“Economics of  Cold Fusion LENR Power” is a daunting subject for a series of articles, so complex. The savings an Ecat can bring to a homes’ budget was simple enough. I did that before I ordered one. It seemed logical to next take a look at a couple of the largest budgets in the United States of America.

An outline for a series of articles took shape.

1)  The energy demands of humanity are inexorable.

  • Definition of INEXORABLE : not to be persuaded, moved, or stopped : relentless. Example of inexorable: ‘The inexorable rise of the free energy movement.’

 

2)  The Department of Energy is burdened ensuring an ability to meet our day-to-day energy demands.

3)  The Department of Defense is burdened ensuring an ability to ‘Energize the Warfighter’. (pdf)

  • Energy for the Warfighter “Operational energy equates exactly to operational capability.” – General John Allen, Commander, International Security Assistance Force/United States Forces-Afghanistan (link)

 

4)  The DOE and the DOD are inextricably intertwined.

  • Definition of INEXTRICABLE : forming a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free : incapable of being disentangled or untied : not capable of being solved. Example of inextricable: ‘There is an inextricable link between dirty energy and poor health.’
  • Definition of INTERTWINE : to unite by twining one with another : to twine about one another; also : to become mutually involved.

 

5) All nuclear weapons deployed by the Department of Defense are on loan from the Department of Energy, which has federal responsibility for the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons.

 

The Department of Energy (DOE) budget provided a good starting place, simple and concise, with programs made superfulous with the advent of nearly free and unlimited energy of cold fusion LENR power. (article)

 

U. S. of A.  Department of  Defense

The US Department of Defense (DOD) budget proves to be more complex. Do to the importance of national energy needs being met, the existing geopolitics of energy market investment and expectations, vulnerability of production and supply, as well as the military prerogatives of energy operational security, DOD expenses related to energy comprise a large portion of their budget. The nearly free and unlimited energy of LENR will change that.

  • The Defense Intelligence Agency of the U.S. Federal government  states, “Because (cold) nuclear fusion releases 10 million times more energy per unit mass than does liquid transportation fuel, the military potential of such high-energy-density power sources is enormous” and “LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power.” (pdf)
  • Environmental Defense Fund Reception (Energy, Security, and the Environment) As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, Renwick Gallery, Washington D.C., Wednesday, May 02, 2012

    “As Secretary of Defense, I am honored that the Environmental Defense Fund would honor the Department of Defense.  The U.S. military has a long and a very proud record when it comes to helping conserve our nation’s natural heritage. 

    Our mission at the Department is to secure this nation against threats to our homeland and to our people.  In the 21st Century, the reality is that there are environmental threats which constitute threats to our national security.  For example, the area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security:  rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. 

    I was pointing out the other day that with the polar cap melting, we now have problems with regard to who claims the area in the polar region.  And very frankly, one of the things I hope we get a chance to work on is to finally get the United States of America to approve the Law of the Seas treaty, which has been hanging out there for so long.  We are the only industrialized nation that has not approved that treaty.  It’s time that we did that. 

    The quest for energy is another area that continues to shape and reshape the strategic environment – from the destabilizing consequences of resource competition to the efforts of potential adversaries to block the free flow of energy.

    Let me assure you that DoD is helping to lead this nation when it comes to preserving our environment and building a more sustainable and secure energy future.  I know you’ll have the opportunity tonight to hear from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus on the Navy’s innovative efforts on clean energy and the environment.  Through these and other visionary initiatives, I believe we are making the country more secure and protecting our national resources.

    And in many ways it’s the mission we have at the Department of Defense, which is to give our children a better life.  That mission, working with you, working with this group, working with so many others, is that we have to develop a partnership that forges a better, cleaner, and safer world for the future, in order to ensure that our children have that better life.” (link)

Not so far in the near distant future…

 

       “The world has completed converting to the clean, nearly free and unlimited, energy of the nuclear reactive environment of cold fusion. The race to conversion occurred at a breakneck speed never before seen in the adoption of a new technology. Fueled by both environmental and economic imperatives, this rapid conversion has changed the landscape of national and international economics.
       The Department of Defense reflects this change. The 2040 DOD budget has changed considerably with the advent of  low cost LENR power. The savings in energy costs, ($17.9 billion) are minor compared to the savings (in both money  and casualties) from eliminated fuel supply lines, fuel depots, and a decrease in operational demands for protecting oil shipments ($50 billion).” -US News 2040

 

Now

We take look at the 2013 Department of Defense Budget and changes that may take place, by 2040, after the worlds’ conversion to LENR power. The DOD budget has fuel and energy expenses that will be reduced by utilizing the technology of cold fusion.

  • Fiscal Year 2013 Operational Energy Budget Certification Report “Last year, the Department consumed 116.8 million barrels (mbbls) of fuel at a cost of $17.2B ($3.51/gallon). For FY 2013, the Department budgeted approximately $16.3B for 104 mbbls of fuel and approximately $1.6B for operational energy initiatives.” (pdf)
  • “According to Deputy Secretary of Energy Poneman, that translates, with every $10 rise in the price of a barrel of oil, to more than $1.3 billion in additional costs the Department of Defense shells out for energy. Deputy Secretary Poneman also pointed out that a gallon of fuel can cost $40 or more in theater.” (link)

 

One of the greatest logistical problems facing today’s military is energy. It is a military prerogative to protect oil shipping lanes and secure military energy resources and supply lines throughout the world. This is costly and incurs loss of life.

  • According to a Wall Street Journal (piece) published on June 27, the Brookings Institute reports that the U.S. spends $50 billion a year protecting oil shipments. 89% of all oil is tranported by sea.
  • Remarks at the U.S.A.F. and U.S. Army Energy Forum As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn, III, Crystal City, Virginia, Tuesday, July 19, 2011, “Our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have a long logistical tail.  A majority of convoys in Afghanistan are used for fuel. We haul these supplies on roads laced with IEDs and prone to ambush. More than 3,000 troops and contractors have been killed or wounded protecting those convoys. Advances in energy technology may allow us to reduce our vulnerabilities to this type of asymmetric attack.” (link)
  • “Resupply casualties have been significant in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to CALL, they have historically accounted for about 10-12% of total Army casualties – the majority related to fuel and water transport. (report)

 

DOD Office for Operational Energy Plans and Programs

Statement by: Ms. Sharon Burke ‘Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs’ -Submitted to the ‘Subcommittee on Readiness – House Armed Services Committee’,  United States House of Representatives, March 29th, 2012

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Forbes, Representative Bordallo, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD) programs to support the Office of the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (OEPP).

For FY13, DoD anticipates spending over $16 billion on energy for military operations, which will provide more than 4 billion gallons of fuel for military operations and exercises. DoD will also invest $1.4 billion on initiatives to improve operational energy security, about 90% of which are aimed at reducing DoD’s demand for operational energy.

President Obama initiated the OEPP in June 2010, both to reflect his commitment to national and energy security and to honor the intent of Congress in calling for the establishment of an operational energy office at DoD. By statute, the purpose of the office is to transform the way DoD uses energy through guidance, policy, oversight, and coordination, as well as to serve as the primary advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense on operational energy.

The mission of OEPP is to improve military effectiveness while lowering risks and costs to warfighters. In its first two years of operation, OEPP has achieved considerable progress by:

· Promoting institutional change within DoD.

· Supporting current operations with energy innovations.

· Building operational energy considerations into the future force.

For FY13, the office will continue to focus on these priorities. In doing so, OEPP has the opportunity to help transform DoD’s energy use from a vulnerability to a strategic advantage. By reducing the Armed Forces’ reliance on fuel, we aim to improve warfighting capabilities, such as range, endurance, signature, and loiter time. We aim to reduce the risk to fielded forces as they move fuel through contested territory. In the process, we believe we will lower costs for the taxpayer, promote good stewardship of natural resources, and contribute to national energy goals.

THE DEFENSE ENERGY CHALLENGE

DoD is the single largest consumer of energy in the nation, accounting for approximately 1% of national demand. In FY11, that added up to a $20 billion bill, with 75% (approximately $15 billion) going to support military operations. Indeed, a steady and reliable supply of energy is essential to every military capability and every mission, and for today’s U.S. forces, that means a steady and reliable supply of petroleum fuels. Petroleum is the fuel of choice for military operations because of its high energy density, fungibility, and global availability. At the same time, DoD’s high demand for petroleum, given its volume, weight, and geostrategic constraints, is raising costs and risks for U.S. forces.

Until the FY 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which called on DoD to establish the OEPP, “operational energy” was not a commonly used term at DoD. The Act defined operational energy as the energy required to train, move, and sustain military operations.

The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and FY 2011 NDAA augmented this definition, noting that defense energy security means having “assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs.”

While the term “operational energy” may be new to U.S. armed forces, the concept is not new. From the extraordinary WWII-era Red Hill fuel storage facility in Hawaii to today’s Northern Distribution Network in Central Asia, energy security has long been a priority for American military operations. Today’s conflicts have brought new challenges to military energy security given our distributed operations and increased energy demand – mostly for liquid fuel, but also for batteries.

Today, U.S. forces in Afghanistan are consuming about 1.8 million gallons of fuel every day, which is conveyed over poor and sometimes contested roads. The Army and Marine Corps have documented thousands of casualties related to fuel movements in Afghanistan and Iraq, with U.S. Transportation Command tracking a thousand attacks on logistics convoys in Afghanistan alone last year. U.S. forces are fully capable of protecting these supply lines, but the opportunity cost in lives, resources, and diverted combat force at the tactical level is higher than it should be.

Going forward, the 2012 Department of Defense Strategic Guidance calls for a military force that is “agile, flexible, and ready for the full range of contingencies,” one that is prepared and postured for a complex, global security environment. This will require new and diverse capabilities and with the current trends in major acquisitions–a large and growing supply of fuel. In an era of precision weapons, asymmetric threats, and area denial strategies, the volume of that energy requirement will continue to impose tactical, operational, and strategic challenges.

At the same time, there will be geostrategic challenges for DoD’s energy supplies, particularly when it comes to petroleum. Worldwide demand for petroleum continues to rise, even as supplies are concentrating into fewer nations. As long as the United States depends on oil, the price we all pay at the pump will be driven by a volatile global market. For DoD, that means unpredictable fuel bills that crowd out other investment – every dollar hike in the price of oil per barrel raises our bill by $130 million.

More to the point, DoD must take into account the destabilizing effects of global energy wealth and poverty, the resource competition resulting from rising demand in growing economies, and with 89% of oil exports moving by sea, the need to secure the global commons. The President’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future seeks to change that calculus by taking steps to stabilize today’s energy economy while investing in the innovation that will allow us to displace the primacy of oil in our national and military energy security.

CONCLUSION

In June of 2011, General Petraeus released a memo to U.S. Forces in Afghanistan calling for better management of operational energy, which he called the “lifeblood” of warfighting capabilities.

In December of 2011, General Allen renewed General Petraeus’s call for action, equating operational energy to operational capability in a follow-up memo. General Allen’s memo highlighted the nature of the challenge, noting: “Operational Energy in the battlespace is about improving combat effectiveness. It’s about increasing our forces’ endurance, being more lethal, and reducing the number of men and women risking their lives moving fuel.

OEPP is committed to achieving the vision of these leaders. We have made good progress this past year and have aggressive goals for the way ahead. Ultimately, our intention is to successfully integrate operational energy considerations into existing policies, plans, programs and processes. This type of large-scale institutional change will require considerable time, effort, and persistence, so I deeply appreciate the Congress’s continued support for the mission and the Office of Operational Energy Plans and Programs.” (pdf)

Annual Aviation Inventory and Funding Plan

Fiscal Years (FY) 2013-2042  Report date March 2012
Air Refueling Inventories & Funding FY 2013-2022 (This will be phased out with LENR – $9 Billion)
  • 2012 Air Refueling Aviation Inventory
  • Air Force – 438 Aircraft  (KC-10, KC-135, KC-46)
  • Navy – 78 Aircraft (KC-130)
The chart (on page 19) depicts air refueling aviation inventory and funding projections over FY2013 – 2022 broken out by military department.  In aggregate, the Air Refueling inventory will increase by one percent over the FY2013 – 2022 period.
(ed. note:  $9 billion is allocated over a period of 9 years in order to maintain this fleet level.)
Details on Air Force and DoN Air Refueling aviation plans are outlined in the following paragraphs.
Department of the Air Force. As the DoD places greater emphasis on operations in other theaters like the Asia-Pacific, Air Force refueling aircraft continue their vital, daily role of extending the range and persistence of almost all other aircraft of the Joint force.  The Air Force remains committed to fully funding the acquisition of the new KC-46 tanker, while also resourcing critical modernization programs for the legacy KC-10 and KC-135 fleets, assuring crucial air refueling capacity and capability for decades to come.  The aerial refueling fleet is sized to meet the Combatant Commander requirements and revised demands of the strategic guidance.  The Air Force will retire 20 KC-135 aircraft over the FYDP. As the Air Force’s fleet of tanker aircraft ages, new tankers will be needed to provide in-flight refueling support.
The Air Force has begun recapitalizing the tanker fleet with fully funded plans to develop and procure 83 KC-46A tankers by 2022.  The KC-46A fleet will reach its planned size of 179 aircraft in 2029; later tanker procurement will be the result of a future contract award. The KC-46A will be able to refuel aircraft in flight and can be air refueled by other aircraft to allow continuous overhead fuel management across the battlespace. Additionally, the capability to transfer fuel to either receptacle or probe-equipped receivers without reconfiguration will enhance the capability and flexibility of the tanker fleet.
Department of the Navy.  The Marine Corps will continue procuring the KC-130J in the near term, expanding its inventory of this aircraft, which has proven its combat effectiveness and reliability in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Capable of employment in intratheater lift, assault support, persistent ISR, and aerial refueling missions, the KC-130J will replace aging KC-130T models. The Navy will incorporate carrier based organic tanking capability requirements into future aircraft studies, and will consider multiple options for future carrier-based tanker assets. (pdf)

 

Military Sealift Command – Combat Logistics Force

Fifteen fleet replenishment oilers, the largest subset of Combat Logistics Force ships, provide fuel to deployed Navy ships at sea, as well as to their assigned aircraft. Oilers and the ships they refuel sail side by side as fuel hoses are extended across guide wires. Underway replenishment of fuel dramatically extends the time a Navy battle group can remain at sea. MSC has an annual operating budget of approximately $3 billion. (link)

(Up to $1.5 billion of the  operating budget for Combat Logistics Force may be eliminated by LENR power.)

An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2013 Shipbuilding Plan

Combat Logistics and Support Ships (Oilers) In its 2013 plan, the Navy envisions buying 46 logistics and support ships in the next three decades—19 fewer than in the 2012 plan, or a decrease of about 30 percent. Those planned purchases include 1 joint high-speed vessel in 2013, 10 replacement JHSVs in the 2030s, and 17 new oilers (See page 5) over the 30-year period (the latter provide fuel and a few other supplies to ships at sea). Oilers cost .5 to .7 billion dollars per ship. (page 17- table 3) (pdf)

($11.9 billion in shipbuilding expenses eliminated by LENR power.)