G NER Y SE E CU O R T I A T Y N NATO ENERGY SECURITY C E CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE E C N T N R E E LL OF EXCE ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS No 15 2021 ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS No 15 1 This is a product of the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence (NATO ENSEC COE). It is produced for NATO, NATO member countries, NATO partners, related private and public institutions and related individuals. It does not represent the opinions or policies of NATO or NATO ENSEC COE. The views presented in the articles are those of the authors alone. © All rights reserved by the NATO ENSEC COE. Articles may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or publicly displayed without reference to the NATO ENSEC COE and the respective publication. 2 No 15 ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS Content 4 Editorial Is small really beautiful? The future role of small modular 5 nuclear reactors (SMRs) in the military BY MR. LUKAS TRAKIMAVIČIUS Hybrid warfare against Critical Energy Infrastructure: 20 The Case of Ukraine* BY VYTAUTAS BUTRIMAS, JAROSLAV HAJEK, SUKHODOLIA OLEKSANDR, BOBRO DMYTRO, SERGII KARASOV Poland’s Energy Diplomacy, The Antithesis to Antagonistic 92 Global Energy Actors BY KRZYSZTOF KOCIUBA, GERARD M. ACOSTA ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS No 15 3 Editorial By COL Romualdas Petkevičius (LTU-AF) Director of the NATO ENSEC COE t the 2021 Brus- of energy. Yet, Mr. Trakimavičius also warns that sels Summit, currently there are still too many questions sur- Allies once again rounding the potential risks and the future need reaffirmed the of military SMRs. Therefore, he concludes, that Aimportance of energy in only if these issues are properly dealt with, it their common security. would make sense to consider military SMRs more seriously. In the declaration, they underlined the signifi- In the second article, Dr. Oleksandr Sukhodolia cance of a “stable and re- and Mr. Vytautas Butrimas identify and analyse liable energy supply, the diversification of routes, the success of hybrid warfare tools used by Russia suppliers, and energy resources,” highlighted the in the Ukrainian energy sector between 2014 and need to “support national authorities in protect- 2017. More specifically, it focuses on the different ing critical infrastructure” and stressed the ne- types of aggression that were carried out against cessity to “ensure reliable energy supplies to our critical energy infrastructure, which include, but military forces.” And these are but a few, brief are not limited to, cyber-attacks and the physi- extracts from the full text. cal destruction of equipment. The authors also examine the implications of these incidents for If one were to comb through the full declaration, Ukraine and highlight the broader lessons that one would quickly realise that Allies have a very could be drawn from them. tall order to fill. They have to simultaneously strengthen their energy supply lines, keep an eye In the final article, Mr. Krzysztof Kociuba and Mr. on their critical energy infrastructure and im- Gerard M. Acosta assess Poland’s energy security prove military energy efficiency, all while trying outlook and explain the country’s energy diplo- to do their fair share in tackling climate change. macy policy. By highlighting how Poland has managed to leverage its national resources and Here at the NATO Energy Security Centre of Ex- its economic potential, the authors also demon- cellence we are at the forefront of supporting Al- strate how Warsaw has succeeded in strengthen- lied efforts to the best of our abilities. Therefore, ing its energy security and reducing its acute reli- in this issue of Energy Highlights, we will focus ance on energy supplies from Russia. on three starkly different, but equally important energy-related challenges that NATO members These three very different articles serve as an im- and their allies face. This, we hope, will help shed portant reminder that energy security is not this some light on the complexity of the task at hand. single, monolithic subject, which only deals with pipeline politics or oil and gas monopolies. In- In the first article, Mr. Lukas Trakimavičius exam- stead, energy security should be viewed as a large ines the future role small modular nuclear reac- and multifaceted issue, which involves a myriad tors (SMRs) could play in the military. He argues of actors and requires a panoply of measures, in- that SMR’s could not only contribute to military novations, tools and legislations. operations by increasing energy assurance, help save lives by reducing the need for fuel resup- In short, energy security is exactly as important ply convoys, but could also help cut greenhouse and as complex as described in the latest Brussels gas emissions by providing a low-carbon source declaration. 4 No 15 ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS Is small really beautiful? The future role of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in the military by Mr. Lukas Trakimavičius mateurs talk strategy, professionals and vehicles, and, in times of conflict, it would talk logistics” is a well-worn adage, generate electricity for bases and military facili- “ which over the years was attributed to ties alike. However, in recent decades there has numerous famed individuals, ranging been a slow, but steady shift from a fossil fuel- fromA Napoleon Bonaparte to Omar Bradley, Gen- dominated perspective of energy security. Owing eral of the United States Army during World War largely to the looming threat of climate change II. Regardless who the real author was, this adage and the shifting tides of politics, most Western contains an obvious kernel of truth. Modern armies militaries became increasingly conscious about cannot move, fight or perform any of its duties the environmental toll of burning fossil fuels and without massively complicated supply lines and consequently got involved in efforts to reduce the tireless work of logisticians. Perhaps even more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. On a more importantly, none of the above would be possible practical level, wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq without a constant supply of energy, whether in taught Western militaries bitter lessons about the form of countless canisters of petroleum or a the costs, both financial and human, of long sup- steady stream of electricity. In other words, energy ply lines, which extend through hostile and un- is the undisputed lifeblood of the military. forgiving terrain. For most of the 20th century, energy security Under these circumstances, it is unsurprising for the military meant having an unfettered and that Western militaries started to look for ways abundant access to fossil fuels. Oil and its prod- to strengthen their operational capabilities by ucts would power the engines of ships, planes embracing clean and innovative energy solutions. by Mr. Lukas Trakimavičius Mr. Lukas Trakimavičius works at the Research and Lessons Learned Division of the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence. Previously, he worked at the Economic Security Policy Division of the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He also held several positions at NATO, where he focused on energy security, arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. ENERGY HIGHLIGHTS No 15 5 This is where small modular nuclear reactors HISTORY OF SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS (SMRs) come into play. IN THE MILITARY Proponents have long argued that by adopting It is a common misconception that smaller-than- SMRs militaries could limit GHG emissions and usual nuclear reactors — the predecessors of reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, long modern day SMRs — are based on fundamentally supply lines, and civilian energy grids. The civil- new technology. In fact, this is a technology that ian sector would also benefit from it, because it is nearly 70 years old and whose origins can be could take advantage of an innovative technol- traced all the way back to the early days of the ogy without having to shoulder all of the devel- Cold War. opmental risks and expenses.1 Others, however, disagreed and claimed that SMRs made very little In the United States, the earliest research and sense for the military. By pointing out the dubi- development on multiple types of small nucle- ous economic rationale of these projects, the ar reactors began in the immediate aftermath unaddressed issue of spent fuel, the threat of nu- of World War II. From 1946 to 1961, the US Air clear proliferation and the risk of accidents, they Force spent around €1 billion trying to build a reactor to power long-range bombers, though argued that SMRs would likely do more harm 3 than good.2 to little avail. The US Navy had better success with harnessing nuclear energy and, in 1954, it built the USS Nautilus, the world’s first nucle- Yet, as it usually is the case, the truth lies some- 4 where in the middle. Like most technology, SMRs ar-powered submarine. Six years later, the US Navy launched the word’s first nuclear-powered do not easily lend themselves to generalization 5 and by some accounts their benefits indeed out- aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. Meanwhile, weigh the cons. At times, the opposite is also true. the US Army also ran a nuclear energy program from 1954 to 1979. Over two decades, it built and operated eight small power reactors, which In turn, this research paper will explore the his- 6 tory and development of SMRs, discuss their mostly were deployed at remote military bases. technological features and examine the utility of This program was moderately successful, but it SMRs through a number of different angles, all was gradually abandoned due to the questiona- while trying to address the question of whether ble cost-effectiveness of the technology and the post-Vietnam war spending cuts.7 SMRs could be useful to Western militaries.I Figure 1. Early experimental portable small nuclear reactors. ML-1, United States; TES-3, Soviet Union (left to right).