4 ms·

Solar seems vulnerable in a war.

iso1631 9mo ago
If you have solar on your roof and a bomb hits it, you have no power. And no roof. Power is the least of your problems. If you have a central power nuclear/gas/coal station and a bomb hits it, nobody has power.
- woodpanel 9mo ago
  > If you have a central power nuclear/gas/coal station and a bomb hits it, nobody has power. if that happens it can be repaired more economically and faster – as has been repeatedly shown in Ukraine.
  - kilington 9mo ago
    I think we need to look harder at the concept of survivor bias and what it doesn't mean for future chance if anyone believes Ukraine nuclear power stations suffering damage as routinely as any other physical asset would have been OK.
  - iso1631 9mo ago
    If my roof has gone it doesn't matter, as I need to move elsewhere. Chances are my roof won't be gone though.
- ekianjo 9mo ago
  The grid never relies on a single source
- theshrike79 9mo ago
  But 99% of your neighbours will still have power and roofs. If a central power plant is destroyed, 0% of the neighbourhood will have power, but 100% will have roofs. Which is better in your opinion?
Mashimo 9mo ago
Solar + battery helps against shorter blackouts, to at least keep your freezer and fridge running. All while they repair the grid.
NicuCalcea 9mo ago
Compared to what? Gas, nuclear and hydro seem even more vulnerable.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  Off grid people ~dont heat off solar. They use hydrocarbons for heat sources. Or wood. Heat vastly increases solar generation and battery demand.
  - NicuCalcea 9mo ago
    Most of rural Ukraine already uses or can use solid fuel (firewood, coal) for heating. The article is about flats, not off-grid houses.
    - mothballed 9mo ago
      Adding some supplemental solar that will move the needle a drop in a brown-out isn't absolutely nothing I suppose, but really for immediate war-time resiliency you would be using solar for off-grid purposes (even if during grid blackouts only). If your goal is to stay on grid the payoff on solar isn't really realized for 10+ years, when not only are the panels paid off but the accumulation factor of a country full of people with solar panels reduces the grid strain on the conventional sources you list. Adding them for war-time reasons is overall a net negative vs just buying diesel heaters, distributing solar for actual off-grid purposes so people have communications, etc. It is not going to meaningfully reduce dependency on those sources during the period of the war -- that's why I assumed it had to be for off-grid alternative because in that case it would achieve that goal. Of course it is better than nothing, assuming they did not waste too many domestic resources doing this Greenpeace stunt. But this on-grid solar component is not a serious proposition for wartime demand, and you would be WAY better off donating to maintaining/defending the existing hydro/nuclear/coal generation than trying to deploy enough solar to move the needle for solar grid resiliency within the timespan of the war. I guess I just assumed they were acting rationally and that is why I thought it might be used in off-grid scenarios, but you've disillusioned me of that.
- 9mo ago
watwut 9mo ago
Solar and wind can be distributed and thus more robust - Russia needs to attack more then one place. Which is, I suspect, why certain people object to this.

If you have solar on your roof and a bomb hits it, you have no power. And no roof. Power is the least of your problems. If you have a central power nuclear/gas/coal station and a bomb hits it, nobody has power.

woodpanel 9mo ago
> If you have a central power nuclear/gas/coal station and a bomb hits it, nobody has power. if that happens it can be repaired more economically and faster – as has been repeatedly shown in Ukraine.
- kilington 9mo ago
  I think we need to look harder at the concept of survivor bias and what it doesn't mean for future chance if anyone believes Ukraine nuclear power stations suffering damage as routinely as any other physical asset would have been OK.
- iso1631 9mo ago
  If my roof has gone it doesn't matter, as I need to move elsewhere. Chances are my roof won't be gone though.
ekianjo 9mo ago
The grid never relies on a single source
theshrike79 9mo ago
But 99% of your neighbours will still have power and roofs. If a central power plant is destroyed, 0% of the neighbourhood will have power, but 100% will have roofs. Which is better in your opinion?

Mashimo 9mo ago

Solar + battery helps against shorter blackouts, to at least keep your freezer and fridge running. All while they repair the grid.

NicuCalcea 9mo ago

Compared to what? Gas, nuclear and hydro seem even more vulnerable.

mothballed 9mo ago
Off grid people ~dont heat off solar. They use hydrocarbons for heat sources. Or wood. Heat vastly increases solar generation and battery demand.
- NicuCalcea 9mo ago
  Most of rural Ukraine already uses or can use solid fuel (firewood, coal) for heating. The article is about flats, not off-grid houses.
  - mothballed 9mo ago
    Adding some supplemental solar that will move the needle a drop in a brown-out isn't absolutely nothing I suppose, but really for immediate war-time resiliency you would be using solar for off-grid purposes (even if during grid blackouts only). If your goal is to stay on grid the payoff on solar isn't really realized for 10+ years, when not only are the panels paid off but the accumulation factor of a country full of people with solar panels reduces the grid strain on the conventional sources you list. Adding them for war-time reasons is overall a net negative vs just buying diesel heaters, distributing solar for actual off-grid purposes so people have communications, etc. It is not going to meaningfully reduce dependency on those sources during the period of the war -- that's why I assumed it had to be for off-grid alternative because in that case it would achieve that goal. Of course it is better than nothing, assuming they did not waste too many domestic resources doing this Greenpeace stunt. But this on-grid solar component is not a serious proposition for wartime demand, and you would be WAY better off donating to maintaining/defending the existing hydro/nuclear/coal generation than trying to deploy enough solar to move the needle for solar grid resiliency within the timespan of the war. I guess I just assumed they were acting rationally and that is why I thought it might be used in off-grid scenarios, but you've disillusioned me of that.
9mo ago

watwut 9mo ago

Solar and wind can be distributed and thus more robust - Russia needs to attack more then one place. Which is, I suspect, why certain people object to this.