Comment by boringg
15 hours ago
Its also tricky to defend in war prone locations.
I think solar is amazing and we need more of it - but I can't stand this solar and storage go at it alone mentality. It's pretty thickheaded to discount the other forms of energy that we can use and will need.
In practice, in Ukraine distributed solar power has been an increasingly important source of resilience in their power supply system.
There are legit reasons to push back against “solar and batteries everywhere” but I find it hard to credit resilience in a conflict situation as one of them.
I probably should have clarified -- I'm not referring to forward bases or front line operations. That location would be fantastic for solar. I'm talking utility scale solar operations deployed in large areas -- quite easy to knock out as it is a huge surface area and not particularly robust.
This isn't a reason not to go with solar+batteries everywhere. This is an observations of the product weak points and why it isn't the only solution in the chain.
I think I'd rather a solar panel array be bombed than a nuclear power plant.
Solar has the advantage that it can be widely distributed on buildings rather than in just a few centralized locations.
A nuclear plant in a war zone is a dirty bomb waiting to be set off, which is incredibly easy to do, technically. Gas and coal plants are also end up being easy targets, as the war in Ukraine has shown. The most reliable one is solar because of how distributed it is. You can knock off one solar field, but then there are rooftops. You really need to destroy a city if you want to get it rid of power completely.
(Diesel power generators also work, but they require constant fuel supply, which can be complicated in a war zone)
I don't see how anything would be more resilient than solar.
Gravity just needs mass not fusion but your point remains.