7 ms·

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 c

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
  - bequanna 4y ago
    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.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Micro 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 ago
    USAF can go carbon-neutral by sourcing synthetic fuel. Zero-emission, never.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Emitting 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 ago
        Replacing 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 ago
        People 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 ago
  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 4y ago
  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.
newsclues 4y ago
What happens when someone airbursts munitions over your solar farm?
- antisthenes 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
    An EMP is cheap to generate and could take out a whole array.
- halJordan 4y ago
  Good 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.

ryanmarsh 4y ago

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 4y ago
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.
- bequanna 4y ago
  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.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Micro 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 ago
  USAF can go carbon-neutral by sourcing synthetic fuel. Zero-emission, never.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Emitting 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 ago
      Replacing 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 ago
        People 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 ago
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 4y ago
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.

newsclues 4y ago

What happens when someone airbursts munitions over your solar farm?

antisthenes 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
  An EMP is cheap to generate and could take out a whole array.
halJordan 4y ago
Good 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.