The report discusses four general strategies for reducing the Navy's dependence on oil for its ships:
reducing energy use on Navy ships; alternative hydrocarbon fuels; nuclear propulsion; and sail and solar power. Reducing Energy Use on Navy Ships

One strategy for reducing the Navy's dependence on oil would be to reduce energy use on Navy ships. Integrated Electric-Drive Propulsion

Compared to a traditional mechanical-drive propulsion system with two separate sets of turbines (one for propulsion, the other for generating electricity for shipboard use), an integrated electric-drive propulsion system can reduce a ship's fuel use by permitting the ship's single combined set of turbines to be run more often at their most fuel-efficient speeds. Fuel Cells

Fuel cell technology, if successfully developed for Navy shipboard application, could reduce Navy ship fuel use substantially by generating electricity much more efficiently than is possible through combustion. Alternative Hydrocarbon Fuels

A second strategy for reducing the Navy's dependence on oil would be to shift to alternative hydrocarbon fuels. 2006 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Study

A January 2006 "quick look" study by the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board examined several potential alternative fuels for Air Force use. 2005 Naval Reactors Quick Look Analysis

A 2005 "quick look analysis" conducted by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, also known as Naval Reactors, concluded that total life-cycle costs (i.e., procurement plus life-cycle operating and support costs) for nuclear- and fossil-fueled versions of large-deck aircraft carriers would equalize when the price of diesel fuel marine (DFM) delivered to the Navy reached $55. The break-even figures for LHA/LHD-type large-deck amphibious assault ships and large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers) were $80 and $205 per barrel, respectively. Sail and Solar Power

A fourth strategy for reducing the Navy's dependence on oil would be to make use of sail and solar power, perhaps particularly on Navy auxiliaries and DOD sealift ships. Solar Power

Solar power might offer some potential for augmenting other forms of shipboard power, perhaps particularly in Navy auxiliaries and DOD sealift ships. Legislative Activity

		FY2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 109-364)

			House

Section 128 of H.R. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN WEAPONS PLATFORMS. 5122 / P.L. 109-364 (conference report H.Rept. 109-702 of September 29, 2006) states:
SEC. (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—In light of the findings in subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that the Navy should make greater use of alternative technologies, including expanded application of integrated power systems, fuel cells, and nuclear power, for propulsion of future major surface combatant ships. (c) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of the Navy shall include integrated power systems, fuel cells, and nuclear power as propulsion alternatives to be evaluated within the analysis of alternatives for future major surface combatant ships. Section 360 states:
SEC. The Committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to explore the use of Fischer-Tropsch fuels as alternative sources for DOD's fuel requirements. 889/P.L.
General strategies for reducing the Navy's dependence on oil for its ships include reducing energy use on Navy ships; shifting to alternative hydrocarbon fuels; shifting to more reliance on nuclear propulsion; and using sail and solar power.
Reducing energy use on Navy ships. A 2001 study concluded that fitting a Navy cruiser with more energy-efficient electrical equipment could reduce the ship's fuel use by 10% to 25%. The Navy has installed fuel-saving bulbous bows and stern flaps on many of its ships. Ship fuel use could be reduced by shifting to advanced turbine designs such as an intercooled recuperated (ICR) turbine. Shifting to integrated electric-drive propulsion can reduce a ship's fuel use by 10% to 25%; some Navy ships are to use integrated electric drive. Fuel cell technology, if successfully developed, could reduce Navy ship fuel use substantially.
Alternative hydrocarbon fuels. Potential alternative hydrocarbon fuels for Navy ships include biodiesel and liquid hydrocarbon fuels made from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. A 2005 Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) study and a 2006 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board both discussed FT fuels.
Nuclear propulsion. Oil-fueled ship types that might be shifted to nuclear propulsion include large-deck amphibious assault ships and large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers). A 2005 "quick look" analysis by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program concluded that total life-cycle costs for nuclear-powered versions of these ships would equal those of oil-fueled versions when oil reaches about $70 and $178 per barrel, respectively.
Sail and solar propulsion. Kite-assisted propulsion might be an option for reducing fuel use on Navy auxiliaries and DOD sealift ships. Two firms are now offering kite-assist systems to commercial ship operators. Solar power might offer some potential for augmenting other forms of shipboard power, perhaps particularly on Navy auxiliaries and DOD sealift ships.
FY2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364). Section 128 of P.L. 109-364 (conference report H.Rept. 109-702 of September 29, 2006) expresses the sense of the Congress that the Navy should make greater use of alternative technologies, including expanded application of integrated power systems, fuel cells, and nuclear power, for propulsion of future major surface combatant ships. The report directs the Navy to include integrated power systems, fuel cells, and nuclear power as propulsion alternatives to be evaluated within the analysis of alternatives for future major surface combatant ships. Section 360 makes it Department of Defense (DOD) policy to improve the fuel efficiency of weapons platforms, consistent with mission requirements, and requires a report on DOD progress in implementing the policy.
This report will be updated as events warrant.