7 ms·

The South Pole Power Plant (2012)

35 points by throwup238 2y ago

kurtoid 2y ago
See also: https://brr.fyi/posts/south-pole-electrical-infrastructure https://brr.fyi/posts/south-pole-electrical-infrastructure
- irq 2y ago
  The brr.fyi article is SO much more detailed, better written, and a lot newer (2023 vs 2012)
perihelions 2y ago
It fascinates me that it's an exponential function—the engine that transports fuel, and consumes fuel proportional to distance traveled: its fuel cost grows exponentially. The precise laws of physics work out, just barely, that we can send fuel around the world by boat; or, as here, by airplane to a near-antipode of the world. It's physically possible to circumnavigate the world either way. It'd only take a slight modification of several physical constants that planets would be too large to cross. An alternate universe with continents so vast, no machine, no amount of fuel, could allow any exploration of their deepest interior; secrets permanently concealed.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  In one of his books (I believe it's Collapse though possibly Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond comments on how introduction of novel foodstuffs, in particular the potato or sweet potato, by Europeans, greatly changed military capabilities and hence power relations amongst indigenous Pacific islanders. Particularly in New Zealand if memory serves. I'd had to be careful in noting that these were foods introduced by Europeans, but not European foods of themselves, in that potatoes (both varieties) are native to the Americas.
- msandford 2y ago
  Pipelines solve this problem quite neatly. The transport cost of a pipeline is very small compared to the fuel transported. Interestingly pipelines can have near perfect fuel efficiency (though few do) since it's possible to run the pumps with electricity. That means if the electricity that ran the pumps came from wind or solar no fuel was burned to move the product. At this point in time the only other thing that might be able to work that way is electrified freight trains. I don't believe there are any here in the US, at least not significant distances.
- jimjimjim 2y ago
  That's an interesting idea but a long series of fuel caches, though inefficient, could overcome this problem.
  - sib 2y ago
    Q: What do all of these places have in common? Aden Bahamas Bermuda Bombay Gibraltar Halifax Hong Kong Jamaica Malta Singapore Suez Trincomalee A: They are all former coaling stations in the British Empire
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Look up US coaling stations as well. The Great White Fleet (circumnavigated the globe from 16 Dec. 1907 to 22 Feb 1909) was a demonstration that the US could send 16 battleships and support vessels on global missions. Transition of navies from coal to oil (initiated by the British just prior to WWI) greatly simplified bunkering operations. Fuel was still required, but oil (even the extraordinarily viscous bunker oil used by ships) is far easier to manage both in fueling and subsequent rebunkering to maintain ship's trim than solid coal. Among significant US refueling stations was the Saudi peninsula (though precisely where I'm not certain), which had a strong influence on subsequent US relationships and allegiances in the region, particularly notable after the discovery of vast oil reserves. I'd be interested in a list of US coaling / fueling stations, though I'm not finding one immediately. Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and Subic Bay (Philippines) / were all but certainly two of these.
- lmm 2y ago
  That's the famous rocket equation (and with rockets, none of the solutions other replies mention, like depots or pipelines, are available). There's a thought experiment that for a planet only a bit heavier than Earth (something like 2x or 5x) it might be completely impractical to launch anything into orbit.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Long before there was the tyranny of the rocket equation, there was also the tyranny of the wagon equation [1] that limited how far per-industrialized armies could move with wagons and animals (though the equation wasn't formalized). [1] https://maximumeffort.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-wagon-equation https://maximumeffort.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-wago...
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I would tend to assume that the equation was formalized.
      - throwup238 2y ago
        Logisticians were intimately aware of the concept but I’ve never seen an equation formally written down or mentioned anywhere in ancient or medieval texts. They would have used a simplified version for planning - counting days of food an army has and how far they can move from their bases on that food, plus how much they can forage for and how much they can take from the local population. It looks more like a Civ5 game board than a neat equation like the ideal rocket equation.
    - Gravityloss 2y ago
      Breguet range equation for airplanes also predates rocketry though postdates wagons. Airplanes can already have a significant portion of their weight as fuel. It has a logarithm of the mass ratio as one of the terms.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
ggm 2y ago
Surprised its a piston not a turbine, but I guess piston tolerances are lower and so can be maintained more easily on site. But you would think a gas turbine was equally efficient and a good fit. Plus, it's standard to ship them worldwide, they're understood pretty well as movable commodities.
- cr125rider 2y ago
  What do US military bases use? Apache/Abrams turbines? Seems like those are ubiquitous enough to warrant more, smaller redundant generators? I wouldn’t say I even come close to being and arm chair expert on this, I’m just curious if anyone else knows.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    Nah, they buy local electricity and have a big mess of diesel generators for redundancy. Nothing beats being able to make field repairs quickly and easily when crap hits the fan. Abrams use a turbine for the weight to power output ratio, optimizing mobility rather than efficiency.
    - datavirtue 2y ago
      Abrams power plant was a political choice.
      - zdragnar 2y ago
        Ostensibly, the Abrams turbine can use a wider range of fuels, including diesel, gasoline and jet fuel, and provides more power for less weight to get higher mobility and agility in the field. Those are some pretty compelling advantages when your life depends on it, if they actually do that and don't break down every other day. Without enough personal experience to compare, though, I can't say that I'd be surprised either way.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    > What do US military bases use? They would use electricity from the grid, why bother generating power specifically for the base? Outsource the capital and maintenance costs to a utility. Some land-grant universities generate their own power and some industrial sites have their own dedicated hydropower, but a military base would just use the grid. For critical/backup power needs at the base itself, a combination of UPSes and diesel generators, just like any other commercial or industrial facility. Diesel gensets are an extremely mature, well understood technology that are very reliable and cheap to maintain.
preisschild 2y ago
Would be cool if they managed to deploy a small reactor there, like they did at McMurdo station.
- sigmoid10 2y ago
  The McMurdo reactor had so many problems, they shut it down prematurely and switched back to diesel generators, because that was cheaper and more reliable. Nuclear power is great for environmentally safe regions with large populations, but it sucks in remote areas with little infrastructure and no support.
  - preisschild 2y ago
    The PM-3As problems could probably have been solved with enough gained experience. I'm hopeful because the DoD plans a similar program like the PM-3A was to provide nuclear energy for military bases (project PELE)
tmnstr85 2y ago
Good to see windows XP still doing its job in the electrical control room!

35 points by throwup238 2y ago

See also: https://brr.fyi/posts/south-pole-electrical-infrastructure https://brr.fyi/posts/south-pole-electrical-infrastructure

irq 2y ago
The brr.fyi article is SO much more detailed, better written, and a lot newer (2023 vs 2012)

perihelions 2y ago

It fascinates me that it's an exponential function—the engine that transports fuel, and consumes fuel proportional to distance traveled: its fuel cost grows exponentially. The precise laws of physics work out, just barely, that we can send fuel around the world by boat; or, as here, by airplane to a near-antipode of the world. It's physically possible to circumnavigate the world either way. It'd only take a slight modification of several physical constants that planets would be too large to cross. An alternate universe with continents so vast, no machine, no amount of fuel, could allow any exploration of their deepest interior; secrets permanently concealed.

dredmorbius 2y ago
In one of his books (I believe it's Collapse though possibly Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond comments on how introduction of novel foodstuffs, in particular the potato or sweet potato, by Europeans, greatly changed military capabilities and hence power relations amongst indigenous Pacific islanders. Particularly in New Zealand if memory serves. I'd had to be careful in noting that these were foods introduced by Europeans, but not European foods of themselves, in that potatoes (both varieties) are native to the Americas.
msandford 2y ago
Pipelines solve this problem quite neatly. The transport cost of a pipeline is very small compared to the fuel transported. Interestingly pipelines can have near perfect fuel efficiency (though few do) since it's possible to run the pumps with electricity. That means if the electricity that ran the pumps came from wind or solar no fuel was burned to move the product. At this point in time the only other thing that might be able to work that way is electrified freight trains. I don't believe there are any here in the US, at least not significant distances.
jimjimjim 2y ago
That's an interesting idea but a long series of fuel caches, though inefficient, could overcome this problem.
- sib 2y ago
  Q: What do all of these places have in common? Aden Bahamas Bermuda Bombay Gibraltar Halifax Hong Kong Jamaica Malta Singapore Suez Trincomalee A: They are all former coaling stations in the British Empire
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Look up US coaling stations as well. The Great White Fleet (circumnavigated the globe from 16 Dec. 1907 to 22 Feb 1909) was a demonstration that the US could send 16 battleships and support vessels on global missions. Transition of navies from coal to oil (initiated by the British just prior to WWI) greatly simplified bunkering operations. Fuel was still required, but oil (even the extraordinarily viscous bunker oil used by ships) is far easier to manage both in fueling and subsequent rebunkering to maintain ship's trim than solid coal. Among significant US refueling stations was the Saudi peninsula (though precisely where I'm not certain), which had a strong influence on subsequent US relationships and allegiances in the region, particularly notable after the discovery of vast oil reserves. I'd be interested in a list of US coaling / fueling stations, though I'm not finding one immediately. Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and Subic Bay (Philippines) / were all but certainly two of these.
lmm 2y ago
That's the famous rocket equation (and with rockets, none of the solutions other replies mention, like depots or pipelines, are available). There's a thought experiment that for a planet only a bit heavier than Earth (something like 2x or 5x) it might be completely impractical to launch anything into orbit.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Long before there was the tyranny of the rocket equation, there was also the tyranny of the wagon equation [1] that limited how far per-industrialized armies could move with wagons and animals (though the equation wasn't formalized). [1] https://maximumeffort.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-wagon-equation https://maximumeffort.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-wago...
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I would tend to assume that the equation was formalized.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      Logisticians were intimately aware of the concept but I’ve never seen an equation formally written down or mentioned anywhere in ancient or medieval texts. They would have used a simplified version for planning - counting days of food an army has and how far they can move from their bases on that food, plus how much they can forage for and how much they can take from the local population. It looks more like a Civ5 game board than a neat equation like the ideal rocket equation.
  - Gravityloss 2y ago
    Breguet range equation for airplanes also predates rocketry though postdates wagons. Airplanes can already have a significant portion of their weight as fuel. It has a logarithm of the mass ratio as one of the terms.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

Surprised its a piston not a turbine, but I guess piston tolerances are lower and so can be maintained more easily on site. But you would think a gas turbine was equally efficient and a good fit. Plus, it's standard to ship them worldwide, they're understood pretty well as movable commodities.

cr125rider 2y ago
What do US military bases use? Apache/Abrams turbines? Seems like those are ubiquitous enough to warrant more, smaller redundant generators? I wouldn’t say I even come close to being and arm chair expert on this, I’m just curious if anyone else knows.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  Nah, they buy local electricity and have a big mess of diesel generators for redundancy. Nothing beats being able to make field repairs quickly and easily when crap hits the fan. Abrams use a turbine for the weight to power output ratio, optimizing mobility rather than efficiency.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    Abrams power plant was a political choice.
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      Ostensibly, the Abrams turbine can use a wider range of fuels, including diesel, gasoline and jet fuel, and provides more power for less weight to get higher mobility and agility in the field. Those are some pretty compelling advantages when your life depends on it, if they actually do that and don't break down every other day. Without enough personal experience to compare, though, I can't say that I'd be surprised either way.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  > What do US military bases use? They would use electricity from the grid, why bother generating power specifically for the base? Outsource the capital and maintenance costs to a utility. Some land-grant universities generate their own power and some industrial sites have their own dedicated hydropower, but a military base would just use the grid. For critical/backup power needs at the base itself, a combination of UPSes and diesel generators, just like any other commercial or industrial facility. Diesel gensets are an extremely mature, well understood technology that are very reliable and cheap to maintain.

preisschild 2y ago

Would be cool if they managed to deploy a small reactor there, like they did at McMurdo station.

sigmoid10 2y ago
The McMurdo reactor had so many problems, they shut it down prematurely and switched back to diesel generators, because that was cheaper and more reliable. Nuclear power is great for environmentally safe regions with large populations, but it sucks in remote areas with little infrastructure and no support.
- preisschild 2y ago
  The PM-3As problems could probably have been solved with enough gained experience. I'm hopeful because the DoD plans a similar program like the PM-3A was to provide nuclear energy for military bases (project PELE)

tmnstr85 2y ago

Good to see windows XP still doing its job in the electrical control room!