Attacks on two DTEK solar farms last spring is a good example. They destroyed many solar panels and some of the transformers, which step up voltage for long distances or step it down for use in homes. Replacing the transformers and swapping out destroyed panels allowed the farms, which generate 400 megawatts, to be back up in seven days.
Timchenko said an attack on a thermal generating station, which experienced a similar amount of damage, took three to four months to rebuild.
you know what, how about people start selling renewable resources as a solution to energy independence
This is why renewable energy needs rebranding. National security from distributed energy sources. No reliance on foreign oil. Plus you can build up domestic manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines. These days costs are coming down so you can lower electricity bills too.
Putin does not like renewable energy for this reason and allows decentralization.
Europe should sell ukraine energy at discounted prices.
If the grid is down your industry is down. Large scale PV is easily and cheaply trashed with cluster munitions.
You seem to be thinking small scale, the concept is decentralised electrical generation nation wide.
Not centralised energy generation such as a single solar plant, a single wind turbine field, a single coal plant, a single nuclear plant.
To cluster bomb a single PV plant (in one attack) would be “easy”, just as easy as a single coal plant.
To carpet bomb a whole nation (in one attack) with PV panels on every home, building, school, sports centre, field, farm would be logistically challenging.
Wait until you find out how easy it is to bomb a coal plant
And how much more expensive it is to replace it
Notes made after a storm: a panel with a 30 cm slash from flying plywood keeps producing, just somewhat less.
Geran-2 carries about 50 kg which can be a cluster munition up to 2000 km on the cheap. It is very effective when taking out large scale PV modules which are made from thermally prestressed glass.
Renewables can’t keep a grid up without fossil backup, which is by now greatly reduced. And 750 kV transformers are also very vulnerable. Ukraine grid is now entirely reliant on electricity import from neighboring countries. These high voltage lines are few.
But how come the experts are saying differently?
Which “experts” do you need for what’s common knowledge?
If you took a second to read you’d find their usefulness isn’t withstanding attack, but being able to quickly deploy after an attack.
You’re acting as if there’s some magical form of energy generation that is impervious to modern munitions.
I’ll write it again then: of what use is rebuilding a small scale insular install if your grid is down, and can’t get up because your power plants and high voltage transformers are toast? You industry can’t operate, that’s the whole point of this exercise. The residents and small businesses can survive on small generators, and they do.
Before engaging sarcasm try finding out whether the tree you’re barking up is in the right forest.
If experts disagree with your “common knowledge”, it’s probably actually a “common misconception” which, given the sheer complexity of information in our world, is a fairly common phenomenon. There’s no shame in being wrong about things you’re no expert in, just in doubling down on your error.
(Of course, if you’re an expert too and have evidence to the contrary, it becomes effectively impossible for laypeople to assess without knowing the history current state of discussion in the field.)
Who told you these people mentioned in an article are experts? Argument from authority isn’t, doubly so from imagined authority. Most about activities going on in the Ukraine and those supporting them are grift. Make sure to double-check what these experts are trying to sell you.
I was contesting the general logic of this sentiment:
Which “experts” do you need for what’s common knowledge?
I took this to mean “If common knowledge suggests an obvious understanding, an expert’s assessment is can add no value, as they would either agree or be wrong.” Put differently: “If it seems obviously true to me, it must be true in general.”
TL;DR: If you think you know more than experts on a given topic, you’re most likely wrong.
On a fundamental level, this claim in general holds no water. Experts in a given field are usually aware of the “common knowledge”. They also usually have special knowledge, which is what makes them experts. If they claim things that contradict “common knowledge”, it’s more likely that their special knowledge includes additional considerations a layperson wouldn’t be aware of.
Appeal to Authority as a fallacy applies if the person in question isn’t actually an authority on the subject just because they’re prominent or versed in some other context, but it doesn’t work as universal refutation of “experts say”.For this specific case, I’m inclined to assume there is some nuance I might not know about. Obvious to me seems that large, central power plants are both easier targets and more vulnerable to total disruption if a part of their machinery is damaged. On the other hand, a distributed grid of solar panels may be more resilient, as the rest can continue to function even if some are destroyed, in addition to being harder to spot, making efforts to disrupt power supply far more expensive in terms of resources.
However, I’m not qualified to assess the expertise of the people in question, let alone make an accurate assessment myself. Maybe you’re right, they’re grifters telling bullshit. But I’d be wary of assuming so just because it seems true.
Decentralizing energy is the best defense. Solar panels belong on roofs and parking lots. Backup batteries belong in neighborhoods. That way when the power plant is down or the lines are cut off, there’s still local power available.
This. Read about Obama era PACE financing to achieve this goal.
Edit. Fuck republicans for nuking PACE funding.
Military justification for an expensive national energy project?
horny government contractor noisesIt’s true, the more decentralized the energy infrastructure, the harder it is to remove or be damaged.
Become an American patriot, secure our borders with decentralised power generation, on your roof, on your own terms!
Exactly!! Though I don’t understand why so many country’s and civilians are opposed to clean decentralised power generation such as solar, wind, thermal.
The fact that you get to generate your own “free” power, and its less likely to fail in times of natural disaster.
Its essentially “freedom” & “sticking it to the man” in one clean package. Its not what the media or propaganda calls “the green agenda”.
The fact that it also has applications in better national security is a win win.
Decentralised power generation makes you a american patriot! No a green hippy.
Yeah but wind power plants are ugly here instead of even uglier somewhere else that’s NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
In agree there are always those few in a community that feel the need to fight everything, even it may be in their best interest and the best interest of the community as a whole.
Anecdotally, I used to live in a rural suburban neighbourhood, the type where homes have large yards between them. There was a proposal to finally put in sidewalks along the residential streets in front of the homes, by narrowing the street a little. This would allows children to walk safely to the new school built, and allow people in the neighbourhood to go on walks, or walk their dogs safely.
Anyways, the amount of push back from some residents saying it will ruin the character of the neighbourhood, or that it would remove vital street parking, or shrink their driveways.
The neighbourhood street was about 4.5 cars wide.
In the end the sidewalks got put in after someone (that did not live in the area), ran over a residents dog along the street.
it will ruin the character of the neighbourhood
“Boy, I sure love the sound and smell of cars! Imagine if people walked quietly instead, that would be awful - who would I yell at for speeding?”
after someone […] ran over a residents dog along the street.
Why does it seem like safety measures only ever get approved after someone died?
(Visibility bias, probably - a death is just a lot more noticeable than a “would have died in an alternative timeline but didn’t because…” - but that doesn’t make such deaths any less tragic)
In fairness, my understanding is that there are a lot of complications with adding distributed power to existing grids. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen, just that there are engineering and safety challenges when power is coming from “everywhere” vs centrally.
And of course, there’s a lot of energy companies lobbying against clean power sources as well.
This, and the fact that solar and wind are intermittent so you always need a baseline provider, you can’t do it with “green energy” alone.
Meanwhile, people are raising hell when grid battery installations are announced. So much so that the instructions are then cancelled.
So stupid
Ignoring transmission losses, which could be improved as well, the whole USA could be solar powered by a very tiny fraction of the deserts it has.
But that’d be a huge target to attack if it was all in one spot.
Much better to decentralize it
The thumb looks like something one would see in Half-Life 2, I swear…
That tracks.
Civilian life in Half-Life 2 is basically trying to survive with whatever remains after a war.
Civilian life in Ukraine is trying to survive with whatever remains during a war.
isnt the name of one of the hl2 maps “little odessa”?
HL2’s lead designer grew up in Bulgaria, so Sofia is the inspiration for City 17, and the coast is the Black Sea coast, incl. at/near Odessa.
Real life Little Odessa is in New York (there is a large community of Soviet / post-Soviet migrants there). The Half Life location is New Little Odessa though, so it sounds like it’s not where real life Little Odessa is
