“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
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
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.
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
- 2012 Air Refueling Aviation Inventory
- Air Force – 438 Aircraft (KC-10, KC-135, KC-46)
- Navy – 78 Aircraft (KC-130)
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.)
5 Replies to “Economics of Cold Fusion LENR Power US Department of Defense”
LENR will make the DoD obsolete. Why do we need it if no-one is looking to steal oil somewhere?
Even the power grid will decline in its utility with cheap, clean and compact energy sources in every home.
The cost of the wars securing the oil region of the mideast are staggering, I did not include those as a possibe savings in the future. If you are correct that the number of global conflicts will decrease when the whole world is no longer struggling and scrambling for energy resources then the DOD may be able to operate on half its’ 2013 budget of $613.9 billion…. $306.9 billion in savings..
“And in many ways it’s the mission we have at the Department of Defense, which is to give our children a better life.” LOL
Did it ever occur to you that the US military, while being the biggest consumer of oil, is also the biggest protector (and thus controller) of it? In other words, symmetrically speaking, we control the only game in town now. When tanks, trains, and airplanes run on LENR, that gives an asymmetric advantage to non-US militarily organizations. For instance, the Japanese and even the Nazi war machine, were stifled by lack of access to oil. What would happen if they could have powered their war machines indefinitely on a new fuel?
I’m not arguing against development and adoption of LENR, I’m just pointing out that it isn’t some kind of ultimate advantage to the US military. In my opinion, the only one advantaged is the consumer and the economy.
Well if we haven’t attracted the attention of inteligence agency algorythms before, we have now.
Just to ensure that they come for a looksee I will add the words bomb, terrorist and nuclear.
There, that should do it.
Nicely done sir.
Comments are closed.