|
| ▲ | glenstein 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Could you also motivate the choice to compare Wh of energy lost, instead of, say, US dollar cost of the damage? Well there's an integral relation between the two, more kWh lost is more dollars lost. They both proxy for some venn diagram overlap that includes damage, cost, lost resources, and it's perfectly legitimate to reason from any permutation of those. It's notionally possible for different tech to attach those costs in different ways but in this case I would put the burden on you to explain the practical difference that you think cashes out in an advantage diesel has. I'm not sure why you think a truck would be cheaper necessarily: smaller PV systems can range from $10k to $20k with no fuel payload. Is a diesel truck with a full payload of fuel really cheaper than that? And is a diesel truck supposed to be fueling just one house? It's likely a single point of failure for a network of people depending on it at a time when bridges are getting bombed, and therefore an instance of centralization and attractive target for attack. And you said yourself you didn't think PV would be attacked because decentralizing in and and of itself inflicted the economic damage yet you've once again gone back to imaging a diesel advantage in the event of PV getting attacked. |
| |
| ▲ | SideburnsOfDoom 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > And is a diesel truck supposed to be fuelling just one house? It's likely a single point of failure for a network of people Completely correct, but then go one step further: Where does that truck fill up? At a depot where many other trucks do the same. That's an even more tempting target - centralised, stationary, flammable. I do not think that there is an equivalent node in the solar alternative. And where does that fuel depot get resupply from. etc. "decentralised" fossil fuel infrastructure isn't really a thing that exists. | |
| ▲ | gnull 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fair points. |
|
|
| ▲ | thelastgallon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Solar panels are dirt cheap. Which idiot would send drones to hit a solar panel? Going by your economic argument, use drones that cost hundreds of thousands of dollar to hit something thats costs 10 bucks? Do you think thats sound strategy? The military generals in US would accept that? |
|
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The diesel alone in the fuel truck that used to fill my 1000l oil fired tank costs far more than the number of solar panels a single drone could destroy, let alone the cost of the truck itself. Hell my 1000l tank alone costs more even when empty. |
|
| ▲ | dotcoma 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Panels are stationary, easier to target than vehicles. is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. |
|
| ▲ | SideburnsOfDoom 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Panels are stationary, easier to target than vehicles. Panels are small, numerous and widely dispersed, easy to install quickly and incrementally, and non-flammable. Basically the opposite of (also stationary) centralised fossil fuel infrastructure. It's clear which one is the more tempting target if you have a finite stockpile of drones. |
