SCFalken Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 On 140 acres of unused land, 70,000 solar panels await activation as the first third of the solar photovoltaic array gets commissioned Oct. 12 with the other 66 percent of the panels scheduled for activation in the next two months at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. Base officials and SunPower Corp. finalized a commission of 15 megawatts in solar power that can save Nellis AFB $1 million annually. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Nadine Y. Barclay) Is depending on the civil power grid a wise idea, for military bases? Should we not have independant power capability (SSTAR reactors, solar or fossil-fueled), at least bigger than a portable diesel? Falken
SCFalken Posted December 5, 2007 Author Posted December 5, 2007 How much is all of this going to cost? No idea. Pricing power generation is difficult. Most of the public quotes are skewed in one manner or another. Solar advocates often subtract the savings-over-time from the initial buy price. A better starting question would be: what are the power requirements of a given base (Bragg, Andrews or Pearl)? Falken
ShotMagnet Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 Depends mightily on where the base is. As mentioned, '...pricing power is difficult...' and one of the difficulties is that the AF is based globally, with demand and attendant pricing for electricity varying according to local availability/generating capacity. The important stuff have their own generators, but most daily normative functions come from the local grid. The 'average' Air Force base is a small town of between 2,000-10,000, attached to a rather large airport. Figure (at least roughly) demands for electricity on that basis. Shot
Guest aevans Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 (edited) Is depending on the civil power grid a wise idea, for military bases? Should we not have independant power capability (SSTAR reactors, solar or fossil-fueled), at least bigger than a portable diesel?Falken If they're like every hospital you've ever been to, they have autostarting backup generators with at least a week of fuel on-site, capable of carrying the load of every critical circuit simultaneously. (Of course, one might reasonably question whether the AF would be smart enough to operate in a manner as prudent as the average civilian hospital.) If reliable civilian grid power to a domestic base is going to be down longer than that, you'll have time to arrange for additional fuel, or your problems are way worse than one can reasonably plan and budget for. On the other hand, if a solar farm is considered a reasonable candidate for just such contingencies, then some people with a lot of power are really stupid, for reasons that should be pretty obvious. Edited December 5, 2007 by aevans
SCFalken Posted December 6, 2007 Author Posted December 6, 2007 On the other hand, if a solar farm is considered a reasonable candidate for just such contingencies, then some people with a lot of power are really stupid, for reasons that should be pretty obvious. Solar installations are fragile, for one. Falken
Christian Lupine Posted December 6, 2007 Posted December 6, 2007 Alternative energy sources on a very large scale would do as much for our national security as a lot of weapons systems. (FFZ material I admit)
Manic Moran Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 I do believe I see Scott Cunninghams' armoury in the background there. (Where the water tower is) NTM
Gunguy Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) This didn't cost the Air Force a dime. It was a special project with funds from various sources. It will over time, save the Air Force huge amounts of money. It is seen as a model for other bases that have the room for the panel field. Not a bad deal at all. Now if I could get the same deal on myhousehold electric bill! It does cost me a lot to have an extra large carbon footprint. But, I have to keep to my principles..... Edited December 7, 2007 by Gunguy
Sami Jumppanen Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Just asking, do they store that energy somehow or is that system to cut power peak caused by AC and other daytime activities?
Rubberanvil Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Couldn't they have raised the arrays up and use them in parking lots while doubling up as lamp posts?
Sami Jumppanen Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Couldn't they have raised the arrays up and use them in parking lots while doubling up as lamp posts? You know, that idea might bring somebody a lot of money.
shep854 Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 You know, that idea might bring somebody a lot of money.Be nice to have some shade in parking lots, too.
Rod Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 That's actually a great idea. Couldn't they have raised the arrays up and use them in parking lots while doubling up as lamp posts?
Sami Jumppanen Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Be nice to have some shade in parking lots, too. Definitely a plus during summer.
shep854 Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Definitely a plus during summer. My thought, exactly.
Doug97 Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 Wow, has there ever been an idea touted on Tanknet that has garnered so much support? Where are all the naysayers?
FlyingCanOpener Posted December 15, 2007 Posted December 15, 2007 Wow, has there ever been an idea touted on Tanknet that has garnered so much support? Where are all the naysayers? Well here you go: Depending on the weather in the area maintenance of lamp mounted panels could be a serious PITA, those things are fragile and tend to get busted once and a while. I would think that any such setup would be where solar arrays would work best, i.e. where they're deployed in the photo.
Doug97 Posted December 15, 2007 Posted December 15, 2007 That's more like it! Plus -they cost money-birds will crap on them-people will steal them-the sun reflecting off them will blind people-they are a perfect terrorist target-who needs electricity anyway? In my opinion, these insurmountable drawbacks render the idea useless. Only kidding, I think it's a great idea.
Bluelight Posted December 15, 2007 Posted December 15, 2007 It would be difficult and expensive to do the regular cleaning on them.
Doug97 Posted December 15, 2007 Posted December 15, 2007 It would be difficult and expensive to do the regular cleaning on them.Why? Can't imagine it'd be any more difficult than cleaning office windows.
JWB Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 It would be difficult and expensive to do the regular cleaning on them. Each element could have an attached sprayer. Every morning before sunrise each element would be tilted to vertical so the solution would run down the glass cleaning the dust off.
Christian Lupine Posted December 20, 2007 Posted December 20, 2007 This article makes it sound like the USAF is working on a "greener" image.I hadn't heard about coal/jet fuel mix either. http://gas2.org/2007/12/19/air-force-will-...owered-by-2011/
DB Posted December 21, 2007 Posted December 21, 2007 This article makes it sound like the USAF is working on a "greener" image.I hadn't heard about coal/jet fuel mix either. http://gas2.org/2007/12/19/air-force-will-...owered-by-2011/The article you posted isn't clear to the point of probably being deliberately misleading for the sake of the headline, but the synthetic fuel process is Fischer-Tropsch and apparently can use more than coal as a feedstock, including biomass or natural gas. See here, for example, where it is noted that particulate emissions are expected to be lower: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/air_force_fligh.html David
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now