Good news: DOD readying to quadruple renewable energy installations

posted at 1:11 pm on January 31, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Last summer, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lamented that, in terms of the Pentagon’s budget, the pending sequestration cuts “were designed as a meat ax… It was designed to be a disaster. Because the hope was, because it’s such a disaster, that Congress would respond and do what was right. And so I’m just here to tell you, yes, it would be a disaster” — but apparently, not enough of a disaster that the Pentagon can’t afford set some money aside to beef up their green-energy goals.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) currently spends approximately $20 billion per year directly on energy, consuming 3.8 billion kilowatts hours (kWh) of electricity and 120 million barrels of oil per year. The effort to reduce energy costs and reliance on fossil fuels – often purchased from countries hostile to U.S. interests – and increase energy security, particularly for forward operating bases (FOBs), is driving sweeping changes to DOD policies around energy. In particular, the DOD has ambitious plans to increase its use of renewable energy. According to a recent report from Pike Research, a part of Navigant’s Energy Practice, the total installed capacity of renewable energy sources for the U.S. military will grow from 80 megawatts (MW) in 2013 to more than 3,200 MW by 2025 – increasing more than four-fold in 12 years.

“U.S. military spending on renewable energy programs, including conservation measures, will reach almost $1.8 billion in 2025,” says research analyst Dexter Gauntlett. “This effort has the potential to not only transform the production, consumption, and transport of fuel and energy within the military; it will likely make the DOD one of the most important drivers of cleantech in the United States.”

The Army, Navy, and Air Force have each established targets of 1 gigawatt of installed renewable energy capacity by 2025.

Now, the obvious objection here is that renewable energies are more expensive than conventional fuels (which, they are), and the DOD consumes a heck of a lot of energy (which, it does), meaning that the taxpayer is footing an unnecessarily large bill for the Pentagon trying to greenify its operations. Administration officials counter, however, that Defense operations have extra considerations other than mere prices. Diversifying your energy usage portfolio may indeed be able to help enhance energy security and self-sufficiency — but the problem is that the Pentagon is not merely pushing for more heightened energy security through the most cost-effective means in all cases. They are specifically pushing for more of the Obama administration’s designated renewable energies.

I doubt very much that all of this striving to “green” our defense operations was as much the result of a careful, long-term cost v. benefit analysis than it was the Obama administration’s political agenda to both tout their greenie credentials and create an artificially more robust market for still expensive renewable energies. Why, for instance, is it the Department of Defense’s job to become “one of the most important drivers of cleantech in the United States”? Hint: It isn’t.

Addendum: Hagel’s confirmation hearings to fill the Secretary of Defense job are underway today; how will he run the Pentagon’s greenifying programs (besides, you know, however Obama might tell him to)? Via Politico:

The former Republican senator from Nebraska is known in environmental circles as a skeptic on climate change science who played a key role killing the Kyoto Protocol, pulling then-President George W. Bush to the right on greenhouse gases and shepherding energy policies into law that were much less ambitious than what advocates sought.

Some enviros who backed President Barack Obama say they fear Hagel won’t be an advocate for their cause if he ends up leading the Pentagon…

Liberals have fought for years to green the Pentagon, because it’s the largest consumer of energy within the American government. Abroad, many greens believe the Pentagon could be a force for change as it grapples firsthand with the instability and violence brought on by drought and fierce tropical storms — symptoms scientists attribute to global climate change. …

Obama isn’t hiring Hagel to lead the Pentagon because of his views on global warming. But the nomination is still striking, given the president’s emphasis on the issue during his second inaugural address…


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No, the Obama admin still isn’t charging wind companies for killing eagles

Why would he do that? If it is a wind company then, ipso facto, it can’t be a tea party outfit. They are against that sort of thing.

Lily on May 14, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Are you thinking the laws are supposed to be enforced equally?

Only in another time, before progressives came to power.

MTF on May 14, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Big Wind kills eagles!

No news on it at eleven.

Liam on May 14, 2013 at 8:05 PM

They will enforce the laws where, when, and against whom they see fit, gosh darn it, because they have invested too much taxpayer money and political capital into creating the image of the eco-trendy, renewable-loving, all-of-the-above, future-investing and forward-thinking administration to do otherwise.

That walked right up to Chevy Chase’s meltdown in Christmas Vacation. :)

Ex-cellent.

Axe on May 14, 2013 at 8:07 PM

More free stuff for Libtards—PILLOWS!

hillsoftx on May 14, 2013 at 8:08 PM

…can we get JugEars and Carnival Carney to kiss a couple of those blades?

KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM

This shows the Sierra Club and the other environmentalists are just so full of BS. It is OK to sacrifice for their political aims. Anyone who honestly donates to these lying bastards out of a true concern for the environment have been taken. This is the same political ideology responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th century all for expediency. I think we should hang them all. That would cut way back on CO2 emissions.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on May 14, 2013 at 8:14 PM

I saw an eagle flying once, up close. It changed me forever. Neither here nor there.
Anyway, problem solved.

Axe on May 14, 2013 at 8:15 PM

The ends justify the means.

OldEnglish on May 14, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Breaking news, huh?

Sorry, all of these “administration scandals” breaking right now are just the same old crap we’ve been seen since Obama ascended to the white house.

Timin203 on May 14, 2013 at 8:18 PM

As symbols of America, Obama and his worshippers are fine with seeing eagles destroyed.

malclave on May 14, 2013 at 8:22 PM

The ends justify the means.

OldEnglish on May 14, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Sometimes ya gotta sacrifice a few eagle eggs to make a socialist utopian omelet….

dentarthurdent on May 14, 2013 at 8:22 PM

What goes “Whoosh, Whoosh, Whoosh, WHAP
“Whoosh, Whoosh, Whoosh, WHAP“?

I’ll let you finish the punchline. Have fun, especially if the trolls show up.

CBP on May 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM

CBP on May 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Scrumpy on the war-path.

OldEnglish on May 14, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Remember those Mexican Americans in Cali whose farms and lives the EPA destroyed to protect a fish?

I wonder if anyone has asked them about this.

29Victor on May 14, 2013 at 8:37 PM

No, the Obama admin still isn’t charging wind companies for killing eagles

Transforming America..
Say hello to America’s new national bird.

The Buzzard.

Electrongod on May 14, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Ya know, it’s almost as if everyone connected with this administration is on a mission to harass and intimidate everyone and everything that Bark doesn’t support or that doesn’t support him.

I mean come on, what next, the IRS will start using their power to intimidate hundreds of Tea Party non profits, the DOJ will decide to seize phone records of private companies, or HHS will try to force medical companies to fund BarkyCare?

Bishop on May 14, 2013 at 8:45 PM

I mean come on, what next, the IRS will start using their power to intimidate hundreds of Tea Party non profits, the DOJ will decide to seize phone records of private companies, or HHS will try to force medical companies to fund BarkyCare?

Bishop on May 14, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Nawwwww – couldn’t possibly happen. Why, this is the most transparent administration EVAHHHHH…. Remember?

dentarthurdent on May 14, 2013 at 8:49 PM

There is a huge wind farm about 50 miles south of here. I have a cousin who lives in the area. Locals often refer to the windmills as the “birdchoppers”.

novaculus on May 14, 2013 at 8:51 PM

This outrage is on a par with NOW not complaining about the mistreatment of women in the muslim world.

birdwatcher on May 14, 2013 at 8:55 PM

I have a relative who was part of an environmental impact survey team examining the effects of a reasonably large ‘wind farm’ in Nevada. [something like 70+ turbines] A nondisclosure agreement was part of the hiring process. Couldn’t tell me the results of their 3 month study but judging by photos on the camera, these machines wack a LOT of animals.
The Sierra Clubers and PETA pukes don’t know squat about this pogrom. And if they DO their silence is defening.

Missilengr on May 14, 2013 at 9:02 PM

defening = deafening

Missilengr on May 14, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Other than beatings, night disappearances and work camps, how is this any different than other dictator regimes?

Taxpayer money subsidizes crap that can’t stand on its own, lawmakers don’t live by their own rules, and the govt. chooses who and what to fuk with. And those that get that great honor are hounded by very powerful forces.

arnold ziffel on May 14, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I would imagine, that like MaryJo Kopechne, these noble birds would be thrilled to know that, by by their tragic deaths, they too can promote the progressive cause!

Forward, Comrades!

Lily on May 14, 2013 at 9:12 PM

No, the Obama admin still isn’t charging wind companies for killing eagles

Common scum like us wouldn’t dare pee in the woods within ten miles of a bald eagle for fear of going to Federal prison.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 14, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Whether it’s selective enforcement of immigration laws, selective enforcement of IRS regulations, selective enforcement of voting laws, selective waivers for Obamacare, selective enforcement of EPA regulations, etc. we are rapidly becoming a country in which the statue of Justice is no longer blind. Did I mention Congress exempting itself from the laws they pass?

Equal protection under the law is being eroded for political gain or to further political agendas, or to provide political favors.

The American people better wake up soon. Sooner or later you will be in one party’s or the others political correctness sights and subject to selective enforcement because of who you are and not what you’ve done. And whether you benefit from or are harmed by selective enforcement, in the end it will be very bad for everyone.

BMF on May 15, 2013 at 7:42 AM

At least the delisting of the gray wolf was successful.

I saw a juvenile out of place gray wolf here years ago in SW ND. He was just traveling through.
I see a lot of bald eagles in the spring here in ND & northern SD.
They’re young eagles. A lot of Golden Eagles as well.
They often set up camp for a few months on the big cutbank south of our house.
ND has lots of windmills. And all I hear is how we need more of them.
Even after a whooping crane was ground up in one.
And I thought it was kind of amusing that the wind mill people were leaving until they got an extension, so NOW they’re building some more.

Enviros have never cared about the environment bcs if they did, they would attempt to study & understand it & most of the stuff they support they would no longer support.

Badger40 on May 15, 2013 at 8:00 AM

an extension on their Federal Welfare $$, that is.

Badger40 on May 15, 2013 at 8:00 AM

At this point, what difference does it make?

LoganSix on May 15, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Remember those Mexican Americans in Cali whose farms and lives the EPA destroyed to protect a fish?

Maybe that’s the point of letting the windmills kill predatory birds–they won’t be eating fish!

/sarc off

Wind turbines, especially the generator boxes on them, attract predatory birds. To a bird brain, a flat box on a high pole with a bird’s eye view of prey below seems like an ideal nesting site to keep eggs and chicks out of harm’s way, and an ideal hunting ground.

But wind turbines usually have vanes to keep them pointed upwind (for maximum efficiency), and predatory birds instinctively take off upwind in order to develop enough lift under their wings. So the birds take off through the plane of the spinning blades, and one poorly-timed jump can kill an adult bird, and leave defenseless chicks to starve in the nest.

If the government wanted to protect predatory birds from wind turbines, it could mandate that wind turbine manufacturers take steps to discourage birds from nesting on them, such as:

1) Ensuring that the generator boxes have steep sloping sides and pointy tops, with no flat surfaces which could support a nest;

(2) Using constant ultrasound (inaudible to humans) irritating to birds to scare them away from the turbines (although this also may be irritating to dogs or wildlife which hear higher frequencies than humans do).

Steve Z on May 15, 2013 at 10:38 AM

As a hunter, I know you’re better off shooting a person, than shooting a Bald Eagle.

But hunters aren’t peddling some phony balony energy scam.

JackM on May 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM