This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
The Navy’s unclear propulsion program antedates the present critical shortages of both energy and raw materials and is thus not a respo)ise to these twin crises. But there are other steps which the Navy is either taking or contemplating in order to solve these problems, the pervasiveness and peril of which can be measured by the fact that even the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) must wait in line for the fuel without which her aircraft and escorts would be useless.
Just as the energy crisis has affected much of the life-style among the developed nations of the world, it has given the U. S. Navy a brand new set of problems, compounding the difficulties it already had to deal with—environmental legislation, budgetary and inflationary squeezes, and the formidable Soviet Navy. The Department of Defense (DoD) uses about 2.5% of all of the energy consumed annually in the United States.[1] This figure reflected a $2.5 billion expenditure in fiscal year 1974. Even though conservation methods are reducing actual usage of electricity, coal, petroleum, natural gas, and propane, a 20% increase in dollars is expected when the final figures are in for the current fiscal year.2 DoD’s principal energy sources are petroleum and electricity: 72.5% and 16.6%, respectively. Of these amounts, more than one-half is required by aircraft and about one-sixth by ships and the support shore installations. Navy requirements exceed 35% of DoD’s annual petroleum supply. With so much energy required to keep a shrinking Navy afloat, how can it satisfy the President’s call for a 7% reduction in energy consumption in fiscal year 1975 without undermining operational responsibilities? Let’s examine how the Navy is attempting to comply and still maintain its operational capabilities.
One of the first steps taken was the creation in July 1973 of the Office of Navy Energy and Natural Resources Research and Development (NENRR&D). The director of this office, Commander Paul Petzrick, Civil Engineer Corps, has devoted the last several years specifically to expanding the Navy’s environmental research and development program. Commander Petzrick answers directly to the Deputy Chief of Naval Material and Development. The Department of Defense created its own Energy Office about the same time and placed it in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics). Perhaps a more fitting title would be Coordinator of Energy for DoD. In early 1974, both the Army and Air Force created their own counterparts to the Navy Energy Office. In this way there has been created within Defense an institutional organization for coordination on energy matters.
The NENRR&D program reflects a policy of coordinating energy issues, rather than one of managing each in isolation from the other.
The core of the NENRR&D program is centered around three major areas:
► Synthetic fuels—testing, for the most part, of coal and oil shale as possible substitutes for present Navy distillate
► Energy self-sufficiency at the Navy’s installations^ researching such areas as wind power and solar and geothermal energy in attempts to gain independence from the fuel pipeline
► Conservation of energy—stressing the importance o' energy conservation on board ships and ashore; management of energy at Navy industrial plants
With these criteria officially established, the Nav) Director of Energy and Natural Resources R&D plannc the projects which follow. While there are additions facets of the Navy’s response to the energy crisis no within the jurisdiction of this new office, all of ltS projected programs are aimed at conservation of enefg) by means of research, improved managerial method0*' ogy, and employment of replacement materials in d*e energy process.
► Energy technology—exploratory development
► Geothermal energy in the Pacific Basin
► Solid waste and organic material
► Light refined liquid fuel for ships and aircraft
► Seaborne nuclear electric power plant
► Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG)
► Shipboard energy conservation
In addition, the Navy—via this energy office—-^ participate with the National Science Foundation an^. the Office of Coal Research (OCR), Department 0 Interior, and other agencies in such projects as:
► Geothermal power source for NAS Keflavik, Ice*anj
► Improved energy management at Navy industr1 plants
► Ocean thermal differences power systems
► Remote-controlled coal mining equipment
► Fluidized bed burner equipment
► Central solar hot water heating system3
The energy technology project, is the core prografp of the Navy’s efforts to develop new energy so0^ Established in fiscal year 1974, this project is aimed j examining new sources of energy in ships, aircraft,afl^ shore facilities. These include derived fuel, poteU1 geothermal sources at the Naval Weapons Cef> ^ (NWC), China Lake, and the military feasibility arl advantages of hydrogen as a fuel. j
The investigation of coal-derived fuel for ship afl aircraft use has been underway for two years. 1° ^
operation with the Department of Interior’s Office | Coal Research, the Navy decided to use the Reserve Force destroyer Johnston (DD-821) in No vet11 ^ 1973 to test a liquid fuel derived from coal. The was part of Project Seacoal, a series of experiments ^ liquid coal products being used as substitutes f°r ^ rent ship and aircraft energy sources. The fuel used ^
s°ld for
commercial use, thus reducing the cost of
ca led Seacoal I, to distinguish from other fuels still fo be tested. The Navy will experiment with each of j e ^uels, Seacoal II, Seacoal III, etc., once they are eerned usable in Navy propulsion systems. The basic ^°ncept of Seacoal I originated in the Naval Material inland’s Combat Systems Advisory Group which ec°mrnended that the Navy cooperate with OCR and est the latter’s Project COED (char oil energy develop- rr'e^t) syncrude product.
ne COED fuel is obtained through a process called yrolysis, by which coal is crushed and then decom-
foll ^eat’ Pressure> and catalysts. Immediately
owing pyrolysis, the product undergoes a hydrogen sisatment which yields a synthetic oil-like fuel. Pyroly- ls also yields a number of by-products which can be
Uc‘ng Seacoal I. Based on this predication, the mate cost of manufacturing one 42-gallon barrel of in C°3^ * *S ak°ut $5.00. Before the general price rise of jCtr°^eum products in 1973, the same size barrel wer *St'^ate cost the Navy around $5.25. If Seacoal I Cr^ available and could be used successfully it would e a financial as well as a natural resource saving. pUi^e 0re Seacoal I’s use in the Johnston's boilers and a Ps’ was discovered that this synthetic fuel had synd?f '0W (an<^ therefore unsafe) flash point. The tio CtlC ^a<^ t0 htstilled to remove the light frac- gui4 resPons'hle for the low flash point. Under Navy Pro nCC’ t^*s deficiency was eliminated, and the final Jis .fssed fitel, Seacoal I, is safe—just as safe as Navy roate finel. Its reduced sulphur content permits envi- tfian'enta^ accePtahihty. The fuel, however, is thicker p£r_^ othor Navy fuels and cannot flow easily in tem- °f ^UQres below 60°F. The Navy prefers a pour point a c t0 20°. This problem can be solved by using Kfa > Pre^eater >n the ship and by improving the
^ s pou,. point
U. S. NAVY
A boilerman lights off the coal-derived liquid fuel in the USS Johnston. The test, conducted in November 1973, was the first of a series of experiments called Project Seacoal.
beennt petroleum fuel supplies. Coordination has established with some areas of private industry
that are developing basic processes for oil shale refining and coal liquefaction as well as with such agencies as the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Departments of Commerce, Interior, and Transportation.
Coal-derived fuels are similar in many respects to petroleum ones but vary considerably with source of coal and the process used for liquefaction. Fuels derived from oil shales often jell during storage. However, in view of possibilities of the liquefaction process used in the USS Johnston experiment, the testing of such alternate fuels in ship boilers, marine gas turbines, and aircraft engines is essential to proper progress and to the success of the national energy effort. As a result, the Navy Energy Office, in cooperation with other government agencies, will complete during 1975 "de-
Co 1 e much additional research remains to be ac- hfav 1S 'e<^ before this Seacoal can be accepted by the encouraging strides have been made. In concert inent. e Gulf Oil Corporation, the Navy is expense whh solvent refined coal. Using a non-pyroly- beC nNue, some 50 barrels of anthracite coal can pr0cj°nverted to 150 barrels of synthetic daily. This titiueUCt ^aS a ^ower P°ur point. Since research will con- b|jt • *n t^*s area, the Navy may again return to coal, a lt<quid and environmentally acceptable form. e blavy is seeking light refined liquid fuel as a conits f’ however, rather than as a developer. Through fjnaenergy office, it hopes to establish the technical, derjva ’ ar*d military feasibility of liquefying fuels to KC ^r°m domestic coal and oil shale as alternatives
for
will
the potential geothermal sources there.8 In return
Besides bestowing upon the area a munificent an
relatively cheap energy base, this type of power be much more environmentally acceptable than tr presently derived from fuel oil and coal. In addk'011 to some economic benefits, the project would lesse|j the station’s dependence on the external fuel line & fuel shipments and enhance diplomatic relations both the Icelandic government and the people of c communities to be served by the project. ^
Other projects aimed at the achievement of se sufficiency include the development of floating nu°
Jize
- ilabd components. While the ultimate plant size will
on the requirements of the Navy and other usefS’^ is aimed initially to establish plans for a nornio^ megawatt unit which will cost about $13 milli°n'
will also be coordinated with other agencies to res maximum use of existing technologies and
tailed testing and analyses of coal-derived fuels, and fuels from oil shale and ship boilers, marine diesel engines, marine gas turbines, and aircraft engines.”4 Analyses will center on physical and chemical properties, combustion characteristics, compatibility, and lubricity. Experimentation also will include wear and corrosion effects, safety, storage, handling, and power development.
The Navy is also seeking alternate fuels for its aircraft. In cooperation with the Department of Interior’s OCR, plans have been made to operate jet and turboshaft aircraft engines on liquefied coal-derived fuel obtained from OCR. Fuel properties, engine operating performance, and the effect on materials and component parts of the engine will be determined by running each engine over a 150-hour marine gas turbine type operating profile (simulated mission conditions).5 During fiscal year 1976, similar tests are to be made with turbojet, turbofan, and turboshaft engines. Naturally, the products of various feedstocks and liquefaction processes will be examined and evaluated.
To facilitate experimentation, some 400,000 gallons of liquefied coal fuel to be tested in the airplane engines (first on ground, then in air, then off a carrier) will be refined as much as possible to the fuel properties of the present JP-5 (Navy jet fuel) so as to minimize engine modification requirements. These tests, a significant part of fiscal year 1975 endeavors for the Navy Energy Office, will be conducted at the Naval Air Propulsion Test Center, Trenton, New Jersey. They, too, demonstrate the desire to obtain synthetic alternate fuels for naval aircraft and achieve the capability for U. S. energy independence although these programs were planned before the Navy was invited to participate in Project Independence.6
The second major area of the NENRR&D program centers around the use of new energy. Using solar energy, less than 4% of the U. S. continental land mass could supply 100% of the nation’s current energy needs. Moreover, geothermal energy could probably contribute about 30% of our energy needs within the next 25 years.7 One can perceive rather clearly the importance of exploitation of geothermal sources as bases of energy to serve naval installations and also as a vital area of the Project Energy technology. The Navy Energy Office is initiating a study of a possibly substantial geothermal energy source in the Coso Range area of the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California. Several fissures through which the earth’s energy can escape and be captured have been observed there— possibly capable of providing 400 to 800 megawatts of power. After further research, this geothermal energy will be developed by a private utility company with the power station to be located on the Naval Base at
China Lake. Eventually the plant will be hooked in[0 the Southern California electrical grid and operated b) a local power company. It can furnish power to otkr military installations and adjacent civilian regions. This project, estimated to take 10 to 15 years for complex011’ accentuates the Navy’s determination to minimize its dependence on the fuel pipeline.
In line with the same objective, the Navy, in c0 operation with the Department of State, desires to gJI,| permission from the government of Iceland to ir>st:1 a geothermal energy power plant at our naval base Jt Keflavik. Preliminary engineering studies indicate di:it the NAS Keflavik and towns within ten miles can be furnished heat for decades from geothermal soutceS located on the western Reykjanes peninsu ^ (Svartsengi). Studies indicate that the geo then11 source would yield as much as an 18% return on e°n struction costs. Several wells will be drilled in ^ Svartsengi region to confirm the potential of the ge° thermal source and establish the down-hole product!0'’ temperature, flow rate, pressure, and other factors wh*0 affect facility design. In addition, at least one expl°fJ tory hole will be dug on the naval station to deterrn'1^ such permission, the several towns near the base
be furnished with geothermal energy power at 111
or no cost to the Icelandic government. ,
: and
will
tha'
electric power plants and radioisotope thermoelectr^ generators (RTG). The electric power plants will located at remote bases, particularly those with ^ stricted periods of use, and will have the capability being relocated and returned to service on short n0tl^r They will also serve as sources of engineering power use in war damage and natural disaster recovery af Each floating nuclear electric power plant will P . vide electric power, steam heat, and potable water, project, still in the formulation and budgeting
aval
he RTGs noted above are being developed to leve capabilities in unattended operation of commutation and weather stations, navigational aids, sur- VeiUance, and antisubmarine warfare, among other Pphcations. These thermoelectric generators are pur- ted to be capable of self operation for a period of than five years in the deep ocean, polar areas, other difficult regions without refueling and main- though the initial costs may be high, they lo' ' °^set by savings in refueling, maintenance, and S'stical support—thus lessening dependence of our v-, °te bases on the conventional fuel line while proessential military services.
sjo^ hginally the RTG was an Atomic Energy Commis- n (AEC) project. However the Navy has assumed Cn^0ns*bility for developing several RTGs, and refer- 0j-CC designs have been completed. The development a thermoelectric converter module was initiated at
available because of changes in ERDA’s plans. Navy evaluation of the prototype RTG will include operation for a one to two year period, recovery, and deployment on an operational mission. The estimated cost of the whole project is $7 million.9
The Navy Energy Office will also seek the participation of the Energy Research and Development Administration in development of a thermoelectric converter module for undersea applications, hoping to obtain the technology experience derived by that agency’s development, along with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of a similar module for use in outer space.
Still another Navy project of potential importance is the development of a central solar hot water heating system for use in land-based installations.10 In 1974, the Navy successfully tested two solar heating units at the Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada. It is
vet
Fabi
source.
beenln§house. Tests to prequalify fuel capsules have bull C°n^uctcd, and technical evaluations of pressure °Us an<^ suPPort systems have been completed at vari- cUrrnaval and commercial laboratories. During the Com fiscal year the Navy Energy Office will initiate a\varcj Ability testing of synthetic fuel # 2 and will pOty c°ntracts for the design of a two-kilowatt RTG
WattriCation and testing of the prototype two-kilo- VtarG and fuel processing will be initiated in fiscal 6- However, the isotopic fuel may not be
projects at other naval industrial plants. The Navy
hh
mentS the
heaters, and to report water leaks or any other problem that waste energy. Fans, electric typewriters, and rep ducing machines are to be turned on only at the 1 of immediate use. Coffee messes should be merged 'vl ^ neighboring offices. These restrictions apply on b°2f ship as well as on land.13 j
In addition, car pools are urged for both officii private travel. Special reserved parking is given t0
pools at the Naval Academy, other naval instafl2t*ofl and the Pentagon. Use of government buildings duf1^ off-duty hours for recreational and other extra-curricj1^
£tgl co&'
activities which require fuel have been lessened a11' some cases eliminated.14 To insure compliance, en'
located in a high, semi-arid region with at least 90% sunshine. The experiment indicated that a larger central solar hot water heating system of this type could be used for housing on the base. It would also provide considerable operating data for evaluating the practicality and cost of employing this and other designed heating systems in larger installations. The Navy Energy Office, however, will check for possible new technology in solar energy conversion before going beyond this second level of research.
Other projects either underway or projected by the Navy Energy Office include:
► Shipboard energy conservation (improved overall efficiency in fuel utilization to reduce fuel demand)
► Energy saving boiler improvements (improvement of fuel atomizers and water emulsifiers and other candidate fuel devices)10
► Gas dissociation solar thermal power system (reuse of dissociated products of solar furnaces)10
► Ocean thermal differences power systems (generating electric power via ocean temperature gradients)10
► Wind power electrical generators for remote bases (development of high-efficiency, wind-driven electrical generating equipment and associated energy storage techniques)10
► Fluidized bed burner equipment (application of fluidized bed burner equipment in Navy boilers)11
► Remote-controlled coal mining equipment (use of deep ocean system technology to the civil sector for energy resource development)11
The third major area of pursuit in the Navy’s R&D core program is the conservation of energy, improved management of energy at Navy industrial installations, on board ship, and at shore establishments.
The Navy Energy Office is investigating the requirements necessary to improve energy management at Navy industrial plants on both short and long-term bases. Mainly because of its location in a usually cold region at some distance from petroleum supplies and the relative obsolescence of its buildings and heating equipment, the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has been selected for the initial experiment. First, studies to determine the present condition of the facilities and equipment will be made in order to establish energy requirements under a rehabilitation program. Then plant modernization, aimed at reducing heat losses and peak load requirements, will begin.12 Supported by the National Science Foundation, such heating theories as the use of packaged type gas and oil-fired boilers, installation of new coal-fired systems, and the purchase of steam and/or high-pressure hot water from a nearby utility company will all be studied. This whole investigative process—-with its revelations of heating concept changes in plar.t design and construction, and colleC' tion of energy usage data (all aimed at manage^111 improvements)—is likely to serve as a basis for simile
also contact state and federal energy groups concerning possible use of the substantial deposits of peat in & NIROP region.
In still further efforts at conserving energy, the Nav) has ordered a decrease in the number of cross-countf) flights. Flying time in general has been reduced by s0^ 18%, steaming time of naval vessels has been reduce by 20%, and some fleet operations have been cut 1,1 half. Rather than continue steaming through the nig
overnight anchoring is scheduled. Despite com to the contrary, one may justifiably wonder about ^ effect of these reductions on personnel training 20 operational capability. j
Cruising speeds have been ordered to be l°wer^ from 20 to 16 knots or "to the most economical sp^ ^ permitted by operational requirements.” In fact, deliberation has been given to the cancellation, ( ever feasible, of all training events which consume hf£ quantities of fuel.
The Navy energy saving program has reached m2 ■ essential activities ashore. Personnel in the Navy s^°r establishment have been ordered to reduce fuel c°n sumption by means such as turning down thermo5^ in offices and barracks to between 65° and 68°. ® ,
personnel have been told to extinguish unnece$s lights, wear sweaters instead of using portable elec
conservation panels have been set up in some L j.
mands. These efforts to conserve fuel may seem tIlVl3J
yet when totaled Navy-wide, the result has beefl
saving of 18-20%. .
_ _ . , . . . -.-vie*
Neither time nor space permits an extensive
of another facet of the Navy’s energy conserva0 ^
namely Admiral H. G. Rickover’s nuclear propu'
program. It antedates the crisis and is not thefe
a response to it.15 g
The program of the Navy Energy Office is
tj^ln8 r^e U. S. Navy and certainly those confronting
SOr in the Political Science Department of the U. S. Naval Academy
C0Urses *n national security policy, Soviet political and military P0rcj ’ anc^ S. foreign policy. In 1961 he initiated the Naval Academy Affairs Conference and has served as its director since then.
^*jans a fully implemented one as yet. It does reflect fact SCated recogn't*on of the fuel shortages possibly
nation today.
Cin ■ ^a0nc holds degrees from Fordham University, the University of . at1, an<^ Georgetown University. He is co-author of Geography and n<a^ Fower (1958, 1962, and 1967) and editor of Political-Military UtlC^ ^ ^ Foreign Policy (1966). He has published a number of jj 0n G. S. foreign and national security policies. Dr. Paone has served mjlittant to the General Staff, U. S. Army in matters relating to foreign Depa^ assistance and as a consultant to the National Security Studies
a hr r Cnt’ Army Command and General Staff College. He is now rrotesr~ ' and
1 "Saving Energy, Navy at Work,” All Hands, March 1974, p. 8.
2 Ibid.
3"Analysis of Navy Energy Programs,” Rev. 1, April 1974 (Hereafter referred to as NEP).
4Ibid., Project S41X9, Light Refined Liquid Fuel for Ships and Aircraft.
5Ibid.; Interview with Herbert Bartick, 30 July 1974.
6Arthur I. Mendolia letter to John Sawhill, 18 June 1974.
7Report, Atomic Energy Commission, Solar Energy Subpanel IX, October 1973.
8Although sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this project is a work unit under the "Navy Participation in the National Energy R & D Program” listed in NEP.
9NEP, Project X 4lWl.
10With support from the National Science Foundation.
11 With support from the Office of Coal Research, Department of Interior. l2lbid., Project X 29013.
13All Hands, March 1974, p. 8.
14SecNav Notice OCMM 434, 28 December 1973.
15H. G. Rickover, "Nuclear Warships and the Navy’s Future,” U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, January 1975, pp. 18-24.
_____________________ To Each Her Own
In December, 1941, I was one of the Naval Reserve medical officers ordered to Mare Island for active duty. The commanding officer of the Naval Hospital had served long in the Navy and was soon to be retired. He was a likeable old gentleman who enjoyed hunting and fishing. We frequently took him duck hunting on the river and pheasant hunting in the rice fields. On these outings he told us of his desire to get a ranch and live the life of a country gentleman when he retired. In the rear of his quarters he had built a chicken house and runway so he could get an early start on his farming but we were surprised when he told us one day that he had just purchased, and let loose in his backyard, 20 hens and 20 roosters.
Captain Leo L. Stanley, MC, USN (Retired)
Where Else?
In the course of obtaining repair parts for a vital piece of gear, our supply officer telephoned the Navy’s central supply computer complex in Pennsylvania. After speaking to a woman about our requirement, she put him on hold while she went to consult the computer. She returned shortly and replied: "Sorry sir, that part’s not in stock anywhere in the world; you’ll have to try somewhere else.”
Ensign Daniel S. Spradling, USNR
Let’s Hear it for the Ship’s Dentist
During an unusually rigorous air operations schedule on board the USS Saratoga (CVA 6o), the organized mayhem of routine take-offs and landings were frequently interspersed with announcements such as "Now Hear This: Lieutenant Smith has just completed his 500th successful carrier landing.”
Finally, the black-shoe officer of the deck had the Bosun’s Mate pass the word. "Now Hear This: Dr. Jones has just completed his 1,000th successful tooth extraction.” A muffled cheer arose from the unsung ship’s company working below decks.
Donald F. House
{The Naval Institute will pay $25.00 for each anecdote published in the Proceedings.)