Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aurizon t1_iwwkura wrote

Well, the USA has enough desert to make the power. It also has the windy areas. STorage can be solved by titanium flow batteries. These never wear out, but they use space as the charge is stored in tanks of liquid. Capacity is limited by the tank size as well as the number of electrodes you use. Coupled with wind and solar, they can supply both coasts from central desert areas via ultra high voltage transmission lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

Thorium base load nuclear is also good, 365/24/7 base load power.

11

artemistica t1_iwwpkrd wrote

Tagging on here, molten salt batteries seem to be a good approach as well.

10

chin-ki-chaddi t1_iwxqcuo wrote

Thermal batteries will lose out to flow batteries or even old lead-acid batteries. Too many steps to charge/discharge such batteries, to many losses at each step. Thermodynamically, not the best strategy.

4

ArcFurnace t1_iwxsulf wrote

Sodium-sulfur batteries aren't thermal storage, they're just electrochemical batteries that need to be kept at high temperature (easy enough with a well-insulated tank, and it gets easier as you make them bigger).

1

dimi_paws t1_iwxfc0d wrote

Deserts arent just barren wastelands - they're whole ecosystems. why not find solutions for the panels on already existing infastructure?

2

aurizon t1_iwxgnz9 wrote

Desert vary, some are fuller ecologically, others are alkali flats. The solar panels stand clear of the floor and have service columns, and the shade helps certain parts of the ecology do better - the ones that avoid sun

8

[deleted] t1_iwwsh63 wrote

Can't and shouldn't put as many panels as possible in the desert to power the US. If that's where you were going with that.

Your losses will be large and a terrorist or adversarial attack would easily take out our overly concentrated grid.

−4

HolyGig t1_iwx75nq wrote

Concentrated is relative, it would require hundreds of square miles of solar and wind farms to power the entire US.

There is nothing stopping us from keeping a few fossil fuel plants on standby for emergency power either.

12

grundar t1_iwxk6b6 wrote

> Your losses will be large

HVDC has been sending multiple GW at 3% loss per 1000km for decades.

> and a terrorist or adversarial attack would easily take out our overly concentrated grid.

What conceivable terrorist attack could put an appreciable dent in hundreds of square miles of solar panels or wind turbines spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles of area, yet would not be much worse if targeted against a populated area?

By contrast, consider the Russian drone and missile attacks against Ukrainian power plants. Those same missiles and drones would destroy a few hundred solar panels or a few wind turbines, resulting in only a tiny fraction of their impact against thermal plants.

The large area taken up by wind and solar make them much less vulnerable to attack than traditional power plants.

8

aurizon t1_iwwu1to wrote

Well, solar panels have not been vandalised in US desert areas. They can be fenced as well. In any event, solar does not atract terrorists and the isolation allows easy access control. The USA has enough desert areas to supply the grid. They do need storage by flow batteries as well as base load nuclear via thorium as well as wind. Some area also suit gravity storage as well. As time goes by these will all emerge as factors. As for losses, there are greater losses and harms from doing nothing and using coal/oil/gas

4

[deleted] t1_iwwux8r wrote

It becomes an extremely attractive target when it's all concentrated in the desert. That's what I'm getting at.

−5

Pretend-Marsupial258 t1_iwx6say wrote

You're really underestimating the size of the desert areas in the US. Like, the Great Basin Desert alone is almost the size of Spain, while the Mojave is larger than Latvia. There's more than enough room for a bunch of solar panels without piling them on top of each other.

6

aurizon t1_iwww37y wrote

well, if we were at war. Perimeter walls and the isolation should work, as well as monitoring for intruders. lots of area.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-united-states

4

cornerblockakl t1_iwx4ghj wrote

Oh, NOW you think walls work. Lol

6

aurizon t1_iwx7jnd wrote

in isolated areas, with zero brush, fences and intruder alarms, people get discouraged

1

Ruthless4u t1_iwxidcr wrote

If someone decides to try and damage these areas they are determined enough not to let a wall or ADT stop them.

If they are serious they will find a way.

−2

ten-million t1_iwwzjk4 wrote

Nuclear power plants are much better targets

4

[deleted] t1_iwwzytq wrote

Nuclear power plants are designed against missile attacks.

−2

ten-million t1_iwx148z wrote

Of course they are. They wouldn’t be the best thing in the world if they weren’t.

0

findingmike t1_iwx7tlz wrote

You do know that the US deserts are massive, right? It's like saying we're concentrating solar in 500k square miles. It's really hard to blow up that much space.

4

DukeLukeivi t1_iwxle6u wrote

Plenty of car parks and roofs to put them on - but then the terrorists will just attack all the houses and parking lots in the country 🤔🤔🤔

3

[deleted] t1_iwxospj wrote

How the fuck is rooftop solar in the desert going to power the northeast?

−4

DukeLukeivi t1_iwxtmv9 wrote

Well there are these lines to transmit power that can be built - let's call them "transmission power lines." These "transmission power lines" can be used to move power from one part of the country to another, like how every city doesn't have it's own coal plant?

Also there's tidal, on/off shore wind, and geothermal that can be used and stored more locally, yes?

3

[deleted] t1_iwyoz3h wrote

Lolol rooftop solar isn't going to be transmitted across the county. Your best bet will always be localized, regional, power.

−2

DukeLukeivi t1_iwyyvtq wrote

And yet (trans/inter) continental transmission lines already exist.... Oh yeah and wind tidal geothermal and solar can all be implemented in the north east as well.

3