23 ms·
US Army deploys its first floating solar array
- spamizbad 4y agoSeems 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 4y agoI 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 4y agoWouldn'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.
- bequanna 4y agoOnly 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.
- ncmncm 4y agoMicro reactors are an obvious dead end. "Super small" energy storage is called synthetic fuel, something that has already been demonstrated practical for military deployment.
- nine_k 4y agoUSAF can go carbon-neutral by sourcing synthetic fuel. Zero-emission, never.
- ncmncm 4y agoEmitting only water vapor is well within foreseeable development. LH2 fuel would provide better range, besides. In certain circumstances, ammonia as fuel would make more sense.
- nine_k 4y agoReplacing compact, lightweight, low-maintenance kerosene tanks with larger cryogenic containers and fighting hydrogen's propensity to penetrate metals and rubbers and make them brittle is not an easy sell. It may make sense in some cases (like large cargo planes), but in a lot of others, like small, high-g semi-autonomous combat aircraft of the future, it may not be practical. Or maybe metallic hydrogen at standard conditions will be attained soon enough.
- ncmncm 4y agoPeople will do whatever makes better sense according to experience and instant circumstances. There is no need to speculate. But LH2 aircraft, wherever actually deployed, will be impossible to compete with.
- wffurr 4y agoOnly 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 4y agoSun 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.
- newsclues 4y agoWhat happens when someone airbursts munitions over your solar farm?
- antisthenes 4y agoNothing 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 4y agoIndeed. 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 4y agoAn EMP is cheap to generate and could take out a whole array.
- halJordan 4y agoGood question, you can fill out the draw; just have it done before you leave today.
- nomel 4y ago> 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.
- firstSpeaker 4y agoHow would this impacts the marine life? Lakes, and most water bodies for that matter, are complex ecosystems.
- flembat 4y agoIncluding canals, which the author disclaimed for some reason. Here at least they have all kinds of aquatic and bird life.
- ncmncm 4y ago... 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.
- g8oz 4y agoAll local impacts have to be weighed against the global impact of CO2 emissions.
- lm28469 4y agoThere 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 4y agothere are no experts in that domain?
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoI don't think CO2 emissions are much of a priority in warfare.
- wolfram74 4y agoThe 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxPdPpi5W4o
- fffobar 4y agoI 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.
- _wolfie_ 4y agoI 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 4y agoUS 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 4y agoSparkling sand (or anything else) over them would be enough to absolutely destroy their output
- ncmncm 4y ago
- imgabe 4y agoWhy are we not building giant solar arrays in the southwest and high voltage DC lines to send the power to population centers?
- teekert 4y agoMy 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/ https://www.speedpedelecs.com/ (it's a brand and a category at the same time)
- sandermvanvliet 4y agoExactly 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 4y ago>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
- henearkr 4y agoIn 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.
- ncmncm 4y agoDesert solar will be abandoned in the near future. Orbiting solar, for terrestrial power, will not happen at all. There is never any value in "erasing whole forests" for solar. Solar coexists synergetically with existing pasture and farmland, and warehouse roofs and parking lots, and reservoirs and canals.
- henearkr 4y ago> Desert solar will be abandoned in the near future. Why is that? Isn't it the best place to build area-hungry, sun-hungry equipment?? > Orbiting solar, for terrestrial power, will not happen at all. So you don't believe that a Dyson Sphere (or Swarm) is the best way to non-destructively accomodate an energy-hungry advanced civilization?
- 2143 4y ago> Why is that? Isn't it the best place to build area-hungry, sun-hungry equipment?? Dust is a problem. Efficiency reduces once there's a layer of dust on top of the panels. Could happen anywhere, but I imagine the problem would be more pronounced deserts, with its sands and winds.
- henearkr 4y agoOk but still, if you build a gigantic solar panel field, and with dust let's suppose it reduces the energy output to 20%, isn't 20% of a huge lot still a huge lot? Moreover there are probably solutions to remove the dust when it becomes too thick, like to rotate the panels to let it drop off.
- 1970-01-01 4y agoThe 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_array_is_the_largest_floating_system_in_the_southeast https://www.army.mil/article/257375/army_floating_solar_arra... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recloser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recloser
- thedougd 4y agoIs this recloser different than the automated mechanical reclosers I see around town? Solid state?
- oneoff786 4y agoI 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 4y agoI've never heard of a floating recloser, I think it's a novel take on the device.
- oneoff786 4y agoIsn’t that just a recloser on a barge
- yellow_lead 4y agoWhat about a floating computer?
- mateo1 4y ago
- winReInstall 4y ago$orry
- maxerickson 4y agoInventing Screamers is bad, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_(1995_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_(1995_film)
- t_mann 4y agoWater 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.
- colinmhayes 4y agoOffshore 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 4y agoThere 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 4y ago[deleted]
- chipsa 4y agoIf 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?
- Mwow 4y agoAnother 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.
- bryanwb 4y agoAll these ridiculous Rube Goldberg contraptions for solar and wind when we could just build more and different types of nuclear reactors.
- npc12345 4y agoSolar panels do not suddenly render large swaths of fertile land un-inhabitable.
- cbmuser 4y agoNeither 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://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy > https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el... > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity
- ncmncm 4y ago> Nuclear power does not produce cheap, emission-free and reliable electricity Fixed that for you. Nukes produce the most expensive electricity of all. Always have, counting subsidies. Their value proposition gets even worse each day, as renewables cost continues on down. They will be mothballed soon as too expensive to continue operating at all, as people choose to buy cheaper power elsewhere. As the amount of time they can find a market for power declines, their cost per delivered KWh multiplies without bound.
- 7952 4y agoIts not though. It is modest and conservative iteration of existing technology that is very well understood and easy to model.
- imwillofficial 4y agoI wondering what the effects are to the flora and fauna in a setup like this.
- schimmy_changa 4y agoIt'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/S136403212100914X 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.
- simonjgreen 4y agoIt 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-solar-power https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/popularity-of-s...) though I can't lay my hands on stats for US.
- sethhochberg 4y agoThere 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 4y agoProbably 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.
- saalweachter 4y ago
- Havoc 4y agoQuite 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.
- zardo 4y agoI think they're willing to lose the panels in the event there's a battle at Fort Bragg.
- eschulz 4y agoThe 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.
- foxyv 4y agoIt's for a military base on American soil. It's not a bring with you to battle sort of thing.
- schimmy_changa 4y agoIt'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...
- ch4s3 4y agoI 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade_balls
- hoosieree 4y agohttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/california-is-about-to-test-its-first-solar-canals-180979637/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/california-is-abou... Canals and reservoirs seem like perfect places to shade with solar.
- ncmncm 4y agoOnly bit of nonsense in the article was "Building these long, thin solar arrays could prevent more than 80,000 acres of farmland or natural habitat from being converted for solar farms." Solar can be erected in working farmland, too.
- dokem 4y agoI 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.
- yumraj 4y agoWhat happens to the plant/animal life under these floating solar arrays?
- schimmy_changa 4y agoIt'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/S136403212100914X 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.
- ncmncm 4y agoNot just "fairly benign": actively favorable.
- alonmower 4y agoWonder 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 4y agoIt'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.
- ncmncm 4y agoIf they are anchored a ways from shore, then it would not matter if the water level goes up and down. You don't routinely let reservoirs get that low. When you have free power, you can pump water up to it. Desalinating, even, if necessary.
- schimmy_changa 4y agoIf 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-floating-solar-lauro-reservoir https://bren.ucsb.edu/projects/exploring-feasibility-floatin... Happy to answer any questions you might have about the possibilities of the technology!
- CSSer 4y agoThis 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 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01525-1#ref-CR13 (linked in the article)
- schimmy_changa 4y agoThere are not significant limitations to scale other than the usual economic reasons. There are competing uses of many reservoirs, however - likely recreational boaters would strongly oppose taking over large sections of reservoirs, so floating solar is more likely going to be located in practice near to the dams / in existing keep-out zones. Yes, those claims are technically correct, in the same way that the claims we could power all of humanity's needs with a fraction of the sahara desert are also technically correct. In practice, competing needs for the water bodies and especially the cost of transmission lines / the lower cost of nearby desert land for many of the sites means that it's certainly an oversimplification.
- vastbinderj 4y agoI 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 4y agoThat sounds horribly expensive. I have a 12 panel array here in the Netherlands, and I paid € 3500 for it. There was no biome on my roof that I was aware of.
- ncmncm 4y agoYou paid over 2x, too.
- nomel 4y agoLets 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?
- vastbinderj 4y agoA few points, my array was installed in 2018, so fairly recently. It still is one of the largest home arrays my installer, PES Solar maintains. This amount of money I save on my monthly bill is the amount of money my local electric company pays me for the electricity the array generates. The way I was forced to install my array is such that it feeds the grid directly. They deduct this from my monthly bill where my home generally uses around 4500 kWh. Now, I think they are not giving me fair market value for the electricity and I'm looking into purchasing either Tesla Powerwalls or another brand so I'm drawing from a battery bank and the array before drawing from the grid. However, my conclusions at this time are that Solar is NOT ready for primary home usage unless you want to live a subsistence lifestyle. I don't want panels in a field or on a lake for the same reasons I don't like our current versions of pavement or cement. Everything under it dies. Further, birds above the arrays are killed. This is not a reasonable alternative to energy dense fossil fuel yet. We need to be more creative and realistic in our future energy sources.
- hitovst 4y agoI was expecting a lighter than air inflatable.