Military+NASA

1. MILITARY Plan funds military solar developments. First advantage says this solves hegemony through 3 scenarios (1) Improving readines through efficiency improvements (2) stabilizing Iraq by improving mission effectiveness (3) reducing casualties that prevent public backlash. Second advantage is about the economic benefits of innovation spillovers from military solar developments.

2. SPACE Plan funds development of space based solar power. First advantage says space colonization and militarization is improved by solar developments. Second advantage is about the competitiveness gains from innovation spillovers from solar developments in space.

1AC

Contention one is inherency.

The Army has been trying to break their battery addiction through researching alternative energy technologies. DefenseTech, affilitate of military.com, June 29, 2004, “ARMY WANTS SOLAR-POWERED TENTS, UNIFORMS”, http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000989.html [Jason]

That was the headline to one of my favorite embedded accounts of the Iraq invasion. And it captured a fundamental truth about today's military: with so much warfighting gear going electronic, battles are increasingly won or lost by the side with the best power supply. To break the battery addiction, the Army has been pouring more and more resources into alternative and renewable ways to generate power. The latest example, reports John Gartner in today's Wired News: "flexible solar panels that can be layered on top of a tent, or rolled up into a backpack to provide a portable power source."

The military is inefficient with energy and wants alternative energy sources—but it needs more funding. Sandra I. Erwin, editor for National Defense Industrial Association, September 2006, Defense Watch, “Energy Conservation Plans Overlook Military Realities”, http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July /20060706133655 SAikceinawz0 .8574335 .html [Jason]

In truth, it is hard to see how Rumsfeld’s directive could change the reality of a military that mostly operates guzzlers, and has no tangible plans to change that. Just two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency gave the Pentagon a “national security exemption” so it can continue to drive trucks with old, energy-inefficient engines that don’t meet the emissions standards required for commercial trucks. The Army once considered replacing the mother of all fuel-gorgers, the Abrams tank engine, with a more efficient diesel plant. But the Army leadership then reversed course because it was too expensive. Most recently, the Army cancelled a program to produce hybrid-diesel humvees, and has slowed down the development of other hybrid trucks in the medium and heavy fleets. The Air Force has been contemplating the replacement of its surveillance, cargo and tanker aircraft engines, but the project was deemed too costly, and not worth any potential fuel savings. Subsequent to Rumsfeld’s 2005 snowflake, a number of military and civilian Pentagon officials have been eager to publicize various science projects aimed at energy conservation, such as research into synthetic fuels, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, wind farms and solar power, to name a few.

1AC

Contention two is hegemony.

First, The army wants solar batteries to improve their mobility and efficiency. Tracy Wemett Board of Public Relations, Konarka, 5/4/05 “US Army Taps Konarka for $1.6 Million Renewable Energy Program,” http://www.konarka.com/index.php/site/press/us_army_taps_konarka_for_16_million_renewable_energy_program [ev]

Electric power requirements are going up for both soldiers and facilities in theater of war situations, as the military is using sophisticated electronic technologies for sensing, surveillance, communications, search and destroy, and survival on the battlefield. Today's soldiers are being weighed down, though, by the batteries that drive these devices. They are required to carry a daily supply of primary batteries, but limited power capacity and the continual need for re-supply can limit the mobility, range and mission length required for effective field operations. Since rechargeable batteries can alleviate the soldiers' burden and the extensive logistics support to maintain the battery supply, the Army now favors their use wherever possible, and recharging those batteries in the field is a priority.

The military’s current lack of renewable energy is making the Iraq War grossly inefficient. David Roberts, interview with Amory Lovins, 26 Jul 2007, “All You Need Is Lovins A conversation with energy guru Amory Lovins”, http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/26/lovins/ [Jason]

If you build an efficient, diverse, dispersed, renewable electricity system, major failures -- whether by accident or malice -- become impossible by design rather than inevitable by design, an attractive nuisance for terrorists and insurgents. There's a pretty good correlation between neighborhoods with better electrical supply and those that are inhospitable to insurgents. This is well known in military circles. There's still probably just time to do this in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, about a third of our army's wartime fuel use is for generator sets, and nearly all of that electricity is used to air-condition tents in the desert, known as "space cooling by cooling outer space." We recently had a two-star Marine general commanding in western Iraq begging for efficiency and renewables to untether him from fuel convoys, so he could carry out his more important missions. This is a very teachable moment for the military. The costs, risks, and distractions of fuel convoys and power supplies in theater have focused a great deal of senior military attention on the need for not dragging around this fat fuel-logistics tail -- therefore for making military equipment and operations several-fold more energy efficient.

The US military is completely reliant on oil—without it operations would be impossible. Nick Turse Contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus, Associate Editor and Research Director of Tomdispatch.com, 4/24/08 Foreign Policy in Focus, “The Military-Petroleum Complex” http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5097 [ev]

But Rumsfeld’s military was more than just an armed occupier sent to lock down the planet’s oil lands. It was also a known petrol addict. In his book Blood and Oil, Michael Klare laid out the little-acknowledged facts about the Pentagon’s oil obsession: The American military relies more than that of any other nation on oil-powered ships, planes, helicopters, and armored vehicles to transport troops into battle and rain down weapons on its foes. Although the Pentagon may boast of its ever-advancing use of computers and other high-tech devices, the fighting machines that form the backbone of the U.S. military are entirely dependent on petroleum. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, the Department of Defense could neither rush its forces to distant battlefields nor keep them supplied once deployed there. And the deployments DoD has “rushed its forces” to in recent years – in Afghanistan and Iraq – have sucked up massive quantities of oil. According to Fuel Line, the official newsletter of the Pentagon’s fuel-buying component, the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), from October 1, 2001, to August 9, 2004, the DESC supplied 1,897,272,714 gallons of jet fuel, alone, for military operations in Afghanistan. Similarly, in less than a year and a half, from March 19, 2003, to August 9, 2004, the DESC provided U.S. forces with 1,109,795,046 gallons of jet fuel for operations in Iraq. In 2005, Lana Hampton of the DoD’s Defense Logistics Agency revealed that the military’s aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles were guzzling 10 to 11 million barrels of fuel each month in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet, while the Pentagon reportedly burns through an astounding 365,000 barrels of oil every day (the equivalent of the entire nation of Sweden’s daily consumption), Sohbet Karbuz, an expert on global oil markets, estimates that the number is really closer to 500,000 barrels.

1AC

Lack of oil leads to US Military and economic decline Michael T. Klare, Five Colleges Professor of Peace and Security Studies, 2005, Blood and Oil p. 9

A painful reminder of the critical role that oil plays in the U.S. economy is the fact that nearly every economic recession since World War II has come on the heels of a global petroleum shortage and an accompanying surge in prices. Many readers will remember the Arab oil embargo and the OPEC price increases of 1973-74, which resulted in endless lines at gas stations and a severe economic contraction. Long gas lines and another contraction followed the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and a similar if shorter episode followed the August 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. More recently, a global shortage of petroleum triggered the lingering economic downturn of 2001-2001 and threatened to slow or abort the recovery of 2004. To be sure, other factors have played a role in these events, but in each case a shortage of petroleum set the downturn in motion. Just as petroleum fuels the economy, it also plays an essential role in U.S. national security. The American military relies more than that of any other nation on oil-powered ships, planes, helicopters, and armored vehicles to transport troops into battle and rain down weapons on its foes. Although the Pentagon may boast of its ever-advancing use of computers and other high-tech devices, the fighting machines that form the backbone of the U.S. military are entirely dependent on petroleum. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, the Department of Defense could neither rush its forces to distant battlefields nor keep them supplied once deployed there. This combination of factors is what makes petroleum central to America’s economic and military strength. “Oil fuels more than automobiles and airplanes,” Robert E. Ebel, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told a State Department audience in April 2002. “Oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics.” Far more than a simple commodity to be bought and sold on the international market, petroleum “is a determinant of well being, of national security, and international power for those who possess this vital resource and the converse for those who do not.”

Solar technology can lead to an improved and more efficient military. Nanosolar Inc, 2007, “Cell Production Leads the Way Toward Longer-Lasting Portable Power”, from Distribution Statement A 2007, http://www.darpa.mil/sbir/pdf_files/Nanosolar_09_05_07.pdf [Jason]

Maintaining enough power to keep communications flowing and equipment functioning is a vital issue for the warfighter, especially in remote or hazardous situations. There is a critical need for low-cost, durable solar modules that provide portable power sources without the need for energy re-supply. Under a DARPA funded SBIR program, Nanosolar developed improved production techniques to create high-efficiency solar cells that are lightweight, flexible, durable, cheap, and easy to produce. Nanosolar is applying a new technique in the emerging field of nanotechnology to address critical power shortcomings: efficiency, durability and availability. This technology can extend mission durations, increase the range of mission distance, and minimize supply chain logistics and the personnel risk typically associated with re-supplying power sources. Nanosolar has developed a way to produce rolls of thin-film solar cells that are printed directly on the substrate material with an ink made up of tiny nanoparticles containing the proper ratio of elements required to make the cells absorb solar energy. This technique has required innovations in seven different areas to dramatically improve the cost-efficiency, yield, and throughput of thin-film solar cell production: nanostructured components, printable semiconductors, printable electrodes, rapid thermal processing, low-cost substrates, roll-to-roll processing, and fast assembly.

1AC

Portable Solar Panels allow soldiers to become more mobile, stealthy, and able to win wars. John Gartner, Wired, 06.29.04, “Solar to Keep Army on the Go”, http://www.wired.com/science/ discoveries/news/2004/06/64021 [Jason]

During a battle, the ability to move troops swiftly and without detection can mean the difference between victory and defeat. The U.S. Army is developing tents and uniforms made from flexible solar panels to make it more difficult to track soldiers. Jean Hampel, project engineer in the Fabric Structures Group at the Army's Natick Soldier Systems Center, said the need to reduce the Army's logistics footprint spurred interest in developing lightweight solar panels. "We want to cut back on the things that soldiers have to bring with them," including generators and personal battery packs, Hampel said. In modern warfare, portable power for communications technology is every bit as important as firepower and manpower. The Army is testing flexible solar panels developed by Iowa Thin Film Technologies that can be layered on top of a tent, or rolled up into a backpack to provide a portable power source She said soldiers could carry smaller flexible solar panels and unfold them during the day to collect energy to recharge their personal communications equipment. This would enable soldiers to lighten their loads of extra battery packs, which are sometimes left behind and reveal the soldiers' presence, according to Hampel.

Military power increases US heg. Stephen Gardner Manaing director of www.euro-correspondent.com, June 04 “Questioning American Hegemony,” http://www.nthposition.com/questioningamerican.php

The second main underpinning of the orthodoxy of American hegemony is American military power. US military spending is vast. It will be an estimated USD 400 billion in the budget year 2005, dwarfing the defence spend of any other country. The US has the world's most technologically advanced and potentially devastating arsenal. Once again, the media reflects the orthodoxy that American military might is hegemonic. In The Observer in February 2002, for example, Peter Beaumont and Ed Vulliamy wrote, "The reality - even before the latest proposed increases in military spending - is that America could beat the rest of the world at war with one hand tied behind its back." [1]

Heg is key to prevent global nuclear war. Khalilzad 1995 – RAND, Ambassador to Afghanistan Washington Quarterly, Spring Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

1AC

Solar power is key to success in Iraq. Mark Clayton, The Christian Science Monitor, 9/7/2006, “In the Iraqi war zone, U.S. Army calls for 'green' power”, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovatio ns/2006-09-07-army-green-power_x.htm [Jason]

Memo to Pentagon brass from the top United States commander in western Iraq: Renewable energy — solar and wind-power generators — urgently needed to help win the fight. Send soon. Calling for more energy in the middle of oil-rich Iraq might sound odd to some. But not to Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, whose deputies on July 25 sent the Pentagon a "Priority 1" request for "a self-sustainable energy solution" including "solar panels and wind turbines." The memo may be the first time a frontline commander has called for renewable-energy backup in battle. Indeed, it underscores the urgency: Without renewable power, U.S. forces "will remain unnecessarily exposed" and will "continue to accrue preventable ... serious and grave casualties," the memo says. "By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors," reads the unclassified memo posted on the website InsideDefense.com, a defense industry publication that first reported its existence last month.

Iraq War key to Middle East stability. Wall Street Journal, March 22, 2006, “What if We Lose? The consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq”, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008124 [Jason]

Broader Mideast instability. No one should underestimate America's deterrent effect in that unstable region, a benefit that would vanish if we left Iraq precipitously. Iran would feel free to begin unfettered meddling in southern Iraq with the aim of helping young radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr overwhelm moderate clerics like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Syria would feel free to return to its predations in Lebanon and to unleash Hezbollah on Israel. Even allies like Turkey might feel compelled to take unilateral, albeit counterproductive steps, such as intervening in northern Iraq to protect their interests. Every country in the Middle East would make its own new calculation of how much it could afford to support U.S. interests. Some would make their own private deals with al Qaeda, or at a minimum stop aiding us in our pursuit of Islamists.

Middle East conflict causes global nuclear war Steinbach 2002 – Analyst, Center for Research on Globalisation http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)

1AC

Contention three is economy.

First, the solar market is failing. USA Today 1/22/08 “Solar-power stocks lose place in sun; Clouds hover with faltering oil, economy” Lexis [ev]

Solar-power stocks, among the brightest spots on Wall Street all of last year, are beginning to short-circuit. After doubling, tripling or more in 2007, shares of leading companies that make the pieces and parts needed to generate solar power are showing serious signs of trouble. Industry leaders SunPower, First Solar and Suntech Power have seen their share prices collapse 43%, 34% and 31%, respectively, this year as investors worry the giddiness over the stocks last year drove them to unrealistic valuations. "These (solar) stocks have had a bubble mentality with them," says Mark Bachman, analyst at Pacific Crest. "It's not the same as the Internet bubble, ... but when you look at the valuations, they're frothy."

US economic collapse is imminent Kevin Phillips, Washington Post, 5/18/08, The Old Titans all Collapsed: is the US next?, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603461.html

But in the background, one could hear the groans and feel the tremors as larger political and economic tectonic plates collided. Nine months later, Greenspan's soothing analogies no longer wash. The U.S. economy faces unprecedented debt levels, soaring commodity prices and sliding home prices, to say nothing of a weak dollar. Despite the recent stabilization of the economy, some economists fear that the world will soon face the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s. In 2008, we can mark another perilous decade: the tech mania of 1997-2000, morphing into a bubble and market crash; the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; imperial hubris and the Bush administration's bungled 2003 invasion of Iraq. These were followed by OPEC's abandoning its $22-$28 price range for oil, with the cost per barrel rising over five years to more than $100; the collapse of global respect for the United States over the Iraq war; the imploding U.S. housing market and debt bubble; and the almost 50 percent decline of the U.S. dollar against the euro since 2002. Small wonder a global financial crisis is in the air. With the help of the overgrown U.S. financial sector, the United States of 2008 is the world's leading debtor, has by far the largest current-account deficit and is the leading importer, at great expense, of both manufactured goods and oil. The potential damage if the world soon undergoes the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s is incalculable. The loss of global economic leadership that overtook Britain and Holland seems to be looming on our own horizon.

Oil production is insufficient—an energy crisis is imminent. Dr. Stephen Leeb, PhD., 2006, The Coming Economic Collapse p.27

In summary, all the evidence shows that the supply/demand squeeze I envisioned in The Oil Factor will actually be far more severe. An oil price of $100 per barrel by the end of the decade now seems a wildly optimistic prediction. Indeed, the only way oil will not top triple digits within the next few years will be if there is a huge worldwide depression. Moreover, even in the aftermath of such a depression, oil will very likely continue a dramatic uptrend that will result in prices well over $100 – even if the “Hubbert’s Peak” geologists are only half right. We hope you understand the implications of what we have covered so far. The United States, and by extension the world, is facing the most serious energy crisis in history. It is a crisis for which we are completely unprepared, and that our leaders are not even willing to acknowledge. There is no plan in place to deal with a shortfall in oil production and very little chance of avoiding it, which means the economic consequences of this crisis will be dire.

1AC

The impact is nuclear war. Mead 1998 – Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations LA Times, 8-23 Even with stock markets tottering around the world, the president and the Congress seem determined to spend the next six months arguing about dress stains. Too bad. The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace in 60 years. Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financial markets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted, thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn't money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing about depressions. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing "The Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."

Military use of alternative energy will lessen dependence on foreign oil. Jane’s Information Group, August 27th, 2007. http://www.janes.com/news/defence/triservice/jdw/jdw070822_1_n.shtml

Skeptics may ask what incentive the Pentagon has to pursue in earnest a range of energy alternative programmes. The exploding cost of the US military's oil consumption was the number one reason cited by senior US defence officials. "There are several major drivers here, but number one is - let's face it - cost," William Anderson, the USAF Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment and Logistics told Jane's. The US military is the single largest fuel consumer in the US; the Pentagon spent USD10.9 billion on energy supplies in Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05). Every USD10 dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the US military one billion dollars in operating costs. Equally burdensome are the indirect costs of US dependence on foreign oil. Estimates of the US military's annual investment in the troops, infrastructure and other assets needed to secure US and allied access to oil in the Middle East range from USD44.4 billion to more than USD150 billion a year.

The military is a key starting point for research—allows for the most in-depth and developed technology. Parameters Spring 06 Vol 36 Issue 1 “Towards a Long-Range Energy Security Policy” Proquest [ev]

At the same time, the unique needs of military programs make them a logical starting point for at least some research in this area. Running information-age campaigns with industrial-age logistical systems is already problematic, and renewable energy sources or conservation technologies might provide a partial solution. The Army is presently funding a program to develop flexible solar panels that may ultimately be woven into the fabric of tents or uniforms to supply power for communications equipment, computers, and other electrical appliances.41 A hydrogen fuel cell able to get more miles per gallon could be a considerable boon to mechanized Army units, to say nothing of Navy and Air Force units, which may see benefits even sooner. Submarines using fuel cells are not only possible, but, in the form of the Type 212A, are already entering service with the German navy.42

1AC

Solar tech solves private sector growth. Gary Arlen Staff Writer 2/8/05 Post-Newsweek Business Information: Newsbytes “For Tech’s Sake: lightweight Solar Power for Mobile Users” Lexis [ev]

Nonetheless, the opportunity is immense, especially as government users not just military field personnel increasingly rely on transportable power supplies. Developers envision that their thin-film polymers will be wrapped onto building materials, such as cubicle walls allowing windows and ceiling lights to feed power to new devices, especially in temporary locations and venues where traditional electrical wall sockets are scarce. Nanotech energy developers are fond of statistics about the vast opportunities they face. Of the worldwide energy production (about four terawatts), barely 1 percent comes from renewable sources, and solar power represents less than 1 percent of that segment, McGahn says. As portable devices demand more power and as the devices themselves become more multi-functional (further increasing power needs), the value of photovoltaic supplies becomes more apparent. That is one reason for the young companies to dream that their flexible products will move beyond the coatings of devices. Invisible rooftop and tent-top solar collectors and even clothing coated with photovoltaic material are the next steps in this power play. For IT developers especially the growing cadre tasked with implementing efficient, long-lasting mobile applications the availability of so many photovoltaic options is becoming a shining ray of light.

PLAN TEXT

The United States federal government should fund the Department of Defense to develop and produce military solar energy technology.

1AC

Contention four is solvency.

Government support is key to fuel effective military technology. < Paul Carlstrom, San Fransisco Chronicle, July 11, 2005, “As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter”, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/a rchive/2005/07/11/BUG7 IDL1AF1.DTL&type=tech [Jason]

These applications have smaller power requirements than buildings, and military research contracts at Konarka, Nanosys and Nanosolar may pave the way for commercial availability of solar batteries for communications devices. "Price is no object for the military, and they need power on the go," said Nordan. "Besides, the mobile-phone industry is driven by new features." All three companies rely upon government contracts in addition to private funding. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been the most generous. Konarka has a $6 million grant, and Nanosolar has received $10.3 million. Nanosys' $9.4 million in grants comes from that agency, as well as the Department of Energy and the Navy, among others -- although not all of this research is solar-related. Industry watchers like Wooley of the Energy Foundation say that some kind of government assistance is necessary to make alternative sources of energy viable. "The (solar) industry has grown and expanded through incentives. The technology doesn't need government support forever, but it's at a crucial point," he said.

With continued research, new solar technology can be ready by 2010. Space Dailey 7/25/07 “Consortium Achieves Record-High Solar Cell Efficiency” Lexis [ev]

The consortium's goal is to create solar cells that operate at 50 percent in production, Barnett said. With the fresh funding and cooperative efforts of the DuPont-UD consortium, he said it is expected new high efficiency solar cells could be in production by 2010. The highly efficient VHESC solar cell uses a novel lateral optical concentrating system that splits solar light into three different energy bins of high, medium and low, and directs them onto cells of various light sensitive materials to cover the solar spectrum. The system delivers variable concentrations to the different solar cell elements. The concentrator is stationary with a wide acceptance angle optical system that captures large amounts of light and eliminates the need for complicated tracking devices. The VHESC would have immediate application in the high-technology military, which increasingly relies upon a variety of electronics for individual soldiers and the equipment that supports them. As well, it is hoped the solar cells will have a large number of commercial applications.

Embracing technology now key to effective future deployment. Dr. Keith Aliberti, research physicist in the Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate at the Army Research Laboratory and Thomas L. Bruen logistics management specialist at the Army Logistics Innovation Agency at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 2007 Army Logistician Vol 39 No 1 “Energy on Demand” Lexis [ev]

Research is underway in all energy-related areas as the Nation seeks to eliminate its dependence on foreign oil. Several technical advances have occurred in the use of organic feedstock to produce electricity. Commercial large-scale waste-to-energy converters have been marketed, and it may be possible to reduce them in size so they can be used on the battlefield. Photovoltaics is a heavily commercialized area that enjoys significant developmental funding outside of the Department of Defense. Advances in solar power are occurring with breakthroughs in more efficient materials and designs. Multijunction, thin-film nanoscale solar cells are in development, promising up to 50-percent energy conversion. Recently, a major scientific breakthrough occurred in the stabilization and storage of anti-matter, a first step toward unlocking the door to the most powerful energy source currently known to man. In the coming age of directed-energy weapons, the implications for rearming and refueling are enormous. Logisticians must demonstrate a willingness to investigate innovative concepts and technologies leading to onsite usable energy and power systems at the point of effect in the battlespace. We should develop a basic understanding of the scientific and technological underpinnings of these capabilities in order to influence policies and procedures that deal with the generation, storage, distribution, utilization, and standardization of new energy technologies.

1AC

Funding is the critical factor for battery supply. Geoff S Fein Staff Writer for National Defense Magazine, Sept 03 National Defense Vol 88 Issue 598 “Battery Supplies Ran Dangerously Low in Iraq” Proquest [ev]

Inadequate inventories of military batteries almost led U.S. forces to cease operations or alter tactics during Operation Iraqi Freedom. But several U.S. manufacturers helped avert a potential crisis by slowly replenishing stocks of the non-rechargeable BA 5990 battery, said a Navy official. Navy Capt. Clark Driscoll, the Defense Contract Management Agency liaison to the Joint Staff, said lack of funding had left the inventory of BA 5590s in "bad shape for a long time." The BA 5590 is the military's most widely used portable power source, operating a variety of communications devices. "We literally [came] within days of running out of these batteries-where major combat operations would either have ceased or changed in their character because of the lack of battery support," Driscoll said in remarks to the Tri-Service Power Expo, in Norfolk, Va. The challenge is for the military to increase funding for batteries and do better planning, Driscoll said. "Given the near-term disaster on batteries, [we are] now in a formal battery requirement determination process to validate future requirements," he said. "The lessons of the past are far too painful to repeat." Driscoll would also like to see the Department of Defense give the same attention to batteries as it does to guided munitions. Tom Nycz, from the Army Communications and Electronics Command, said that lack of funding has led to the battery shortage. "[We've] been shorted for so long, because budgets are so constrained," he said in an interview.

NEG—HEG TURN

MANDATING A SHIFT AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS KILLS THE MILITARY- ONLY NEW FUNDING CAN ALLOW AN EFFECTIVE MILITARY (James Jay Carafano and Oliver Horn, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Oliver Horn is Research Assistant in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation., October 30, 2007, “Emissions Mandates Would Undermine National Security”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/wm1683.cfm

As the military fights a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress is attempting to open up a third front: emissions mandates. The proposed Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007 (H.R. 3221) would restrict all federal agencies to fiscal year 2010 emissions levels beginning in 2011. That presents a big a problem for the Department of Defense (DOD), which accounts for well over half the federal government's energy consumption. Imposing CO2 constraints on the armed forces would hamstring the Pentagon's ability to train, sustain, and fight; the cost of operating and maintaining an already overstretched force would skyrocket. In addition to being disastrous for national security, the emissions mandate is unnecessary: DOD is already committed to alternative energy research and the development and fuel conservation measures. Rather than hamstring the Pentagon with unrealistic legislative mandates, Congress should encourage its research and conservation efforts and promote modernization initiatives that add new, needed combat capabilities while reducing energy demands. Worse Than Pearl Harbor H.R. 3221 could shift the Pentagon's primary mission from defending the nation to curbing emissions. To meet the environmental mandates, the services would have to divert funds away from maintenance, repair, research, and procurement. Beyond the initial freeze, the Pentagon would face the unrealistically stringent goal of reducing emissions annually—to the level of zero by 2050. The overly broad judicial review provisions could allow anyone to challenge DOD policies in court on the grounds that the resultant emissions may put it out of compliance. The DOD would spend time and money fighting endless CO2-related lawsuits. Furthermore, the Pentagon is already at the forefront of developing alternate energy sources, investing roughly $250 million in such programs in fiscal year 2006. These programs include the development of synthetic fuel, fuel cells, and lightweight materials. As one of the world's largest consumers of fossil fuels, the U.S. military already has every incentive to find ways to conserve energy and reduce the vast logistical “energy tail” that limits the agility of forces on the battlefield. In expending resources, however, the Pentagon must balance the real-world needs of current operations with efforts to refit and modernize the force—all within the limits of what current technologies can deliver. Room for Improvement Without question, DOD can and should do more to reduce energy consumption. The armed forces would probably be better off if they burned fewer fossil fuels and were less dependent on foreign energy. In fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon spent $10.9 billion on energy supplies. Today, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the military an additional $1 billion in operating costs. In terms of operations, fuel represents more than half of the DOD's logistics tonnage and more than 70 percent of the tonnage required to deploy the Army. Consequently, reducing fuel consumption would alleviate both a significant expense and a strategic weakness. The following initiatives would help address the DOD's energy issues: * Building nuclear cruisers and expanding the submarine force; * Expanding research into synthetic fuels; * Continuing research and development into next-generation batteries, fuel cells, and composite materials; * Ending congressional earmarks in the Pentagon's R&D budgets, allowing the services to focus research dollars on real needs; * Accelerating development and production of a new bomber that uses less fuel to put more bombs on targets; and * Accelerating the fielding of next-generation ground vehicles. Conclusion Emissions mandates are an unnecessary and unrealistic way to reduce the military's energy demands. H.R. 3221 is an unfunded mandate that would hamstring the Pentagon and undermine national security. What the Pentagon needs is a robust and adequate budget. Funding defense at about 4 percent of GDP every year would provide sufficient resources for a trained and ready force, current operations, and preparing for the future.