Net Zero Fort Carson: Integrating Energy, Water, and Waste Strategies to Lower the Environmental Impact of a Military Base

Abstract

SummaryMilitary bases resemble small cities and face similar sustainability challenges. As pilot studies in the U.S. Army Net Zero program, 17 locations are moving to 100% renewable energy, zero depletion of water resources, and/or zero waste to landfill by 2020. Some bases target net zero in a single area, such as water, whereas two bases, including Fort Carson, Colorado, target net zero in all three areas. We investigated sustainability strategies that appear when multiple areas (energy, water, and waste) are integrated. A system dynamics model is used to simulate urban metabolism through Fort Carson's energy, water, and waste systems. Integrated scenarios reduce environmental impact up to 46% from the 2010 baseline, whereas single-dimension scenarios (energy-only, water-only, and wasteonly) reduce impact, at most, 20%. Energy conserving technologies offer mutual gains, reducing annual energy use 18% and water use 15%. Renewable energy sources present trade-offs: Concentrating solar power could supply 11% of energy demand, but increase water demand 2%. Waste to energy could supply 40% of energy demand and reduce waste to landfill >80%, but increase water demand between 1% and 22% depending on cooling system and waste tonnage. Outcomes depend on how the Fort Carson system is defined, because some components represent multiple net zero areas (food represents waste and energy), and some actions require embodied resources (energy generation potentially requires water and off-base feedstock). We suggest that integrating multiple net zero goals can lead to lower environmental impact for military bases. Keywords:industrial ecology military renewable energy system dynamics urban metabolism water recycling Supporting information is available on the JIE Web site

Development of an environmental impact reduction strategy for Australia's Antarctic infrastructure

“…Previous studies, such as those carried out by University of Canterbury Masters students at the New Zealand Antarctic facility Scott Base (Kennedy, ), could guide such work. Better waste practices could also go some way to pivoting to a closed loop system, demonstrated at Fort Carson (Procter et al., ). For the AAD this could consist of identifying where waste could be avoided or reused on‐site.…”

“…The current challenges facing the Wilkins Aerodrome and opportunities for improvement could be addressed through efforts around understanding fuel use better and looking at the opportunity for solar as others have done in the Antarctic (Tin et al., ). Solar Photovoltaic electricity has the potential to make the Station become less reliant on external refueling, as with closed loop options applied in other operational contexts (Procter et al., ). Shared and increased activities may also provide an opportunity to ensure long‐term viability of the Aerodrome, with such collaboration being a key recommendation of good collective strategy across Antarctica to address resourcing and environmental issues (Lamers et al., ).…”

“…There can be risks associated with such activities if supply of energy and resources are compromised. A life cycle assessment (LCA) of Fort Carson, a US military base, demonstrated the value of increasing self‐sufficiency, via a closed loop style approach, and preventing resource dependencies (Procter, Kaplan, & Araujo, ). By closed loop we mean harvesting resources on‐site, such as renewable energy, rather than relying on replenishment from outside sources.…”

“…Practices were changed after this paper, particularly relating to burning treated timber which was most likely to be contributing to the arsenic and copper emissions. A study investigating a US military base, Fort Carson, identified how substantial improvements to environmental impact could be achieved through “integrated scenarios”—which we consider to be an excellent example of a closed loop approach and applicable in remote circumstances—initiatives addressing multiple environmental impacts simultaneously, rather than specific to a single metric (Procter et al., ). To this end, the AAD was interested in having more clarity on a range of impacts by measuring them, so that they could tackle them in a more informed way when planning their operations.…”

The environmental impacts of operating an Antarctic research station

“…For example, AAD identified a need to investigate technologies which would result in zero solid waste discharge at Antarctic stations (AAD ). Such technologies exist, but the implementation of these could result in burden shifts to other environmental emissions (e.g., from solid pollutants to air‐borne emissions), which may lead to environmentally worse outcomes (Demetrious, Verghese, Stasinopoulos, & Crossin, ; Edwards, Othman, Crossin, & Burn, ; Procter, Kaplan, & Araujo, ). LCA was identified by the AAD, in conversation with our research team, as a potential technique which could improve the understanding of the impacts of AAD's operations in Antarctica.…”