Air University

Allen G. Peck, Lt Gen, Commander

Air Command and Staff College

Jimmie C. Jackson, Jr., Brig Gen, Commandant

Zoë M. Hale, Col, PhD, Dean

Brett E. Morris, Col, PhD, Director of Research

Brett E. Morris, Col, PhD, and 

John L. Mansuy, Maj, Series Editors

John T. Ackerman, PhD, Essay Advisor

Air University Press

John A. Shaud, General, USAF, Retired, PhD, 

Director, Air Force Research Institute

Bessie E. Varner, Deputy Director

Jeanne K. Shamburger, Content Editor

Andrew G. Thayer, Copy Editor

Vivian D. O’Neal, Prepress Production

Daniel Armstrong, Cover Design

Please send inquiries or comments to

Editor

The Wright Flyer Papers

Air Command and Staff College (ACSC/DEI)

225 Chennault Circle, Bldg. 1402

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6426

Tel: (334) 953-6810

Fax: (334) 953-2269

E-mail: ACSC@maxwell.af.mil
AIR UNIVERSITY

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

Waste to Watts and Water

Enabling Self-Contained Facilities 

Using Microbial Fuel Cells

Amanda Sue Birch, P. E.

Major, USAFR

Air Command and Staff College

Wright Flyer Paper No. 37

Air University Press

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

March 2009
ii

This Wright Flyer Paper and others in the series are 

available electronically at the Air University Research 

Web site http://research.maxwell.af.mil and the AU 

Press Web site http://aupress.au.af.mil.

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely 

those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the 

United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government 

agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.
iii

Foreword

It is my great pleasure to present another of the Wright 

Flyer Papers series. In this series, the Air Command and 

Staff College (ACSC) recognizes and publishes our best 

student research projects from the prior academic year. 

The ACSC research program encourages our students to 

move beyond the school’s core curriculum in their own 

professional development and in “advancing air and space 

power.” The series title reflects our desire to perpetuate the 

pioneering spirit embodied in earlier generations of Airmen. 

Projects selected for publication combine solid research, 

innovative thought, and lucid presentation in exploring war 

at the operational level. With this broad perspective, the 

Wright Flyer Papers engage an eclectic range of doctrinal, 

technological, organizational, and operational questions. 

Some of these studies provide new solutions to familiar 

problems. Others encourage us to leave the familiar behind 

in pursuing new possibilities. By making these research 

studies available in the Wright Flyer Papers, ACSC hopes 

to encourage critical examination of the findings and to 

stimulate further research in these areas.

JIMMIE C. JACKSON, JR.

Brigadier General, USAF

Commandant

Abstract

Lack of investment in future agile combat-support 

technologies could lead to a strategic surprise that diverts 

military attention and resources from critical air, space, and 

cyber operations. Looking to the national security environment 

in 2030, this research explores one technology—the microbial 

fuel cell (MFC)—that gives life to self-contained facilities 

decoupled from vulnerable supply lines and infrastructure 

networks. MFCs can dispose of waste (sewage, food scraps, 

gray water, etc.) while producing clean water (up to 70 percent 

of required volumes) and power (up to 600 watts per person). 

Using relevance tree methodology, the research concludes that 

USAF research and development investment alone will not 

bring MFCs to fruition. A successful strategy for MFCs will be 

collaborative, addressing not only the technological barriers but 

also the key social, industrial, and political hurdles to enabling 

this capability. Fully developed, this technology could save up 

to $50 million a day for a 150,000-person deployment. Beyond 

cost and mobility advantages, MFCs could enable homeland 

security against the terrorist threat and provide power, water, 

and sanitary waste disposal after wars or natural disasters. 

They could also bolster the legitimacy of stressed governments, 

offer security against chronic water and energy shortages, 

and function in isolated areas as well as urban centers. In 

addition to military uses, MFCs could become a diplomatic 

and economic tool to pursue a better state of peace by building 

a foundation for democratic and economic development.



vii

Preface

Throughout my career in the United States Air Force, I 

have had the opportunity to see engineering technologies 

from two very different angles. I began my career as a 

research and development mechanical engineer at the Air 

Force Research Laboratory. I worked with technologies 

for the 30-year time horizon daily, which formed my ideas 

about strategic thinking for technology. Five years into my 

career, I became an Air Force civil engineer, responsible 

for operations, maintenance, and repair of facilities and 

infrastructure as well as future construction. Though 

innovators populate both career fields, Air Force civil 

engineers are generally more concerned about today’s crises 

than future capabilities. The nature of our business forms 

us into loyal servants who always find innovative ways to 

“git ’r done.” Furthermore, our operational pace leaves little 

opportunity to pontificate on capabilities for the 30-year 

horizon. This creates strategic vulnerabilities because we 

build our facilities and infrastructure to last, and they must 

enable air, space, and cyber power for nearly a century. I 

am thankful that I had an opportunity to begin to reconcile 

the differences in engineering thinking across these two 

career fields and merge the best characteristics into an idea 

that could contribute to national security.

I would like to thank Dr. John Ackerman and Dr. Glenn 

Johnson for their advice, enthusiastic support, and genuine 

interest in my research. Thanks also go to the Blue Horizons 

staff for providing a framework from which I could begin 

to shape an articulate argument. Col Rich Fryer, Maj Milt 

Addison, and the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency 

team also provided fantastic support for my research. 

Finally, I would like to thank God, the Ultimate Provider, 

who has blessed me with my dear husband. Paul, I thank 

you for your love and support during this year apart, but 

especially for your patience in allowing me to process aloud 

many random thoughts that eventually made their way 

into this product.



Introduction

The year is 2030. At a major US expeditionary base the 

power grid has failed, and limited fuel is available for purchase. Water reservoirs are nearly empty, and now fear 

is spreading that militants have contaminated available 

water resources. Health concerns take center stage as the 

sewage treatment plant and waste disposal systems stop 

working. Thankfully, the USAF has a powerful weapon 

that can save the day. After 20 years of research and development, the microbial fuel cell (MFC) gives expeditionary and home-station commanders a capability to produce 

clean energy and clean water while using only wastewater 

and other organic wastes as fuel.

Should the USAF bolster MFC research to give life to 

self-contained facilities decoupled from the infrastructure 

network? The USAF should invest in MFC research because 

this technology gives life to sustainable facilities decoupled 

from the infrastructure network, a key capability for national security in the 2030 environment. MFC capabilities, 

however, will not find success via research and development (R&D) investment alone. The USAF must collaborate 

within the Department of Defense (DOD) and beyond while 

taking a holistic systems approach to bring MFC capability 

to fruition. A successful strategy for MFCs will address not 

only the technological barriers but also the key social, industrial, and political hurdles that will bring about significant monetary and resource savings for the USAF. 

The research methodology applied to capture all of these 

potential hurdles in MFC technology is the relevance tree. 

According to a report from the Futures Group International, 

this analytic technique ensures comprehensive exploration of a problem by breaking the system into increasingly 

smaller subsystems. The aim is to break the problem into 

enough detail that the issues can be resolved by exploring 

potential options at key nodes.1

Relevance tree methodology is a natural fit to explore future 

development and use of MFC technology. It allows consideration of a larger context than mere technical feasibility. Books 

such as Steven Schnaars’s Megamistakes: Forecasting and the 

Myth of Rapid Technological Change and William Ascher’s Fore-
casting: An Appraisal for Policy-Makers and Planners make it 

clear that technological feasibility alone plays only a small part 

in the adoption of new technologies; social, industrial, 

political, and economic factors often have the decisive role.

For a current example of why this systems approach is 

important to emerging technology analysis, look no further 

than biofuels. The European Union (EU) did not analyze 

biofuels using a systems approach prior to policy decisions. 

The EU issued policy “to replace 10 percent of transport 

fuel with biofuels . . . by 2020,” but this “green” idea furthered global warming, deforestation, and food and water 

shortages.2 If a relevance tree methodology had been applied 

to biofuels, the EU might have avoided a costly and embarrassing policy decision.

The relevance tree research methodology drives the 

structure of this paper. First, the relevancy of MFCs is established for airpower, national security, the 2030 environment, and applications outside primary DOD interest. After relevancy is established, the concept of self-contained 

facilities decoupled from the infrastructure network is 

explored. Since MFCs are a key capability that could enable self-contained facilities, the concept is explained from 

a technological perspective and then analyzed along with 

other relevant issues surrounding the technology using the 

relevance tree. Once the relevance tree is defined, key-node 

analysis in the technological, social, industrial, and political realms facilitates conclusions about the feasibility of 

a strategic plan to enable this capability to enhance US 

national security by the year 2030.

Who Cares?

The problem that MFCs address is defined by looking 

at their relevancy. Relevancy is first described in terms of 

air, space, and cyber power. Next, the research looks at the 

broader relevancy to national security, the 2030 environment, and beyond the DOD. 

Relevancy to Air, Space, and Cyber Power

Facilities have evolved from mere shelters to force-projection 

platforms and command centers (such as the AN/USQ-163 
Falconer Air and Space Operations Center weapon system) 

and will be critical to air, space, and cyber power as long as 

humans are involved with force projection.3 What demands 

will be placed on future facilities as we enter the cyberage 

and beyond? Since current facilities must last at least 67 

years, USAF leaders must define a strategic capabilities plan 

for future facilities that approaches the facility life cycle but 

is flexible enough to meet intermediate requirements.4

One capability the USAF will require in future facilities 

is the ability to operate apart from the infrastructure network and line of communications (LOC) in a clean and efficient manner, both in an expeditionary environment and 

within the United States. Today’s facilities tie to a power 

grid, a water distribution system, and a wastewater disposal network, creating key nodes of vulnerability in both 

the physical and cyber realms.5 Facility locations are limited 

to areas with developed infrastructure that exists or that 

must be built. What if a single technology could eliminate 

infrastructure dependency for all three of these services? 

MFCs hold this promise.

The MFC promise for the USAF extends beyond infrastructure decoupling both abroad and at home. For expeditionary facilities, airlift requirements are reduced for light, 

transportable, reusable, maneuverable cities that do not require heavy equipment to build, infrastructure to support, 

or fuels to sustain. Today’s mobile electric power (MEP), 

for example, “requires . . . up to 4,000 gallons per day of 

fuel sustainment, placing a severe burden on an already 

stressed air fleet.”6 MFC technology’s potential to reduce 

airlift requirements and build operating bases in any environment relates to the strategic principle of agility, as 

defined by the National Military Strategy (NMS).7 Additionally, fuel moving through ground LOCs creates exploitable 

vulnerabilities to equipment, supplies, and personnel that 

would be mitigated if facilities required less or no fuel and 

water to operate. For facilities in a homeland defense posture (which all USAF facilities must expect), decentralized 

utilities shift risks away from vulnerable physical and cyber 

infrastructure nodes, eliminating critical targets for the 

enemy.8 This is important because the first national military objective defined in the NMS is to protect the United 

States, and the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism
calls for “defense of potential targets of attack” to include 

critical infrastructure such as energy and water.9 Furthermore, the synergy of using the same MFC technology at 

home and abroad will reduce training requirements for 

craftsmen while increasing their competence.

As a final note on MFC relevancy to the USAF, it is important to mention that the author narrowed the scope of 

this research to facility applications, but MFC significance 

is not limited to facilities alone. MFCs could be used in 

any application that requires clean energy, clean water, or 

organic waste disposal. Some obvious benefits beyond facilities include power for micro air vehicles and space assets; clean water, power, and waste treatment for aircraft 

latrines; power for ground vehicles; and clean, low-heatsignature generators for flight-line use.10

Relevancy to National Security beyond Air, Space, 

and Cyber Power

While the link between MFCs and air, space, and cyber 

power is clear, it is even more important to understand 

the broader link to US national security. This link will be 

discussed under four main topics: (1) reducing natural resource consumption, (2) eliminating spark points for world 

conflicts, (3) prioritizing stability, security, transition, and 

reconstruction (SSTR) operations, and (4) accomplishing 

tasks outlined in the National Security Strategy (NSS). 

Reducing energy consumption and natural resource dependency is a national security issue. The Whole Building Design Guide Sustainable Committee notes that “with 

America’s supply of fossil fuel dwindling [and] concerns 

for energy supply security increasing . . . it is essential to 

find ways to reduce load, increase efficiency, and utilize 

renewable fuel resources in federal facilities.”11 USAF lieutenant colonel John Amidon agrees: “The current world 

energy situation poses a national threat unparalleled in 

225 years . . . [and] meeting this dilemma with a technical 

solution plays on America’s greatest strengths, those of the 

inventor and the innovator.”12 The president codified this 

concern about natural resource dependency for both energy and water in Executive Order 13423, which requires 

agencies to reduce energy use by 3 percent a year (or 30 
percent total) by 2015 and to reduce water consumption 

by 2 percent a year (or 20 percent total) by 2015.13 The 

president launched goals that are even more aggressive 

in December 2007 by signing the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007.14 Considering that buildings in 

the United States consume 68 percent of electricity, facilities are a logical target to reduce natural resource dependency.15 Former secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynn 

agrees with these goals: “The reliance on imported oil 

continues to threaten the economic, financial and physical security of the nation while the use of domestic fossil 

fuels contributes to nationwide pollution problems. The 

Air Force believes that development of renewable energy 

sources for facility energy is one important element of our 

comprehensive strategy.”16 The DOD also understands the 

link of energy to national security and to the military instrument of power. The Defense Science Board articulated 

this in a report linking fuel efficiency to six principles of 

war: surprise, mass, efficiency, maneuver, security, and 

simplicity.17 Furthermore, a 2007 poll conducted for the 

Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy shows that 

most Americans, 63 percent, also agree that energy is a 

national security issue by confirming that energy issues 

threaten the United States more than terrorists.18 In summary, natural resource consumption is a national security 

concern acknowledged by the president, confirmed by the 

USAF, and linked to the principles of war. Facilities are a 

logical starting point for reducing resource consumption.

While the focus of this research is on US national security, technologies that reduce water and energy dependency could contribute to a reduction in armed conflicts 

throughout the world—conflicts that the United States often attempts to resolve. Since water and energy resources 

spark conflicts, alternative solutions to obtaining these 

natural resources would prevent conflicts.19 Three examples come to mind. First, in the Future Capabilities Game 

2007 (FG07), the scenario’s conflict concerned natural resources. If the natural resource were available through 

MFCs or other technologies, could the conflict have been 

prevented? The second example concerns the peaceful 

split of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. Could 

the “velvet divorce” that resulted in peace and good gover-
nance have occurred if resources such as oil or water were 

at stake?20 The final example is the Jordan River Basin, 

which includes Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the 

West Bank. Since 1948, 18 “extensive war acts causing 

deaths, dislocation, or high strategic costs” and dozens 

more hostile acts have occurred in this region.21 Would 

these conflicts be less likely to start, or be more likely candidates for peaceful resolution, if water resources were 

available through a technological breakthrough? Critics 

will find that natural resource availability will not be a 

panacea for conflicts that also have deeper cultural roots. 

These examples establish the premise that water and 

energy resource availability, enabled by MFCs or other 

technologies, could contribute to future world stability by 

offering diplomats a tool to pursue a better state of peace.

The third link of MFCs to national security is in the 

growing priority of SSTR operations. Today such missions 

are not in vogue with the USAF’s institutional infatuation with technology.22 For the future, however, MFCs will 

provide capability useful in all four quadrants of military 

challenges shown in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review 

(QDR)—irregular, catastrophic, disruptive, and traditional 

challenges.23 Additionally, MFCs will offer capabilities that 

are essential to all six operation plan phases as described 

in Joint Publication (JP) 3-0, Joint Operations.

24 The broad 

applicability of MFC capability allows this technology to fill 

a niche outside the “seize and dominate” phases and traditional security challenges where USAF technological innovation attention is typically focused.

MFC technology moves the USAF toward carrying out DOD 

Directive 3000.05, Military Support, that states, “Stability 

operations are a core US military mission. . . . They shall 

be given priority comparable to combat operations.”25 Since 

stability is key to transferring power to civil authorities, and 

since facility and infrastructure construction are a large 

component of stability, the United States could use MFC 

technology to expedite this transition in areas with damaged 

or absent infrastructure. New USAF irregular warfare doctrine acknowledges this mission by a call to civil engineers 

to implement it.26 Another stabilization role the US military 

performs is humanitarian relief. “Humanitarian relief has 

long been recognized as a mission of the American armed 
forces,” and the massive response to the “most destructive 

tsunami ever recorded” in Indonesia in 2004 is an example 

of the need for a capability to produce clean drinking water 

in the absence of operational infrastructure.27 

Whether the military likes to acknowledge this aspect 

of its mission or not, SSTR operations are a core mission. 

While assigned to Iraq, Army captain John Prior captured 

the sentiment that is prevalent in today’s writing on SSTR 

and counterinsurgency efforts. “ ‘Infrastructure is the key 

now,’ Prior said more than once. ‘If these people have electricity, water, food, the basics of life, they’re less likely to 

attack.’ Sewage, Prior realized, was the front line of nationbuilding.”28 The infrastructure provided by US military 

teams paves the way for winning the hearts and minds of the 

indigenous population by meeting its basic needs, which in 

turn adds legitimacy to stressed governments after war or 

disaster. In short, MFC technology adds capability across 

all phases of war and across all types of challenges.

Using the military instrument of power (IOP) for nation 

building is a possibility based on DOD Directive 3000.05, 

but the NSS links infrastructure development efforts to two 

essential strategic tasks that leverage the diplomatic and 

economic IOPs as well. The two essential tasks outlined in 

the NSS that relate to MFC technology are (1) to “ignite a 

new era of global economic growth through free markets 

and free trade,” which includes “secure, clean energy development,” and (2) to “expand the circle of development by 

opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy.”29 The US Department of State (DOS) could support 

both objectives by helping developing nations become stable 

democracies using technology such as MFCs that enable 

modular, cost-effective, resource-savvy, low-maintenance, 

infrastructure-free facilities, especially in remote and impoverished areas. Furthermore, using MFC technology in 

impoverished areas provides clean water, combats disease, 

and helps states integrate impoverished nations lacking 

infrastructure into the global economy.30 Nongovernmental 

organizations (NGO) could use MFCs in a similar manner 

to further these NSS objectives, but they could also use 

the technology as a baseline for establishing or supporting 

refugee camps or humanitarian relief efforts. The DOS and 
NGOs could use MFC technologies to accomplish essential 

strategic tasks specified in the NSS.

To recap, MFCs could enhance national security beyond 

air, space, and cyber power in four ways: (1) reducing natural resource consumption, (2) eliminating world conflict 

spark points, (3) prioritizing SSTR operations, and (4) accomplishing essential tasks outlined in the NSS.

Relevancy to the 2030 Environment

The relevancy of MFC technology for air, space, and cyber 

power and the larger national security context in today’s 

environment is evident, but that relevancy will grow even 

more as we approach the year 2030. MFCs will be a key 

defense capability regardless of which future threat dominates in 2030. Four main threat scenarios could depict the 

2030 environment, and each of these scenarios needs MFC 

technology to enable national security. If the United States 

faces a conventional, major-theater enemy in 2030, MFCs 

will be needed to enable expeditionary and homeland facilities from which to project traditional air, space, and cyber power. If the terrorist threat to the homeland dominates 

in 2030, MFCs will be needed to eliminate key nodes of 

vulnerability in the homeland infrastructure (such as the 

power-grid, water, and wastewater systems). If counterinsurgencies, small wars, and humanitarian crises (such as 

those faced over the past 50 years in Vietnam, Iraq, and 

Afghanistan) characterize the next century, MFCs will be 

needed to provide critical infrastructure to “win hearts and 

minds” and legitimize nascent governments. If energy and 

water shortages or environmental concerns are the biggest 

national security concern in 2030, MFCs will be needed to 

provide green power and clean water.31 No matter which 

scenario strategic planners assume is most important for 

2030, MFCs could reduce the probability of strategic surprise if R&D investment begins now.32

The argument that follows looks more closely at the 

fourth scenario, energy and water resource shortages. 

Steven Schnaars, a marketing professor who specializes 

in future technologies, observes that “forecasters are imprisoned by their times.”33 Humans tend to look at today’s 

crisis and project it into the future. Conventional threats; 
terrorism; and small wars, insurgencies, and humanitarian 

crises are today’s discernable threats covered extensively 

in the literature and the Air Command and Staff College 

curriculum. Energy and water resource shortages are tomorrow’s strategic threats that are often overlooked, creating strategic risk. Therefore, this discussion focuses on this 

fourth scenario.

Energy will continue to be a concern in 2030. In 2007 

the United States Department of Energy (DOE) forecast 

international power demand to double by 2030.34 Today’s 

energy crisis is well recognized and built into future national security strategy.35 Projects are under way to reduce 

consumption and to transition to green power sources. The 

projected crisis for power, then, is not likely to be quantity 

and sources but availability.

Today’s facilities depend on a power grid. Power grids 

have both physical vulnerabilities (enemy actions, natural disasters, and demand saturation) and cyber vulnerabilities (control software). Distributing the network into 

smaller pieces reduces risk, with an ultimate goal of individual self-contained facilities with collocated production 

and consumption. Besides reducing risk, after initial capital investment, power costs would drop since 30 percent of 

most electric bills is for transmission costs, and 10 percent 

of electricity is lost in transmission.36 Self-contained facilities would be more likely to survive physical or cyber terror 

attacks as well as natural disasters.37 Consumers could 

also reduce vulnerability to brownouts that threaten productivity and the economy.38 Self-contained facilities address the nonavailability threat. 

Water availability, on the other hand, will be a bigger natural resource crisis in 2030 than decision makers grasp today. 

Planning failures for this emerging shortage will result in a 

strategic surprise, forcing crisis action or emergency responses that will divert attention from the USAF’s main goals.39

A potential water shortage in 2030 is well documented, and 

the USAF must begin to prepare for it. Water shortage forecasts are available, for those willing to heed them, in future 

scenarios, futurists’ predictions, and mainstream media.

Four credible future scenario projects highlight a future 

water shortage. First, the United Nations Millennium Project 

scenarios lend credibility to the prediction of a global water 
10

shortage in the 2030 time frame. In its product, 2007 State 

of the Future, “providing sufficient clean water for everyone, 

without conflict” is one of the “15 Global Challenges” that 

needs to be addressed “to improve prospects for humanity.”40 These futurists observe that today “more than 1 billion 

people do not have access to safe drinking water” and that 

“by 2025, 1.8 billion people could be living in water-scarce 

areas desperate enough for mass migrations, and another 3 

billion could live in water-stressed areas.”41 They also note 

that “80% of diseases in the developing world are waterrelated. Many are the result of poor management of human 

excreta. About 2.6 billion people lack adequate sanitation.”42

MFCs would address the water and sanitation challenges 

forecast by the United Nations Millennium Project.

Second, the Nobel Prize–winning Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change predicts that by 2020 as many as 

250 million Africans could experience water stress.43 Third, 

Air Force planners looking at scenarios for 2025 also expect 

future water shortages. The King Khan scenario forecasts 

that “clean drinking water [will be] scarce and competition 

over water rights [will] become a source of conflict in Africa 

and Southwest Asia.”44 Finally, FG07 also reflects this same 

natural resource shortage. Future water shortages consistently appear in strategic planning scenarios.

Individual futurists also agree about the scarcity of future water. Peter von Stackelberg highlights the need for 

future water technology by surmising that “water is becoming increasingly scarce. . . . By 2025, about 3.4 billion 

people will live in regions that are defined by the UN as 

water-scarce.”45 The Futurist’s May 2008 magazine cover 

claims that “global demand for water has tripled in the 

past half century.” The article’s author expects this trend 

to continue and projects that since 70 percent of water 

consumption is for agriculture, water shortages will also 

lead to food shortages.46 Professional futurists expect to 

see a water crisis by 2030.

Even popular media, which are generally not futurefocused, are reporting on the likelihood of water scarcity 

in 2030. Starting in 2009, the government estimates that 

the demand for water will outstrip supply in La Paz-El Alto, 

Peru.47 Even more surprising, the predicted water shortage in 2030 is not limited to places outside of the United 
11

States. The main water source for Phoenix and Las Vegas, 

Lake Meade, “has a 50 percent chance of becoming unusable by 2021.”48 Both cities host military bases threatened 

by the absence of water. The threat of a water shortage is 

on the horizon, not just in the Middle East but also in the 

Western Hemisphere.

Natural resources will be scarce in 2030, and networked 

infrastructure will carry unnecessary risks. Scenario planners, futurists, and popular media have issued the warnings—water and energy shortages will characterize the 

world, including the United States, in 2030. Sustainable 

technologies that minimize natural resource losses while 

producing beneficial by-products will be necessary to project air, space, and cyberspace power, regardless of the 

most likely threat.

Relevancy beyond the Department of Defense

While this research focuses on the applicability of MFCs to 

national security through the military IOP, MFCs also enable 

the diplomatic and economic IOPs. Understanding the larger 

impact of this technology allows the USAF to identify R&D partners. This study also paints a picture of how important MFCs 

could become for 2030. Figure A.1 shows application and 

benefit areas, and table A.1 details a starting point for establishing collaboration partners.

Understanding Microbial Fuel Cell Technology

With the relevancy of the research established, this section explains MFC technology. First, the research explores 

the self-contained facilities concept and how MFCs enable 

it. Next, an overview of MFC components and their interaction provides a foundation for further analysis. Additionally, 

a short section addresses what MFCs are not. Finally, with 

technical details in hand, the last section summarizes the 

technology’s maturity. 

Self-Contained Facilities Concept

The genesis of this research is the self-contained facilities 

concept. A self-contained facility moves services and connec-
12

tions from outside infrastructure into the footprint of the 

building. Examples of infrastructure that facilities connect 

to include electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, solid 

sanitary waste disposal, and roads. Ideally, self-contained facilities would also include self-maintenance, or at least selfmonitoring, capabilities such as remotely adjustable climate 

controls, self-repairing wall and roof materials, and drainclearing capabilities. Furthermore, self-contained facilities 

should be light, reconfigurable, reusable, and maneuverable 

cities that do not require heavy equipment such as bulldozers 

and well-drilling rigs to build or sustain. These facilities leave 

no footprint when moved.

Since the topic of self-contained facilities is broad, this research focuses on the one technology that offers the most capability toward self-contained facilities—MFCs. MFCs are the 

most promising technology to explore for the self-contained 

facilities concept because they fold in several infrastructure 

and LOC dependencies—power, water, wastewater treatment, 

and waste disposal. For 2030’s threats, self-contained facilities enabled by MFCs can reduce infrastructure and LOC vulnerabilities for facilities at home and abroad. 

Microbial Fuel Cell Technology Overview

An overview of MFC technology is the starting point for exploring what MFCs can provide and the best way to move 

toward that goal. A brief study of figure 1 offers the best way 

to gain a basic understanding of MFC technology. Following 

the pictorial overview is a summary of how MFCs work as well 

as a description of the salient technology components for a 

more in-depth understanding of MFCs.

One kind of biological fuel cell, the MFC, uses living microbes as a catalyst for an electrochemical reaction that can 

convert waste to power and water.49 Microbes metabolize waste 

products in a process that frees electrons. This idea is not 

new. Wastewater treatment plants use microbes to degrade 

organic matter. The new twist is capturing released electrons 

as power. “Normally the electrons power . . . the bacterial cells. 

However, by depriving the bacteria of oxygen . . . the electrons 

can be wrested . . . and used to power a circuit.”50 Wastewater 

is cleaned, as it is in wastewater treatment plants today, and 

the by-products of the reaction are clean water and power. 
13

With this understanding, the stage is set to discuss the primary components.51

Fuel. Fuel is the substrate in which the microbes act. 

Examples of fuels for MFCs include wastewater such as 

gray water, black water, and storm water; kitchen scraps; 

industrial waste streams; agricultural waste streams; sugars 

such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and mamose; algae; or 

any other kind of carbon-rich waste product such as wood, 

paper, or plastic.52 The ideal mixture of the substrate is a 

key investigation area.53

Electrodes. Microbial fuel cells have an anode and a 

cathode. Flow of electrons between these two electrodes 

through an external resistance yields power. Electrode materials dictate how well electron transport can occur.54 Electrode surface area also governs waste processing speed and 

power output density.55

Catalyst. Catalysts start the electrochemical reaction. 

They are necessary at both electrodes. A traditional fuel cell 

uses platinum as the catalyst, but in MFCs “bacteria on the 

anode . . . can act as the catalyst instead.”56 The catalyst 

governs the reaction speed at both electrodes and therefore 

becomes a variable that dictates the speed of power and 

clean water production.57 A robust mixture of microbes, 

such as Geobacter and Shewanella, in the anode chamber 

catalyzes the reaction and allows for fuel flexibility.58 Several microbiologists are studying the genetic engineering 

involved with optimizing microbes for MFCs.59

Fig. 1. Microbial fuel cell technology overview
14

Membrane. A membrane separates the two electrodes 

and allows protons to pass from the anode to the cathode. 

It also allows anions to pass from the cathode to the anode. 

This proton exchange creates a potential across the two 

electrodes that pulls electrons from the anode to the cathode, thus generating electricity. The protons then combine 

with the oxygen at the cathode to produce water. Proper design of the membrane is important because this exchange 

controls the potential available across the electrodes (which 

equates to power) and the rate at which the reactions can 

occur at both electrodes.60 Membranes are a current research topic, and recent publications suggest that Nafion 

membranes should be replaced with a nanoporous filter or 

“fast proton conducting ceramic membranes” to optimize 

power output and reliability.61

Electron Transport. Mediators help move electrons in 

the anodic chamber to the electrode so that they can be captured to produce electricity. Many MFC publications report 

supplementing the solution around the anode with mediators that are toxic chemicals, such as methylene blue.62 Microbes, however, synthesize and excrete mediators as they 

“breathe.”63 This natural method of transporting electrons to 

the anode, often referred to as a mediatorless MFC, allows 

electrons to be passed to the anode via direct contact between the microbe and the electrode surface. Two examples 

of mediatorless electron transfer appear in the MFC literature—nanowires and biofilms. Nanowires are hairlike appendages that bacteria use to move electrons to the electrode 

surface.64 Biofilms enable electron transport by orienting cell 

surfaces so that the electron-transporting proteins are a certain distance from the electrode, allowing electron hopping.65

Biofilms coat the anode and grow on a carbon-based fiber.66

What Microbial Fuel Cells Are Not

With these main components defined, it is now possible to refine the definition of MFCs by understanding 

what MFC technology is not. Since many competing and 

complementary alternative energy projects are in the spotlight, it is important to understand what differentiates 

these technologies. Some technologies that should not be 

confused with MFCs are biofuels and biomass, hydrogen 
15

fuel cells, protein- or enzyme-based fuel cells, solar power, 

wind power, and desalination plants. A brief explanation of 

these technologies is included in appendix C. Future MFC 

applications will likely be coupled with some of these complementary energy and water technologies to build fully 

self-contained facilities.

Microbial electrolysis cells (MEC), on the other hand, are 

a kind of MFC, but they are not the focus of this research. 

MECs use an additional small voltage input (which could 

be provided by another MFC) to drive hydrogen production 

at the cathode. This hydrogen then drives a traditional fuel 

cell. MECs are more complex than the basic MFC idea explored here. Dr. Bruce Logan’s group at Pennsylvania State 

University is researching this conceptualization.67

Technology Maturity

With a basic understanding of the concept of MFCs, how 

mature is the technology? Using MFCs on a large scale to 

dispose of wastewater, to clean water, and to generate electricity is a futuristic idea. Dr. Glenn Johnson, an MFC expert at the Air Force Research Laboratory, assessed MFC 

technology readiness level (TRL) as “two,” which means that 

the basic concept or idea has just been formed.68 In Dr. 

Johnson’s assessment, in 10 years leaders will talk about 

MFCs as frequently as they discuss ethanol today.69 Derek 

Lovley, an MFC researcher at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst, put it this way: “One way to think of this 

technology is that it is currently at the state of development 

that solar power was 20 to 30 years ago—the principle has 

been shown, but there is a lot of work to do before this 

is widely used.”70 MFC technology is still in its formative 

stages—the perfect time for the USAF to envision future 

uses for this emerging technology and shape the research 

to meet that vision.

Microbial Fuel Cell Relevance Tree:

A Systems Analysis Framework

With a basic understanding of MFC relevancy and technology, analysis is now appropriate. MFCs could make a sig-
16

nificant contribution toward self-contained facilities, but how 

could they contribute, and what must be addressed to achieve 

this goal? To answer these questions, this research used a 

relevance tree systems analysis. The relevance tree was first defined and then analyzed at key nodes. From this process, some 

capabilities and limitations emerged. Finally, a brief cost analysis showed the practical feasibility of implementing MFCs.

Defining the Microbial Fuel Cell Relevance Tree

A relevance tree breaks the problem into successively 

smaller parts so that individual issues can be identified and 

addressed. A graphical representation of this research is 

presented in appendix B and shows what it will take to move 

MFC technology from concept to capability. 

Key-Node Analysis

The MFC relevance tree is a detailed, systematic sketch 

that captures the salient concerns surrounding MFC R&D 

and implementation. Because the tree has over 100 branches, 

this research cannot detail concerns at each node. The keynode analysis, therefore, seeks to highlight the most important nodes that leaders must address to advance MFC 

technology. This analysis looks at four tree branches: technological, social, industrial, and political challenges.

Key Technological Nodes. The first of these branches 

has three main categories (or nodes): basic science, engineering, and military suitability. This analysis highlights the 

biggest challenges in each of these areas.

Basic science challenges exist for all the major MFC 

components: fuels, electrodes, catalysts, membranes, and 

electron transport. Fuel mixtures and sources must be determined.71 Electrode size, shape, and materials must be 

optimized.72 Catalytic microbes must be better understood 

to determine power output limits and optimal mixtures for 

fuel flexibility.73 Nanotechnology breakthroughs will enable 

high-integrity membranes that transport protons quickly 

without fouling.74 For electron transport, hairlike structures on the microbe surface that form nanowires must be 

investigated.75 Finally, microbiologists must advance biofilms to learn the mixtures, inoculation methods, and the 

best materials to grow microbial catalysts.76
17

Beyond these challenges, engineering issues must be identified early and addressed in parallel with the basic science. 

Configuration issues such as modularity and stacking, energy 

storage, and coupling with other power- and water-generation 

equipment must be considered now.77 Manufacture will also 

bring challenges. Scaling laboratory experiments up to fullsize systems capable of producing hundreds of thousands of 

watts of power and thousands of gallons of water will likely 

be problematic.78 Mass manufacturing nanomembranes will 

also chart new territory. Of course, manufacturing puzzles 

are solvable if the physics are possible, but they may drive 

costs, size, or weight of the final product.

The final technological area is military suitability. Like 

any biological system, microbes are fragile. On the positive side, they can thrive in a broad range of environments 

and can adapt to any niche over time.79 They exist in permanently frozen lakes (though water flow stops in frozen 

conditions) and in high-temperature sea vents.80 On the 

negative side, living organisms may not have a shelf life and 

may require lead time to form productive populations.81 If 

addressed early in R&D, a procedure could be developed 

for “seed” generation. For example, inoculums could be introduced and begin colonizing the system en route to an 

expeditionary location. Simple work-arounds exist for the 

first few hours or days until the systems are fully operational and stable. For more details about the technological 

challenges, see appendix B.

Key Social Nodes. The social aspect is the second 

branch that leaders must consider to advance the MFC 

concept. The three key social nodes are operational transparency, resistance to change, and cost.

The first key social node is operational transparency. 

In facilities, technologies that do not require occupants to 

change their lifestyle or business model will be most successful, so MFCs designed to be compatible with today’s 

facilities are more likely to see widespread adoption.82 For 

example, it would be easier to design technologies that capture household organic waste than to train a whole society 

to feed sorted kitchen scraps into an MFC in the basement. 

Others might resist the change if they knew their toilet water was cleaned and recycled to their kitchen sink. Of course 
18

that is what happens today, but it is at a distant treatment 

plant rather than in the crawl space at home.

Operational transparency is related to the second key 

node—social willingness to change. In The End of Oil, Paul 

Roberts asserts that the success in hybrid vehicle sales 

might be an indicator of social readiness to accept revolutionary technologies that decrease dependence on traditional energy sources.83 But social trends related to automobiles do not translate into a desire for change in American 

homes and businesses. Among other reasons, Americans 

change vehicles more frequently than homes.84

Second, modifying facilities built to last 100 years or 

more is different from changing features and infrastructure 

for vehicles that are replaced at least an order of magnitude 

more frequently. Roberts’s book captures this idea:

If the auto industry is ripe for an efficiency revolution, it’s not 

clear whether that revolution can spread to other sectors. . . . 

Industrial nations currently waste an extraordinary amount 

of energy through poorly designed homes, office buildings, 

and factories—all of which could be redesigned for dramatic 

energy savings. Yet the daunting and hugely expensive task 

of reengineering such large pieces of infrastructure will require more than the kind of snappy ad campaign that has 

worked for hybrid cars.85

Beyond operational transparency and social willingness 

to change, MFCs will not see widespread adoption unless 

the advantages outweigh the costs. Even if two concepts 

provide the same service for the same cost, human habit will 

choose the old over the new. Slow adoption of photovoltaics 

is an example of consumers deciding that advantages do 

not yet outweigh costs.86 Yet a deliberate or subconscious 

cost-benefit analysis is influenced by politics. For instance, 

government regulations implementing child-restraint seats 

and fire alarms changed the cost-benefit analysis because 

breaking the law is now a cost.87 The same could become true 

for MFCs if policies on security, energy, or water change.

While social inertia is daunting, change is always possible. 

This change might be even easier in the civilian sector than 

within the bureaucracy of government. The question is whether 

incentives are needed to change the cost-benefit equation to 

bring the idea to reality in the desired time frame.
19

Key Industrial Nodes. The third branch essential to advancing the MFC concept is industry. Many industrial factors 

could affect MFC adoption and widespread use. This analysis 

considers two main industries: construction and utility. The 

construction industry, which accounts for 20 percent of the 

American economy, does not embrace innovation.88 The United 

States Green Building Council (USGBC) observes that “the 

building industry is characterized by relatively slow rates of innovation due to its size, diversity, fragmentation, and low investments in research.”89 In Megamistakes, technological change 

expert Schnaars suggests that a precedent for lack of innovation may mean “leaders are napping.”90 This reflects a shortfall 

in government interest, investment, and incentive along with 

century-long facility life spans.91 The utility industry may show 

similar resistance to adopting new sustainable technologies. 

Infrastructure such as high-voltage transmission lines, buried 

power lines, waterlines, and sewage pipes are costly investments that utility companies will not abandon quickly; however, the right incentives could allow innovative companies and 

municipalities to gracefully bridge a transition that could last 

as long as half a century. With the right leaders, R&D investment, and incentives, new technologies will be adopted. 

Key Political Nodes. The final branch of the relevance 

tree to be analyzed is the political branch. Government 

investment, regulations, standards, taxes, and subsidies 

could all impact MFC success either positively or negatively. 

In fact, politicians wield the most power in shaping social 

and industrial demand for this capability. They even hold 

power over technology development since most academic 

R&D is funded through the government. If USAF leaders 

want MFCs for the future, the political machine must be 

a primary point of engagement. Specific recommendations 

follow in the conclusion.

Microbial Fuel Cell Key Capabilities and Challenges

The application relevance tree and the key-node analysis 

of the MFC relevance tree provided the framework to investigate MFCs systematically. Throughout this research, capabilities and challenges of MFCs emerged. Some key MFC 

capabilities and challenges from a USAF perspective are 

shown in appendix D.
20

Basic Cost Analysis

MFC capabilities and limitations are clear, but will it cost 

too much to replace, build, operate, and maintain MFC facilities? No! Appendix E makes some estimates for a 1,100-

person base. This section investigates how operational cost 

savings would quickly pay for capital investments, briefly 

explores maintenance and operations requirements, and 

finally, highlights a few benefits that are difficult to translate into dollars.

Operations costs would quickly pay for capital investments. According to this research’s calculations, organic 

waste has the potential to provide up to 25 percent of the 

power at an expeditionary base. While it is still uncertain 

how much of this potential energy MFCs could capture 

(alone or in combination with other technologies), scientists 

are optimistic that the technology would be much more efficient than combustion engines that peak at about 50 percent efficiency.92 If MFCs and complementary technologies 

could capture 90 percent of the potential energy available 

(energy efficiencies have already been recorded at 65 percent and electron capture efficiencies at 96 percent), they 

could replace one of the four MEP-12 generators during a 

1,100-person deployment.93 This will save $69,000 per day 

in fuel and fuel delivery costs at a single 1,100-person 

location (see appendix E for details). Translated into major 

theater operations, during a 150,000-person deployment, 

MFCs could save as much as $50 million each day. The 

capital costs of an MFC (even if double the cost of today’s 

generators) would quickly be recouped because of the reduced fuel requirements.

As a first step, if only the shower and latrine units became self-contained (power for lights, hot water, and water 

pump) using their own black water and gray water, the USAF 

would still save $2,500 per day at a single 1,100-person 

base. On top of these fuel cost benefits, the USAF would be 

able to capture and recycle 15,000 gallons of water each 

day at a 1,100-person installation. Even if MFCs cannot 

turn 90 percent of the potential energy of organic waste into 

energy, and even if significant R&D investments and capital 

costs are required, it is clear that the USAF would benefit 

from reduced costs and increased capabilities.
21

There would also be less need for maintenance. Microbial 

fuel cells do not have moving parts like gas-fired generators. 

Maintenance requirements would be similar to today’s sewage treatment plants. Primary maintenance tasks include 

filter cleaning and periodic electrode replacement. Pumping 

sewage from expeditionary latrines and transporting it to 

the sewage treatment location can be eliminated, cutting 

maintenance hours, reducing truck traffic and inspections 

at base entries, and improving quality of life for both residents and craftsmen. Furthermore, personnel will not have 

to maintain fuel levels in storage bladders or bury as much 

infrastructure. Overall, maintenance requirements will be 

similar to or less than existing systems.

Beyond the cost savings, decision makers must also account for other benefits not reflected in this basic cost estimate. Because of the reduced airlift requirements for fuel 

and water, some mobility aircraft could be freed for other 

missions. Additionally, ground LOCs would become less 

burdened, minimizing improvised explosive device risk to 

personnel, equipment, and supplies. Similar benefits in reduced shipping requirements would ease the demand on sea 

LOC throughput as well. Although reduced LOC demand 

from a risk perspective is not quantitatively calculated here, 

the proposal to save lives and assets by reducing fuel and 

water demands during combat has merit.

This systems analysis quantified MFC capability and identified major obstacles in bringing MFC technology online. 

After building a relevance tree as an analysis framework, 

key technological, social, industrial, and political nodes 

emerged. Understanding these key issues resulted in conclusions about capabilities and limitations. After quantifying 

potential capabilities and limitations, a basic cost analysis 

revealed that MFCs could yield savings of up to $50 million 

per day in operating costs for a major deployment.

Conclusions

This research began by asking if the USAF should invest 

in MFCs. To answer this question, this research explored 

“who cares,” explained the technical aspects of MFCs, and 

used relevance tree methodology to analyze capabilities, 
22

limitations, obstacles, and costs. With this analysis, the 

conclusion emerges: yes, the USAF should invest in MFC 

R&D, but investment alone is insufficient. This posture is 

substantiated by the following discussion of MFCs for selfcontained facilities along with suggestions for strategy and 

future research.

Microbial Fuel Cells: The Grail for Green, 

Self-Contained Facilities?

MFCs hold great promise to meet future waste-disposal, 

water, and power requirements with significant cost savings, but they are a component required for success—not 

a panacea for all self-contained facility needs. MFCs are 

primarily a wastewater treatment capability and will likely 

meet 100 percent of that requirement. The fundamental 

capability that distinguishes MFCs from other sustainable 

facilities technologies is their ability to process sewage, 

kitchen scraps, and storm water for sanitary waste disposal 

and to restore water to potable quality. It is a bonus that 

MFCs also provide potable water and power as chemical 

reaction by-products.

While MFCs are likely to meet 100 percent of the waste 

disposal requirements, expecting MFCs to meet 100 percent of facility power and water requirements is unrealistic.94 For power and water, MFCs must be coupled with demand reduction through both technology and conservation 

efforts. Roberts predicts that “no matter what energy technologies we end up using twenty or thirty years from now, 

we still won’t have enough energy for everyone if we haven’t 

found ways to use much less of it,” and believes that “efficiency remains our greatest hope.”95 Even with increased 

efficiencies, MFC power densities will not meet forecasted 

power demand alone. MFCs may only meet 25 percent of 

full power requirements, so MFC technology should be 

coupled with other sustainable power sources such as hydrogen fuel cells, solar power, wind, and thermal technologies.96 These are promising energy sources with capability 

gaps that MFCs could fill (for example, to produce hydrogen 

at night, on cloudy days, on low-wind days, or in places 

where thermal technologies are not viable).
23

For water supplies, MFCs can capture and recycle water, 

but the by-products of the chemical reaction will not produce large quantities of water itself. The main water benefit 

of MFCs is the ability to recapture the 70 percent of water 

used that now moves into the sewage treatment process 

and evaporates (in an expeditionary setting).97 The stream 

of clean water produced at the anode combined with the 

trickle of clean water as a by-product of the reaction at the 

cathode will only partially meet water demand.98

MFCs are not a silver bullet, but they will fill gaps in existing 

sustainable technologies, and they provide power, water, and 

waste treatment while enabling self-contained facilities. 

Strategy Recommendations and Future Research

Though MFCs cannot meet 100 percent of power and water requirements, they can augment production and dispose of all wastes while filling gaps in other power and water technologies. In light of the relevance tree analysis, this 

section recommends strategy and future research to address 

technological, social, industrial, political, and business-case 

considerations.

Technological Considerations. First, leaders must decide to invest in facility research and development, including MFCs. The USGBC points out that “the design, construction, and operation of buildings account for 20 percent 

of US economic activity and more than 40 percent of energy 

used . . . yet far less than 1 percent of the federal research 

budget is allocated to buildings.”99 

Next, the USAF must develop a road map for MFC technology to vector the R&D funds. The road map should include 

basic science milestones, but it should also outline envisioned systems, manufacturing techniques, and schemes 

for components working together up to the level of complete 

self-contained facilities. For example, if a target is expeditionary self-contained facilities, all component technologies 

such as MFCs, solar power, rainwater collection, and selfmonitoring/self-maintaining systems must be identified, 

investigated, integrated, and set as deliverables. Deliverable 

interim milestones, such as an expeditionary self-contained 

shower and latrine facility by 2015, must be incorporated 

into the plan as well. Often systems engineering and manu-
24

facturing challenges are as difficult as basic science. Early 

conceptualization could identify the toughest obstacles that 

could be addressed in parallel with the basic science development to optimize research time and dollars. Appendix B 

is a starting point for science, systems integration, manufacturing, and military suitability challenges that should be 

addressed in the road map. 

In addition to the road map, the technology investment 

strategy should be collaborative. Collaboration must first 

begin with USAF and DOD pursuit of academic partners, 

but it should ultimately become a cross-agency plan since 

this technology has the potential to contribute to areas of 

interest beyond the DOD (see fig. A.1). The DOD has initiated several notable energy projects, but no unified, concerted effort yet exists across the services.100 A starting list 

of contacts for potential USAF, DOD, and academic collaborators is shown in table A.1.

The technology strategy and future research recommendations are (1) USAF R&D investment in MFC technologies, 

(2) development of a road map to spend those investment 

dollars, and (3) a collaborative technology approach. 

Social Considerations. The social barriers to widespread use of MFCs are perhaps the most vexing challenges 

from the perspective of a USAF engineer.101 Yet the impediments must be addressed because “enabling the rapid adaptation of new energy technologies to civilian use is required for the Nation’s long-term physical and economic 

security.”102 Scientists and engineers can solve the technology problem, but if society does not adopt the technology, costs will increase, homeland security benefits will not 

be realized, and synergies between expeditionary and permanent facilities will be lost. Social obstacles must be the 

subject of further investigation. The USAF must hire outside expertise (like psychologists, consumer and marketing 

experts, or futurists), or rely on collaborative partners like 

the DOE, to gauge the magnitude of social challenges that 

might occur, possible solutions, and their impact on national security goals.

Industrial Considerations. This research identified 

many industrial challenges in bringing MFCs to fruition; 

however, with a deliberate plan, these obstacles are surmountable. Incentives are powerful change agents, and 
25

specific recommendations should be the focus of future research. A good starting point for this research might be lessons learned from ethanol infrastructure.103

Political Considerations. First, policy makers must deliberately decide if a free market can effectively shape the 

future energy and water economy or if government intervention is necessary to protect the economy and ultimately 

national security. In The End of Oil, Roberts argues that 

a free-market economy could bring about a new energy 

economy if energy prices gradually increase, but he worries 

that world events could lead to catastrophic spikes in oil 

prices.104 He contends that “improving efficiency . . . must 

begin in the political sphere with a new consensus by policy 

makers that the energy system must change in fundamental 

ways—and, above all, real leadership [is needed] to ensure 

that such change actually happens.”105 One of the primary 

functions of government is to provide collective security for 

the nation. Risks in today’s energy volatility suggest that 

government intervention may be necessary. Ultimately, policy 

makers must decide if, when, and how to intervene, but the 

important thing is that they make an intentional decision to 

intervene or not intervene, rather than simply falling back 

to a default position resulting from indecision.

Second, policies must not dissuade military decision 

makers from doing the right thing when it comes to energy and water. Wing commanders, for example, see new 

technologies as risks without rewards since operational 

savings are not realized at the installation level. Furthermore, incentives such as tax credits or renewable energy 

credits penalize the government since no benefits can be 

gained. In his article “Energy and Force Transformation,” 

Scott Buchanan advocates that “the Services, combatant 

commanders, research laboratories, and other major DOD 

organizations should be allowed to keep a portion of the 

savings from innovative initiatives in material, procedures, 

and doctrine that significantly enhance energy efficiency.”106

The USAF should engage its attorneys and policy makers 

to find creative incentives that reward decision makers for 

taking sensible risks to implement MFC technologies.

Beyond these two primary political recommendations, future research should investigate policies that could jeopardize or enhance bringing MFCs to fruition. Specific areas to 
26

address are investment policies and levels, incentives, regulations, standards, taxes, and subsidies. Future research 

should consider how decisions in these areas directly and 

indirectly affect the social, industrial, technological, and 

government realms.

Business Case. No investment strategy or policy decision is complete without a supporting business case. This 

research included only a cursory cost analysis focusing on 

a 1,100-person expeditionary base, which clearly showed 

the advantages of MFCs for remote and expeditionary facilities. Future research should expand this business case, 

especially for permanent facilities that would require more 

extensive investments to update building systems to accommodate MFC technologies and would have less organic 

waste (as a percentage of power required) on hand from 

which to generate power.

Summary

National security planners cannot know the exact threats 

for 2030, but the environment could be characterized by 

conventional, major theater threats; terrorist threats; small 

wars, insurgencies, and humanitarian disasters; or water 

and energy resource shortages. Which of these threats dominate the 2030 environment is irrelevant; they all require the 

capabilities that MFCs provide—distributed, secure, and 

sustainable power, water, and waste/wastewater treatment. 

MFCs are a guaranteed investment for the future. They are 

a flexible technology capable of enabling effects across the 

entire range of military operations and, as a bonus, they will 

also quickly pay for themselves.

The USAF should invest in MFC research because this 

technology allows development of self-contained facilities 

decoupled from the infrastructure network, a key capability 

for national security in the 2030 environment. The USAF 

must develop facility energy, water, and wastewater capabilities to ensure future combat effectiveness of air, space, 

and cyberspace forces that rely heavily upon facilities. 

Leaders cannot assume that these enablers will be available in the future; they must plan for them. Nevertheless, 

an MFC investment strategy must include more than R&D 
27

funds. The USAF must pursue a collaborative approach 

that addresses not only the technological barriers at the 

scientific and systems integration level but also the key 

social, industrial, and political hurdles. Our national security 

depends on it!

Notes

(All notes appear in shortened form. For full details, see the appropriate 

entry in the bibliography.)

1. This research methodology is described in detail in Futures Group 

International, “Relevance Tree and Morphological Analysis.” 

2. “Biofuels May Threaten Environment”; Harrabin, “EU Rethinks 

Biofuels Guidelines”; Biello, “Biofuels Are Bad”; and Rosenthal, “Biofuels 

Deemed a Greenhouse Threat.”

3. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02 defines facility as “a real property entity consisting of one or more of the following: a building, a structure, a 

utility system, pavement, and underlying land.” JP 1-02, Department of 

Defense Dictionary, 199. Throughout the rest of this paper, however, facility

will refer to just the building or structure, while infrastructure will refer 

to the utility systems and pavement. The 2007 Air Force Handbook explains that the “AN/USQ-163 Falconer Air and Space Operations Center 

Weapon System (AOC-WS) is the senior element of the theater air control 

system. The joint force/combined force air component commander uses 

the system for planning, executing, and assessing theater-wide air and 

space operations. The AOC-WS . . . disseminates tasking orders, executes 

day-to-day peacetime and combat air and space operations, and provides 

rapid reaction to immediate situations by exercising positive control of 

friendly forces.” The AOC-WS occupies approximately 70,000 square feet 

of space where 1,000 to 2,000 people work. United States Air Force, Air 

Force Handbook 2007, 64–65.

4. DuBois, Defense Installations Strategic Plan, 8.

5. The Whole Building Design Guide Sustainable Committee explains 

in “Optimize Energy Use” that “increased security of energy supply and 

distribution systems [has] become an important component of national 

security after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Today, power generation is still 

mostly handled by massive centralized plants, which are inevitable targets, and electricity moves on vulnerable lines.” The vulnerability of infrastructure to attack in the cyber realm was confirmed by the Department of 

Homeland Defense and is reported in Meserve, “Sources.”

6. “Logistics Fuel Reformer/Processor.”

7. “Agility is the ability to rapidly deploy, employ, sustain and redeploy 

capabilities in geographically separated and environmentally diverse regions.” Myers, National Military Strategy, 6.

8. Facilities will increase in importance as force-projection platforms 

for space, cyberspace, remotely piloted vehicles, and long-range bombers 

operate from facilities that are not near the battlefield.
28

9. See Myers, National Military Strategy, 8; and Bush, National Strategy 

for Combating Terrorism, 13.

10. The Army has already developed fuel cells (but not MFCs) for silent, 

low-heat-signature generators. Holcomb et al., “Energy Savings for Silent 

CampTM Hybrid Technologies,” slide 20. Other examples of the low-heatsignature capability of fuel cells abound in the literature. See, for example, 

Lambert, “Fuel Cells.”

11. Whole Building Design Guide Sustainable Committee, “Optimize 

Energy Use.”

12. Lt Col John M. Amidon, “A ‘Manhattan Project’ for Energy,” 76.

13. Bush, Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. 

14. “The Lighting Efficiency Mandate will phase out the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2014, and improve lighting efficiency by more than 

70 percent by 2020. . . . The Federal Government Operations Mandate 

will reduce the energy consumption of Federal Government facilities 30 

percent by 2015. Additionally, all new Federal buildings will be carbonneutral by 2030.” See “Fact Sheet: Increasing Our Energy Security.” 

15. Whole Building Design Guide Sustainable Committee, “Optimize 

Energy Use.” 

16. United States Air Force, “U.S. Air Force Renewable Energy Program,” 3.

17. Defense Science Board Task Force, More Capable Warfighting, 10.

18. Glenn, Worldwide Emerging Environmental Issues, 7.

19. For evidence that resources are a source of conflict, see “Dark Side 

of Natural Resources”; Abbott, Rogers, and Sloboda, Beyond Terror, chap. 

3; Klare, Resource Wars; and Renner, Anatomy of Resource Wars.

20. Morrison and Conway, Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands, 121.

21. Yoffe, “Basins at Risk,” 197.

22. Carl Builder asserts that the altar of worship for the USAF is technology and that the enchantment with technological marvels, especially 

flying machines, characterizes USAF culture. Builder, Masks of War, 19.

23. Rumsfeld, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 19; and National 

Defense Strategy, 2–3. This array of four challenges—traditional, irregular, 

catastrophic, and disruptive—originally appeared in this document.

24. The six plan phases are shape, deter, seize the initiative, dominate, 

stabilize, and enable civil authority. JP 3-0, Joint Operations, IV-26.

25. DOD Directive 3000.05, Military Support, 19.

26. Air Force Doctrine Document 2-3, Irregular Warfare, 42–43.

27. Elleman, Waves of Hope, v.

28. Packer, “Letter from Baghdad”; and Meserve, “Sources.” 

29. Bush, National Security Strategy, 25–27, 31–34.

30. Logan, “Energy Diversity Brings Stability,” 5161. Logan states that 

“modern wastewater treatments have accomplished more to protect human 

health and our environment than perhaps any single technology” (ibid.). 

31. For a thorough analysis of environmental threats to national security 

and a sustainable security strategy, see Ackerman, “Climate Change,” 56–96.

32. In his recent White Paper, Gen T. Michael Moseley emphasizes that 

future fights will not be the same as today’s fights and that the USAF must 
29

look ahead to make proper assumptions about the future to avoid unnecessary risk. Moseley, Nation’s Guardians, 9. 

33. Schnaars, Megamistakes, 63.

34. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2007.

35. See, for instance, National Energy Policy Group, National Energy 

Policy.

36. Col Elwood Amidon, briefing, subject: Needed Now, slide 44.

37. Ibid.

38. Many power systems “have become overburdened in recent years, 

illustrated by the California energy brownouts in 2001.” United States 

Green Building Council, Building Momentum, 10.

39. Martino, “Technological Forecasting,” 14.

40. Glenn and Gordon, 2007 State of the Future, 10.

41. Ibid., 14.

42. Ibid.

43. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 

2007, 11.

44. Engelbrecht et al., Alternate Futures for 2025, 76.

45. Water technology is one of 12 technologies von Stackelberg highlights as essential to the future in “Future of Universal Water.” 

46. Brown, “Draining Our Future,” 16. 

47. “Loss of Andes Glaciers.” 

48. Barnett and Pierce, “When Will Lake Mead Go Dry?” 1. 

49. The other type of biological fuel cell is an enzyme or protein fuel 

cell. These are explained in appendix C.

50. Biever, “Plugging into the Power of Sewage.” 

51. Wastewater treatment efficiency will be less than current wastewater treatment plants because energy that would normally allow the 

microbes to metabolize more of the waste is being captured to produce 

electricity. Logan et al., “Microbial Fuel Cells,” 5189. 

52. Rodrigo et al., “Production of Electricity,” 198; “Project to Turn Beer 

Wastewater into Power,” 11; Yokoyama et al., “Treatment of Cow-Waste 

Slurry,” 634; Catal et al., “Electricity Production from Twelve Monosaccharides,” 196; Rabaey et al., “Microbial Fuel Cell Capable of Converting Glucose,” 1531; and Hatcher, “New Sources of Biomass Feed Stocks.” 

53. The maximum power density from MFC fuel found to date is one 

kilowatt of power per cubic meter of waste. Fan, Hu, and Liu, “Enhanced 

Coulombic Efficiency,” 348.

54. Logan et al., “Graphite Fiber Brush Anodes,” 3341.

55. Top power output based on electrode surface area is 5.8 watts per 

square meter. Rosenbaum et al., “Interfacing Electrocatalysis and Biocatalysis,” 6658.

56. Angenent, “Microbial Fuel Cells Turn on the Juice.”

57. Microbes are typically not used at the cathode, but the cathodic catalyst is still an important variable in power and water output. See Cheng, Liu, 

and Logan, “Increased Performance of Single-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells,” 

493; and You et al., “Microbial Fuel Cell Using Permanganate,” 1409.

58. Lovley, “Bug Juice,” 501–2.
30

59. See Biffinger et al., “Biofilm Enhanced Miniature Microbial Fuel Cell; 

and Logan and Regan, “Electricity-Producing Bacterial Communities,” 517.

60. Proton exchange is governed by the surface area of the anode and 

the membrane. Oh and Logan, “Proton Exchange Membrane,” 162.

61. Biffinger et al., “Diversifying Biological Fuel Cell Designs,” 1448; 

and Tsui and Wiesner, “Fast Proton Conducting Ceramic Membranes,” 79.

62. Walker and Walker, Biological Fuel Cell, 12.

63. Many microbes synthesize and excrete soluble redox-active molecules to enable anaerobic respiration. Stams et al., “Exocellular Electron 

Transfer,” 371.

64. Gorby et al., “Electrically Conductive Bacterial Nanowires,” 11358; 

and Reguera et al., “Extracellular Electron Transfer,” 1098. 

65. Biffinger et al., “Biofilm Enhanced Miniature Microbial Fuel 

Cell,” 1675.

66. Angenent, “Microbial Fuel Cells Turn on the Juice.” 

67. For a nontechnical explanation of this concept, see Logan, “Overview: Microbial Electrolysis Cell Research.” For a recent scientific publication on this configuration, see Cheng and Logan, “Sustainable and Efficient Biohydrogen Production.”

68. TRL is a measure of the maturity of an emerging or desired technology. See Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology, 

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook, ES-1, III-1–III-3; and 

Johnson, “Microbial Fuel Cell for Remote Power Generation,” 5. The TRA 

Deskbook goes on to point out that in TRL 2 “invention begins. Once basic 

principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative, and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to 

support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies” (III-2). 

69. Glenn R. Johnson and Robert Diltz, in discussion with the author during visit to Air Force Research Laboratory, Tyndall AFB, FL, 

6 February 2008.

70. Biever, “Plugging into the Power of Sewage.” 

71. For a summary of different fuel sources matched with different 

microbes, see Kim, Chang, and Gadd, “Challenges in Microbial Fuel Cell 

Development,” 487.

72. The “high surface-area-to-chamber volume ratio utilized in the 

mini-MFC enhanced power density when compared to output from similar macroscopic MFCs.” Ringeisen et al., “High Power Density,” 2629. For 

cross section and area matter, see Ringeisen, Ray, and Little, “Miniature 

Microbial Fuel Cell,” 591. Angenent is studying “anode-cathode shapes, 

surfaces areas and distances to both increase power and reduce the resistance in the system so that less power is lost as it runs.” “Fuel Cell 

Generates Electricity,” 3.

73. Many microbes may still be awaiting discovery. Lovley, “Bug 

Juice,” 506.

74. Biotechnology and nanotechnology are closely linked for MFC research. For an example, see Morozan et al., “Biocompatibility Microorganisms,” 1797–803.

75. For a visual depiction of biological nanowires from pili, see fig. 4 in 

Gorby et al., “Electrically Conductive Bacterial Nanowires,” 11361.
31

76. “Power Boosted 10-Fold,” 7; Ghangrekar and Shinde, “Microbial 

Fuel Cell,” 8; and Logan et al., “Microbial Fuel Cells,” 5184. Rabaey et 

al. note that “multiple populations within microbial communities can cooperate to achieve energy generation.” “Microbial Ecology Meets Electrochemistry,” 9. 

77. Aelterman et al., “Continuous Electricity Generation,” 3393.

78. MFCs show promise in the lab, but substantial additional optimization will be required for large-scale electricity production. Lovley, 

“Microbial Fuel Cells,” 327.

79. Rittmann et al. explain that “the numbers of different microbial 

strains are enormous—de facto infinity. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction 

of the strains have been cultured and characterized. Second, microorganisms 

can evolve rapidly.” “Vista for Microbial Ecology,” 1102.

80. Johnson and Diltz, discussion. 

81. “Electricity generation in a MFC was obtained after a short acclimatization period of less than 10 days.” Of course, this is only the beginning of MFC research, so these numbers could go down. See fig. 2 in 

Rodrigo et al., “Production of Electricity,” 200.

82. Schnaars, Megamistakes, 117. 

83. An Internal Revenue Service report indicates that Toyota alone 

has sold more than 60,000 hybrid vehicles in the United States, ending 

a federal tax credit incentive program for purchasing that company’s hybrid vehicles. “2008 Hybrids Certified as Tax Credit”; and Roberts, End 

of Oil, 338–39.

84. The average American driver purchases a new vehicle every three 

to five years. Jones, “What Is a Hybrid Vehicle?” 

85. Roberts, End of Oil, 338–39.

86. Schnaars, Megamistakes, 118.

87. Ibid., 121.

88. United States Green Building Council, Building Momentum, 4.

89. Ibid., 17.

90. Schnaars, Megamistakes, 153.

91. A lasting effect of the Cold War was a diversion of funds and intellectual talent away from “civil research and development and into military 

programmes.” Abbott, Rogers, and Sloboda, Beyond Terror, 59. 

92. Lindeburg, Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual, 29-11.

93. Energy efficiency measures how much of the energy input can be 

converted to output. Rabaey et al., “Microbial Fuel Cell Capable of Converting Glucose,” 1533. The 96 percent electron capture efficiency is a 

Coulombic efficiency measurement. It indicates how many of the electrons 

produced in the anodic chamber can be captured by the electrodes. 

Rabaey et al., “Tubular Microbial Fuel Cells,” 8077.

94. “Electricity generation from wastewater will not by itself solve the need 

for power in the U.S. The energy in human, animal, and food-processing 

wastewater alone can provide at most only 5% of our current electricity 

needs and thus a small percentage of our total energy use. MFCs are just 

one part of a needed transition to a more diverse and stable energy portfolio.” Logan, “Energy Diversity Brings Stability,” 5161.

95. Roberts, End of Oil, 338.
32

96. For estimate calculations, see appendix E, “Basic Cost Analysis”; 

for potential synergistic technologies, see appendix C, “Competing and 

Complementary Microbial Fuel Cell Technologies.”

97. See estimates calculated in appendix E. 

98. Simonite, “Dew-Harvesting ‘Web.’ ” 

99. United States Green Building Council, Building Momentum, 2.

100. James, “Sierra Bravo.” 

101. Even experienced forecasters find social trends the most difficult 

aspect of future technologies to predict. Schnaars, Megamistakes, 100.

102. Buchanan, “Energy and Force Transformation,” 54.

103. Johnson and Diltz, discussion. 

104. Roberts, End of Oil, 340.

105. Ibid., 339.

106. Buchanan, “Energy and Force Transformation,” 53–54.
Appendix A

Applications and 

Collaboration Partners

Microbial fuel cells (MFC) have many potential applications within the Department of Defense (DOD) and beyond. 

Figure A.1 lists some applications and the agencies that are 

potential collaboration partners.

Because of the broad applicability of MFCs, collaboration could provide synergy in bringing MFC capabilities to 

fruition. This research identified some of the main players 

within the DOD and academia. Table A.1 serves as a starting point to identify potential collaboration partners. The 

Web site http://www.microbialfuelcell.org also provides an 

overview of research groups currently investigating MFCs.

33
Expeditionary

Expeditionary

Expeditionary

Facilities

Facilities

Permanent

Permanent

Permanent

Wastewater treatment Diplomacy

Economic development Provide infrastructure in remote or devastated locations

Reduce energy/water resource conicts

Aircraft latrine

Ships

Man-portable

Vehicles

Ground

Power generation

Electronics Air & space

At Sea

Cantonment

Individual/Small-unit expeditions Waste disposal

At Sea

At Sea

Water generation/recycling

Air Reduce improvised

explosive device risk Ground

Sea

Reduce throughput onlines of communications

Meet energy/water goals

Reduce vulnerability of criticalinfrastructure

Wastewater treatment

Power generation

Sanitation and waste disposal

Water generation/recycling

Reduce vulnerability of criticalinfrastructure

Reduce vulnerability of criticalinfrastructure

Perform key function of government:protect people

Relieve taxed power grid of brownouts

Provide clean energy alternatives

Reduce vulnerability to single-pointfailures

Reduce water and energy resourcedependency

Improve the nation’s “green” statusLeave a smaller ecological footprint

Improve energy and water conservationand renewability

Reduce oil dependenceReduce pollution Livestock industry

Farming industry

Food industry

Dispose of waste

Generate power at remote locations

Water source

Provide options for aordable housing

Reduce vulnerability of criticalinfrastructure

Wastewater treatment

Treat industrial waste streams

Power generation

Waste disposal

Water generation/recycling

Meet energy and water conservation goals

All state/federal agencies that havefacilities

Local Municipalities

Manufacturers

Department of Defense

Department of State

Department of Energy

Department of Agriculture

Department of Transportation

National Park Service

Nongovernmental Organizations

Private Citizens & Businesses

Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment

Department of Homeland Security

Environmental Protection Agency

Profit from power/water generated

Microbial Fuel Cell Applications

Build fuel-efficient vehicles

Construct clean facilities in remotelocations without infrastructure

Refugee camps

Economic development

Humanitarian relief

Residences

Oces

Figure A.1. Application relevance tree
35

Table A.1. Potential collaboration partners

Organization Contact Research Interest

AF Advanced 

Power Technology 

Office (APTO)

Mike Mead 

478-222-1827 (DSN 472) 

mike.mead@robins.af.mil

Identify, assess, 

transition, and integrate 

advanced power and 

alternative-energy and 

fuel technologies into 

the USAF’s inventory 

of ground vehicles, 

support equipment, base 

expeditionary airfield 

resources (BEAR), and 

fuel-cell equipment/ 

applications

Air Force 

Civil Engineer 

Support Agency 

(AFCESA)/CC

Col Richard Fryer 

850-283-6101 (DSN 523) 

richard.fryer@tyndall

.af.mil 

Commander, AFCESA

AFCESA/CEN Maj Milt Addison 

850-283-6139 (DSN 523) 

milton.addison@tyndall

.af.mil

Engineering, management, 

and legal services to 

support energy and 

water usage reduction 

initiatives, renewable 

development, commodity 

acquisition, capital program 

management, and utility 

privatization

AFCESA/CEX Mr. Rod Fisher 

850-283-6127 (DSN 523) 

rod.fisher.ctr@tyndall.af.mil

Expeditionary equipment 

requirements and 

development; looking at 

future expeditionary latrine 

already

AF Office 

of Scientific 

Research 

(AFOSR)

Maj Jennifer Gresham 

703-696-7787 (DSN 426) 

jennifer.gresham@afosr

.af.mil

Enzyme/protein/microbial 

fuel cells for air and space 

vehicle applications

AF Research 

Laboratory 

(AFRL)/RXQ

Reza Salavani 

Dr. Aly Shaaban 

850-283-3702 (DSN 523) 

aly.shaaban@tyndall.af.mil 

Future deployed energy 

and utility systems

AFRL/RXQL Dr. Glenn Johnson 

850-283-6223 (DSN 523) 

glenn.johnson@tyndall

.af.mil

Biological (microbial and 

enzyme) fuel cells
Organization Contact Research Interest

Defense Advanced 

Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA)

Ms. Sharon Beermann-Curtin 

571-218-4935 

sharon.beermann-curtin 

@darpa.mil 

Mobile integrated 

sustainable energy 

recovery, integrated highenergy dense capacitors, 

micropower sources, 

nanocomposite optical 

ceramic, robust portable 

power

US Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) 

Communications 

Electronics Research, 

Development and 

Engineering Center 

(CERDEC)

Pavel Fomin 

703-704-1027 (DSN 654) 

armypower@conus

.army.mil 

Soldier and 

man-portable 

fuel cells

US Army COE 

Construction 

Engineering 

Research 

Laboratory (CERL)/

Engineer Research 

and Development 

Center (ERDC)

Franklin H. Holcomb 

217-373-5864 

franklin.h.holcomb@erdc 

.usace.army.mil 

Wastewater treatment 

plant with MFC for 

hydrogen infrastructure

US Army Research 

Laboratory

Dr. Kurt Preston 

919-549-4234 (DSN 832) 

kurt.preston@us.army.mil

Environmental 

sciences, 

US Army base camps

US Army Research 

Laboratory

Charles W. Walker 

Alyssa L. Walker 

301-394-0306

Biological fuel cells, 

sensors and electronic 

devices, soldierportable power

US Naval Research 

Laboratory (NRL)

Brad Ringeisen 

Justin Biffinger 

202-767-0719 

bradley.ringeisen@nrl.navy.mil 

justin.biffinger@nrl.navy.mil

Biofilms, 

anoporousmembranes, 

microbe adaptation

Arizona State 

University

Dr. Bruce Rittmann 

480-727-0434 

rittmann@asu.edu

Microbiology, biofilms 

renewable resources

Table A.1. Potential collaboration partners (continued)

36
Organization Contact Research Interest

Pennsylvania State 

University

Dr. Bruce Logan 

814-863-7908 

blogan@psu.edu

Technologies for a 

sustainable water 

infrastructure, energy 

production from waste

Florida International 

University (FIU)

Applied Research Center 

Jerry Miller, Colonel, 

Retired 

305-348-6623 

jerry.miller@arc.fiu.edu

Self-contained facilities, 

Western Hemisphere 

Information Exchange 

(WHIX) Program—

includes FIU, US 

Southern Command 

(USSOCOM), US Army

University of 

Massachusetts, 

Amherst

Derek Lovley 

413-545-9651 

dlovley@microbio

.umass.edu

MFCs, microbiology, 

microbial nanowires, 

biofilms

University of 

Minnesota

Dr. Daniel R. Bond 

612-624-8619 

dbond@umn.edu 

MFCs, microbiology, 

biofilms

University of 

Queensland, Brisbane 

(Australia)

Dr. Korneel Rabaey 

k.rabaey@uq.edu.au

Wastewater 

management, industrial 

waste streams, 

microbiology

University of Southern 

California 

Multi-University 

Research Initiative 

Dr. Kenneth Nealson 

213-821-2271 

knealson@usc.edu 

Yuri Gorby 

(J. Craig Venter Institute) 

ygorby@venterinstitute.org 

Steven Finkel, Florian

 Mansfeld 

Andreas Lüttge (Rice Univ) 

Byung Hong Kim (Gwangju 

 Institute of Science and 

 Technology, Korea) 

Bruce Logan (Penn State) 

Shana Rapoport

Microbiology, 

chemistry, 

electrochemistry, 

engineering, modeling

Washington University, 

St. Louis

Dr. Lars Angenent 

314-935-5663 

angenent@seas.wustl.edu

MFCs to dispose of 

waste in the food and 

agriculture industries

Table A.1. Potential collaboration partners (continued)

37

Appendix B

Microbial Fuel Cell Relevance Tree

39
Nanotechnology

Integrity Membrane

Fouling

Seed Generation Microbes Varieties Catalysts

Enzymes (Proteins)

Sugars

Biogradable Materials Fuels

Acetate

Basic Science

Biofilm

Mediator (Chemical) Electron Transport

Nanowires

Stability

Material Electrodes

Efficiencies

Energy Storage

Redundancy

Synergy with Consumption Efficiencies

Systems Integration

Power Density

Size

Weight

Timelines

Self-Contained Expeditionary Latrine as

First Facility

Establish Research &

Development Targets

Envisioning End-State Applications

Engineering

Modularity & Scalability

Timing with Respect to Basic Science

Cost

Scale

Electrode Lifetime

Nanotechnology

Manufacturing

Weight

Start-up Time

Size

Transporting Microbes across Borders

Black Water

Gray Water

Kitchen

Organic Waste Streams

Industrial Waste Streams

Local Vegetation

Sources Fuel

Agility/Maneuver

Amounts Required

Airdrop Capability

Shelf Life

Microbes Durability Extreme Temperatures

Lethal Agents in Fuels

Foreign Objects in Waste Stream

Operates Indenitely?

Expeditionary

Surge Capacity

Military

Suitability

Noise Stealth Capability Heat Signature

Modularity

Scalability

Supply

Security

Truck Tank Inspections

Reliance on Host Nation Infrastructure Risks

Autonomy

Payback Periods

Retrofitting Business Case Home Station

Targetability

Construction

Maintenance

Repairs

Operations

Force Structure
Gas

Solid Waste Disposal

Roads

Self-Contained Facilities Decoupled from

the Infrastructure Network

Wastewater Water

Electricity

Operational Transparency Fear of Microbes

“Gross” Factor

Change Issues

People Don’t Want to Change

Timeline for Failure for Current Systems

Retrofitting Rural Areas

Urban Areas

Social

Costs

Penalties (See Politics)

Incentives (See Politics)

Initial Investment

Maintenance, Repairs, & Operations

Green Movement

Marketing

Safety

Skilled Labor Force

Job Creation

Specialized Knowledge/Skills/Training

Attitudes

Wages

Unions

Retooling

Engineer/Contractor Knowledge 

Product Availability

Maintenance Frequency

New Tools?

Innovation History

Resistance from Privatized Utility

Companies

Costs Penalties (See Politics)

Incentives (See Politics)

Industrial

Green Demand

Standard Specifications

Competition

Suppliers

Investment Level

Leadership in Absorbing Initial Risks

for Industry

Political

Research & Development

Regulations & Standards

Taxes & Subsidies Individuals

Industry

With Respect to

Natural Resources

Incentives that Allow the USAF to

Benefit from Risks Taken

Environment Carbon Footprint

Energy

Water

Technological

Microbial Fuel Cells

Appendix C

Competing and Complementary

Microbial Fuel Cell Technologies 

Biofuels and Biomass

Microbial fuel cells (MFC) are not fed by biofuels or biomass. 

MFCs can digest organic materials, some of which could be 

called biomass, but the primary purpose of an MFC as envisioned today is to treat wastewater and capture electrons as 

microbes digest the carbon-rich fuels. While tailored MFCs 

could probably digest harvested biomass, they are meant to 

dispose of organic waste rather than create demand for plant 

life to be used as fuels. In addition, unlike biofuels, MFCs 

do not convert biological material into synthetic fuels or gas 

to be used to fuel other systems such as vehicles. MFCs directly convert nuisance waste into useable power. 

Hydrogen Fuel Cells

MFCs are not the same as hydrogen fuel cells, though 

the technologies have parallel components. The basic setup 

of hydrogen fuel cells and MFCs is the same, but the fuels 

and catalysts are different. Hydrogen fuel cells must have 

hydrogen fuel, which is costly to produce and uses more 

energy to create the fuel than the fuel cell can output. In hydrogen fuel cells, platinum (which is also expensive), rather 

than microbes, serves as a catalyst to split the molecule 

and harvest the electrons. Both technologies consume fuel, 

which differentiates them from batteries, but the consumable fuels and the reaction catalysts are different.

Protein-Based (or Enzyme-Based) Fuel Cells

MFCs are not protein- or enzyme-based fuel cells. Both 

are biological fuel cells, but enzyme-based fuel cells use 

purified enzymes from reduction and oxidation reactions, 

rather than complete microbial cells, as the catalysts. Both 

technologies have characteristics that allow them to fill 

43
different niches. The microbial catalysts in the MFC could 

theoretically be sustained forever as they regenerate themselves. Different organisms could also be combined to allow fuel flexibility, which would be highly valued for ground 

applications. Unlike microbes, enzymes could theoretically 

allow more complete electron harvesting since living microbes consume some of the chemical energy to survive and 

reproduce. Enzyme fuel cells, therefore, could potentially 

be a more dense power source more suitable to air and 

space vehicle applications.1 

Solar Power

MFCs are not solar power. They do not use photovoltaics, 

space-based power vectoring, or solar thermal energy. MFCs 

are a good candidate, however, to couple with solar power to 

fill existing limitations. The USAF already has prototype expeditionary, flexible facilities with integrated photovoltaics.2

Wind Power

MFCs are obviously not wind power. MFCs, however, 

are a good candidate to couple with wind power to fill existing limitations. 

Desalination Plants

MFCs are not desalination plants, and they do not replace the reverse osmosis water purification unit (ROWPU) 

that the USAF currently uses in expeditionary settings. 

MFCs can operate in salt water to produce energy (often 

called sediment batteries), but they will not convert saltwater to potable water because the microbes metabolize 

carbon-based compounds, not salt.3

Notes

1. These ideas concerning differences and potential applications of the 

different types of biological fuels cells came from Maj Jennifer Gresham 

(Air Force Office of Scientific Research), phone interview with the author, 

16 November 2007.

2. Keith, “BEAR Base Solar Power System.” 

3. Reimers et al., “Microbial Fuel Cell Energy.” 

44
Appendix D

Key Microbial Fuel Cell 

Capabilities and Challenges

45

Capabilities	 Challenges

Within 48 hours, enables secure, 

basic ground services (water, 

electricity, and waste disposal) apart 

from the vulnerable infrastructure 

network, at both permanent and 

expeditionary locations, in a clean and 

efficient manner

Eliminates need for fuel and water to 

flow through lines of communication 

(reduces risks/vulnerabilities/costs)

Sanitarily disposes of 100% of 

sewage and other carbon-rich waste

Reduces water requirement by at 

least 70%

Generates 600+ watts of power per 

person—25% of an expeditionary 

base power requirement

For a 150,000-person deployment 

saves

•2 million gallons/day of water

•180,000 gallons/day of fuel 

•$50 million/day in fuel operating 

costs (fuel price plus transport 

cost)

Prevents natural resource conflicts

Generates power with no heat/noise

Sufficient waste volumes

Microbe vulnerability

Social acceptance

Reluctance to invest in facility 

technologies

Resistance from utility and 

construction industry

Timeline to convert homeland 

infrastructure

Must be coupled with 

demand-reducing technologies 

(energy and water)

Appendix E

Basic Cost Analysis

This is a basic cost analysis for a 1,100-person expeditionary base and includes potential savings in both electrical power and water with implementation of efficient microbial fuel cell (MFC) systems.

Electrical Power

Table E.1. Organic power sources at 1,100-person expeditionary base

Mobile Expeditionary Power (MEP)-12A Generator1

Rated capacity: 750 kW 

Actual output capacity: 625 kW

Fuel consumption rate: 1,320 gallons (gal) per day 

(568 watts [W]/gal/day)

Cost: $165,000

Weight: 25,000 pounds

Expeditionary Base Power Planning Factor 

2.7 kW per person2 (Four MEP-12s/1,100 people)

Impact

MFCs, therefore, could supply about 25 percent of the 

required base power and replace one of the four MEP-12A 

47

Potential Power Source MMBtu’sa/day b ~ kWc

Black/Gray Water 2+ 30

Food Waste 4+ 50

Paper/Cardboard 40 480

Wood 10 120

Total 56 680

a

million British thermal units

b

Waste characterizations for “00-Staff, 50-Hospital Bed Bare Bases” were provided in tables 

labeled “Battelle Report” and “ACC/WMO Report” from Johnson and Diltz in discussion with 

author. 

c

kilowatts
48

generators at a 1,100-person location if 90 percent of the 

waste’s potential energy could be captured. 

Fuel Costs (per gallon)

Standard cost: $3.043

Delivered cost via USAF tanker: $52.504

Delivered cost (conservative) to remote operating location: $3005

Amount Saved Daily by Substituting an MFC for One MEP-12A

Standard cost: $3.04/gal x 1,320 gal/day = $4,000 

($4K)/day

Cost for fuel delivered via USAF: $52.50 x 1,320 gal/ 

day = $69K/day

Cost for fuel delivered to a remote operating location: 

$300 x 1,320 gal/day = $400K/day

Cost savings for 150,000-person deployment: $50 million/day

Amount Saved Daily by Substituting Gray/Black Water Only 

for 30 kW of Power

Gallons of fuel saved: 30 kW ÷ 568 W/gal/day = 50 

gal/day

Standard cost: $3.04/gal x 50 gal/day = $150/day

Cost for fuel delivered via USAF: $52.50 x 50 gal/day = 

$2.5K/day

Cost for fuel delivered to a remote operating location: 

$300 x 50 gal/day = $15K/day

Water

Planning Factor

Water-use planning factor (expeditionary): 20 gal/ 

person/day6

Water-use planning factor (permanent): 50 gal/person/

day7

Wastewater planning factor: 14 gal/person/day8
49

Impact

The typical expeditionary plan calls for wastewater disposal via evaporation lagoons, so 14 gal/person/day is lost 

via evaporation that could be reclaimed with MFCs.

Savings

Water savings percentage: 14 gal/person/day ÷ 20 gal/

person/day = 70% 

Total water saved/day for a 1,100 person base: 14 gal/

person/day x 1,100 people = 15K gal/day

Literature Estimates

Dr. Bruce Logan (see table A.1) estimates that “this system would produce 51 kilowatts on the waste from 100,000 

people.”9 Logan’s calculation only includes gray water and 

black water, and he predicts 0.5 W/person.

Notes

1. Air Force Handbook 10-222, vol. 10, Guide to Harvest Falcon; and 

vol. 2, Guide to Bare Base Assets, 34.

2. Ibid., vol. 2, Guide to Bare Base Assets, 75. 

3. Grant, “Surging Oil Prices.” 

4. The 2001 delivered fuel cost was “$17.50 per gallon for USAF worldwide tanker-delivered fuel.” Since the standard cost of fuel tripled from 2001 

to 2008, $17.50 x 3 = $52.50 is the 2008 delivered cost estimate. Defense 

Science Board Task Force on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms, More Capable Warfighting, ES-3, 20. For additional validation of this 

estimate, see Col Elwood Amidon, briefing, subject: Needed Now, slide 22.

5. In 2001, the cost of delivered fuel was “hundreds of dollars per gallon for Army forces deep into the battlespace.” Defense Science Board Task 

Force on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms, More Capable 

Warfighting, ES-3. Other sources suggest this number could be as high as 

$600 per gallon. See Dimotakis, Grober, and Lewis, Reducing DoD FossilFuel Dependence, 20.

6. Air Force Pamphlet 10-219, vol. 5, Bare Base Conceptual Planning 

Guide, 87.

7. Ibid., 86.

8. Ibid., 115.

9. Biever, “Plugging into the Power of Sewage.” 

Appendix F

Quad Chart

51
CAPABILITIES ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES

• Enables remote facility operations• Packaged system meets 100% ground power• requirements with no heat/noise• Meets 100% waste/sewage disposal requirements• Provides a secure, potable water source• Daily savings for 150,000-person deployment• Reduces risk associated with critical• vulnerabilities at infrastructure nodes & in• lines of communications

-$50 million (fuel cost + transport)-2 million gallons H2O (70% reduction)-180,000 gallons fuel (25% reduction)

• Portable Autonomous Ground Power Systems• High-Energy-Density Fuel/Material• High-capacity, multiple-cycle, distributed power• storage technology• Nanotechnology (membranes and nanowires)• Biotechnology (microbe behavior and biofilms)

OPERATIONS CONCEPT

• Phases 0–I: Provide water/energy to prevent• conicts and for economic stability/growth• Phases 0–V: Build stealthy/maneuverable cities with• no infrastructure/lines of communications• for power/water/waste• Phases IV–V: Quickly provide water/power/• sanitation postconflict to enable government legitimacy• Post Natural Disaster: Provide essential services• Homeland Security: Reduce physical/cyber• infrastructure vulnerabilities

Microbial Fuel Cells

Blue Horizons 2008

Microbial Fuel Cells
Appendix G

Tech Sheet

Microbial Fuel Cells

System Description: Microbial fuel cells (MFC) convert 

wastewater and organic material to clean water and electricity. 

MFCs are fed by sewage, gray water (shower and laundry 

water), stormwater, industrial waste, kitchen scraps, paper, 

wood, or any other type of organic matter. Through anaerobic metabolism at the anode, microbes restore wastewater 

to a recyclable quality and produce electrons that can be 

captured for power. The by-product of the reaction is potentially potable-quality water. 

MFCs operate on similar principles to hydrogen fuel cells, 

but neither hydrogen nor a sealed cathode in an oxygenpure environment is required. Power is not the only benefit; 

MFCs also sanitarily dispose of organic waste and produce 

clean water.

Possible Concept of Operations: MFCs should be coupled 

with other technologies to meet 100 percent of the power, 

water, wastewater, and solid waste disposal requirements 

53
autonomously and covertly—without sustainment support 

from lines of communications (LOC) or an infrastructure 

network.

• Phases 0–V (Shape, Deter, Seize Initiative, Dominate, 

Stabilize, Enable Civil Authority)

° Establish maneuverable bases that are light, transportable, and modular requiring no heavy equipment to build, no utilities infrastructure to support, 

and no fuels to sustain

° Generate power without a heat signature or noise 

(flight-line operations or facility power)

• Phases 0–I (Shape, Deter)

° Prevent conflicts sparked by water and energy resource demand

° National Security Strategy (NSS): “Expand the circle of 

development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy”1

° NSS: “Ignite a new era of global economic growth 

through free markets and free trade” which includes 

“secure, clean energy development”2

• Phases IV–V (Stabilize, Enable Civil Authority)

° Provide water, sanitation, and power post-conflict or 

post–natural disaster

° Provide essential services (remote or urban) without 

major construction or resources

° Quickly gives nascent government legitimacy by providing for the people’s needs 

• Homeland Defense: Reduce/eliminate risk associated 

with critical nodes of vulnerability in both the physical 

and cyber realms by distributing the infrastructure network (power grid, water, and sewage); threat could be 

from enemy, natural disaster, or resource shortage

Capabilities:

• Within 48 hours enables basic ground services (water, 

electricity, and waste disposal) apart from the vulnerable 

infrastructure network in a clean and efficient manner

54
55

• Eliminates need for fuel and water to flow through LOCs 

(reduces risks/vulnerabilities/costs)

• Sanitarily disposes of 100% of sewage and other carbonrich waste

• Reduces water requirement by at least 70%

• Generates 600+ watts of power per person—25% of an 

expeditionary base power requirement 

• For a 150,000-person deployment

° Saves 2 million (2M) gallons/day of water

° Saves 180,000 gallons/day of fuel

° Saves $50M/day in fuel operating costs (fuel price plus 

transport cost)

Notes

1. Bush, National Security Strategy, 31.

2. Ibid., 30.

57

Glossary 

Air and Space 

Operations Center

Also known as the AN/USQ163 Falconer Air and Space 

Operations Center (AOC) weapon 

system. The AOC plans, tasks, 

and coordinates execution of 

air and space operations and 

provides centralized control for 

friendly forces.

airpower For brevity, airpower is 

occasionally used alone in this 

text, but it refers to air, space, 

and cyber power. 

black water Wastewater that contains 

biological or solid wastes. 

Examples include water flowing 

from toilet and kitchen drains.

clean energy Energy that does not consume 

limited natural resources or 

produce harmful by-products. 

Renewable energy is a subset of 

clean energy.

craftsmen Air Force civil engineers, assigned 

to the 3EXXX Air Force specialty 

codes, who construct, maintain, 

repair, and operate facilities and 

infrastructure at home stations 

and in deployed environments. 

Currently, craftsmen maintain 

general skills at the home station 

but must also attend annual 

Silver Flag training to be qualified 

on expeditionary-specific assets. 

Similar expeditionary and homestation assets would eliminate 

much of this training.

fouling Term used to describe microbial 

fuel cell membranes encrusted 

with deposits.
58

Future Capabilities 

Game 2007

A USAF far-term focused war 

game.

gray water Wastewater that does not contain 

urine or solid waste. Examples 

include water from showers, 

washing machines, and bathroom 

sinks.

infrastructure nodes Key points in an infrastructure 

network that are essential to 

proper network function. Nodes 

can be in the physical or cyber 

realm. Examples include a 

power plant or the software that 

operates the control system for 

any type of infrastructure.

infrastructure

(or infrastructure 

network)

All components of utility systems 

that bring resources from one 

point to another. Examples might 

include oil pipelines, power 

plants, electrical transmission 

lines, water towers, water mains, 

sewage mains, and sewage 

treatment plants. Institutions 

and facilities, such as schools, 

prisons, and post offices, are not 

included in this definition.

inoculum Microorganisms introduced into a 

suitable growing medium.

line of 

communications

Used in a military sense to 

indicate a main supply route. It 

may include transportation by 

ships, trains, trucks, aircraft, or 

any other mode of travel.

mediator A soluble molecule that actively 

gains and loses electrons.

microbial electrolysis 

cell

A type of microbial fuel cell that 

is more complex than the concept 

discussed in this research. It uses 

a voltage input to drive hydrogen 

production.
59

mobile electric power 

(MEP) cell

Describes generators typically 

used in USAF expeditionary 

engineering. Designed to work 

alone or with expeditionary power 

plants. For example, a MEP-12A 

generator provides 750 kW of 3-

phase power.

modular Consisting of small units or 

sections that allow flexible, 

scaleable configurations and 

standardized construction.

Nafion® A chemically stable polymer 

developed by DuPont.

organic wastes Waste products that have high 

carbon contents. Examples 

include wastewater, food scraps, 

agricultural wastes, paper, wood, 

and plastics.

relevance tree Research methodology that 

recursively breaks problem into 

smaller components until enough 

detail is reached to understand 

the fundamental issues 

surrounding a problem. This 

term also refers to the graphical 

diagram that represents this 

process.

renewable energy Energy that comes from sources 

that are naturally replenished. 

Examples include energy captured 

from the sun, wind, or geothermal 

sources. Renewable energy is a 

type of clean energy.

reverse osmosis 

water purification 

unit

USAF expeditionary engineering 

assets that produce up to 600 

gallons of potable water per hour 

from seawater or freshwater.
60

self-contained 

facilities

Facilities that do not rely on 

outside infrastructure or lines of 

communications for utilities such 

as water, wastewater, and power.

wastewater Water that has been used. 

Examples include gray water, 

black water, and industrial waste 

streams.
61

Abbreviations

ACSC	 Air Command and Staff College

AOC-WS	 Air and Space Operations

Center–Weapon System

DOD	 Department of Defense

DOE	 Department of Energy

DOS	 Department of State

EU	 European Union

FG07	 Future Capabilities Game 2007

IOP	 instrument of power

JP	 joint publication

LOC	 line of communications

MEC	 microbial electrolysis cell

MEP	 mobile electric power

MFC	 microbial fuel cell

NGO	 nongovernmental organization

NMS	 National Military Strategy

NSS	 National Security Strategy

QDR	 Quadrennial Defense Review

R&D	 research and development

SSTR	 stability, security, transition,

and reconstruction

TRL	 technology readiness level

USGBC	 United States Green Building Council

63

Bibliography

Abbott, Chris, Paul Rogers, and John Sloboda. Beyond Terror: The Truth about the Real Threats to Our World. Berkshire, United Kingdom: Random House Group, 2007.

Ackerman, John T. “Climate Change, National Security, 

and the Quadrennial Defense Review: Avoiding the Perfect Storm.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 2, no. 1 (Spring 

2008): 56–96.

Addison, Maj Milton J. Briefing. Subject: Air Force Facility Energy Center Program Management Review, 

December 2007.

Aelterman, Peter, Korneel Rabaey, Pham Hai The, Nico Boon, 

and Willy Verstraete. “Continuous Electricity Generation 

at High Voltages and Currents Using Stacked Microbial 

Fuel Cells.” Environmental Science and Technology 40, 

no. 10 (2006): 3388–94.

Air Force Doctrine Document 2-3. Irregular Warfare, 1 August 2007.

Air Force Handbook 10-222. Vol. 2, Guide to Bare Base Assets, 1 April 2006.

———. Vol. 10, Guide to Harvest Falcon Electrical System 

Installation, 1 May 2000.

Air Force Pamphlet 10-219. Vol. 5, Bare Base Conceptual 

Planning Guide, 1 June 1996.

Amidon, Col Elwood. Briefing. Subject: Needed Now: A National Energy Security Manhattan Project (original briefing to AF/A8PE; modified briefing by Dr. John Ackerman 

to ACSC Blue Horizons research class, 6 March 2006).

Amidon, Lt Col John M. “A ‘Manhattan Project’ for Energy.” 

Joint Force Quarterly 39 (October 2005): 68­–77. 

Angenent, Lars. “Microbial Fuel Cells Turn on the Juice.” 

EurekAlert, 4 December 2007. http://www.eurekalert

.org/pub_releases/2007-12/wuis-mfc120407.php. 

Ascher, William. Forecasting: An Appraisal for PolicyMakers and Planners. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Austin, Curtis, Ralph Borja, and Jeffery Phillips. “Operation Solar Eagle: A Study Examining Photovoltaic (PV) 

Solar Power as an Alternative for the Rebuilding of the 
64

Iraqi Electrical Power Generation Infrastructure.” Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, 2005.

Barich, William J., Brent L. Dessing, and Antonio B. Harley. 

“A Case Analysis of Energy Savings Performance Contract Projects and Photovoltaic Energy at Fort Bliss, 

El Paso, Texas.” MBA professional report, Naval Postgraduate School, 2006.

Barnett, Tim P., and David W. Pierce. “When Will Lake Mead 

Go Dry?” Water Resources Research 44, no. 3 (29 March 

2008): 1–10. 

Barringer, Felicity. “Lake Mead Could Be within a Few Years 

of Going Dry, Study Finds.” New York Times, 13 February 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/.

Biello, David. “Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change.” Scientific American, 7 February 

2008. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels

-bad-for-people-and-climate.

Biever, Celeste. “Plugging into the Power of Sewage.” New Scientist, 10 March 2004. http://www.newscientist.com/

article/dn4761-plugging-into-the-power-of-sewage.html.

Biffinger, Justin C., Jeremy Pietron, Ricky Ray, Brenda Little, 

and Bradley R. Ringeisen. “A Biofilm Enhanced Miniature 

Microbial Fuel Cell Using Shewanella Oneidensis DSP10

and Oxygen Reduction Cathodes.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 22, no. 8 (2007): 1672–79.

Biffinger, Justin C., Ricky Ray, Brenda Little, and Bradley 

R. Ringeisen. “Diversifying Biological Fuel Cell Designs 

by Use of Nanoporous Filters.” Environmental Science 

and Technology 41, no. 4 (2007): 1444–49.

“Biofuels May Threaten Environment, U.N. Warns.” CNN.com, 

23 January 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/

science/01/23/biofuels.fears.ap/index.html.

Booth, Barbara. “Runner-Up: Microbial Fuel Cells 101.” Environmental Science and Technology 41, no. 7 (2007): 2087. 

———. “A Tiny but Powerful Microbial Fuel Cell.” Environmental Science and Technology 40, no. 8 (April 2006): 

2497–98. 

Boswell, Maj Randy L. “The Impact of Renewable Energy 

Sources on Forward Operating Bases.” Research report, 

Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Command and Staff College, 2007.
65

Brown, Lester R. “Draining Our Future: The Growing Shortage of Freshwater.” Futurist 42, no. 3 (May–June 2008): 

16–22. 

Buchanan, Scott C. “Energy and Force Transformation.” 

Joint Force Quarterly 42 (3d Quarter 2006): 51–54.

Builder, Carl H. The Masks of War: American Military Styles 

in Strategy and Analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 

University Press, 1989.

Burrows, W. Dickinson. “Shower Water Recovery System: 

Criteria for Recycle of Gray Water for Shower Use.” Medical Issues Information Paper No. IP 31-027, July 2001.

Bush, George W. Executive Order 13423. Strengthening 

Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management, 24 January 2007.

———. The National Security Strategy of the United States 

of America. Washington, DC: White House, 2006.

———. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2006.

Catal, Tunc, Kaichang Li, Hakan Bermek, and Hong Liu. 

“Electricity Production from Twelve Monosaccharides 

Using Microbial Fuel Cells.” Journal of Power Sources

175 (2008): 196–200.

Cheng, Shaoan, Hong Liu, and Bruce E. Logan. “Increased 

Performance of Single-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells 

Using an Improved Cathode Structure.” Electrochemistry Communications 8, no. 3 (2006): 489–94.

———. “Power Densities Using Different Cathode Catalysts 

(Pt and CoTMPP) and Polymer Binders (Nation and PTFE) 

in Single Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells.” Environmental 

Science and Technology 40, no. 1 (2006): 364–69. 

Cheng, Shaoan, and Bruce E. Logan. “Sustainable and Efficient Biohydrogen Production via Electrohydrogenesis.” 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America 104, no. 47 (2007).

Coates, Joseph F. “Future Innovations in Science and Technology.” In The International Handbook on Innovation, edited 

by Larisa V. Shavinina. Amsterdam: Pergamon, 2003. 

Corral, Oscar. “FIU, Military Create Instant Clinics.” Miami 

Herald, 24 April 2008. http://www.miamiherald.com/ 

548/story/507466.html.
66

Culver, Michael A. “20/20 by 2020”: Transformation Vision 

Primer. Washington, DC: USAF, Office of the Civil Engineer, 2007.

“The Dark Side of Natural Resources.” Global Policy 

Forum. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/docs/

minindx.htm.

de Weck, Olivier L., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. “Strategic Engineering: Designing 

Systems for an Uncertain Future.” Lecture PowerPoint 

slides, 7 November 2006.

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Improving Fuel 

Efficiency of Weapons Platforms. More Capable Warfighting 

through Reduced Fuel Burden. Washington, DC: Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, January 2001. 

The Definitive Guide to Bare Base Assets. Holloman AFB, NM: 

49th Material Maintenance Squadron, February 2000. 

Department of Defense Directive 3000.05. Military Support 

for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction 

(SSTR) Operations, 28 November 2005.

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology. Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook. 

Washington, DC: Department of Defense, May 2005.

Dimotakis, Paul, Robert Grober, and Nate Lewis. Reducing 

DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence. McLean, VA: JASON, MITRE 

Corporation, September 2006.

DuBois, Raymond F. Defense Installations Strategic Plan. 

Washington, DC, 2004.

Du, Zhuwei, Haoran Li, and Tingyue Gu. “A State of the Art 

Review on Microbial Fuel Cells: A Promising Technology 

for Wastewater Treatment and Bioenergy.” Biotechnology 

Advances 25, no. 5 (2007): 464–82.

Duke, James S. “Decision Analysis Using Value-Focused 

Thinking to Select Renewable Energy Sources.” Research 

paper, Air Force Institute of Technology, 2004.

Elleman, Bruce A. Waves of Hope: The U.S. Navy’s Response to the Tsunami in Northern Indonesia. Newport 

Paper no. 28. Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 

February 2007.

Energy Information Administration. International Energy 

Outlook 2007. Washington, DC: United States Depart-
67

ment of Energy, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, May 2007. 

Engelbrecht, Col Joseph A., Jr., Lt Col Robert L. Bivins, Maj 

Patrick M. Condray, Maj Merrily D. Fecteau, Maj John 

P. Geis II, and Maj Kevin C. Smith. Alternate Futures for 

2025: Security Planning to Avoid Surprise. Maxwell AFB, 

AL: Air University, September 1996. 

“Fact Sheet: Increasing Our Energy Security and Confronting Climate Change through Investment in Renewable 

Technologies,” 5 March 2008. http://www.whitehouse

.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080305-2.html.

Fan, Yanzhen, Hongqiang Hu, and Hong Liu. “Enhanced 

Coulombic Efficiency and Power Density of AirCathode Microbial Fuel Cells with an Improved Cell 

Configuration.” Journal of Power Sources 171, no. 2 

(2007): 348–54.

Flanders, Stephen N., Richard L. Schneider, Donald Fournier, 

Brian Deal, and Annette L. Stumpf. Final report. Planning, Engineering, and Design of Sustainable Facilities 

and Infrastructure: An Assessment of the State of Practice. Champaign, IL: US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, March 2001.

Fomin, Pavel, Elizabeth Bostic, Christopher Bolton, 

Jonathan H. Cristiani, Scott Coombe, Terry DuBois, 

and J. J. Kowal. Army Science Conference 2006: Technology Assessment of Soldier and Man Portable Fuel Cell 

Power. Final technical report. Fort Belvoir, VA: US Army 

Communications-Electronics Research Development 

and Engineering Center, 2006.

Freguia, Stefano, Korneel Rabaey, Yuan Zhiguo, and Jurg 

Keller. “Electron and Carbon Balances in Microbial Fuel 

Cells Reveal Temporary Bacterial Storage Behavior During Electricity Generation.” Environmental Science and 

Technology 41, no. 8 (April 2007): 2915–21.

“Fuel Cell Generates Electricity from Wastewater.” Membrane Technology 2006, no. 12 (December 2006): 3.

The Futures Group International. “Relevance Tree and 

Morphological Analysis.” In Glenn and Gordon, Futures 

Research Methodology. 

Ghangrekar, M. M., and V. B. Shinde. “Microbial Fuel Cell: 

A New Approach of Wastewater Treatment with Power 

Generation.” Paper presented at the International Work-
68

shop on R&D Frontiers in Water and Wastewater Management. Nagpur, India, 20–21 January 2006.

———. “Performance of Membrane-Less Microbial Fuel Cell 

Treating Wastewater and Effect of Electrode Distance 

and Area on Electricity Production.” Bioresource Technology 98, no. 15 (November 2007): 2879–85.

———. “Wastewater Treatment in Microbial Fuel Cell and 

Electricity Generation: A Sustainable Approach.” Paper 

presented at the 12th International Sustainable Development Research Conference. Hong Kong, 6–8 April 2006.

Glenn, Jerome, ed. Worldwide Emerging Environmental Issues 

Affecting the U.S. Military. Washington, DC: American 

Council for the United Nations University, March 2007.

Glenn, Jerome C., and Theodore J. Gordon. 2007 State of 

the Future. Washington, DC: Millennium Project, World 

Federation of United Nations Associations, 2007.

Glenn, Jerome Clayton, and Theodore J. Gordon, eds. Futures Research Methodology. CD-ROM, version 2.0. 

Washington, DC: American Council for the United Nations University, Millennium Project, 2003. 

Gorby, Yuri A. et al. “Electrically Conductive Bacterial 

Nanowires Produced by Shewanella Oneidensis Strain 

MR-1 and Other Microorganisms.” Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America 103, no. 30 (25 July 2006): 11358–63.

Grant, Greg. “Surging Oil Prices Send Military Costs 

Skyrocketing.” Government Executive.com, 3 January 2008. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0108/

010308g1.htm.

Hansman, R. John, Christopher Magee, Richard de Neufville, 

Renee Robins, and Daniel Roos. “Research Agenda for 

an Integrated Approach to Infrastructure Planning, Design, and Management.” International Journal of Critical 

Infrastructures 2, nos. 2–3 (2006): 146–59.

Harrabin, Roger. “EU Rethinks Biofuels Guidelines.” BBC 

News, 14 January 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/

europe/7186380.stm.

Hatcher, Patrick G. “New Sources of Biomass Feed Stocks: 

Algae and More.” Lecture. Sierra Club, Old Dominion 

University, VA, 2 April 2008.
69

He, Zhen, and Largus T. Angenent. “Application of Bacterial 

Biocathodes in Microbial Fuel Cells.” Electroanalysis

18, nos. 19–20 (2006): 2009–15. 

Hester, R. E., and R. M. Harrison, eds. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology: Sustainability and Environmental Impact of Renewable Energy Sources. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2003. 

Hoagland, William. “Solar Energy.” Scientific American 273, 

no. 3 (September 1995): 136–39. 

Holcomb, Franklin H., Joseph Bush, James L. Knight, 

and Jason Whipple. “Energy Savings for Silent CampTM 

Hybrid Technologies.” Journal of Fuel Cell Science and 

Technology 4 (2007): 134–37.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. 

Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution 

of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Edited by Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, 

and A. Reisinger. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2008.

James, Harold K. “Sierra Bravo: New Base Design Concept 

for the Air Force.” Lecture. AF/A8X, Washington, DC, 

26 July 2007.

Johnson, Glenn R. “Fuel Cell Bioelectrode Development.” 

Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/ML) Biology Program White 

Paper, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 2007. 

———. “Microbial Fuel Cell for Remote Power Generation 

and Waste Stream Treatment.” AFRL/ML Biology Program White Paper, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 2007. 

Joint Publication (JP) 1-02. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 2 April 2001 (As 

Amended through 26 August 2008).

Jones, Susanne. “What Is a Hybrid Vehicle?” http://

www.helium.com/items/793791-prices-consumers

-looking-driving.

JP 3-0. Joint Operations, 17 September 2006.

Keith, Miriam, Air Force Research Laboratory, Airbase 

Technologies Division. “BEAR Base Solar Power System.” 

Presentation. Joint Service Power Expo, Tampa, FL, 

4 May 2005. 

Kim, Byung Hong, In Seop Chang, and Geoffrey M. Gadd. 

“Challenges in Microbial Fuel Cell Development and Op-
70

eration.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 76, no. 

3 (September 2007): 485–94.

King, Angela G. “Research Advances.” Journal of Chemical 

Education 84, no. 1 (2007): 10–14. 

Klare, Michael T. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of 

Global Conflict. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2001.

Lambert, Christy. “Fuel Cells Help Make Noisy, Hot Generators a Thing of the Past.” EurekAlert!, 11 December 2007. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_ releases/ 

2007-12/dnnl-fch121107.php#.

Lawton, Graham. “Pee-Cycling.” New Scientist, 20 December 

2006. http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19 

225831.600. 

Lindeburg, Michael R. Mechanical Engineering Reference 

Manual for the PE [Professional Engineer] Exam. 11th ed. 

Belmont, CA: Professional Publications, Inc., 2001.

Liu, H., R. Ramnarayanan, and B. E. Logan. “Production of 

Electricity during Wastewater Treatment Using a Single 

Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell.” Environmental Science 

and Technology 38, no. 7 (2004): 2281–85. 

Liu, Zhi-Dan, and Hao-Ran Li. “Effects of Bio- and AbioFactors on Electricity Production in a Mediatorless Microbial Fuel Cell.” Biochemical Engineering Journal 36, 

no. 3 (October 2007): 209–14.

Logan, B. E. “Energy Diversity Brings Stability.” Environmental Science and Technology 40, no. 17 (September 

2006): 5161. 

———. “Simultaneous Wastewater Treatment and Biological Electricity Generation.” Water Science and Technology 52, nos. 1–2 (2005): 31–37. 

Logan, Bruce. “Generating Electricity from Wastewater 

Treatment.” Water Environment Research: A Research 

Publication of the Water Environment Federation 77, no. 

3 (2005): 211. 

Logan, Bruce E. “Microbial Electrolysis Cell Research.” 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 

19 December 2007. http://www.engr.psu.edu/ce/enve/

beamr/beamr.htm.

Logan, Bruce E., and John M. Regan. “Electricity-Producing 

Bacterial Communities in Microbial Fuel Cells.” Trends 

in Microbiology 14, no. 12 (December 2006): 512–18.
71

———. “Microbial Fuel Cells—Challenges and Applications.” Environmental Science and Technology 40, no. 17 

(September 2006): 5172–80.

Logan, Bruce E., Bert Hamelers, René Rozendal, Uwe Schröder, 

Jürg Keller, Stefano Freguia, Peter Aelterman, Willy Verstraete, and Korneel Rabaey. “Microbial Fuel Cells: Methodology and Technology.” Environmental Science and Technology 40, no. 17 (September 2006): 5181–92.

Logan, Bruce, Shaoan Cheng, Valerie Watson, and Garett 

Estadt. “Graphite Fiber Brush Anodes for Increased 

Power Production in Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cells.” 

Environmental Science and Technology 41, no. 9 (May 

2007): 3341–46.

“Logistics Fuel Reformer/Processor for Mobile Electric Power 

(MEP) Fuel Cells Power Generation.” US Army Corps of 

Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, 

Research and Development Projects. http://dodfuelcell

.cecer.army.mil/rd/Logistics(MEP).php. 

“Loss of Andes Glaciers Threatens Water Supply.” CNN.com, 

26 November 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/

science/11/26/andes.water.ap/index.html.

Lovley, Derek R. “Bug Juice: Harvesting Electricity with Microorganisms.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, no. 10 

(July 2006): 497–508.

———. “Microbial Energizers: Fuel Cells That Keep on Going.” Microbe 1, no. 7 (2006): 323–29.

———. “Microbial Fuel Cells: Novel Microbial Physiologies 

and Engineering Approaches.” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 17, no. 3 (June 2006): 327–32.

Mansfeld, Florian. “The Interaction of Bacteria and Metal Surfaces.” Electrochimica Acta 52, no. 27 (October 

2007): 7670–80. 

Martino, Joseph P. “Technological Forecasting: An Introduction.” Futurist (July/August 1993): 13–16. 

McMillan, Robert. “CIA Says Hackers Have Cut Power Grid: 

Several Cities outside the U.S. Have Sustained Attacks 

on Utility Systems and Extortion Demands.” PCWorld, 

19 January 2008. http://www.pcworld.com/article/

id,141564-pg,1/article.html.

Menicucci, Joseph, Haluk Beyenal, Enrico Marsili, Raajaraajan Angathevar Veluchamy, Goksel Demir, and Zbigniew Lewandowski. “Procedure for Determining Maxi-
72

mum Sustainable Power Generated by Microbial Fuel 

Cells.” Environmental Science and Technology 40, no. 3 

(February 2006): 1062–68.

Meserve, Jeanne. “Sources: Staged Cyber Attack Reveals 

Vulnerability in Power Grid.” CNN.com, 26 September 

2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/26/power.at 

.risk/index.html.

Moon, Hyunsoo, In Seop Chang, and Byung Hong Kim. 

“Continuous Electricity Production from Artificial Wastewater Using a Mediator-Less Microbial Fuel Cell.” Bioresource Technology 97, no. 4 (March 2006): 621–27.

Morozan, A., L. Stamatin, F. Nastase, A. Dumitru, S. Vulpe, C. 

Nastase, I. Stamatin, and K. Scott. “The Biocompatibility 

Microorganisms-Carbon Nanostructures for Applications 

in Microbial Fuel Cells.” physica status solidi 204, no. 6 

(2007): 1797–803.

Morrison, Terri, and Wayne A. Conway. Kiss, Bow or Shake 

Hands. 2nd ed. Avon, MA: Adams Media, 1995.

Moseley, Gen T. Michael. The Nation’s Guardians: America’s 

21st Century Air Force. Air Force chief of staff White Paper. Washington, DC: United States Air Force, 29 December 2007.

Myers, Gen Richard B. The National Military Strategy of 

the United States of America. Washington, DC: Pentagon, 2004.

Narihiro, Takashi, and Yuji Sekiguchi. “Microbial Communities in Anaerobic Digestion Processes for Waste and 

Wastewater Treatment: A Microbiological Update.” Current 

Opinion in Biotechnology 18, no. 3 (June 2007): 273–78.

National Energy Policy Group. National Energy Policy: Report 

of the National Energy Policy Development Group, May 

2001. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Norton, P., and C. Christensen. “A Cold-Climate Case Study 

for Affordable Zero Energy Homes.” Paper presented at the 

Solar 2006 Conference. Denver, CO, 9–13 July 2006.

Oh, Sang-Eun, and Bruce E. Logan. “Proton Exchange Membrane and Electrode Surface Areas as Factors That Affect 

Power Generation in Microbial Fuel Cells.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 70 (March 2006): 162–69.

———. “Voltage Reversal during Microbial Fuel Cell Stack 

Operation.” Journal of Power Sources 167, no. 1 (May 

2007): 11–17.
73

Packer, George. “Letter from Baghdad: War after the War: 

What Washington Doesn’t See in Iraq.” New Yorker, 24 

November 2003. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/ 

2003/11/24/031124fa_fact1.

Perez, Gonzalo, Robert Neathammer, Franklin H. Holcomb, 

Roch A. Ducey, Byung J. Kim, and Fred Louis. Waste-toEnergy ECIP (Energy Conservation Investment Program) 

Project. Vol. 1, An Analysis of Hydrogen Infrastructure 

Fuel Cell Technology. Technical report. Champaign, IL: 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and 

Development Center, April 2006.

Pham, T. H., K. Rabaey, P. Aelterman, P. Clauwaert, L. De 

Schamphelaire, N. Boon, and W. Verstraete. “Microbial 

Fuel Cells in Relation to Conventional Anaerobic Digestion Technology.” Engineering in Life Sciences 6, no. 3 

(2006): 285–92.

“Power Boosted 10-Fold in Microbial Fuel Cells.” Fuel Cells 

Bulletin 2006, no. 7 (2006): 7.

“Project to Turn Beer Wastewater into Power.” Fuel Cells 

Bulletin 2007, no. 7 (2007): 11.

Rabaey, K., J. Rodríguez, L. L. Blackall, J. Keller, D. J. Batstone, W. Verstraete, and K. H. Nealson. “Microbial Ecology 

Meets Electrochemistry: Electricity Driven and Driving 

Communities.” ISME Journal: Multidisciplinary Journal of 

Microbial Ecology 1, no. 1 (May 2007): 9–18.

Rabaey, Korneel, and Willy Verstraete. “Microbial Fuel Cells: 

Novel Biotechnology for Energy Generation.” Trends in 

Biotechnology 23, no. 6 (June 2005): 291–98.

Rabaey, Korneel, Geert Lissens, and Willy Verstraete. “Microbial Fuel Cells: Performances and Perspectives.” In 

Biofuels for Fuel Cells: Renewable Energy from Biomass 

Fermentation, edited by Piet Lens, Peter Westermann, 

Marianne Haberbauer, and Angelo Moreno, 377–400. 

Integrated Environmental Technology Series. London: 

IWA Publishing, 2005.

Rabaey, Korneel, Geert Lissens, Steven D. Siciliano, and 

Willy Verstraete. “A Microbial Fuel Cell Capable of Converting Glucose to Electricity at High Rate and Efficiency.” Biotechnology Letters 25, no. 18 (September 

2003): 1531–35.

Rabaey, Korneel, Peter Clauwaert, Peter Aelterman, and 

Willy Verstraete. “Tubular Microbial Fuel Cells for Effi-
74

cient Electricity Generation.” Environmental Science and 

Technology 39, no. 20 (October 2005): 8077–82.

Reguera, Gemma, Kevin D. McCarthy, Teena Mehta, Julie 

S. Nicoll, Mark T. Tuominen, and Derek R. Lovley. “Extracellular Electron Transfer via Microbial Nanowires.” Nature 435, no. 7045 (2005): 1098–101.

Reimers, C. E., P. Girguis, H. A. Stecher III, L. M. Tender, N. 

Ryckelynck, and P. Whaling. “Microbial Fuel Cell Energy 

from an Ocean Cold Seep.” Geobiology 4 (2006): 123–26.

Renner, Michael. The Anatomy of Resource Wars. Worldwatch 

Paper no. 162. Edited by Thomas Prugh, State of the 

World Library. Danvers, MA: Worldwatch Institute, 2002. 

Rezaei, Farzaneh, Tom L. Richard, Rachel A. Brennan, 

and Bruce E. Logan. “Substrate-Enhanced Microbial 

Fuel Cells for Improved Remote Power Generation from 

Sediment-Based Systems.” Environmental Science and 

Technology 41, no. 11 (June 2007): 4053–58.

Ries, Robert, Melissa Bilec, Nuri Mehmet Gokhan, and Kim 

LaScola Needy. “The Economic Benefits of Green Buildings: A Comprehensive Case Study.” Engineering Economist 51, no. 3 (2006): 259–95.

Ringeisen, Bradley R., Emily Henderson, Peter K. Wu, Jeremy 

Pietron, Ricky Ray, Brenda Little, Justin C. Biffinger, 

and Joanne M. Jones-Meehan. “High Power Density 

from a Miniature Microbial Fuel Cell Using Shewanella 

Oneidensis DSP 10.” Environmental Science and Technology 40, no. 8 (15 April 2006): 2629–34.

Ringeisen, Bradley R., Ricky Ray, and Brenda Little. “A 

Miniature Microbial Fuel Cell Operating with an Aerobic 

Anode Chamber.” Journal of Power Sources 165, no. 2 

(20 March 2007): 591–97.

Rittmann, Bruce E. “The Role of Biotechnology in Water and 

Wastewater Treatment.” Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Center for Environmental Biotechnology, 2007. 

Rittmann, Bruce E., Martina Hausner, Frank Löffler, Nancy G. 

Love, Gerard Muyzer, Satoshi Okabe, Daniel B. Oerther, 

Jordan Peccia, Lutgarde Raskin, and Michael Wagner. 

“A Vista for Microbial Ecology and Environmental Biotechnology.” Environmental Science and Technology 40, 

no. 4 (February 2006): 1096–103.

Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil. New York: Houghton Mifflin 

Company, 2005.
75

Rodrigo, M. A., P. Cañizares, J. Lobato, R. Paz, C. Sáez, and 

J. J. Linares. “Production of Electricity from the Treatment of Urban Waste Water Using a Microbial Fuel Cell.” 

Journal of Power Sources 169, no. 1 (2007): 198–204.

Rosenbaum, Miriam, Feng Zhao, Uwe Schröder, and Fritz 

Scholz. “Interfacing Electrocatalysis and Biocatalysis 

with Tungsten Carbide: A High-Performance, NobleMetal-Free Microbial Fuel Cell.” Angewandte Chemie

45, no. 40 (October 2006): 6658–61. 

Rosenthal, Elizabeth. “Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat.” 

New York Times, 8 February 2008. http://www.nytimes 

.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html.

Rozendal, René, Hubertus V. M. Hamelers, Redmar J. Molenkamp, and Cees J. N. Buisman. “Performance of 

Single Chamber Biocatalyzed Electrolysis with Different 

Types of Ion Exchange Membranes.” Water Research 41, 

no. 9 (May 2007): 1984–94.

Rumsfeld, Donald H. The National Defense Strategy of the 

United States of America. Washington, DC: Department 

of Defense, March 2005.

———. Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Washington, 

DC: Department of Defense, February 2006.

Schanding, Gregory T. “A Value Focused Thinking Model for 

the Development and Selection of Alternative Electrical 

Energy Source Alternatives for Military Installations.” 

Master’s thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, 2004.

Schnaars, Steven P. Megamistakes: Forecasting and the 

Myth of Rapid Technological Change. New York: Free 

Press, 1988.

Scott, K., C. Murano, and G. Rimbu. “A Tubular Microbial 

Fuel Cell.” Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 37, no. 9 

(2007): 1063–68.

Simonite, Tom. “Dew-Harvesting ‘Web’ Conjures Water out 

of Thin Air.” New Scientist, 15 November 2007. http://

technology.newscientist.com/channeltechdn12923

-dewharvesting-web-conjures-water-out-of-thin-air.html. 

“Sony Reports High Power Microbial Fuel Cell.” Fuel Cells 

Bulletin 2007, no. 10 (2007): 10. 

“Special Section: Microbial Fuel Cells.” Environmental Science 

and Technology 40, no. 17 (September 2006): 5162.

 Stams, Alfons J. M., Frank A. de Bok, Caroline Plugge, 

Miriam H. A. Van Eekert, Jan Dolfing, and Gosse Schraa. 
76

“Exocellular Electron Transfer in Anaerobic Microbial Communities.” Environmental Microbiology 8, no. 3 

(March 2006): 371–82.

Ter Heijne, Annemiek, Hubertus V. M. Hamelers, and Cees 

J. N. Buisman. “Microbial Fuel Cell Operation with Continuous Biological Ferrous Iron Oxidation of the Catholyte.” Environmental Science and Technology 41, no. 11 

(June 2007): 4130–34.

Torrey, J. Michael, John F. Westerman, William R. Taylor, 

Franklin H. Holcomb, and Joseph Bush. Detailed Fuel 

Cell Demonstration Site Summary Report: Naval Hospital 

at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center—Twentynine 

Palms. Technical report no. ERDC/CERL TR-06-17. 

Champaign, IL: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research 

Laboratory, June 2006. 

Tsui, Eliza M., and Mark R. Wiesner. “Fast Proton Conducting 

Ceramic Membranes Derived from Ferroxane Nanoparticle-Precursors as Fuel Cell Electrolytes.” Journal of Membrane Science 318, nos. 1–2 (June 2008): 79–83.

“2008 Hybrids Certified as Tax Credit for Toyota and Lexus 

Comes to an End,” 8 November 2007. Internal Revenue 

Service press release IR-2007-186. http://www.irs.gov/

newsroom/article/0,,id =175518,00.html. 

United States Air Force. The Air Force Handbook 2007. 

Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force, 2007.

———. “U.S. Air Force Renewable Energy Program.” Brochure. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, 2006.

United States Department of Energy. “Building America Research Is Leading the Way to Zero Energy Homes.” Fact 

Sheet. United States Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, June 2005.

———. A National Vision of America’s Transition to a Hydrogen Economy—to 2030 and Beyond. Washington, DC: 

United States Department of Energy, February 2002.

United States Department of Energy and United States Department of Transportation. Hydrogen Posture Plan: An 

Integrated Research, Development and Demonstration 

Plan. Washington, DC: US Depts. of Energy and Transportation, 2006.
77

United States Green Building Council. Building Momentum: 

National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance 

Green Buildings. Washington, DC: US Green Building 

Council, February 2003.

Vendura, George J., Patrick Malone, and Larry Crawford 

Jr. A Novel, Light Weight Solar Array: Comparison with 

Conventional Systems. Technical report. Tustin, CA: 

L’Garde, 2006.

von Stackelberg, Peter. “The Future of Universal Water.” 

Nanotechnology Now, February 2008. http://www.nano 

tech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=28193. 

Walker, Charles W., Jr., and Alyssa L. Walker. Biological Fuel 

Cell Functional as an Active or Reserve Power Source. Adelphia, MD: US Army Research Laboratory, June 2006.

Warnke, David M. “Making the Business Case for Sustainable Design in the Department of Defense.” Master’s 

thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, 2004.

White, Melissa K., Scott M. Lux, James L. Knight, Michael 

J. Binder, Franklin H. Holcomb, and Nicolas M. Josefik. DOD Residential Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) 

Fuel Cell Demonstration Program. Vol. 2. Summary of 

Fiscal Years 2001–2003 Projects. Final report. Champaign, IL: Engineer Research and Development Center, 

September 2005.

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) Sustainable Committee. 

“Optimize Energy Use.” WBD G, 13 October 2008. http://www

.wbdg.org/design/minimize_consumption.php.

Xinhuanet. “Biomass-Fired Power Plant Starts Operation in 

NE China,” 5 November 2007. http://news.xinhuanet 

.com/english/2007-11/05/content_7014381.htm.

Yoffe, Shira B. “Basins at Risk: Conflict and Cooperation 

over International Freshwater Resources.” PhD diss., 

Oregon State University, 2001.

Yokoyama, Hiroshi, Hideyuki Ohmori, Mitsuyoshi Ishida, 

Miyoko Waki, and Yasuo Tanaka. “Treatment of CowWaste Slurry by a Microbial Fuel Cell and the Properties 

of the Treated Slurry as a Liquid Manure.” Animal Science Journal 77, no. 6 (December 2006): 634–38.

You, Shijie, Qingliang Zhao, Jinna Zhang, Junqiu Jiang, 

and Shiqi Zhao. “A Microbial Fuel Cell Using Permanganate as the Cathodic Electron Acceptor.” Journal of 

Power Sources 162, no. 2 (November 2006): 1409–15.
78

You, Shi J., Qing L. Zhao, Jun Q. Jiang, Jin N. Zhang, and 

Shi Q. Zhao. “Sustainable Approach for Leachate Treatment: Electricity Generation in Microbial Fuel Cell.” 

Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: 

Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering 41, no. 12 (2006): 2721–34.

Zhiyong, Ren, Thomas E. Ward, and John M. Regan. “Electricity Production from Cellulose in a Microbial Fuel Cell 

Using a Defined Binary Culture.” Environmental Science 

and Technology 41, no. 13 (July 2007): 4781–86.