The Future of Energy Efficiency in Marine Corps Forward Operating Bases

By: Jon AsheimMentor: Dr. Bryden Cais

SBE 498Spring 2016

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………………. 6

Data…………………………………………………………....…………………………………........ 12Flexible-Rollable Solar Arrays: Renovagen MultiGen……………………..... 12Advanced Fuel cells: Tesla Motors Powerwall………………………………… 15Atmospheric Water Generation: Aqua Sciences………………………………. 17

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

Results………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21Renewable Solar Energy……………………………………………………………….. 21Fuel Cells…………………………………………………………………………………….. 22Water Systems…………………………………………………………………………….. 23

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………….……. 25

Recommendations……………………………………………………………………….……... 25

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………….. 26

2

Abstract

Marine Corps forward operating bases (FOBs) operate in austere conditions where

the reliance on resupply from main bases is a necessity. A FOB in Afghanistan requires at

least 300 gallons of diesel fuel a day, in which each gallon delivered requires 7 gallons of

fuel to get it there by convoy (US Army Corps of Engineers). Extensive resupply convoys

offer a tactical disadvantage, especially when there is one Marine casualty for every 50

convoys (Reichert, 2011).

Private sector innovations in energy efficiency can offer a solution to inefficient

energy use and Marine casualties from IEDs – improvised explosive devices. Data analysis of

private sector innovations in the fields of flexible solar, fuel cells, and atmospheric water

generation, provide direction into the future of sustainable forward operating base design.

Each of the proposed innovations outscore current systems by vast margins in a weighted

energy efficiency scale and therefore have the potential to elevate the energy efficiency of

forward operating bases.

Energy efficiency, in the case of the Marine Corps, is a combat multiplier. If they are

able to free themselves from the burden of their increased energy use, they gain the ability

to operate more aggressively, push deeper, and fight as a lighter, more lethal force.

Key Terms: FOB - forward operating base

Expeditionary – deployed forces

3

Introduction

Unless we reduce our reliance on energy at our forward most combat outposts, the

Marine Corps, and combat operations as a whole, will continue to be restricted by the

logistical supply chains needed to satisfy our force’s gluttonous demand for energy. To

quote General Mattis:

- “Unleash us from the tether of fuel”

- (Reichert, 2011)

Energy intensive systems are what have allowed our military to enhance its capabilities,

but they also present a weakness to our warfighting operations. Energy efficiency,

therefore is a combat multiplier in its ability to shave off the excess bulk that accompanies

energy intensive operations. Cutting off bulk means enhancing our maneuverability and

lethality.

The Marine Corps is a branch in Department of Defense, the single largest consumer

of energy in the U.S. (Reichert, 2011). While the Marines are the smallest consumers of the

branches, they operate under a tight budget, often forced to choose between fuel or

ammunition. The vehicles, computers, radios, and optics systems required for the elevated

pace of the modern battlefield have become increasingly energy intensive. The war

machine has become so advanced that it is heavy and less agile, slowed down by its

advanced mechanization and dependence on fuel supply lines.

Recent innovations in the private sector in the areas of flexible solar arrays, power

cells, and atmospheric water generation, have potential military applications in that they

can make FOB’s more energy efficient. This paper will explore innovations in three

4

alternative energy technologies within the private sector and gauge their potential to

elevate the energy efficiency of a forward operating base.

Methodology

This paper takes a quantitative approach at comparing the energy efficiency of

current Marine Corps FOB systems to the proposed cutting edge innovations of the private

sector. Each of the three proposed innovations is paired with its current Marine Corps

equivalent and then scored using a multi-criteria analysis table developed to measure the

efficiency of each system.

The data surrounding the Marine Corps’ current systems was gathered from

military documents and official government websites. Specific parameters of the solar

energy systems and fuel cell technology used by the Marine Corps was gathered from the

Office of Naval Research, as well as the Expeditionary Energy Office of the Marine Corps.

The official company websites of Tesla, Renovagen, and Aqua Sciences offered most

of the numerical data regarding the capabilities of each of their respective technologies.

Used to confirm these specifications were articles from sources such as the Army as well as

a number of engineering websites.

This research is designed to propose the potential superiority, in efficiency, of

technologies developed in the private sector over current Marine technology. The analysis

is generated using multi-criteria analysis tables that scores both current and proposed

systems in order to reveal which is the most efficient overall.

The information of this paper is presented in a series of sections. The literature

review explains the growing pertinence of the energy issue faced by our combat force. It

5

provides statistics and background information on our growing fuel consumption and

inefficient practices and explains why these issues must be resolved. The paper then moves

to a data portion where the private sector innovations are introduced using detailed

parameters. They are then compared to current Marine Corps FOB systems in multiple

energy criteria. The results of each comparison are illustrated in respective multi-criteria

analysis tables. From these tables a conclusion table is used to compare the current energy

practices with the proposed private sector innovations. The final sections will take the

form of the conclusion, limitations, and recommendations, as a result of the proposed

innovations.

Literature Review

The data surrounding this topic reaches as far upward as the North American Treaty

Organization (NATO) and the energy strategies of its forces, down through the US

Department of Defense and finally to the data collected on the ground, in theater, by the

Marine Corps regarding the energy efficiency of its Forward Operating bases.

When addressing the energy efficiency in Forward Operating Bases, one must first

understand the energy strategies of NATO and the Department of Defense. To build a

proper argument, this paper will first explore the problems encountered by forces much

higher than the Marine Corps, in order to gain a greater understanding of just how strong

of an influence an energy efficient FOB can have on the entire war-effort.

NATO

6

The movement towards the energy efficiency of our nation’s military is a trickle-

down effect that begins with the highest power: The North Atlantic Trade Organization.

They have at their disposal high tech stealth aircraft, nuclear naval ships, nearly impervious

vehicles, and advanced communications networks that operate at lighting fast speeds.

These advancements put NATO at the cutting edge of warfare and have allowed the

organization to impose its will across the globe. NATO is a political power intended to

resolve conflict whether that be politically or by force. Power projection has been a key

factor in diffusing the unsanctioned violence that has grown in the middle east. To combat

terrorism, NATO has deployed its advanced, energy intensive forces. This energy has come

at an expense and can no longer be overlooked. Critics to military energy consumption

have speculated that the concern for energy could trump our military strategy (NATO,

2013). This means that operations have become strategically impaired, tethered, to

logistics and the concern for fuel. The battlefield must be a place of total strategic

dominance; we cannot afford to be held back by our overuse of energy.

Power projection in theater has become increasingly expensive for a number of

reasons. NATO is spending more money than ever on fuel because of the rising price of

petroleum. In 2005 the US Department of Defense spent $ 8.8 billion for 130 million

barrels of petroleum supplies. In 2008, the DoD spent US$ 17.9 billion for 134 million

barrels. For almost the same amount of petroleum purchased in 2005 the DOD paid almost

twice the price in 2008. Adding to this is NATO’s steady growth of energy consumption as a

result of the increased mechanization of fighting forces. From 1997 to 2010 the US armed

forces saw a 255% increase in the amount spent on petroleum, nearly $13.2 billion dollars’

worth (NATO, 2013).

7

Another factor that has increased fuel consumption is the security needed to keep

the flow of fuel steady to our operational outposts. 24/7 365 days a year these outposts

must have a steady and secure availability of fuel. This demand requires additional

manpower, taking troops away from the actual fight and focusing much of it on the security

and protection of convoys and storage spaces. The DoD estimates that it is paying in

upwards of $40 per gallon of petroleum (Reichert, 2011).

NATO recognizes the energy efficiency efforts taken by the United States military.

The growth of fuel alternatives such as unconventional gas and oil have been explored by

the United states as a source that is cheaper and more available, resulting in a more

sustainable fuel source. European nations see fuel alternatives as failing to produce any

performance advantages and so they remain skeptical (NATO, 2013). The Navy has

developed one of the most notable energy efficient strategies in the entire NATO alliance by

installing stern flaps, that cut back on drag, which saves around $450,000 a year. The

Marine Corps is another organization receiving praise from NATO. The ExFOB –

experimental forward operating base program is described by NATO as having the most

ambitious research projects to date in the fields of energy efficiency (NATO, 2013). This

type of efficient thinking is critical to the war efforts of both NATO and the US Department

of Defense who, during the past decade, have identified the growing need for an energy

efficient force.

DoD

8

The Department of Defense is the main entity in control of the energy used by our Armed

Forces so it is of great importance to the energy usage of Forward Operating Bases. In the

past the DoD’s stance on energy was that effectiveness takes precedent over efficiency,

which resulted in energy being a necessary expense, not an investment issue (Haggerty,

2008). The DoD is the nation’s largest consumer of energy and has updated its strategy of

energy management to meet the growing demand of our operational forces. The new

strategy is built around the Department’s recognition of energy’s ability to enable

worldwide missions while also acknowledging it as a potential vulnerability (Department

of Defense, 2016). The 2016 operational energy strategy will work to accomplish the

following:

Increase future warfighting capability and combat effectiveness through

investments in energy innovations.

Identify and reduce logistics and operational risks by examining the potentials of

energy harvesting and renewable energies.

Enhance mission effectiveness of the current force by adding flexibility to our fuel

supply and improving the way we handle our energy.

Important to understand is that these objectives are sent down to each of the

branches of the DoD and implemented within each mission specific role. The Marine Corps

is required to comply with these objectives and adopt the strategies of the DoD.

These strategies are a result of the DoD’s overdependence on fuel and the

vulnerability this poses. According to Alan Haggerty, former Deputy under Secretary of

Defense, logistics consume about half of DoD’s personnel and a third of DoD’s budget. In

Iraq and Afghanistan 80% of the convoys are for fuel. In 2008 nearly half the casualties

9

were from convoys. (Haggerty, 2008) (Reichert, 2011). Such extensive energy and sacrifice

is too great for something as trivial as fuel. The energy required to sustain operations in

theater is now threatening the lives of our Marines and the solution lies in decreasing the

demand, and increasing the efficiency of our combat outposts on the forward edge.

Marine Corps

To put the Marine Corps into perspective; they are the speartip of US foreign

diplomacy, first to fight. They come from Spartan roots and are most at home fighting in

austere conditions with the odds stacked against them. However, they have recently

distanced themselves from the lean and mean mentality due to their technological

advancements in warfighting.

When it comes to current battlefield strategy, the Marines project their power on

the ground with forward operating bases and ground-fighters on the forward edge. This

strategy has become extremely energy intensive and dangerous for re-supply convoys. Just

to put the increased energy demand into perspective, the period from 2001-2011 saw a

250% increase in radios, 300% increase in computers, 200% increase in number of

vehicles, 75% increase in the weight of vehicles, and a 30% decrease in miles per gallon of

the vehicle fleet (Reichert, 2011). This places an enormous strain on the supply chain in the

transportation of liquid logistics and opens up vulnerabilities for the enemy to capitalize

on.

Another factor at play is the remoteness of a forward operating base. Some FOBs

take convoys longer than 18 hours of driving through dangerous terrain to reach. These

forward positions are so far downstream from main bases that their fuel requires fuel, in

other words the logistics activities themselves consume fuel. This is known as the fuel

10

multiplier. For example, it takes 18 hours for a convoy to travel 40 miles through

Afghanistan from the large installation of Camp Leatherneck to Camp Now Zad, a FOB on

the forward edge (Regnier, 2013). These supply routes are laden with IED’s and enemy

ambushes. The effects of energy usage of an outpost this far downstream are multiplied

upstream. Any differences in energy use changes the amount of resupply convoys needed

which typically means lives at risk.

The Marine Corps forward operating bases on the extreme forward edge have

arguably the greatest effects on the logistics. Any decrease in consumption on their end far

downstream is multiplied upstream, resulting in fewer re-supply convoys and fewer

casualties. Efficiency at the tip of the spear is where it is needed most. Energy efficiency of

forward operating bases is crucial for the safety of our Marines overseas therefore

enhancing their efficiency is of highest priority. Innovation in alternative energy systems is

needed and the private sector is the place to look. The leaders in battery power,

photovoltaic arrays, and water generation, can elevate the efficiencies of current systems.

The subsequent section will explore the current and proposed systems, identifying their

capabilities and limitations.

11

Data

Private Sector Innovations with Potential Military Applications

Flexible-Rollable Solar Arrays: Renovagen MultiGen

The solar arrays currently in use by the Marines in theater are called the GREENS

which stands for Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System. They are

stackable solar panels paired with the EARLCON battery system. The whole package comes

in a small shipping container and is readily deployable. When deployed, the GREENS

system can generate 300 watts of power or 1.6kWh of continuous energy, enough to power

the lights and computers of a small command center (Reichert, 2011). Any excess solar

energy from the photovoltaic array or excess energy generated by the diesel generators is

stored in the battery system. In a way this system acts like a hybrid vehicle and is able to

reduce the fuel consumed by generators. Another advantage is that when the generators

power off and the batteries take control, the base is quieter; more tactical. (USMC

Expeditionary Energy Office, 2012)

Marine Corps GREENS solar array (USMC)

12

In terms of flexible solar arrays, the Marines have adopted canvas powershades

with built in flexible photovoltaic cells that cover their tents. These reduce the internal

temperature by 10-15 degrees while generating 1-2 kilowatts of energy to run the lights or

charge batteries for radios and computers. Another flexible solar system in use is the

SPACES system which stands for the Solar Portable Alternative Communication Energy

System. This small flexible system can be rolled up and carried in a pack to charge small

batteries when on patrol (Reichert, 2011).

Marine flexible solar SPACES powershades (USMC)

The private sector has seen innovation in flexible photovoltaic solar technology,

most notably is the ROLLARRAY technology developed by Renovagen. The technology acts

like a giant spool of flexible photovoltaic cells that wind up into a large container. The

company claims that this system offers 10 times greater power generation than other

transportable solar systems and can be deployed in a matter of minutes. The ROLLARRAY

technology comes in two forms; a smaller unit and a larger one. The smaller MultiGen unit,

the size of an air pallet, boasts a 9kWp – 18kWp (kilowatt-peak, or peak power) with a

53kWh (kilowatt/hour) lithium battery storage capacity. The larger unit, the IsoGen, is the

13

size of a 20-foot shipping container and houses a 200m long, 5m wide spool of flexible

photovoltaic panels. This system can currently generate 200kWp and is predicted to

generate up to 600kWp when the integration of more efficient solar cells becomes possible

in the future (Renovagen Ltd, 2016).

Renovagen MultiGen rollable solar array (Renovagen Ltd, 2016)

According to the Office of Naval Research the Marine GREENS system is a 1,600-watt

photovoltaic array and is paired with a 40kWh hybrid battery system. The MultiGen by

Renovagen generates 18kW, that’s 18,000 watts. That is more than 10 times the generation

of the current GREENS system. Another advantage is that the MulitGen system can be

deployed in a matter of minutes, faster than the set up of an array of solar panels used by

the GREENS system. The company that develops the MultiGen system is currently looking

for military funding and contracts. Their technology is suited for austere off grid conditions

such as remote military installations and is currently still in the field testing phase

(Renovagen Ltd, 2016).

14

Advanced Fuel cells: Tesla Motors Powerwall

Fuel cells are energy banks that pair to renewable energy sources or generators, and

store energy when excess is generated, delivering it as needed. They can draw power from

generators and then run operations more efficiently when the generators are turned off.

Compared to traditional generators using diesel or other fossil fuels, fuel cells are 83%

more efficient (Reichert, 2011). Fuel cells promote the use of renewables like solar and

wind. The solar energy generated by forward operating bases can go directly into a fuel cell

to be stored for future use or emergency situations.

The current battery system used by the Marine Corps is the EARLCON system which

is an 8,468-pound shipping container that houses large lead acid batteries. The system can

deliver 40kWh of energy to power a FOB. The problem with this system is that it is limited

by its battery technology. Lead acid batteries require much more maintenance than lithium

ion batteries and are less energy dense (Lombardo, 2015). This means that for the same

amount of space, lead acid batteries store less energy than lithium ion batteries.

Marine EARLCON battery system (US Army Corps of Engineers)

15

The leader in lithium ion battery technology is Tesla Motors. The company has

recently developed a commercial fuel-cell capable of powering a home at night from the

electricity drawn from solar panels during the day. Each Powerwall battery has a 6.4 kWh

storage capacity and these batteries can be linked in series to store more energy, up to

90kWh (Lombardo, 2015). This super battery uses Tesla’s state of the art lithium ion

technology made famous by their automobiles. The Powerwall weighs only 214 pounds,

delivering high amounts of power for something so light.

Tesla Powerwall lithium ion battery (Tesla Motors , 2016)

The military application of Tesla’s fuel cell has been examined by the Homeland

Defense and Security Analysis Center-HDIAC (HDIAC, 2016). They propose that a fuel cell

like the Tesla Powerwall has the potential to reduce energy cost by mitigating military base

energy consumption. If paired with renewables and diesel generators they can work as a

micro grid to bring power when and where it is needed most. The typical FOB in

Afghanistan utilizing solar energy requires 20kWh of power (Briley, 2009). If several

Powerwalls outputting 6.4kWh are paired together, the batteries have the potential to

16

create up to 90kWh of storage, double that of the Marine Corps current EARLCON system

which stores up to 40kWh. Because the Powerwall is made up of energy dense lithium ion

batteries, achieving the storage capacity of the EARLCON system can be done using less

weight. In warfare, portability is a major constraint so a system composed of lighter more

powerful Powerwalls is superior to the heavy EARLCON system. (Office of Naval Research,

2010)

Atmospheric Water Generation: Aqua Sciences

According to the Marine Energy Assessment Team, it takes 7 gallons of fuel to

transport one gallon of water to Marines in Afghanistan (US Army Corps of Engineers). The

Marines’ current water system: trucking it to forward operating bases by the bottle.

According to Army articles, the Department of Defense is examining the potential mass-

deployment of Atmospheric Water Generation- AWG. This is a process of taking water out

of the air, particularly difficult in the desert (Army-Technology.com, 2015).

The company Aqua Sciences has pioneered an atmospheric water generation

process that uses concentrated salt compounds to extract water from the air. Their claim is

that they can do it where others cannot, even in the most adverse conditions. Currently

they produce a shipping container sized AWG unit that produces 2,600 gallons of water per

day for disaster relief and mining sites. They have a current contract with the Army,

developing a system suited for their needs. A Marine in theater requires 5.2 gallons of

water a day (Lash, 2011). This means that the Aqua Sciences systems can provide water for

500 Marines a day, enough for a battalion sized FOB, by extracting it from the air alone

(Aqua Sciences, Inc., 2015).

17

Aqua Sciences’ Emergency Water Plant (Aqua Sciences, Inc., 2015)

Discussion

The Proposed Innovations

The private sector innovations are chosen because they are at the forefront of their

respective fields. Tesla Motors, Renovagen, and Aqua Sciences produce systems with

technology capable of elevating the current energy efficiency of Marine Corps forward

operating bases.

The roll able solar array developed by Renovagen is designed for applications in

environments that are isolated from the commercial grid. The photovoltaic panels

incorporate new technology that allow them to be stored on a roll able spool inside of a

compact container while still generating large amounts of energy (Renovagen Ltd, 2016).

This is very applicable to the current military situation in places like Afghanistan and Iraq

that require power generation on site in remote locations. The Marine Corps can deploy the

MultiGen system much faster than their current GREENS solar panels, creating forward

outposts virtually anywhere and powering them efficiently in a matter of minutes.

18

Reducing the construction time of forward operating bases is a tactical advantage because

operations can be conducted as soon as the base has energy. Because the MultiGen system

is capable of generating more power than the GREENS solar array, it can reduce the

dependence on diesel generators and overall fuel consumption. Reduced fuel demand

means less re-supply convoys, leading to less Marines at risk of being hit by IED’s. Marine

welfare is second only to mission accomplishment. The MultiGen solar array has the

potential to increase the combat capabilities of forward operating bases while also

increasing the welfare of the Marines transporting fuel across supply lines.

The Tesla Powerwall is a super battery that utilizes the advancements made in the

electric automotive field to develop a lithium ion fuel cell capable of mass energy storage.

The storage capacity of this advanced battery is very high in relation to its weight.

Outfitting FOBs with this technology means that they will be easier to transport while at

the same time possessing more storage capacity than the current EARLCON system. The

Marines are exploring ways to lighten their load and reduce the bulk of their operating

forces. From a strategic standpoint it is always a disadvantage to have movements

restricted in any way. The lightweight, powerful Powerwall technology can increase the

maneuverability of our combat forces and therefore has great applications in forward

operating base design (Tesla Motors , 2016).

The Marines use possibly the most inefficient means of water sourcing that there is.

Not only is their use of bottled water inefficient, the waste generated is another problem in

itself. Disposing of the plastic water bottles is problematic and just another thing for

leaders to worry about. Generating water from the air the way Aqua Sciences’ water station

does is a means of water sourcing directed at remote installations where water supply is

19

questionable or non-existent. For the Marines to adopt such a system they would simply

have to locate the shipping container systems on their forward operating bases and power

them via diesel or solar. Producing water on-site is a smart way of outfitting Marines with

needed drinking water while at the same time reducing convoys dedicated for the resupply

of water bottles (Aqua Sciences, Inc., 2015).

The Marine Corps has an Expo each year called E2C or Expeditionary Energy

Concepts, in which they field test private sector innovations developed to increase the

energy efficiency of expeditionary forces. The latest E2C was designed to explore potential

advancements in squad-sized small unit water purification, energy storage for mobile

micro-grid applications, energy scavenging technologies, and combat trauma wound

systems. These are all focused on small mobile patrol units that operate outside the wire of

forward operating bases. These technologies are proposed to be capable of increasing the

mobility of small ground units (United States Marine Corps, 2016). While these

advancements have the ability to decrease the energy demand and increase the

maneuverability of small mobile units, focusing on the massive fuel consumption of

forward operating bases can offer a greater push to achieving a near self sustaining combat

force.

Results

20

Multi-Criteria Analysis of Potential Private Sector Innovations vs. CurrentMarine Corps Systems

Based off a Scale weighted from 1-5, 5 meeting the greatest criteria and 1 meeting the lowest criteria

Renewable Solar Energy Systems

Solar Type Power Generatio

n

Mobility BatteryCapability

Durability Deployment time

Total

Current GREENS

2 4 3 4 2 15

Renovagen MultiGen

5 4 4 3 5 21

Analysis based off the following statistics: The MulitGen Rollable solar array by

Renovagen generates 9kWp-18kWp, is transported in a small air pallet container, has a

53kWh lithium battery storage capacity, can withstand 80mph winds, and can be deployed

in two minutes (Renovagen Ltd, 2016).

The Marine Corps GREENS solar array generates 1600W (1.6kWp), are stored in

shipping containers, are paired with a 40kWh hybrid generator, and have to be set up

individually panel-by-panel (Office of Naval Research, 2010).

Fuel Cells

21

Fuel Cell Type

Battery Material

Storage Capacity

Durability

Transportability Maintenance

Total

EARLCON(Current)

3 2 4 2 2 13

Tesla Powerwal

l

5 5 2 4 5 21

Analysis based off the following: The EARLCON energy system uses lead-acid batteries

which are inferior to Lithium-Ion batteries in that they require continued maintenance

year round, and degrade in harsh environments. The lithium ion technology led by Tesla

Motors yields a higher energy density than lead acid batteries; meaning that for the same

amount of space, Lithium Ion batteries have a higher capacity than lead acid batteries.

Currently the only disadvantage to the Tesla Powerwall is its durability which would have

to be made more combat capable if implemented in forward operating bases. The

EARLCON delivers 40kWh of energy in an 8,468 pound shipping container. The Tesla

Powerwall can deliver 6.4kWh of energy in a module that is only 214 pounds. Combining

Powerwalls can produce a storage capacity of 90kWh, and will be less than 4,000lbs

(Lombardo, 2015) (Tesla Motors , 2016)(USMC E2 Update 2012).

22

Water Systems

Type Transportability Fuel Requirement

Lives Risked Total

Plastic Bottle(Current)

1 1 1 3

Aqua Sciences Atmospheric

Water Generation

4 4 5 13

Analysis based off the following: Each gallon of bottled water transported to a forward

operating base requires 7 gallons of fuel to get there (US Army Corps of Engineers). The

disposal of plastic bottles is also a pressing issue for combat outposts. The system

developed by Aqua Sciences atmospheric water generation takes water out of thin air and

requires only charged salt and energy to do so. The shipping container sized element

houses the entire system including the battery power source. The Army is currently

working with Aqua Sciences on their own military grade system, something the Marines

must explore in order to reduce the amount of transported bottled water and Marine

casualties (Aqua Sciences, Inc., 2015).

Comparison: Current Systems vs. Proposed Systems

Current SystemsEnergy System Points Awarded Total pointsGREENS 15

31EARLCON 13Bottled Water 3

Proposed SystemsEnergy System Points Awarded Total pointsMultiGen Solar 21

55Tesla Powerwall 21Aqua Sciences AWG 13

Conclusion

23

The conclusion generated by this study illustrates the superiority of the proposed

advancements in the private sector over the current Marine Corps energy systems. The

Current systems generated a score of 31 out of 65 points based off of the multi-criteria

analysis tables. The proposed systems scored 55 out of 65 points in the multi criteria

analysis tables. The proposed systems are therefore found to be more energy efficient than

the current systems. The Marine Corps of the past has valued effectiveness over efficiency,

this way of thinking must be altered, placing more value on energy efficiency in order to

decrease the dependence on energy and increase lethality. If the Marines were able to

adopt these proposed innovations they would see a decrease in fuel demand downstream

in forward outposts, a reduction in the amount of resupply convoys, and a potential

reduction of IED casualties.

Although this study is a lighthearted exploration into the future of efficient forward

operating bases, its ideals run much deeper. In part this study was meant to expose the

reader to the issues of IEDs that have been taking the lives and legs of our young men

overseas for more than a decade. This ugly problem may have no remedy, but the ethos of

sustainable design can mitigate our losses. Sustainability is a powerful weapon in our

arsenal. The Marines must learn to master it or continue to see their ranks slowly taken by

roadside bombs. Our success in future conflicts will be determined not by our tactics, but

by our intelligent use of energy and logistics.

Limitations

24

The data on the proposed private sector innovations was limited due to the fact that

the technologies are new and have not yet been formally reviewed by outside

organizations. The information gathered surrounding the capability of the new technology

was most often extracted from each respective website and assumed to be accurate.

Obtaining a government contract is often an extremely difficult process for private

organizations and takes years of field testing before technologies can move to official

military production. The innovations proposed must be found to be combat effective by the

DoD and Marine Corps.

Recommendations

The Marine Corps must more aggressively seek innovations from the private sector

to enhance their energy efficiency. Current systems have the ability to be replaced with

more efficient technologies. The DoD and Marine Corps must shorten the process of

receiving a government contract so as to include the technology offered by the private

sector.

Bibliography

25

Aqua Sciences, Inc. (2015). Our Products: Emergency Water Plant. Retrieved from Aqua Sciences Inc. Web Site: http://www.aquasciences.com/products_eng.shtml

Army Capabilities Integration Center. (n.d.). Power and Energy Strategy White Paper. DC: Department of the Army.

Army-Technology.com. (2015, October). Army-Technology. Retrieved from Army-Technology.com.

Briley, E. (2009). Department of Defense: Renewable Energy and Tech Transfer. Harvard University Extension School.

Cave, e. a. (2012). Sustainable Design of Forward Operating Bases. London: University of Bristol.

Department of Defense. (2016). DoD 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. DC: Department of Defense.

Haggerty, A. (2008). S&T and Maneuver Warfare: A Current Success and a Future Challenge. Alexandria: Department of Defense.

HDIAC. (2016). Homeland Defense & Security Information Analysis Center. Retrieved from HDIAC Web Site: https://www.hdiac.org/node/1683

Lash, F. (2011, May). National Defense. Retrieved from nationaldefensemagazine: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/may/pages/marinestakestepstoavoidcostlybottledwaterresupply.aspx

Lombardo, T. (2015, May 3). Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers. Retrieved from Engineering.com:http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/10057/Teslas-Powerwall-by-the-Numbers.aspx

Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office. (2011). Marine Corps Expedionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan. Washington: U.S. Marine Corps.

McKenna, P. (2011, March). MIT Teschnology Review. Retrieved from technologyreview.com: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/423255/hybrid-power-for-the-frontline/

NATO. (2013). New Energy Ideas for NATO Militaries: Building Accountability, Reducing Demand, Securing Supply. NATO Parliment Assembly.

26

Office of Naval Research. (2010). Media Release: Solar Energy Powers Marines on Battlefield. Retrieved from Office of Naval Research: http://www.onr.navy.mil/en.aspx

Regnier, e. a. (2013). The Fuel Multiplier in Multi-Stage Supply Chains. Monteray: Defense Resource Management Institute.

Reichert, e. a. (2011). From Barracks to the Battlefield. DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.Renovagen Ltd. (2016). Products: Rollarray MultigGen. Retrieved from Renovagen Ltd

Website: http://www.renovagen.com/?services_category=products

SEIA. (2013, May 17). Enlisting the Sun: Powering the U.S. Military with Solar Energy 2013. Retrieved from seia.org: http://www.seia.org/research-resources/enlisting-sun-powering-us-military-solar-energy-2013

Tesla Motors . (2016). Powerwall: Tesla Motors. Retrieved from Tesla Motors Website: https://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

United States Marine Corps. (2016). Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office. Retrieved from Marine Corps Web Site: http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/e2o/E2OHome.aspx

United States Marine Corps. (2016). Request For Information (RFI). DC: Expeditionary Energy Concepts 2016.

US Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.). Power and Energy Considerations at Forward Operating Bases. DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.

USMC Expeditionary Energy Office. (2012). USMC Expeditionary Energy Office Report on Expeditionary Energy Data Collection within Regional Command Southwest, Afghanistan. DC: USMC Expeditionary Energy Office.

27