[HN Gopher] US Army deploys its first floating solar array
___________________________________________________________________
US Army deploys its first floating solar array
Author : imartin2k
Score : 168 points
Date : 2022-06-15 07:29 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| spamizbad wrote:
| Seems aligned with General Pershing's vision of "Infantry wins
| battles, logistics wins wars."
|
| Having a source of electricity that doesn't require diesel fuel
| can be advantageous. It's silent, with a lower heat signature
| too.
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| I appreciate the sentiment but this is a permanent installation
| for a US base in North Carolina. Also there is nothing tactical
| about a solar farm.
|
| JP-8 (similar to diesel) is easy to source the world over, has
| high energy density, is easy to transport and runs nearly
| everything in the military.
|
| Solar is a nice idea but we're nowhere near (economical) panel
| efficiencies necessary to transition field electricity use.
| Keep in mind, the further you get from the flag pole the less
| electricity you need. Things are designed that way for obvious
| reasons.
| codyb wrote:
| Wouldn't the early iterations of something generally be
| pretty lame?
|
| Seems possible in 50 years or so things could be more mobile
| or advanced in other manners.
|
| Either way, certainly interested in seeing what the USAF will
| be doing to get to 0 emissions. I have a sense they may be
| able to harness resources towards goal a bit more effectively
| than some of our more fractured systems of governance.
| nine_k wrote:
| USAF can go carbon-neutral by sourcing synthetic fuel.
| Zero-emission, never.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Emitting only water vapor is well within foreseeable
| development. Would provide better range, besides.
| bequanna wrote:
| Only if you can also make energy storage super small and
| portable for those times when the sun isn't shining.
|
| Seems easier to invest in micro reactors.
| wffurr wrote:
| Only thing even close for energy density and thus potentially
| useful for logistics would be a small modular reactor, which
| could then be used to create diesel on site. Trucking the
| reactor in though has obvious security concerns.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Sun does not even produce enough watts per square meter to be
| practical for transportation of heavy artillery (nevermind
| that it produces zero at night). It's ridiculous to imply
| solar ever has potential beyond supplemental energy.
| nomel wrote:
| > with a lower heat signature too
|
| The visibility will be extreme though, for the same energy
| density. If mobility is a concern, then the energy density/lb
| would be incredibly low, compared to fuel. I think this would
| only make sense if you were near a body of water (obviously)
| for an extended period of time, and you didn't care if everyone
| flying over knew you were there.
| newsclues wrote:
| What happens when someone airbursts munitions over your solar
| farm?
| antisthenes wrote:
| Nothing much, as compared to someone potentially shelling a
| nuclear power plant or a diesel fuel depot.
|
| Besides, solar panels are so cheap these days, that it might
| cost more to destroy them with munitions than to
| install/purchase them in bulk.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Indeed. Of all energy sources, solar and wind are some of
| the safest in case of war, terrorism and social unrest.
|
| Nuclear, gas, oil... not so much! Same for dams.
|
| And even if you avoid immediate loss of life and
| environmental damage you still have an emergency to handle.
| ncmncm wrote:
| An EMP is cheap to generate and could take out a whole
| array.
| halJordan wrote:
| Good question, you can fill out the draw; just have it done
| before you leave today.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| I wondering what the effects are to the flora and fauna in a
| setup like this.
| schimmy_changa wrote:
| It's an area of open research, but especially if it doesn't
| cover 100% of the water body it's fairly benign:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212...
|
| For instance, birds perch on the panels, turtles loaf on the
| floats, fish hide from predators under them. It changes the
| water body, but not in a way that would be different from, say,
| trees that have fallen halfway into the water and are shading
| part of the surface.
| yumraj wrote:
| What happens to the plant/animal life under these floating solar
| arrays?
| schimmy_changa wrote:
| It's an area of open research, but especially if it doesn't
| cover 100% of the water body it's fairly benign:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212...
|
| For instance, birds perch on the panels, turtles loaf on the
| floats, fish hide from predators under them. It changes the
| water body, but not in a way that would be different from, say,
| trees that have fallen halfway into the water and are shading
| part of the surface.
| mateo1 wrote:
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I wonder if floating PV would be an interesting alternative to
| the shade balls used in some reservoirs[1]? You could get the
| benefit of lowered evaporation and some extra pv real-estate.
| Maybe the math is favorable, maybe not.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade_balls
| dokem wrote:
| I don't see the goals overlapping other than the fact that they
| both float. The solar panels will cost 1000x that of rubber
| balls, and the cost of repair/maintenance of floating panels
| will be much higher than land mounted panels. There may be some
| circumstances where you can kill two birds but I bet it's rare.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Balls generate zero revenue. Solar arrays generate net
| revenue.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| As the sibling points out, canals seem like a good place to
| shade water with solar, though probably not floating.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Floating is overwhelmingly better, because cold panels are
| more efficient than dry ones.
| 7952 wrote:
| Water companies tend to use a lot of energy which is a major
| cost for them. That is the math that is going to be most
| significant.
| schimmy_changa wrote:
| Yes! Check out the Healdsburg project:
| https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/news/healdsb...
|
| "It was a desire to shade the recycled wastewater, not capture
| the sun's energy, that first led city officials down the road
| to the solar installation, Crowley said. The city hoped to
| prevent algae from blooming in the two ponds -- which hold
| treated water from the city's municipal sewer system."
|
| They were going to pay to cover the reservoir, and instead they
| get paid for the solar output.
| hoosieree wrote:
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/california-is-abou...
|
| Canals and reservoirs seem like perfect places to shade with
| solar.
| simonjgreen wrote:
| It struck me last time I was in US (I'm from UK) how few
| properties have solar panels on the roof. I wonder why that is?
| Cheaper energy? Roughly 1 in 30 homes have solar installed in the
| UK (https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/popularity-
| of-s...) though I can't lay my hands on stats for US.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| More and more outbuildings in rural areas have solar panels.
| Installing solar is cheaper than getting permits/electrician to
| run mains power to your buildings. I've seen new barns with the
| roofs completely covered in solar panels.
| saalweachter wrote:
| In the US it's approximately the same -- 3.2%.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| There are a handful of potential reasons depending on where in
| the US you're looking at, as usual there is wide variation by
| state and by urban/rural divide:
|
| - some states have little in the way of tax or other financial
| incentive to help offset initial installation cost
|
| - some neighborhoods have various visual restrictions, self-
| imposed or otherwise, that may not accommodate solar panels
|
| - some power companies have campaigned to limit net metering,
| which limits the cost savings homeowners can see from solar to
| protect the utility
|
| - some local or state government officials view renewables as a
| "political" issue in the sense of "yuppies getting bent out of
| shape about global warming" and make efforts to limit renewable
| usage for political points
|
| - owners of most rental buildings don't pay for electric, the
| tenants do, but the tenants cant make capital improvements and
| the owner has little incentive to
| 01100011 wrote:
| Probably cheaper energy, and also perhaps a different
| subsidy/regulatory environment. I know in California, the
| utilities are fighting to make solar users pay more than they
| currently do, saying the solar customers don't pay their fair
| share of distribution and transmission costs.
|
| Also, as a former leased-solar customer, there are some
| downsides. Having solar in my area adds a few thousand dollars
| to a roof replacement. Furthermore, solar panels are sort of an
| acquired taste, aesthetically speaking.
|
| When I had solar, it was nearly a wash in terms of how much I
| saved vs how much I paid monthly to SunRun, the company I
| leased them from. It did allow me to run my air conditioner
| nearly all the time because I was incentivized to use the power
| I generated, but it also meant I had a loud box outside my
| bedroom window and the clicking of the relays woke me up many
| mornings.
| jseliger wrote:
| The zoning and other regulations around solar are onerous in
| the U.S.:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/opinion/environment/defen...
| pugworthy wrote:
| It can really vary from community to community. My little town
| (60k people, large university and Fortune 100 company campas)
| seems to have a lot of house installations, but then income and
| education levels are higher here, as well as a strong "green"
| mentality.
| henearkr wrote:
| In the short term, THIS is the future I really believe in.
|
| Then, a tiny bit further in time, using deserts.
|
| And then even further, spatial solar.
|
| Edit: this needs a bit of context, where I am living they are
| erasing whole forests from mountain tops in order to install new
| solar panel fields, so obviously I think that floatovoltaics are
| very nice instead.
| schimmy_changa wrote:
| If anyone is interested, I just completed a Master's thesis on a
| feasibility study for floating solar on a specific reservoir in
| southern California: https://bren.ucsb.edu/projects/exploring-
| feasibility-floatin...
|
| Happy to answer any questions you might have about the
| possibilities of the technology!
| [deleted]
| nomel wrote:
| How do you service a panel, or whatever quantization, near the
| center?
| ncmncm wrote:
| Leave gaps.
| CSSer wrote:
| This all seems pretty incredible and kind of like a no-brainer.
| What are some of the challenges in a project like this? Are
| there any limitations to scale?
|
| Lastly, do you know off-hand if these bold claims (see below)
| are exaggerated or oversimplified in any way?
|
| > Covering just 10 percent of the world's hydropower reservoirs
| with floatovoltaics could generate as much electricity as all
| the world's operating fossil fuel power plants combined
|
| > We found that countries in the Americas and Africa could
| benefit most: even low coverage of reservoirs by floatovoltaics
| should generate all the solar energy needed to decarbonize
| their electricity sector. Brazil and Canada could be hotspots,
| each requiring only about 5% coverage of their plentiful
| reservoirs to satisfy their massive solar-energy needs. Last
| year, Brazil implemented regulatory changes to help the
| industry to develop (see 'Brazil's photovoltaic boom').
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01525-1#ref-CR13
| (linked in the article)
| imgabe wrote:
| Why are we not building giant solar arrays in the southwest and
| high voltage DC lines to send the power to population centers?
| codingdave wrote:
| We already have built many solar arrays in the southwest. And
| the power generated does get sent to population centers, both
| from the renewable and the non-renewable plants. If you are
| asking why we don't expand those efforts, that is a good
| question... but it is absolutely already in place.
| teekert wrote:
| My guess: We run into problems here in the Netherlands now that
| everybody with solar panels is producing huge amounts of power
| around noon... And the grid can hardly take it anymore
| (sometimes people can't push the power to the grid anymore
| even). We can't store it, and most people don't have smart
| devices that can start (like laundry) based on power
| production.
|
| That problem should first be solved.
|
| Edit: In some provinces we can now neither build more power
| plants nor add any larger industries because the grid can
| simply not take it. I guess decentralization is key. For myself
| I'm looking into a small EV that is usually at home and can be
| charged during the day. But this only works when the car is at
| home during day time. Another pro-wfh argument ;). Electric
| scooters (max 45 kph), electric bikes (max 25 kph) and "speed
| pedeleces" (max 45 kph, they are in between scooters and bikes
| [0]) are also becoming really poplar here, they use
| comparatively little, but it's nice when they replace cars.
|
| [0]: https://www.speedpedelecs.com/ (it's a brand and a
| category at the same time)
| sandermvanvliet wrote:
| Exactly this, (lack of) storage is the problem. Daytime
| demand isn't high enough to deal with PV output leading to
| cut offs on grid feed-in from consumer PV installations.
| Given that car batteries aren't an option yet to power homes
| this is a problem that will stick around for a bit.
| cupofpython wrote:
| >Given that car batteries aren't an option yet to power
| homes this is a problem that will stick around for a bit
|
| One was posted here not too long ago.. so this may not be
| far off. But it's a bit of a chicken-egg situation because
| powering your home with a car battery is not very practical
| by itself. Investing in both solar and the car at the same
| time would also be a hefty chunk of change for any
| individual household
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Hardly anybody uses car batteries at this point, and not
| just because of availability. It's a bit of a pain in the
| ass compared to just buying LFPs. Even at fairly high
| retail pricing for complete batteries, 30kWh of LFP is
| $10K. That'll power a typical home for a day. If you just
| buy cells and BMSs, it's cheaper. That's what most of the
| off-grid folks do these days.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Maybe the Netherlands have excess solar power in some
| days/hours, but what about neighboring countries?
| cinntaile wrote:
| Germany, Belgium and Denmark also have quite a bit of
| renewable energy and the sun is usually similar, so they
| usually don't really need it when the Netherlands has too
| much either.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Building power transportation networks makes building out
| large solar arrays look cheap. Getting the right of way and
| environmental impact statements for these things that cross
| rivers and cities is a massive undertaking.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| In the end, I'm confident little power is wasted; instead,
| power is sold on the spot market at low and sometimes
| negative rates. Datacenters will gobble it up to lower
| their prices too, making "bottom feeders" like crypto
| miners hit their "I am willing to pay this much" prices.
|
| Then there's of course various energy storages; I believe
| one thing they want to implement is that any leftover
| electricity is put into generating hydrogen gas, which can
| be stored and later burned cleanly to generate power if
| needs be.
|
| But yeah, that's a bunch of rambling from an amateur who
| amortizes grid capacity; in NL we have a problem that the
| grid is full. It's not really affecting day to day things
| yet, but it means that new companies - power generating or
| consuming - are not being connected to the grid because it
| would cause overloads. I'm not sure if they bleed power off
| anywhere yet.
| henearkr wrote:
| I'm sure that the solution is rather storage than
| cryptomining (to me it looks like the same as just
| burning the energy into waste heat).
|
| For example, molten salt storage.
| henearkr wrote:
| I would say that home batteries like the Power Wall seem like
| a nice solution.
|
| However I am a bit worried about the lifespan of those
| batteries and what happen to them at their end-of-life
| (recycling? CO2e cost of making a new one?...)
| blincoln wrote:
| For standalone houses, seems like a bank of traditional
| lead-acid batteries like datacenters use is a better
| option. Doesn't require exotic materials, EOL handling is
| well understood at this point, etc.
|
| If I'm doing the math right, every ten car batteries in the
| bank should get you about 8 kWh. The average home in the US
| uses about 11,000 kWh/year[1], or about 30 kWh/day, so a
| bank of 20-60 batteries seems like a good starting point,
| depending on how much reserve capacity one is comfortable
| with, how variable solar generation is, etc. That's an up-
| front cost of about $4,000-$12,000 every 5-7 years, but at
| least at the low end that should actually be cheaper than
| paying for electricity from the grid over the same period.
| A 20-battery bank should fit in about the same footprint as
| a refrigerator.
|
| That's also significantly cheaper than a PowerWall of the
| same capacity[2], which was $7,500/14 kWh ($535/kWh versus
| about $250-$275/kWh for lead-acid) before Tesla stopped
| selling them without a solar panel bundle.
|
| For apartments and other colocated housing, it might still
| make sense as long as there was some sort of central vault
| for the battery bank.
|
| [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-
| energy/electricit...
|
| [2] https://solarmetric.com/learn/tesla-powerwall-review-
| costs-s...
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Use the spare power to pump water up mountains.
| 7952 wrote:
| Giant solar farms (like Solar Star in LA) will connect to the
| higher voltage grid rather than the low voltage grid used
| domestically. Exporting large amounts of power and moving
| that power geographically is exactly what this is designed
| for. There may be issues with lack of capacity in district
| and national grids. But it is a different problem to the
| domestic solar issue. It can be solved by reinforcement of
| existing lines, upgrading substations and building new ones.
| chaosbutters wrote:
| well, luckily for the US, we have massive hydro power dams in
| the west that are low because of 20 years of drought, so we
| can actually do pumped storage.
|
| Ideally, we would pump salt water from oceans to the salt
| water reservoirs and use surplus energy to desalinate to
| refill the fresh water ones.
| cupofpython wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. Solar -> Desalination, with all other
| energy consumption in the middle. Granted, I am not up to
| date on desalination. I know MIT released something
| recently but idk the details. Is energy the bottleneck now
| or is it still material?
| spockz wrote:
| The main issue with our grid is mostly that we lack the
| capacity to transport the power. In the past power generation
| and heavy power consumption were typically relatively co-
| located. Now, with wide spread energy production with solar
| panels the energy is coming from everywhere and this power
| needs to be transported to where it is consumed.
|
| Moreover, in order not to overload the grid other power
| generators need to scale down, even if those would be closer.
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| This is not true. Enron was famous (notorious) for
| leveraging the, then, capacity of long distance
| interconnects to move power from far off generation
| capacity to advantageously priced markets. Just take a look
| at the sheer size of CalISO, MISO, and ERCOT. You could
| build solar anywhere and wheel it to where it's needed.
| That's not the long pole in the tent (right now).
| ranger207 wrote:
| It's inefficient. HVDC is _more_ efficient over long distances,
| but not enough to make it worthwhile
| dokem wrote:
| Because it's not economically viable, yet. It'll happen when it
| happens.
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| "We" aren't building anything. Utilities are an income
| producing asset for their investors. There are, in fact, a
| multitude of utility solar installations going on right now all
| over the US. These things take time to build and learn from.
| It's not a slam dunk and the profits aren't guaranteed. Not
| withstanding the unsolved engineering challenges, of which
| there are many startups exploring.
|
| We're not stupid it just takes time.
| jakear wrote:
| We are, see the multiple square mile installations in the
| Mojave desert (in particular Rosamond). Output of that region
| is ~520 MWh/acre.
| https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8097025,-118.4587554,15367m/...
|
| Side note, land in the area is available for purchase at
| $3k/acre. And if you look closely, you can see the plots where
| classic subdivisions were initially scratched into the surface
| before land owners realized no one wanted their land even at
| 3k/acre.
| https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1339826,-118.0179071,2422m/d...
|
| Edit: when I click the link, Google Maps helpfully informs me
| that traffic in the region is "light". :)
| Havoc wrote:
| Quite confused as to why the army is doing this?
|
| Schlepping fragile glass panels into battle doesn't sound viable
| and if their aim is to green up their operations there are likely
| better ways.
| schimmy_changa wrote:
| It's probably cost-effective, either compared to buying utility
| energy or especially compared to backup diesel generators. It
| could simply be a financial decision with some nice co-
| benefits...
| foxyv wrote:
| It's for a military base on American soil. It's not a bring
| with you to battle sort of thing.
| zardo wrote:
| I think they're willing to lose the panels in the event there's
| a battle at Fort Bragg.
| eschulz wrote:
| The US military is sometimes quite involved in disaster relief
| efforts, so I feel as though this makes sense. Also, I think
| they're constantly tinkering around with new toys and
| techniques.
| winReInstall wrote:
| $orry
| maxerickson wrote:
| Inventing Screamers is bad, actually.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_(1995_film)
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| The Army's story has a much more interesting bit:
|
| An electronic "recloser," funded by the Environmental Security
| Technology Certification Program, is also being demonstrated as
| part of the system. Reclosers respond to transient events, like a
| tree limb brushing against a power line, to quickly reset the
| system and restore power. This technology provides better
| protection for system power lines and minimizes damage to
| sensitive electronic equipment in the event of power
| interruption.
|
| https://www.army.mil/article/257375/army_floating_solar_arra...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recloser
| thedougd wrote:
| Is this recloser different than the automated mechanical
| reclosers I see around town? Solid state?
| oneoff786 wrote:
| I think they meant to write "electric recloser" and the
| author didn't know what they were talking about. They're very
| common and not noteworthy at all.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I've never heard of a floating recloser, I think it's a
| novel take on the device.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| What about a floating computer?
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Isn't that just a recloser on a barge
| bryanwb wrote:
| All these ridiculous Rube Goldberg contraptions for solar and
| wind when we could just build more and different types of nuclear
| reactors.
| 7952 wrote:
| Its not though. It is modest and conservative iteration of
| existing technology that is very well understood and easy to
| model.
| cbmuser wrote:
| Yet, solar does not produce electricity reliably, needs
| additional electric backup power and uses large amounts of
| material and area for producing relatively small amounts of
| energy.
|
| Nuclear works everywhere, everytime. There is a reason they
| put nuclear reactors into submarines and aircraft carriers
| and space probes.
| 7952 wrote:
| I am in favour of nuclear power but it is not so black and
| white.
|
| You have just listed three types of project with access to
| vast resources. The number of nuclear powered vessels is
| vanishingly small. And spacecraft overwhelmingly use solar
| when they can. If your goal is to move a ship or launch a
| communication satellite then the last thing you want to do
| is add the considerable extra complexity of nuclear power.
| Nuclear engineering is hard.
| jhgb wrote:
| > There is a reason they put nuclear reactors into
| submarines and aircraft carriers and space probes.
|
| The first two have ready access to infinite amounts of
| coolant, which is absolutely not the situation
| "everywhere", and the last one actually never delivered
| more power than solar panels due to very inferior
| power/weight ratio of all space-based nuclear reactors
| produced to this date -- the most widespread space-based
| reactor BES-5 generated something like 7-8 W/kg.
| npc12345 wrote:
| Solar panels do not suddenly render large swaths of fertile
| land un-inhabitable.
| cbmuser wrote:
| Neither does nuclear. 80% of the population of the exclusion
| zone in Fukushima prefecture have already returned to their
| homes. People can even move back to Futaba, a town next to
| the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
|
| Nuclear power produces cheap, emission-free and reliable
| electricity. It's as safe as wind power and it's life-cycle
| emissions are even less.
|
| > https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-
| energy
|
| > https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-
| el...
|
| > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity
| t_mann wrote:
| Water surfaces are a great place for solar farms (the water
| provides cooling which improves efficiency), but the real deal
| are open sea platforms, not lake-based. The engineering
| challenges seem big, though, I'm aware of only one company
| deploying those successfully.
|
| But it has promising potential: seas form the majority of the
| globe's surface, and solar sea platforms seem to be, perhaps
| surprisingly, biodiversity hotspots. Any solid structure in the
| ocean will attract dwellers, but those platforms also seem very
| popular with fish gathering underneath in large numbers.
| algo_trader wrote:
| > only one company deploying those successfully.
|
| which one? i specifically recall a membrane based design, and
| the other a floating grid
|
| also, are there estimates of costs ?
|
| Edit: lake floats are ~30% more expensive at the system level.
| i am asking about ocean systems
| t_mann wrote:
| https://swimsol.com/
|
| Disclaimer: I know someone who works there. These are meant
| for ocean deployment, right now I believe they mostly use
| them in locations with somewhat tempered wave conditions like
| atolls and bays. It's a floating grid structure that holds
| the panels a few feet above the water. I don't work there
| myself, for cost estimates,... you'd have to contact them.
| ncmncm wrote:
| At last report there were 3 GW of floating solar. That number
| is surely higher already.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Great idea but then again we come back to the problem of
| getting that power back to land. I imagine ocean currents
| complicate linking these things together or with big cables
| back to land - not to mention big storms. I do really like the
| idea of fish gathering below the platform - multiuse stuff is
| always great. We could probably also do some hydropower while
| were at it!
|
| Best use case for something like this seems like for powering
| remote outposts and islands - land is at a premium at these
| places often plus you probably do not want to be clearing large
| areas of uniquely biodiverse land for power delivery. Some
| giant ones off the coast of Fiji could be a cool one for sure!
| kurthr wrote:
| Actually, you can manufacture ammonia from just water, air,
| and electricity. And ammonia not only has great uses (right
| now we burn a huge ammount of NatGas to make it) in
| agriculture, but it's quite energy/space efficient for
| shipping. We already ship quite a bit of liquified ammonia
| (<200 psi at >100F). If you have a lot of "free" energy in
| the ocean it makes sense to make/store/ship ammonia on the
| spot.
| ncmncm wrote:
| This of course also enables storage for delivery of power
| at night.
|
| I think there is significant physical-chemical development
| left to do for solid-state fuel cells that work with
| ammonia and air, but it seems eminently doable.
| rr888 wrote:
| Thanks, with solar and wind there do seem many times when
| there is a surplus of energy. I'm thinking somethings like
| water cracking to H, Aluminium smelting or Steel Furnaces
| could be done with such supluses but Ammonia sounds like a
| good one for the list too.
| ncmncm wrote:
| A big enough farm can also be a focused microwave phased
| array antenna, beaming power to any point overhead. Or even
| multiple points, given more than one frequency.
| jlengrand wrote:
| I would imagine the problem for offshore solar farms wouldn't
| be bigger as for offshore windmills? That is a relatively
| expensive, but also not that difficult problem today? What
| did I miss?
| spinach wrote:
| Waves.
| notatoad wrote:
| Are you saying that waves don't exist around offshore
| wind farms?
| ncmncm wrote:
| They will tend to destroy offshore solar farms. Wind
| farms are less affected because their cross-sectional
| area near the water surface is small relative to their
| mass.
| miketery wrote:
| > ocean currents complicate linking these things together or
| with big cables back to land
|
| They would be connected by cables to the ocean floor (depends
| on depth I presume). But the currents shouldn't be an issue.
| Storms unless there is debris should also be fine (but I
| don't know what ocean weather is like).
|
| Cables back to land are indeed an issue, especially with high
| energy. Maybe we'll come up with efficient energy guns, or
| create fuel on said platforms (hydrogen?).
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Maybe we'll come up with efficient energy guns"
|
| Very likely not. Creating fuel seems more practical, but
| anchoring floating objects is a known problem as well.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| 30 ft (10 m) waves on a regular basis would not be unusual
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Presumably, that also affects cables for offshore wind
| farms, and yet we routinely build those in seas that can
| get rough.
| [deleted]
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Offshore solar also neutralizes one of solars biggest downsides
| which is that is uses far more space than traditional
| generators. Land will only continue to get more expensive so I
| suspect this will actually become a problem at some point,
| especially in high density countries.
| karterk wrote:
| There are many large arid, desert-like land available in
| almost every part of the world which can be put to use for
| Solar. I don't think cost of land is a huge issue.
| [deleted]
| barney54 wrote:
| The cost of land might to be a huge issue with deserts, but
| the cost of transmission is.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Yet, the cost of transmission is not. A long transmission
| line might be expensive to build in the first place, but
| operating expense is near zero.
| nine_k wrote:
| Transmission from Arizona or Nevada to California looks
| reasonable. The cost may be reasonable, too, at least the
| Nevada part.
| bombcar wrote:
| The eastern half of Southern California _is already
| desert_ so you might as well just use that, though one of
| them had trouble getting of the ground and costs weren 't
| the greatest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dune
| s_Solar_Energy_Pr...
|
| Others, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_S
| olar_Power_Facility are doing better
| ncmncm wrote:
| Land use is absolutely no problem at all for solar.
|
| Solar coexists synergetically with agriculture, operating
| more efficiently, cutting water demand, and improving
| yield. Also with parking (keeping cars cooler) and roofs
| (extending life).
| chipsa wrote:
| If you put solar in the desert SW, and intend for it to
| power homes in New England, how much does the transmission
| lines to move that power cost? And how much do you lose in
| transit?
| tragictrash wrote:
| There is an efficiency loss, but the problem is actually
| the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure.
|
| Theres plenty of resources out there around this idea.
| zdragnar wrote:
| I don't recall where I had seen it, but there was a study
| at some point on the cost of covering the Sahara in solar
| panels. The CO2 emissions from the resources for the
| transmission lines- in steel and concrete especially-
| meant it would be a net positive CO2 contributor even
| after shuttering fossil fuel power plants.
| nine_k wrote:
| This means that we need to learn how to build
| transmission lines with less steel and concrete. Use more
| aluminum maybe? More plastics and carbon fiber? More
| glass?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| plastics and carbon fiber are made with hydrocarbons
| generally. Aluminum might actually be worse, since
| aluminum requires very high amounts of energy to produce.
| nine_k wrote:
| Hydrocarbons are not a problem per se. It's _burning_ the
| hydrocarbons, specifically the carbon part, which has the
| detrimental effect on climate.
|
| Plastics and carbon fiber effectively keep the carbon
| from becoming CO2.
|
| Aluminum takes a lot of energy, but, unlike steel, the
| process does not release any CO2, and is fully electric.
| It can be powered by hydro (and often is), nuclear, or
| solar energy directly.That's the point.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Solar energy used to produce aluminum has zero marginal
| cost. So, unless you assume use of fossil fuels to
| produce the power used to refine the aluminum, this is
| nonsense.
| Mwow wrote:
| Another idea I saw on yt a few months back:
|
| Charge some solid state battery (it's not battery it was
| something better) and then transport it.
|
| Similar on how we ship oil across the planet.
| chipsa wrote:
| A big problem with that is energy density. Hydrocarbons
| are on the order of 50MJ/kg. Li-ion batteries are on the
| order of .5MJ/kg.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Lithium tech at this exact instant is not the end state
| of battery development.
| foxyv wrote:
| Robert A. Heinlein wrote a book called Friday that had
| something like this. They would use huge solar arrays to
| charge proprietary solid state batteries called
| Shipstones which were used everywhere. There wasn't even
| a power grid anymore because people would just buy a
| Shipstone and put it into their house and replace it
| every so often like coal in a coal bin.
| johncearls wrote:
| I love Friday and just reread it last weekend. Often I
| think that Elon Musk believes he is a character in a
| Heinlein novel. Tesla is Shipstone, the cars are just a
| mechanism to build better batteries. SpaceX, that's just
| DD Harriman from the man who sold the moon/sail beyond
| the sunset. The Boring company is how you build Luna City
| ala The moon is a harsh mistress. Or maybe a space
| catapult. Or maybe, I'm just hoping for Heinleinian hero.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Anti-hero, looks like.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I think the problem here is the weight of the batteries
| and the need for power to move them. Maybe hydrogen by
| electrolysis would be more favorable, but then you need
| to pipe in water.
| chipsa wrote:
| You don't necessarily need to pipe the water to the
| electricity, you can move the electricity to where the
| water is (and if the electrolysis works with seawater,
| you don't need freshwater either). And then you can turn
| it into something like Methane or Ammonia for longer term
| storage. And the long term storage is important to level
| the power production over the course of months.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I think the issue at hand is that long distance
| transmission of electricity has transmission loss, and is
| expensive from an infrastructure standpoint. The broader
| point is that remote solar generation presents some
| challenges.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Transmission loss matters very little anymore. You just
| add more panels at the source. Marginal cost of the loss
| is zero.
| chipsa wrote:
| Yes, I made exactly that point above. But the point I'm
| making is that long distance transmission of water is
| also expensive from an infrastructure standpoint,
| possibly even more expensive than power (and also
| sometimes has transmission losses, depending on how
| they're moving it)
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > But the point I'm making is that long distance
| transmission of water is also expensive
|
| Oh yeah, in case I wasn't clear that's exactly what I
| meant also.
|
| The dream of covering a chunk of the Sahara in PV to
| power Europe and Africa seems like tilting at windmills.
| t_mann wrote:
| Well, ideally you want to produce the electricity close to
| where it's needed, and a significant proportion of the
| world's population lives in coastal areas (much more than
| near deserts I suppose).
| tragictrash wrote:
| This. You can't produce all of the worlds electricity in
| deserts and ship it around the world
| ch4s3 wrote:
| As a thought experiment I once imagined electric trains
| running between populated areas and desert solar farms.
| Maybe they carry "green hydrogen" or perhaps just big
| batteries. After a few minutes and a good chuckle I moved
| on.
| tragictrash wrote:
| We have these 'electricity trains' already in a sense,
| but they are tractor trailers containing fuel oil. It's
| not as crazy as it sounds, but there are better solutions
| available.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Usually, the issue with this kind of thing is that
|
| * this is a form of energy transmission that requires
| labor for the actual transport (the train crew) and so is
| automatically much more expensive and difficult than a
| dumb pipeline or power line which requires much less
| staffing
|
| * it's hard to create energy storage that isn't also a
| bomb in the wrong conditions, and train tracks pass
| through populated areas. Fuel already has restrictions on
| where it can be routed because there have been fuel train
| explosions.
| craftkiller wrote:
| Why not? Australia is going to be exporting its solar
| power to Indonesia through a 2,800 mile direct current
| cable[1]. Thats approximately the width of the mainland
| united states. It won't be as efficient as generating it
| nearby but if its already commercially viable then it
| will only become more viable as solar becomes cheaper and
| more abundant.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-
| Asia_Power_Link.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| COuntries will be looking to become energy independent,
| especially with the russia fiasco Europe is facing. At
| the very least they will try to make sure a majority of
| their energy isn't imported from one country.
| newsclues wrote:
| You also can't produce all the clean energy via ocean
| based solar and ship it to where humans live.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Offshore cables exist, and if you want to go the route of
| producing it into some intermediate form, a good majority
| of heavily populated areas are also ports.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| There's a proposal to use solar power in the desert to
| create pure Hydrogen gas via electrolysis, then fill
| autonomous blimps with that hydrogen to ship it to where
| energy is needed. You wouldn't want to fly over populated
| areas, but otherwise seems like a feasible idea to
| transport that solar power.
| nine_k wrote:
| For that you'd need to use kilotons of water a day, which
| is usually hard in a desert.
|
| It could work on an arid sea shore though, say, in North
| or South Africa. But there seem to be closer-by large
| consumers, and maybe producing freshwater would bring
| more value than producing hydrogen.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > you'd need to use kilotons of water a day, which is
| usually hard in a desert
|
| North Africa, India, Australia and other have deserts
| right next to the ocean.
| ncmncm wrote:
| There is absolutely no need for deserts to site solar
| farms, so the premise is nonsense.
|
| Solar farms are wholly compatible with agriculture. Look
| up "agrivoltaics".
| goodpoint wrote:
| You very much CAN send electricity long distance and
| there's been serious discussion of providing electricity
| for Europe from north Africa.
|
| Producing hydrogen near the ocean and shipping it on a
| tanker is another realistic alternative.
| ncmncm wrote:
| There were huge projects started to site solar farms in
| Africa, serving Europe.
|
| They collapsed. The reason they collapsed was that there
| turns out to be less than zero value in siting solar
| farms in the desert, and solar panels have got so cheap
| that you do better posting more of them nearby instead of
| paying for the long cable.
|
| The reason solar farms in the desert have negative value,
| vs. siting nearby, is that panels in the desert get
| hotter, so run less efficiently than over water or plant
| life, and last many fewer years. Furthermore, panels in
| farmland improve yield and water demand.
| googlryas wrote:
| Don't tell me what I can't do!
|
| HVDC transmission losses are only around 3.5% per 1000km.
|
| So you could get around 80% of the energy you produce in
| Mali to Norway. Doesn't seem so bad.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Furthermore, there is strictly negative benefit to siting
| solar farms in deserts. It makes them run hot, thus less
| efficiently, and shortens their lifetime.
|
| Siting solar on farmland increases farm yield and cuts
| water loss.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Desert-like land is terrible for solar panels because the
| solar panels get too hot (and lose efficiency).
|
| The big, successful desert solar power projects I've seen
| are giant arrays of mirrors using some kind of weird heat
| engine, rather than PV-cells.
|
| Cheap, widespread desert solar power would be good to
| figure out, but with regards to PV-cells, desert
| environments look like a no-go.
| dmurray wrote:
| How much efficiency do they lose? Desert land is orders
| of magnitude cheaper than German farmland, and the latter
| appears to be economic to cover in PV panels, so if we
| could get the cost of materials down we could deal with
| losing 20% or maybe even 90% efficiency.
| dragontamer wrote:
| I don't know the answer to your question, but lets assume
| 20%.
|
| If PVs are 20% less efficient in the desert, you'll need
| 25% more PVs. (Ex: Instead of buying 1MW worth of panels,
| you need 1.25MW of panels to generate only 1MW of power)
|
| If PVs are lol 90% less efficient in the desert, you'll
| need 900% more PVs (instead of buying 1MW worth of
| panels, you need 10MW worth of panels to make 1MW)
|
| -----------
|
| Because PVs are the "expensive part" of solar power (and
| land is really, really cheap, even German Farmland),
| we're more interested in reducing the number of PV-panels
| to buy, rather than reducing the cost of land
| acquisition.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Panels that normally get 20% conversion efficiency are
| typically 12% in the desert summer. So, a huge loss.
| firstSpeaker wrote:
| How would this impacts the marine life? Lakes, and most water
| bodies for that matter, are complex ecosystems.
| mrfusion wrote:
| If you space them out enough you wouldn't have huge areas of no
| sun. It would emulate an ecosystem of water under shade trees.
| Shade actually attracts a lot of biodiversity.
| rr888 wrote:
| This seems to be most important part. It could be beneficial as
| prevents evaporation and warming. LA reservoir even has
| floating balls for this
| https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150812-sh...
| g8oz wrote:
| All local impacts have to be weighed against the global impact
| of CO2 emissions.
| lm28469 wrote:
| There are no ways to accurately predicts how eco systems
| react and how far the domino effect would go. You could wipe
| out entire food chains and not be aware of it before it's too
| late
| tester756 wrote:
| there are no experts in that domain?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I don't think CO2 emissions are much of a priority in
| warfare.
| wolfram74 wrote:
| The article describes artificial reservoirs as the water body
| of choice, which are less complex (partly because they already
| destroyed the ecosystem that was there) than naturally forming
| lakes, and has the added benefit of reducing solar driven
| evaporation in the same vein as this[0]
|
| [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxPdPpi5W4o
| schimmy_changa wrote:
| It's an area of open research, but especially if it doesn't
| cover 100% of the water body it's fairly benign:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212...
|
| For instance, birds perch on the panels, turtles loaf on the
| floats, fish hide from predators under them. It changes the
| water body, but not in a way that would be different from, say,
| trees that have fallen halfway into the water and are shading
| part of the surface.
| flembat wrote:
| Including canals, which the author disclaimed for some reason.
| Here at least they have all kinds of aquatic and bird life.
| ncmncm wrote:
| ... which would then also benefit from the presence of
| floating solar panels. Panels floating in a canal would need
| to be anchored against current, easily done.
| alonmower wrote:
| Wonder how effectively this could be paired with pumped water
| storage. Excess solar energy could get used to pump water that
| could get used to provide power at night/store energy for cloudy
| days. You'd also get a double bang for the buck for the space
| being used if the water is covered with panels, and solar panel
| coverage of the reservoires would presumably help minimize
| evaporative losses
| schimmy_changa wrote:
| It's likely well-suited for that, but in general hydro +
| floating solar could be ideal as the power infrastructure is
| already in place. Pumped hydro is not 100% ideal as the drastic
| changes in water level can cause some problems with designing a
| solid system.
| vastbinderj wrote:
| I run a 46 panel array on my rooftop at my home in Florida. On a
| good day it generates around 80 kWh. On a cloudy day, 35-45 kWh.
| On stormy days it generates about 15 kWh. It cost me $40,000. At
| night, it generates no power, but needs a 20amp AC connection for
| the controller and 60 amps for the micro inverters.
|
| I save about $50-80 a month on my electric bill. Solar in its
| current incarnation is not ready to power the world, it destroys
| the biome in which the panels are deployed, costs an awful lot to
| fabricate....
|
| I am more interested in personal nuclear energy or recycled
| nuclear energy production. Solar is a distraction that when you
| start asking the right questions, feels more like gas-lighting
| than a solution to renewable sources of energy.
| bojan wrote:
| That sounds horribly expensive. I have a 12 panel array here in
| the Netherlands, and I paid EUR 3500 for it.
|
| There was no biome on my roof that I was aware of.
| ncmncm wrote:
| You can buy a pallet-load of 45 350W-peak panels for under
| $7000 nowadays. A used Nissan Leaf at 60% battery capacity is
| another $7000, and a converter/inverter to charge/discharge it
| is under $1000.
| nomel wrote:
| Lets say 50kWh/day average, giving 1,500kWh/month. If it's only
| saving $65 on your electricity, doesn't that mean your
| electricity is around 4c/kWh? My math must be wrong. Are there
| other fees, or did you also include the payment for the panels?
| fffobar wrote:
| I wonder if this could have a military purpose as well, as in
| whether this could be used in a combat area. Any of the other
| types of electrical power generation systems are very
| "centralized", as in there is only a few points where just a few
| hundred kg of hexagon delivered by a precision missile that slips
| past air defense would easily terminate the power production.
|
| On the other hand, a mesh of solar panels deployed over a larger
| body of water is a pretty difficult target to destroy. Imagine
| that it is floating over a 1km by 1km (or even 1 mile by 1 mile)
| area - what are you going to use against it? Unguided artillery?
| Would take a huge amount of shells, even though they're cheap
| it's probably infeasible. The same with unguided air-dropped
| bombs. Guided munition? Even worse than the unguided stuff, no
| high value targets to hit. The only way to defeat such a meshed
| power plant would be a small nuclear bomb.
|
| (the above assumes that there's no single energy collection
| point, of course, otherwise that place would be targetted)
|
| The other upside is that there is no need to supply oil, which is
| currently the preferred way of delivering energy to the combat
| area. The downside is the time it would take to deploy such a
| mesh, a diesel generator works pretty much instantly.
| politician wrote:
| The power cabling connecting the array to the shore seems like
| a nice spot to target.
| _wolfie_ wrote:
| I have no idea how fragile solar panels are, but wouldn't
| cluster bombs or possibly thermobaric weaponry work reasonably
| well against large surface areas like this?
| Retric wrote:
| US Army strategy often assumes air superiority by US forces.
|
| Mortars are simply a more likely risk than cluster bombs.
| Further it's fuel rather than generators that's a problem,
| it's bulky, flammable, and finite.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Sparkling sand (or anything else) over them would be enough
| to absolutely destroy their output
| ncmncm wrote:
| That would have hardly any effect. Soot would, though.
| leeoniya wrote:
| > Imagine that it is floating over a 1km by 1km (or even 1 mile
| by 1 mile) area - what are you going to use against it?
|
| an EMP?
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Seabird feed laced with laxatives
| glitchc wrote:
| The weakness isn't the array itself but the cable(s)
| transporting the energy to where it needs to be consumed.
|
| Cut the cable and the array is just more debris floating in the
| ocean.
| omega3 wrote:
| People are mentioning thermobaric weapons, small nuclear bombs
| where in fact a couple of bog standard 155m shells with
| proximity fuses would render something like this inoperational.
| Alternatively send out a single CAS like A10.
| hhr wrote:
| Out of top of my head this
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1) can destroy such target.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| Almost certainly usable by the military, but not the way most
| people in the thread are responding. The military does a lot of
| humanitarian aid and rebuilding type work outside of war zones.
| If this solar array can be quickly and easily deployed off a
| boat and then you just drag a cable on shore to power a local
| town that could be very useful compared to having generators
| and having to ship diesel constantly.
|
| Massive Earthquake knocks out the infrastructure in Haiti? Just
| send the solar boat and, even without batteries, you have a
| daytime power plant set up in a day. I wonder how much power
| storage you could get with a hand full of tractor
| trailer/shipping container sized batteries.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I'm not convinced that a solar array / electricity production
| would be the prioritised target if they were in range.
| pengstrom wrote:
| Is it not more efficient for the larger ships to over provision
| on nuclear?
| jalk wrote:
| Deploying the panels at sea, dragging them behind a warship,
| seems to be quite a challenge compared to deploying in a
| "pond" of calm water
| closewith wrote:
| With respect, an M777 battery could saturate a grid square in
| minutes. The expected injury radius of a 155mm is ~150m, so
| conservatively 100 rounds would blanket a 1km*1km array. A six
| gun battery can fire ~36 rounds per minute comfortably. 100
| rounds could be fire and the battery could be packing up before
| the first one hit.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What's the range? 15 miles?
|
| I agree though. Solar on the battlefield doesn't make sense
| since it is not mobile and cannot be concealed or protected.
|
| I do think the centralized nature of massive diesel
| generators and their fuel supply lines are a tactical weak
| point though. I like the idea of flexible distributed power
| grids for troops but I'm not sure solar fits the bill.
|
| It would be cool to hear some input from generals and see
| some proof of concepts.
| closewith wrote:
| > What's the range? 15 miles?
|
| For M30A2, 70km or ~43 miles.
| htfuuufhhuff wrote:
| That injury radius must be on land right? Like if it hits
| water how destructive could the splash be?
| closewith wrote:
| Gunners would use proximity fuzes to airburst above the
| target in this application. TBH 100 rounds is wildly
| conservative - I can't imagine a better target for
| artillery than a fragile and static solar array.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Yeah, people drastically underestimate the raw firepower of
| artillery. The M270 is called "the grid square removal
| system" for a reason. (Grid square refers to 1km x 1km area.)
| [deleted]
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| This. As a former infantryman the one thing that still
| strikes me with awe to this day is the destructive power of
| artillery. People cannot fathom what it's capable of.
|
| Go up in a tall building, maybe to the 20th floor or so.
| Eyeball a built up area 1km square. Now picture every
| structure reduced to rubble in an instant. Now imagine 10km
| square reduced to rubble in just a few minutes.
|
| Quick work for an artillery battery.
| jcims wrote:
| Never experienced it myself but seeing those piles of
| shells from WWI just sends my brain to uninitialized
| memory.
|
| https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/shells-creeping-
| bombardment...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| somerandomqaguy wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUvcdKGD-FM <-- What it's
| like be hit by 130mm artillery.
|
| One thing that the video can't simulate is how loud those
| explosions are. You don't just hear the sound wave, even
| from a safe distance you feel the pressure wave in your
| entire body.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Reminds me of a day I was fishing from a pier at the beach
| some time ago. Older dude came up to me and started talking
| and got into his "time in 'Nam." He pointed at some
| apartment buildings across the bay, "we'd call in an
| airstrike and they'd make one pass and everything would be
| gone. Those buildings? You'd just see some bricks and
| rubble left behind." To 25 year-old me that was a pretty
| sobering thought.
| chipsa wrote:
| We no longer have the M26 rockets used in grid square
| removal. They've all been decommissioned in favor of
| M30/M31 GMLRS guided rockets, which don't have
| submunitions. Oddly, "grid square removal system" is
| actually a backronym, as the original designation of the
| M270 was General Support Rocket System (GSRS)
| closewith wrote:
| That's largely due to the general move away from cluster
| munitions. There's still plenty of the M30 series, whose
| 160,000 preformed tungsten fragments would be an ideal
| weapon for use against a fragile and static solar array.
| chipsa wrote:
| As a note: the US Military isn't going away from cluster
| munitions because we don't want to leave UXO for
| civilians to accidentally blow themselves up with, but
| rather because we don't want to leave UXO for US military
| to accidentally blow themselves up with. If we drop 12x
| M26 missiles on a grid square, then that's something like
| 7.7k submunitions. With a 14% dud rate, that's 1k
| submunitions somewhere waiting for us to roll over them.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Imagine that it is floating over a 1km by 1km (or even 1 mile
| by 1 mile) area - what are you going to use against it?
|
| Shrapnel generating warhead 100 meter over the solar field.
| Good luck finding and bypassing all the damage and short
| circuits.
|
| Or send the precision missile to where the cable lands.
|
| > the above assumes that there's no single energy collection
| point, of course
|
| Probably not a literal single point, but I would assume any
| solar field would have a relatively low number of shore
| connections.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Imagine that it is floating over a 1km by 1km (or even 1 mile
| by 1 mile) area - what are you going to use against it?
|
| Same way you render a nuclear power-plant useless, cut the
| cable(s)
| t_mann wrote:
| > The only way to defeat such a meshed power plant would be a
| small nuclear bomb.
|
| Or to quietly cut off the underwater power cable.
| usrusr wrote:
| > The only way to defeat such a meshed power plant would be a
| small nuclear bomb.
|
| Unless actively defended: set collision course. If you suspect
| that it might be a tie, set collision course on an unmanned
| confiscated civilian vessel.
| ncmncm wrote:
| EMPs are cheap to produce.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-17 23:01 UTC)