3 ms·
Even without considering toxicity, national security would prefer a widely dispersed generating capacity. It's relatively easy to have 10,000 PV and wind farms
by tuatoru 4y ago
Even without considering toxicity, national security would prefer a widely dispersed generating capacity.
It's relatively easy to have 10,000 PV and wind farms each contributing to their local electricity network. That's a lot more work for an invader to knock out than say 20 or 30 nuclear plants.
- foxyv 4y agoUnfortunately, I'm not entirely sure this is true. Especially since our grid is so out of date. For instance, one attack in San Jose back in 2014 by one person with a rifle almost took down northern California. There isn't a lot that having distributed power generation will do if your distribution system is burning to the ground. I mean, if one dude with a rifle can take down an entire substation, imagine what a couple cruise missiles in a time of war could do. However, I imagine that rooftop solar and municipal batteries would do a lot to encourage a more modern power distribution system with micro-grids and battery based peaking.
- DennisP 4y agoFor the US, conventional attack isn't a serious concern for the foreseeable future. A large nuclear attack is another matter, but losing the power grid would be one of our smallest problems in that case.