IN SEPTEMBER 2010, a company of U.S. Marines entered Sangin District, an area in Afghanistan’s Helmand province that had seen some of the most intense, protracted fighting of the war. Their mission was to relieve British forces and launch an aggressive effort to clear and calm the area, which was, as the military is wont to say, “highly kinetic.” India Company, from the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, lost more than two dozen soldiers in the first four months of combat.
Early on in the fighting, First Lieutenant Josef Patterson, India 3/5’s second platoon commander, took a small force south to clear a route into the Sangin River Valley. They established a patrol base, but for two months the area remained so volatile that fuel convoys couldn’t reach it. Without fuel or battery resupply, the team could have been left with no way to run generators or power radios or computers—a potentially crippling situation. Even in smaller numbers, today’s -Marines are considerably more lethal than their predecessors, mostly due to the flexibility enabled by constant connectivity. As Patterson later explained, “If I don’t have comm with my troops and my higher-ups, I am lost.”
But the soldiers of India 3/5 had another source of power: the sun. Specifically, they had a ground-renewable expeditionary energy system (Greens): four portable modules that fold out into two large solar panels each, all connected to a power cell to store the energy overnight. During field operations away from the patrol base, each Marine also carried a solar portable alternative communications energy system (Spaces), an eight-square-inch flexible solar panel lightweight enough (about 2.5 pounds) to be rolled up and stowed in a pack. Normally, a patrol carries enough batteries to last three or four days—20 to 35 pounds for each grunt—and is dependent on frequent and dangerous resupplies. But with the packable solar panels, says Patterson, his patrol of 35 soldiers shed 700 pounds. “We stayed out for three weeks and didn’t need a battery resupply once,” he says.
Two of India 3/5’s forward patrol bases, in fact, were powered entirely by solar for the duration of the seven-month mission. “We were the only company that had sufficient energy the entire time,” says Captain Stephen Cooney, the mission’s commanding officer.
India Company’s pioneering field deployment of renewable energy represents the leading edge of a rapidly expanding effort by the Marines to make its soldiers nimbler and more self-sufficient. They’re not alone: every branch of the armed forces is working to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels, driven by an increasing preoccupation with rising costs, dependence on hostile oil regimes, and the destabilizing threat of climate change. But in the past two years, the Marine Corps has been particularly aggressive, bulling through the usual government bureaucracy in pursuit of immediate battlefield advantage. “It’s pretty extraordinary,” says Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus. “They have gone very fast.”
At a moment when renewable-energy development faces stiff political and economic headwinds, jarheads are making a powerful case for the practical benefits of going green. “To the Marine Corps, it isn’t about money or global warming,” says Colonel Bob Charette, the hard-charging head of the Marines’ two-year-old Expeditionary Energy Office. “It’s about saving lives.”
THE TACTICAL NEED to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is not new to the Pentagon. In 2003, at the outset of the second Iraq war, General James Mattis commanded the 1st Marine Division during the initial drive to Baghdad. He found himself repeatedly outrunning his own fuel resupply lines, forcing him to slow down to remain fully powered. In a post-combat report that has since become a touchstone for military analysts, he called on the Department of Defense to “unleash us from the tether of fuel.”
Mattis’s plea served to highlight the extraordinary costs of fuel to the military in Afghanistan and Iraq—in dollars and lives. By some estimates, fully 70 percent of the convoys crisscrossing the theater of war are involved in “liquid logistics,” the delivery of fuel and water. In Afghanistan, fuel reaches the front lines via tankers and planes that cross the ocean, trucks from Tajikistan or Russia, and (sometimes) helicopters from forward bases. By the time it gets there, the fully burdened cost can reach anywhere from $30 to an astounding $400 per gallon. Then there are the casualties: one for every 24 fuel convoys, according to a 2009 report by the Army Environmental Policy Institute.
Comments
The "Green" aspect has to stay out of the combat theater. At home bases here in the states, green facilities are great. And even at non-combat support facilities outside the US, green is great. I'm sorry, but it has to stay out of war zones.
Flag Thisthe marines can have innovation and thinking outside the box in the war theater. when my younger son was on his first tour of iraq, urban infantry, the platoon had to haul a heavy commuication radio. in short time they had purchased an iraqui burro (donkey) and she had the duty of hauling the heavy commo equipment. green or old school, whatever it takes, the marine corps seems to encourage innovation.
Flag Thisthe marines can have innovation and thinking outside the box in the war theater. when my younger son was on his first tour of iraq, urban infantry, the platoon had to haul a heavy commuication radio. in short time they had purchased an iraqui burro (donkey) and she had the duty of hauling the heavy commo equipment. green or old school, whatever it takes, the marine corps seems to encourage innovation.
Flag ThisYou can call it "green" and chastise it all you like. The simple fact is it comes down to survival. Which is where I disagree that any self-sustaining technology has to "stay out of war zones." No, in fact, if anything, war zones are particularly important for this. Wartime resupply is a vulnerability that has been continuously exploited through military history. This... portable renewable power, changes the dynamic of the battlefield.
Flag ThisI served in the 90s, and the batteries were heavy then- before we had all the high-tech toys the Marines have now. I think this push for renewable energy is fantastic and will help both push casualty rates lower and make our forces way more agile at every level from the division down to the individual Marine (who the hell wants to patrol with a 100lb pack?). And this push will also drive innovation here at home, since the technologies will inevitably be pushed out to the consumer in short order. We need green everywhere.
Flag ThisAs a lover of outdoor activity, I support environmental conservation. However, I understand why people would ignore technology that that isn't practical. This article provides proof that energy efficient should not be adopted only for the environment but to save American lives overseas. RE:just a guy At the bottom of page one, the article suggests 25% of "liquid logistics" convoys are causalities of war. The suggestion that technology that can save American lives and tax dollars (who's paying $400 a gallon for fuel?) should not be used is ludicrous to me. I just hope the Marines continue their innovation that save lives, money, and the environment.
Flag ThisHaving served in the Marine Corps and being deployed around the world many times, I can understand the need for Marines, not soldiers (that term refers to Army personel), to maintain a great deal of self-sustainabulity. If "going green" is a means to accomplish this and aide in the successful completion of assigned missions, both battle and humanitarian based, then march on and develop the technology. What is proven on the battlefield may be adapted into society. Politics will only slow and impede the development.
Flag This@PROUD AMERICAN, agree with post, not math. 1 of 24 convoys is 4%, not 25 %. And fully burdened cost of $400 means all the costs of transport included, not just the fuel cost, but tanker, truck, driver, etc.
Flag ThisDependable, expeditionary, life-saving, deadly. Spot-on and none to soon. If everyone else can benefit from it, then good for them also, but this is good for us.
Flag ThisI was surprised to learn that "THE MARINE CORPS is the smallest of the armed forces" It use to be the Coast Guard.
Flag ThisI was surprised to learn that "THE MARINE CORPS is the smallest of the armed forces" It use to be the Coast Guard.
Flag ThisReality vs. perception: while "the real American" politicians holler about, deny, and belittle this and that, those who deal in reality deal with reality. "Green" and "local" are practical; climate change will affect security, so DoD is planning for it (not denying it); USMC was first to actively recruit gay people (in Oklahoma!); etc. Yes, the signal-to-noise ratio in politics is approaching zero, but thank goodness for those who deal in reality. They matter, they have an effect. Ignore the noise, support the reality. USMC '77-'81
Flag ThisAs with so many other things, our penchant for killing and war is leading to innovation. Things like integration, for instance, didn't really happen until the military was integrated and the white soldiers were forced to learn that people of color were just as competent and reliable as the whites were. I figure that is what is going to happen with women in the military. There's something about being rescued and supported by someone you might have been prejudiced against, or something you might have been prejudiced against, to change a person's mind. It's amazing how the conservatives won't get on board with any innovations unless it's good for getting money or waging war. That's how it's always been, and I guess will always be.
Flag ThisThe Marines' use of existing green technology to accomplish real-world tasks in a way that saves lives (a bottom-up approach) is different from an administration trying to drive technology development (a top-down approach) in directions which may or may not prove feasible. The Marines aren't funding any Solyndras or windmill farms.
Flag This