Saving fuel touted for security’s sake - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Saving fuel touted for security’s sake

The Navy and the rest of the Pentagon must overcome cultural resistance to using energy efficiently or their prodigious consumption of fuel will put the country in danger, according to a panel of retired admirals and generals.

Twelve retired flag and general officers signed a May 18 report released by the Center for Naval Analyses, a Washington think tank, which said the Pentagon’s use of energy make America less secure in a world of dwindling oil supplies. It also acknowledged that getting the military to change could be a struggle.

In the report, retired Rear Adm. David Oliver described a time when then-Navy Secretary John Lehman wanted to revive lighter-than-air blimps, but he ran into stiff resistance from pilots.

“[T]he fixed-wing aviators ... who again felt threatened, insisted that the valves on the new blimps be made of cast iron. They also insisted on a weight room on board so the pilots could work out when whey weren’t at the controls,” Oliver wrote.

“Think about that: Cast iron and weights, on a blimp!” he wrote. “I was convinced the extra weights were deliberate additions. So these are not inadvertent or thoughtless errors. People get wedded to their systems.”

But that intransigence, especially on the use of fossil fuels, makes the U.S. and its military vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices and unstable oil-producing nations, and worsens global climate change, the CNA authors wrote.

The Navy could be a source of testing and innovation for new energy-efficient technology and practices — and not just for ships and aircraft, wrote retired Adm. John Nathman. He gave the example of using Naval Station Norfolk, Va., to experiment with new “smart grids,” precise electrical grids being developed.

When nuclear-powered warships dock in Norfolk and power down their reactors, they plug into the local electrical grid and gobble electricity to sustain their shipboard systems. That would make Norfolk an ideal place to test advanced new power grids, Nathman wrote, and export the lessons to other cities.

Navy officials are quick to point out ways the fleet is using energy more responsibly.

Naval Sea Systems Command announced in May that its program to pay ships cash for using less fuel had a record year in 2008, and that it’s on track for another record in 2009. Navy ships avoided using some $79 million worth of fuel in the first two quarters of fiscal 2009, said program manager Hasan Pehlivan, or about 682,000 barrels. The command’s energy conservation program pays ships as much as $67,000 as a reward for using less fuel.

The command also began installing stern flaps on amphibious ships in April, an enhancement that could save up to $450,000 in fuel costs per ship each year, engineers estimate.

“A stern flap, located on the aft end of a ship, makes the ship more hydrodynamic, reducing drag and the energy required to propel them through the water,” said Petter Kristiansen, program manager for the command’s Fleet Readiness Research and Development Program.

The first amphib to get a stern flap is the dock landing ship Whidbey Island, as part of a larger shipyard availability in Norfolk. Engineers plan to install the flaps on all dock landing ships and amphibious assault ships eventually, yielding an annual savings of $6.3 million just for gators, NavSea says. Most cruisers and destroyers already have the stern flaps.

Hybrid warships

That’s not the last efficiency upgrade destroyers could get. The command is pursuing modifications to the destroyers’ power plants, with the eventual goal of turning an Arleigh Burke into a “hybrid,” like a Toyota Prius.

One step on the road to a full gas-electric hybrid warship is an upgrade floated by defense contractors General Atomics and DRS Technologies that would add electric motors, wired into the ship’s power, to a destroyer’s main reduction gears. The ship’s service generators could provide the power to drive the propellers at low speeds, instead of the main gas turbines.

“These ships spend most of their time at certain speed ranges. If they’re tooling around on certain missions and not going above 30 knots, this makes a whole lot of sense,” said Glen Sturtevant, NavSea’s director of science and technology for surface ships. “You want to align the engineering plant in a more efficient manner so you’re not burning gas.”

The ship’s service turbine generators run more efficiently at the high setting used to drive the screws, said Tony Kopacz, the program manager for General Atomics; this saves burning fuel in a ship’s thirsty main gas turbines. General Atomics’ engineers estimate the hybrid power plant would save about 12,000 barrels of fuel per year, per ship.

The system is in the initial phases of development, and Big Navy hasn’t yet formally said it has a need for the upgrade. If it did, Navy, General Atomics and DRS engineers expect the new setup could sail on a Burke by 2014. If it works, it could be added to cruisers and other ships in the fleet.

Sturtevant said the hybrid plant could drive a destroyer at up to 14 knots, although he cautioned that it hasn’t begun full tests. And NavSea already has its eye on the next component for a complete “Prius” destroyer — batteries, or some other technology, to store energy produced by the main engines and save even more fuel.

Engineers are considering other technical upgrades, from more hydrodynamic hull coatings to sky sails, to get the most good out of every drop of fuel, Sturtevant said — even wind turbines and solar panels.

“We’re asking ourselves, ‘Why wouldn’t we accommodate those on ships?‘“ he said. “We’re thinking, ‘What would we use if fuel goes from $62 [a barrel] to $147?‘“

Gas sippers

The 10 ships that saved the most fuel in the second quarter of fiscal 2009. Ships must spend at least 96 hours underway per quarter to qualify.

1. Cruiser Leyte Gulf

2. Amphibious transport dock New Orleans

3. Cruiser Lake Champlain

4. Amphibious assault ship Bataan

5. Frigate Samuel B. Roberts

6. Mine countermeasures ship Scout

7. Destroyer Nitze

8. Amphibious assault ship Iwo Jima

9. Mine countermeasures ship Gladiator

10. Cruiser Chosin

Source: Naval Sea Systems Command