individual laboratories. But to date 

there has been no external independent peer review of the effort as a whole. 

The effort by RDECOM to pull the power and energy research together has resulted in 

coverage by two TFTs – one on Power and Energy and one on Mobility and Logistics. 

Thus the work is not all under one TFT. It would seem that a roadmap covering all the 

work should be developed as guidance for the portfolio, perhaps through the technology 

forecasting technique discussed in the previous section. 

Recommendations 

The following recommendations are made to reinforce the program. 

1. Conduct a formal technology forecasting exercise. This should take advantage of the 

convergence approach discussed in an earlier section and discussed in more detail in 

reference 34. The scope should include the interests of the Corps of Engineers as well as 

the Army Materiel Command and the TRADOC. The result would be a fairly detailed 

roadmap showing interactions across individual technology forecasts 
24 

2. More emphasis should be placed on a holistic approach in power and energy, 

especially for isolated combat operations posts. It appears that there is demonstrated 

technology for generating power at isolated posts without hauling fuel over the road. This 

includes, as partial solutions, solar, wind, and conversion of waste to energy. In addition 

to work at Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center, the Marines 

have an active program and have been demonstrating it in the field. Perhaps teaming with 

the Marine Corps would be useful. 

3. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology should 

appoint a member of her staff as an overall coordinator of research in Power & Energy. 

There is research and development on power and energy in several different sectors of the 

Army. For example, many laboratories are studying fuel cells and lithium based batteries. 

Natick and the Core of Engineers share a concern about fuel consumption in forward 

operating bases. We don’t feel that the Army Materiel Command Research Development 

and Engineering Command’s Technology Focus Teams are covering everything across 

the Army, nor should they. Oversight should include awareness of work done in industry 

(including recipients of Small Business Innovation Research awards), academe, and other 

government laboratories. 

4. The Army should review the fully burdened cost of fuel on the battlefield. The Defense 

Science Board has emphasized the need to take into account fuel costs as delivered to the 

warfighter. There are discrepancies in various reports; the acquisition community needs 

to have a clear picture of these costs. 

5. Seek more integration of fundamental and exploratory research with applied work. 

Most of the current effort in the in-house laboratories is either incremental extensions in 

existing areas of research or is engineering of systems. However, the Army Research 

Office (ARO) has a broad program of research in this area. More emphasis should be 

placed on strengthening the relationships between in-house programs and those at ARO. 

To enhance the creativity of the work, more basic research investment should be made. 

6. The subject matter experts in the Army laboratories should devote some attention to 

the work of various components of the National Academies. It is surprising that the 

Army’s White Paper (reference 2) does not cite any of the several studies on power and 

energy published by various committees of the National Research Council. These reports 

(see references 7 through 12 above) are comprehensive and produced by selected experts 

from across the country. They are most informative. The subject matter experts should be 

actively involved in the technology forecasting activity. 

______________________________ 

We believe that these recommendations will help the Army in dealing with the 

difficulties involved in providing power and energy to the warfighter on the battlefield. 
25 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Taxonomy for Assessment and Forecasting 

An example of a taxonomy involving several operational challenges and a number of 

possible technical responses is Project Responder, a study arising from the terrorist 

bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.33 The other two 

studies were on Army–Department of Homeland Security cooperation in technology.34,35

Each study began with a set of operational problems presented by terrorism in the 

homeland. A set of scenarios illustrated the challenges. The scenarios defined the 

required functional capabilities and these were followed by posing technological 

remedies. With this systematic approach, the results of analyses by panels of experts were 

presented in tables. 

As an example from report reference 25, the four operational areas in homeland security 

were defined by the DOD (before DHS became operational): indications and warnings, 

denial and survivability, recovery and consequence management, and attribution and 

retaliation. For each operational area, the report describes the priority functional 

capabilities required, followed by consideration of applicable technologies and their 

availability. This was followed by an assessment of readiness, priority for Army funding, 

and suitability for Army, DHS, or civilian use. 

Here is a sample line taken from a table from reference 25 under “indications and 

warnings”: 

 Indications and Warnings > 

 Perimeter defense and warning> 

 Night vision> 

 Uncooled bolometer arrays> 

 Ready or near term> 

 High priority for S&T> 

 Broadly useful for all 

 

 

33 Project Responder, National Technology Plan for Emergency Response to Catastrophic Terrorism, 

edited by Thomas M. Garwin, Neal A. Pollard, and Robert V. Tuohy, Hicks & Associates, Inc., Tyson’s 

Corner, VA., 2004. 

34 National Research Council, Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1, The 

National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003. 

35 National Research Council, Army Science and Technology for Homeland Security, Report 2 C4ISR, The 

National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2004 
26 

Appendix B. Listing of Technologies from the Logistics 

Management Institute

The tables are from Table 6-1 and Appendix F of reference 16. Tables 6-1 and Appendix 

F-1 are reprinted with permission from the Logistics Management Institute. Copyright 

2007.
27 
28 
29 

Appendix C 

Summary table from NRC report on light duty vehicles (Ref. 10). Table S-1 is reprinted 

with permission from the National Academies Press, Copyright 2010, National Academy 

of Science. 
30 

Appendix D 

Three tables from NRC report on medium and heavy duty vehicles (Ref 11.). Table S-1, 

S-2, and S-3 are reprinted with permission from the National Academies Press, Copyright 

2010, National Academy of Science.

 
31