Fueling the Force in the Army After Next—Revolution or Evolution?

by Captain Marc Lawton and Captain Tacildayus Andrews

Today's Army is heavily dependent on oil and its byproducts as the primary fuel for the force. Yet oil reserves are limited. Current predictions indicate that the decline of oil reserves will coincide with the timeline for implementing Army After Next (AAN) technologies. AAN plans for the year 2025 and beyond call for a more fuel-efficient Army—in particular, making fossil fuel powered vehicles up to 75 percent more efficient. Unfortunately, little or no effort is being directed toward developing and using alternative energy sources. This is a shortsighted plan that leaves the Army vulnerable to another 1970's-like oil crisis. Now is the time to pursue a revolution in technology rather than merely accepting the currently proposed evolution in technology. Logic and national security concerns mandate a complete break from fossil fuel dependence. One such revolutionary change is the use of hydrogen—a resource that no country or organization can monopolize—as a fuel.

Oil in Decline

Research into alternatives to fossil fuels began during the 1970's, when members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) set limitations on the amount of crude oil provided to the industrialized world. Germany, Japan, and the United States—the three most powerful economies in the world at the time—bowed to a few countries whose only weapon was control of the world's oil production. These events crystallized energy supply as a strategic policy issue.

Realizing the magnitude of the threat to our economy and national security, the Carter administration initiated many incentive programs to promote research and development of alternative forms of energy that would free the United States from its dependence on high-priced foreign oil. Significant progress was made in several areas. A cost-benefit analysis comparing fossil fuels and alternative energies showed the latter to be economically attractive. However, by the mid-1980's, oil discoveries, increased production by non-OPEC countries, and price wars among OPEC countries forced prices down. As oil prices dropped and the Reagan administration drastically cut funding, alternate energy initiatives slowed dramatically. But the problem remains: regardless of price, oil supplies are finite and running out quickly.

Many oil industry experts see no reason for concern about a lack of oil in the near term. They report 1,020 billion barrels of oil in "proved" reserves as of the beginning of 1998. The current production rate is 23.6 billion barrels of oil per year. This suggests that crude oil may remain abundant and inexpensive for the next 43 years. This report, however, rests on three poor assumptions. First, it relies on a distorted estimate of the remaining oil; second, it assumes that oil production will remain constant; and third, it presumes that the last barrel drawn from a well is as easy and cheap to extract as the first.

Many conservative estimates indicate that conventional oil supplies will not be able to keep up with production demands through the next decade, and certainly not past the year 2020. The point at which the supply begins to diminish is much more important economically than when the wells run completely dry. The fundamental law of supply and demand will take effect. When the supplies begin to decline, the prices will rise commensurately—this time for real. No artificial price hikes will be involved like those in the 1970's.

The first poor assumption made by the oil industry is their estimate of the reserves and the oil left to be discovered. Calculating the amount of oil left in an oil well is not an exact science; it is a bit of a statistical guessing game. Since it is possible in these guessing games to "work the numbers" in different ways, it is in the oil companies' best interests to work them so that oil reserves come out looking abundant. Thus, they predict 43 years of cheap supply.

M. King Hubbert, a geologist working for Shell Oil, developed what is known as the Hubbert curve to predict the amount of oil remaining in oil wells. He used this curve in 1956 to correctly predict that oil production in the lower 48 states would peak around 1969. The chart below illustrates how a Hubbert curve works. The flat-topped curves represent oil production in individual wells. Their output rises to a certain level and remains constant for some time. Eventually, their supply begins to top out, and the curve falls back toward zero. The bell-shaped curve is a compilation of the individual wells. One can use it to determine how long the oil supply should last in a given region.

The chart below plots some Hubbert curves for various regions around the world and one for the entire world. Oil production in the United States and Canada peaked in 1972 and has dropped 45 percent in the former Soviet Union since 1987. A crest in the oil produced outside the Persian Gulf region now appears imminent. One can also see from this graph that the world's production of oil may crest around 2004, and that by the Army After Next time-frame of 2025, it definitely will be on the decline.

The Hubbert curve is used to predict the amount of oil remaining in oil wells.

The second assumption made by the oil companies is that oil production will remain constant. This is not likely. The global demand for oil currently is rising at 2 percent per year. Since 1985, energy use is up 30 percent in Latin America, 40 percent in Africa, and 50 percent in Asia. The Energy Information Administration forecasts that worldwide demand for oil will increase to about 40 billion barrels of oil per year by the year 2020.

Finally, the third assumption—that the rate at which barrels of oil are extracted from a well will remain constant—is simply not true. As shown in the chart below, oil production in a well always rises to a maximum; when about half of the oil is gone, output begins to taper back down to zero.

So, although the world will not be out of oil by the year 2020, production will most likely be on the decline, and prices will be rising steadily. Because the Army is so dependent on crude oil for its fuel supply, the AAN planners are looking into the future to deal with the problems of diminishing oil reserves. What, specifically, are they looking at to alleviate these problems? Is it enough?

AAN: The Evolution of Equipment

The goal of the Army After Next is to develop a "highly mobile, high-speed insertion force." To achieve this goal, the AAN technological focus is on increasing fuel efficiency by reducing dependence on fossil fuel by 75 percent. Armor and aviation are the major fuel users. Therefore, AAN technology is centered on improving the fuel efficiency of armor and aviation systems. It takes approximately 565,000 gallons per day to fuel a ground armor division and 350,000 gallons per day to fuel an air assault division. Two improvements identified to reduce fuel consumption are the development of better, fuel-efficient propulsion engines and lighter platform, or structure, designs.

Along with developing technology to make systems "go the extra mile," the AAN plans to develop new methods for distributing fuel on the battlefield. The present fuel distribution system is not very fuel efficient. For example, a CH-47D Chinook helicopter consumes 130,000 gallons of fuel in its effort to refuel the force with 200,000 gallons.

AAN planners propose a distribution method called the Remote Energy Replenishment System. This system is based on a "Star Wars" concept in which energy is beamed from a satellite and converted to fuel at a ground replenishment station (gas station). If this system can be developed, it will offer tremendous savings in the Army's fuel distribution practices and improve effectiveness on the battlefield by beaming the fuel wherever it is needed.

Developing the technology and implementing the ideas of the AAN will be expensive. To meet the goals of the AAN, the Army needs $225 million a year until the year 2015. Fortunately, the financial burden may not have to be shouldered entirely by the Army. Since fuel efficiency is not just the Army's problem, the Army joined Partners With Next Generation Vehicles (PANGV), which includes automotive companies like General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler, to help develop methods for financing alternative fuels. Several major universities also are contributing to the research and development of better propulsion systems and lighter platforms.

The Hubbert curve for world oil production indicates that world oil production will begin to decline around 2005.

The first improvement to fuel efficiency is to develop new propulsion systems (engines) that do not require a substantial amount of fuel. One of the most promising propulsion systems, which is used mainly for aircraft engines, is the integrated high-performance turbine engine technology. Two other noteworthy systems are advanced turbine cycles and advanced diesel cycles that use smaller, lightweight engines. Another design is the advanced power transmission, which provides a drive train that is 40 percent lighter and makes less noise. All of these systems are designed to make engines more fuel efficient without losing power.

The second improvement to improved fuel efficiency is to build lighter platforms. The proposed platforms will be more mobile, ballistic resistant, and data sensitive, and they will increase maneuverability and accuracy on the battlefield. The composite armored vehicle is a prototype for the new material technology. It weighs 35 percent less than current armored vehicles and is highly mobile.

Future aircraft may incorporate an active/intelligent structure. This structure is formed by the piezoelectric effect, which is the property of crystals to develop an electromotive force when subjected to mechanical strain. This effect causes the material to expand or contract in size. Armed with data-sensitive sensors, elasticity, and flexible wings, aircraft will have less drag and better flight control and information awareness. Lighter and evolving material platforms will reduce the consumption of fuel.

The AAN planners believe that better propulsion systems and lighter platform materials will reduce fuel usage by 75 percent. In an armored division, combat vehicles will require 72,000 gallons per day as compared to the 288,000 that they presently require, and they will move faster on the battlefield. Aircraft will require 14,000 gallons per day as compared to 55,000 and will travel farther and more quietly.

However, the AAN plan is based on a diminishing fuel supply. At the scheduled implementation date (the year 2025), the price for fossil fuels will be rising and the fuels will be running out. The Army is not devoting enough money and other resources toward revolutionary new systems. What are some of the alternatives that could be considered?

Emerging Technologies

Possibly the most familiar application of alternate energy is the solar water-heaters found on many residential roofs in Southern States. The Army already has made good use of direct solar energy through installation-wide solar water-heating projects. It also has retrofitted gyms and older installation housing with solar water heaters; new housing routinely includes solar water heaters.

Solar energy currently has no viable technological application for vehicle propulsion except through the use of photovoltaic cells, which convert solar radiation into electrical energy that is then stored in batteries. These systems are currently impractical for military vehicle applications due to the low conversion efficiency of photovoltaic cells and the limited storage capacity of batteries. In addition, these systems' dependence on clear skies is unacceptable.

Current vehicle designs rely on at least one battery for their operation. Inspired by environmental concerns, researchers continue work on vehicles that operate exclusively on electricity stored in batteries. Technological advances have produced lighter automotive batteries with greater storage capacity. Unfortunately, battery-powered cars still have two serious drawbacks: battery disposal and the need for recharging. All of the components of current batteries are environmentally unfriendly and have to be handled with caution. Vehicle batteries also currently need at least 4 hours to recharge from an external source—not long for a commuter car but an eternity for a combat vehicle.

One promising alternative to our oil dependence is natural gas. Internal combustion engines can be converted to run on natural gas in less than a day. The natural gas distribution infrastructure is already in place. Expanding that infrastructure to supplement, and ultimately replace, oil-based fuel delivery systems (gas stations) would be uncomplicated. As a result, conversion to natural gas-powered vehicles is a viable short-term solution to our oil dependence. While continuing our dependence on fossil fuels, the existence of extensive U.S. natural gas reserves will buy time for development of nonfossil fuel systems.

Hydrogen As a Fuel

Hydrogen, one of the least-pursued alternatives of the 1970's research flurry, appears to be the most promising fuel for the AAN. It is abundant, infinitely renewable, and environmentally friendly. It is a natural byproduct of many chemical processes, ranging from electrolysis of water to decomposition of solid municipal waste. It can be produced using electricity generated by solar, wind, or conventional sources. This allows the generation of hydrogen to be independent of any geographic location or natural resource.

Hydrogen currently has two primary potential applications for tactical vehicle use: direct combustion engines and fuel cells. A hydrogen combustion engine weighing 220 pounds has been built by a retired aircraft tooling designer. It produces 300 horsepower and 800 foot-pounds of torque. The 6.2-liter HMMWV (high-mobility, multipurpose, wheeled vehicle) engine, by comparison, weighs 650 pounds and is rated at 150 horsepower and 260 foot-pounds of torque. The hydrogen engine is obviously superior, and it already exists. In an operation similar to the simple conversions required to burn natural gas, today's internal combustion engines require relatively minor adjustments to burn hydrogen. Hydrogen burns completely emission free, making it the perfect, environmentally friendly fuel.

Fuel cells, an emerging technology, also make hydrogen an attractive alternative. They were used on Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle missions, producing electricity from hydrogen with pure water and heat as the only byproducts. A fuel cell is a device that converts chemical energy directly into electricity. It works like this: two gases (in this case hydrogen and oxygen) are placed on either side of an electrolyte. The hydrogen molecules split into atoms, lose their electrons, pass through the electrolyte, and bond with the oxygen to form water. The loose electrons flow from anode to cathode, producing an electrical current as demonstrated in the diagram below.

The hydrogen fuel cell produces environmentally safe byproducts of steam and heat.

This process has only two byproducts, steam and heat. The steam can be captured and condensed into pure water for human consumption on the battlefield. Current fuel cells operate at temperatures as low as 150 degrees Fahrenheit and have the potential to produce no heat signature. When hydrogen is split, the conversion to water occurs naturally and the environment is not harmed.

Drawbacks of Hydrogen

The use of hydrogen does present some difficulties. The first and most obvious is its volatility. This can be overcome by using new material technology to increase ballistic resistance, and systems can be redesigned to compensate for incoming fire and operational turbulence. This should limit the adverse effects of the innate explosiveness of hydrogen. While highly combustible, hydrogen is also very light. This allows it to dissipate into the air before it burns. As an example, there were no casualties due to burning in the Hindenburg disaster; rather, people died from the fall.

The second drawback to using hydrogen is poor fuel-cell efficiency and the resulting requirement for large storage tanks. Recent technological advances have increased fuel-cell efficiency to 50 percent, up to three times the efficiency of a gasoline combustion engine. This increased efficiency will reduce the storage requirements. General Motors has developed a plan for a civilian vehicle that will have an exceptional fuel economy of 80 miles per gallon (mpg). Recent improvements in material technology have increased average storage capacity to 10 gallons, which, coupled with the 80 mpg from the General Motors vehicle, gives hydrogen vehicles a potential range of 800 miles. Given proper research funding, efficiency can be further increased, thereby reducing the fuel storage requirements of hydrogen-powered vehicles.

With only minimal funding—the Department of Energy allots only 1/90th of its annual budget for hydrogen research—scientists in the automotive industry, the Federal Government, and backyard inventors have made major advances in hydrogen applications. Unfortunately, their efforts are isolated from one another and lack coordination. The Federal Government is the logical organization to unify hydrogen research and develop a clearinghouse for funding and information exchange.

The AAN plan is to increase fuel efficiency of the current fossil fuel-based engines by developing better engines and lighter vehicle platforms. Given projections of declining oil reserves coinciding with implementation of AAN technologies, it is short-sighted strategic policy to continue our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if these predictions are 5 or 10 years premature, we still face the prospect of having vehicles that depend on a diminishing fuel source. This policy would leave the United States vulnerable to countries that control petroleum production. This also forces the United States to make protection of petroleum resources a national security issue. Few would argue that protection of this resource was the strategic objective of Operation Desert Storm.

Hydrogen is the fuel for the revolutionary family of combat vehicles that AAN planners must develop. It is abundant, easily adapted for energy production, environmentally friendly, and has tactical advantages over petroleum-based fuels. Its unlimited availability would eliminate the prospect of the United States having to face another fuel crisis. The abundance of hydrogen in the world also would end the economic and strategic influence that oil-producing countries currently have over the United States and the rest of the world. Without these external influences, the protection of our fuel supply no longer would need to be a national security priority. For these reasons, development of hydrogen-based vehicles is a national imperative. ALOG

Captain Marc Lawton is the tactical intelligence officer for the 25th Infantry Division (Light) Detachment, Rear Operations Cell, Hawaii Army National Guard. He has a B.A. in energy resource management from the University of Hawaii and is a graduate of the Hawaii Military Academy's Officer Candidate School, the Military Intelligence Officer Basic Course, the Combined Logistics Officers Advanced Course, and the Combined Arms and Services Staff School.

The authors would like to thank Captains Jeffrey Douds, Tyson Garren, and Francisco Moreno for their assistance in preparing this article.