3 ms·

The low density of wind power actually makes it much harder for an adversary to take out a country's energy production capacity. Currently, that well-aimed miss

by jl6 3y ago

The low density of wind power actually makes it much harder for an adversary to take out a country's energy production capacity. Currently, that well-aimed missile could hit a nuclear plant and cause devastation as well as the loss of multiple gigawatts of capacity. The equivalent wind power would be spread across hundreds or thousands of turbines, spaced kilometers apart. Destroying one wouldn't have the same impact.

throw0101a 3y ago
> The equivalent wind power would be spread across hundreds or thousands of turbines, spaced kilometers apart. Take out the transformer station at, or transmissions line from, the wind farm.
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  I have this problem a lot in rimworld. I solved it by running more than a single line. I feel like that's a viable solution for attacking transmission lines in the real world, too. Transformers less so, I suppose. I'd imagine those could be hardened. Is there a reason we couldn't place them underground?
- tuatoru 3y ago
  That is not specific to wind technology. The risk is much worse with legacy coal, gas and nuclear power stations.
doodlebugging 3y ago
Missiles with integrated guidance systems are in every modern inventory. I mentioned the possibility of the loss of a single turbine to one missile and left it up to the reader to extrapolate the consequences if the one firing the missile had a large number of missiles at their disposal. Satellite data available allows one to pick high value targets with high precision. I hope that conflict between Taiwan and China never happens. I enjoy reading about new technologies coming into production and if these nations go to war, a lot of this productive capacity will shift to production of tools for war instead of tools useful for solving problems that we have brought on ourselves over generations.
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  ... But how many missiles would be used to take down a massive wind farm vs taking down a single nuclear reactor? Regardless of whether the enemy has lots more missiles, they still have a finite number of them. Those missiles cost money. War is as economic as it is kinetic. Using those missiles to disable power generation means they can't be used on other targets. Overuse of ammunition eats into stockpiles or forces early resupply, which takes time. Time matters in war.
  - doodlebugging 3y ago
    Very valid points. Those who have to conduct the war must consider these things - supply chain issues, production bottlenecks, existing stockpiles - and prioritize targets accordingly. Choosing between potentially causing a nuclear disaster and disabling power generation from cleaner sources is a no-brainer for me. I'd leave the reactor intact and re-evaluate the sensibility of that decision daily in case something changes. There are so many higher value targets available that would have a noticeable effect on the adversary's ability to continue waging war that those higher-value targets should get a higher priority. It's a lot like WWII where Allied aerial bombardment campaigns tried to target oil refining, ball bearing production, railroads and critical transportation infrastructure like bridges, factories where tanks, planes, and other vehicles were manufactured, and rocket launching facilities. Those targets, if you can keep hitting them so that they never come back to full capacity will give a tangible advantage.
    - thefurdrake 3y ago
      I'm not sure there are too many higher-priority targets than a modernized nation's capacity for generating and supplying electricity when it comes to that nation's ability to resist invasion. There's a reason modern wars involve targeting electrical infrastructure as a strategic priority... That and industrial manufacturing (which China has motivation to keep intact), but even industrial targets are contingent upon an electrical supply. The military can run off fossil fuel generators for only so long.
    - dirtyid 3y ago

by jl6 3y ago

throw0101a 3y ago

> The equivalent wind power would be spread across hundreds or thousands of turbines, spaced kilometers apart. Take out the transformer station at, or transmissions line from, the wind farm.

thefurdrake 3y ago
I have this problem a lot in rimworld. I solved it by running more than a single line. I feel like that's a viable solution for attacking transmission lines in the real world, too. Transformers less so, I suppose. I'd imagine those could be hardened. Is there a reason we couldn't place them underground?
tuatoru 3y ago
That is not specific to wind technology. The risk is much worse with legacy coal, gas and nuclear power stations.

doodlebugging 3y ago

Missiles with integrated guidance systems are in every modern inventory. I mentioned the possibility of the loss of a single turbine to one missile and left it up to the reader to extrapolate the consequences if the one firing the missile had a large number of missiles at their disposal. Satellite data available allows one to pick high value targets with high precision. I hope that conflict between Taiwan and China never happens. I enjoy reading about new technologies coming into production and if these nations go to war, a lot of this productive capacity will shift to production of tools for war instead of tools useful for solving problems that we have brought on ourselves over generations.

thefurdrake 3y ago
... But how many missiles would be used to take down a massive wind farm vs taking down a single nuclear reactor? Regardless of whether the enemy has lots more missiles, they still have a finite number of them. Those missiles cost money. War is as economic as it is kinetic. Using those missiles to disable power generation means they can't be used on other targets. Overuse of ammunition eats into stockpiles or forces early resupply, which takes time. Time matters in war.
- doodlebugging 3y ago
  Very valid points. Those who have to conduct the war must consider these things - supply chain issues, production bottlenecks, existing stockpiles - and prioritize targets accordingly. Choosing between potentially causing a nuclear disaster and disabling power generation from cleaner sources is a no-brainer for me. I'd leave the reactor intact and re-evaluate the sensibility of that decision daily in case something changes. There are so many higher value targets available that would have a noticeable effect on the adversary's ability to continue waging war that those higher-value targets should get a higher priority. It's a lot like WWII where Allied aerial bombardment campaigns tried to target oil refining, ball bearing production, railroads and critical transportation infrastructure like bridges, factories where tanks, planes, and other vehicles were manufactured, and rocket launching facilities. Those targets, if you can keep hitting them so that they never come back to full capacity will give a tangible advantage.
  - thefurdrake 3y ago
    I'm not sure there are too many higher-priority targets than a modernized nation's capacity for generating and supplying electricity when it comes to that nation's ability to resist invasion. There's a reason modern wars involve targeting electrical infrastructure as a strategic priority... That and industrial manufacturing (which China has motivation to keep intact), but even industrial targets are contingent upon an electrical supply. The military can run off fossil fuel generators for only so long.
  - dirtyid 3y ago