MORS Power and Energy Workshop Working Group 2 -- Science and Technology --

1. MORS Power and Energy WorkshopWorking Group 2-- Science and Technology -- Co-Chairs – Dick Davis, Oak Ridge National Lab Ann Schlenker, Argonne National Lab Nov 30 – 3 Dec 2009

2. WG 2 Purpose/Focus Purpose: Discuss S&T community needs related to getting clearer information, “market demand” signals and decision-support tools to make more defendable investment (time, budget, risk) choices over the near and long term vis a vis energy-related technologies and design. Assumption: OSD, the Joint Staff, COCOMs and Service leaders are not sending clear strategy or prioritization “signals” to the military or commercial S&T community regarding military energy needs. Focus: Contemplate the assumptions and findings of the recent Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy related to energy technology and the sufficiency of the indicators provided to prioritize and hedge basic S&T development.

3. WG 2 Key Considerations • Two primary energy challenges from the 2008 DSB Final Report on DoD Energy Strategy: • Unnecessarily high, and growing, battlespace fuel demand compromises our operational capability and can jeopardize mission success • Critical missions at military installations are vulnerable to loss from commercial power outage and inadequate backup power supplies.

4. WG 2 Approach • A Working Group panel of Power and Energy SMEs addressed the purpose through six panel goals: • Develop an S&T-centric definition or description of how energy affects military. • Categorize energy technology areas relevant to DoD capabilities and needs. • Frame the technological readiness risks of various energy-related technologies. Incorporate research accomplished by DOE and DOT in government-sponsored activities related to advanced energy optimization, especially batteries and power electronics. • Explain how the S&T community informs decision-makers on how to prioritize between tech investments in different areas, and discuss how this could be improved, citing formal and informal DoD processes. • Develop a statement about what areas of technology development offer the most promise in reducing the energy demand of current US forces vs. future US forces, with minimal to no negative impact on capability. • Investigate and report on the potential for capability increases from technical advances that can reduce energy demand, while attempting to prioritize higher and lower-impact technologies and technology development paths.

5. WG 2 Goal 1 Develop an S&T-centric definition or description ofhow energy affects military capability. • Energy is a key enabler that increases individual, platform, unit, and installation capabilities related to lethality, survivability, mobility and sustainability. S&T must be managed for incremental improvements and game changers. • Military capability is enabled by availability and access of a secure energy supply. Technology improves energy efficiency, reduces cost, diversifies supply, optimizes logistics and therefore aids military operational effectiveness. It must be part of an integrated set of DOTMLPF solutions for operational capability needs. Capability IAW CJCSI 3170.01G: the ability to achieve a desired effect under specified standards and conditions through combinations of means and ways across DOTMLFP to perform a set of tasks to execute a specified course of action. DOTMLPF – Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities CJCSI – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01G – Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System

6. WG 2 Goal 2 Categorize energy technology areas relevant to DoD capabilities and.needs. Increase Supply Reduce Demand Optimize Logistics • Power Generation and Conversion • Energy Storage • Power Control and Distribution • Thermal Management • Fuels • Efficient platform design (component, system, mechanical energy) • Efficient installation design – fixed base and expeditionary • Power System Efficiency (electrical energy load) • Operations analysis • Transport • Protection and security • Logistics optimization (simulation and modeling)

7. WG 2 Goals 3 and 5 G-3: Frame the technological readiness risks of various energy-related technologies and identify targets of opportunity. Incorporate research accomplished by DOE and DOT in government-sponsored activities related to advanced energy optimization, especially batteries and power electronics. G-5: Develop a statement about what areas of technology development offer the most promise in reducing the energy demand of current US forces vs. future US forces, with minimal to no negative impact on capability. Green = near term (low risk TRLs 7-9) Amber = mid term (med risk TRLs 4-6) Blue = long term (high risk TRLs 1-3) NOTE: S&T community developmental funding typically ends at TRL 6)

8. WG 2 Goals 3 and 5 G-3: Frame the technological readiness risks of various energy-related technologies and identify targets of opportunity. Incorporate research accomplished by DOE and DOT in government-sponsored activities related to advanced energy optimization, especially batteries and power electronics. G-5: Develop a statement about what areas of technology development offer the most promise in reducing the energy demand of current US forces vs. future US forces, with minimal to no negative impact on capability. Green = near term (low risk TRLs 7-9) Amber = mid term (med risk TRLs 4-6) Blue = long term (high risk TRLs 1-3) NOTE: S&T community developmental funding typically ends at TRL 6)

9. WG 2 Goals 3 and 5 G-3: Frame the technological readiness risks of various energy-related technologies and identify targets of opportunity. Incorporate research accomplished by DOE and DOT in government-sponsored activities related to advanced energy optimization, especially batteries and power electronics. G-5: Develop a statement about what areas of technology development offer the most promise in reducing the energy demand of current US forces vs. future US forces, with minimal to no negative impact on capability. Green = near term (low risk TRLs 7-9) Amber = mid term (med risk TRLs 4-6) Blue = long term (high risk TRLs 1-3) NOTE: S&T community developmental funding typically ends at TRL 6)

10. WG 2 Goal 6 Investigate and report on the potential for capability increases from technical advances that can reduce energy demand, while attempting to prioritize higher and lower-impact technologies and technology development paths • Improved battery performance and rechargeable battery energy density (7) • Insulation and lighting (3) • Cost - benefit trade offs for system of systems in support of modeling and simulation based analysis (2) • Fuel cells • Renewable energy sources • Hybrid-electric vehicles • High performance computing supporting operations analysis • Micro-grids for real time load management and distribution for expeditionary bases (7) • Turbine engine; ADVENTand HEETE (5) • Power Convertors and Invertors • In-situ fuel generation (6) • Small to medium scale reactors (4) • Micro-fuel cells for individual soldiers (1) • Power Switches and Electronics (1) • Blended wing body Green = near term (low risk TRLs 7-9) Amber = mid term (med risk TRLs 4-6) Blue = long term (high risk TRLs 1-3)

11. WG 2 Goal 4 Explain how the S&T community informs decision-makers on how to prioritize between tech investments in different areas, and discuss how this could be improved, citing formal and informal DoD processes. System Developers • Process challenges: • Correlating a technology’s return on investment and mitigation of operational risk • Describing how technology solutions achieve operational efficiencies and effectiveness • Mission / operational benefit “pull” vs. technology “push” • Early inclusion of the user community in developmental research Technology Developers

12. WG 2 Findings • There is a need for a structured high-level DoD-DoE-DoT-DHS (interagency) collaboration and synchronization for funding of R&D efforts; exists to some degree between Service and other agency labs based on historical relationships and partnerships • There is a need for a DoD confederation of demonstration sites for power and energy conservation training and system experimentation and integration • There is a need for greater involvement of the user community in S&T development • The S&T community needs to be consistent in its ability to articulate a technology’s return on investment, mitigation of operational risk, and operational benefit (efficiency and effectiveness)

13. WG 2 Recommendations Develop a high-level DoD-DoE-DoT-DHS (interagency) agreement and structure that formalizes and enables collaboration and synchronization of funding for R&D efforts – MOU, governance, working group structure, etc. Survey and analyze the Services’ current demonstration and experimentation sites for ability to conduct power and energy conservation training and system experimentation and integration; develop ways to effect inter-Service, collaborative use of these sites for P&E demonstrations, experimentation, training, and learning Determine ways in which to earlier integrate S&T development with Services’ experimentation campaign plans Develop models and simulations that enable the S&T community to demonstrate a technology’s return on investment, mitigation of operational risk, and operational benefit Maintain robust S&T investment program for meeting DoD’s future energy requirements Consider the Forward Operating Base / Combat Outpost as a “weapon platform” and reduce its energy demands

14. Immediate Opportunities/Actions Expedite analysis, assessment, and technology demonstration of recommended near-term technologies Consider the Forward Operating Base / Combat Outpost as a “weapon platform” and reduce its energy demands Assess inter-agency agreements and collaborative bodies; propose strategies for additional collaboration, synchronization, and integration

15. Longer-term Opportunities/Actions Conduct analysis, assessment, and continue research and development of recommended mid- and far-term technologies Integrate energy conservation training and developmental demonstrations into Services’ experimentation campaign plans and current demonstration and experimentation sites

16. WG 2 Summary • Interagency and inter-Service collaboration must increase if our operational and generating forces are to fully capitalize on the benefits of current and emerging energy technologies – requires structure and governance for efficient funding and collaborative development • There are ways in which the user and S&T communities can collaborate earlier and closer in order to better shape and justify S&T investment – available experimentation venues and forces are limiting factors and require close coordination • The S&T community requires adequate tools with which to justify and defend its investment of money and effort – it must improve in how it articulates operational benefit

17. Backup Slides

18. Cost/benefit modeling and simulation: use analytic tools to quantify cost-benefit of emerging energy technologies and their operational impact. Use optimization algorithms and high-performance computing to qualify enterprise-wide benefit (system of systems analysis). Distribution management (micro-grid) for FOB / COP power: smart grid technology including energy distribution, storage, and real-time management systems. Track energy use throughout the FOB / COP and distribute power as needed. Excess energy generated by generator sets or renewable sources is routed to large-scale batteries for later use. Energy efficient shelters: most likely modular structures with built-in insulation. Reduces energy wasted by tents but stays mobile, unlike foamed tents which can’t be moved. Energy supply – power generation and conversion – energy storage; renewable energy sources: increase deployment of renewable energy power sources to provide more diversity of supply, lower cost, and reduce dependence on, and use of, diesel generators (where applicable, i.e., FOBs) or grid vulnerability (i.e., fixed installations). This can increase the small amount of R&D necessary to ruggedize or certify the renewable energy generators for operational use, if required. Otherwise, this is a near-term, high TRL, technology which should be utilized more widely in both fixed bases and expeditionary bases. Insulation and lighting: in the near-term, provides the ability to significantly reduce demand for both fixed base and expeditionary bases. Microgrid- in the mid-term, provides a systems approach to supply and demand management. Includes integration of renewable sources. Small nuclear reactors: safe, secure, portable nuclear power generators that can be deployed quickly to FOBs and other installations to generate electricity and produce in-situ syn-fuels. Also, small radio-nuclide batteries for very high density special power applications. Soldier system power: conversion to rechargeable batteries has the potential to reduce by approximately 30k tons per year the purchase, transport, distribution, and disposal of toxic waste single use batteries. Rechargeables are recyclable. ADVENT – Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology: a mid-term dual mode solution. High bypass mode – 15% fuel savings; Aero mode – high performance HEETE – Highly Embedded Efficient Turbine Engine: primarily for cargo airplanes; fuel consumption savings of 20-25%.

19. Technology Readiness Levels and Risk Far term Mid term Near term

20. WG 2 Goal 1 Develop an S&T-centric definition or description ofhow energy affects military capability. • The “energy burden”: • Impairs operational effectiveness • Vulnerability to force and mission • Increase in casualties • Constrains maneuver and limits endurance • Dilutes combat effectiveness by increased force protection demand • Reduces sustainment of operational capability • Increases cost • Volatility of energy price • Funds dedicated to energy not available to buy capability • Skews forces structure to the tail • S&T – need technology to reduce energy demand without impact on capability