May 21, 2009
Military Seeks Fuel Efficiency With Ships and Electric Vehicles
Navy ships saved more than $79 million in fuel costs during the first and second quarters of fiscal year (FY) 2009 through the i-ENCON program, reports the Navel Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communications. The achievement is touted as the largest cost savings in two quarters since the conservation program was implemented fleet wide in FY 1999.
The U.S. Navy has reduced its overall energy consumption level by 12 percent in 2008. Projects have centered on wind energy generation, solar photovoltaic systems, geothermal systems and ocean thermal energy conversion at military bases primarily in California.
The voluntary i-ENCON program is a major initiative of the Navy’s Energy Conservation (ENCON) Program, spearheaded by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to reduce the energy consumption of their ships. One of the ways NAVSEA’s i-ENCON measures fuel and cost avoidance is through “underburn,” the reported fuel rate for the quarter that’s below the ship class’ average burn rate, according to NAVSEA.
The cumulative underburn was 14.83 percent of the total first and second quarter fuel consumption, which translates into a savings of 682,000 barrels or $79 million. This exceeded the ENCON goal of 10 percent. For the navy, this means increased fleet readiness by saving enough fuel to support 14 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (at an average of 2,500 underway hours) per year.
This performance may be attributed to ships receiving $2 million in cash awards distributed in the fourth quarter of FY 2008 by the commander of Naval Surface Forces, reports NAVSEA. Award money is routed to each commanding officer’s discretionary funds, which are often used to buy items like damage control gear or to augment the ship’s welfare and recreation programs, according to NAVSEA.
The military is also looking at electric vehicles to save on fuel costs. Last December, the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force announced plans to buy thousands of electric cars and light trucks to provide on-base transport. The deputy assistant Army secretary for energy and partnerships said the 4,000 electric cars, purchased over the next three years, will save 11.5 million gallons of fuel annually.
The armed forces may realize even more fuel savings if they add an Electric Hummer vehicle to purchase orders. Raser Technologies Inc. recently demonstrated a new 100 miles-per-gallon, extended-range electric Hummer H3 at the U.S. Capitol for Members of Congress.
The Electric Hummer H3 was developed by Raser Technologies and its integration partner FEV Inc. in cooperation with General Motors and its Hummer division. The full-size, four-wheel drive SUV can drive up to 40 miles per day in all-electric mode. For extended trips, an internal combustion engine (range extender) kicks in to recharge the batteries, says Raser Technologies.
The new vehicle can be used for fleets, contractors and small business owners. The company says it delivers the payload of a pickup truck with better fuel economy than a Prius.
Advertisers
Pew Center Conference: Corporate Energy Efficiency
Reduce energy consumption, lower emissions and save money. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 02/09/2010
- 02/08/2010
- 02/05/2010
- Caterpillar Puts Weight Behind $1.5B FutureGen CCS Project
- WR Grace Targets 20% Energy Intensity Cuts
- As UK Cap and Trade Falters, Government May Prop Up Carbon Prices
- Federal Government Proposes Climate Change Office
- University of Florida Football Complex Uses 25% Less Energy Than Similar Buildings
- 34% of Execs Cite Economy As Impediment to Adopting Sustainability
- Energy Storage Project Aims to Extend Utility of Solar Power
- Ford to Debut Electric Commercial Van
- SF OKs $150M in Property Tax Financing for Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- BNSF Signs Deal for Measuring Energy Efficiency
- Roundup: GE, IBM, Audi ‘Green Police,’ EU Carbon
- Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
- Holiday Inn Express, Bardessono Boast Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- Massachusetts Adds $20M in Solar to 12 Wastewater Plants
- Novo Nordisk Cuts CO2 Emissions by 32%, Water Use by 20%
- Roundup: Dr. Suess Cease-and-Desist, Philips, EPA, Melting Drywall
- Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
- Energy-Efficient Lighting Saves Canadian Tire $6M in 2009
- Pixar Data Center Saves Money Via Cold Aisle Containment
- HVAC Software Helps University of Texas Save $500K a Year
- Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
- Rytec’s Fast Cold Storage Door Helps Save Energy
- Burt’s Bees Decreases Waste to Landfill by 51.5% in 2009
- National RES Would Benefit Southeastern, Manufacturing States
- TBR Evaluates Sustainability Strategies at Dell, CSC, Cisco
- CEO Report Envisions $6 Trillion in Sustainable New Business Opportunities
- IBM ‘Cloud Computing’ Data Center Saves 15% in Energy Costs
- Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
- Collapsible Ocean Shipping Container May Help Reduce Emissions
- To Ensure Future Compliance, Utility Asks for CO2 Limits
- Analyzing Energy-Efficiency Metrics Can Reduce Energy Use in Data Centers
- Goose Island Touts Low-Carbon Brew
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
John Bergdoll on Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
"I was following the logic your article..."
Liz Amason on Clorox Comes Clean With Chemical Content on Web Site
"But look at their ingredients listings. For example, their regular liquid bleach..."
Rigidflexibility on Companies Going Green Should Ignore Green Consumer
"I was about to market a metal working fluid that is 98>% Soybean oil and..."
Stuart on Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
"Canadians have been waiting for the feds to act on climate change for..."
Steve Wolford on Sports Teams Embrace Sustainability
"Hello Environmental Leader, We just returned from the National Sport Forum in Baltimore. Team and..."
Mauibrad on Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
"Finally some enlightened ideas out of Congress!"
Cameron Green on Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
"I did a blog post about this. Essentially PUE doesn’t give you very much..."





Reader Comments
It’s good to see the military taking energy use seriously. It also shows that everyone benefits by these efficiencies. Not only do they save money but presumably they extend the range and availability of the vessels.
The taxpayer saves money too and foreign imports are reduced. Everybody wins.
Tony Cable | May 24th, 2009
I agree with Tony, but I’d like to propose that some new definitions of the word SAVE are in order, or rather for this word to not be used when it is trying to explain a concept. Case in point, This article has “The new fuels are expected to save 11.5 million gallons of gas per year.” Save is to put away for later. Clearly what this sentence is saying is that ‘ 11.5 MILLION GALLONS WILL NOT BE PURCHASED. ‘ NOT PURCHASED is not the same as SAVE. Anytime SAVE is used to describe paying less money, it is a twisting of the actually meaning of the word. We all have advertising executives to thank for this mixing up and confusion of the word save. Think about it.
Lani Allen | May 27th, 2009
In retrospect, it is no surprise that the Navy managed to “save” $79 million in fuel costs during these two quarters. Even the Navy is struggling with a budget in these turbulent financial times. A quick comparison to previous quarters will reflect that fewer ships made fewer deployments, and overall steaming-time was much shorter. Obiously, this will result in lower fuel expenses. A better, or at least less incomplete, comparison would be between total fuel expenditure against total running time for all ships.
This article is just another reflection upon the dangers of statistics.
Will Woodman | June 15th, 2009