Claim: Installing solar will combat national security risks in the power grid

From MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY and the “what happens if they bomb you at night?” department comes this freakishly stupid study that suggests we’ll have better energy security at our military installations by installing solar systems. While microgrids “can” be more reliable that individual grid tied systems, they still don’t generate power when you need it most during a grid induced power outage – at night.

Installing solar to combat national security risks in the power grid

Vulnerabilities in the power grid are one of the most prevalent national security threats. The technical community has called for building up the resiliency of the grid using distributed energy and microgrids for stabilization. Power production from multiple sources increases the difficulty of triggering cascading blackouts, and following an attack or natural disaster, microgrids can provide localized energy security.

In a new paper published in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, an interdisciplinary team of engineering and energy policy experts from Michigan Technological University says the first step is to outfit military infrastructure with solar photovoltaic (PV)-powered microgrid systems. Their results found that the military needs 17 gigawatts of PV to fortify domestic bases–the systems are technically feasible, within current contractors’ skill sets and economically favorable.

Additionally, the paper’s lead author, Emily Prehoda, who is finishing her PhD in energy policy at Michigan Tech, says boosting bases’ energy independence supports local communities.

“I come from a military-oriented family, so for me the military is important to bridge the technical capacities and policies to trickle down to other critical infrastructure and services,” Prehoda says. “This is such a huge issue, not only for the military but for other organizations, and it hits from all different sides, from the technical, economic and social–and it leads back to the idea of security.”

Independent Energy

The US military already has a renewable energy plan in place: 25 percent of energy production from renewable sources by 2025, but only 27 of the more than 400 domestic military sites either have fortified PV microgrids running now or have plans to do so, which makes the majority vulnerable to long-term power disruptions. Co-author Joshua Pearce says this is a great start but more is needed as most military backup systems rely on generators, which are also vulnerable to fuel supply disruption.

“The US military is extremely dependent on electricity now; it’s not people fighting with bayonets,” says Pearce, a dual-appointed professor of electrical and computer engineering as well as materials science and engineering. “If we put the money into PV-powered microgrids, it would be making us objectively more secure and we get a return on our investment as after the initial investment in PV the military would enjoy free solar electricity for the next 25 years.”

The main historical threats to the electrical grid come from natural disasters like tornados, hurricanes and winter storms, which cost between $18 and $33 billion every year in power outages and US infrastructure damage. The threats that keep grid security experts up at night are deliberate attacks on the grid. These can either be physical attacks–like the 2013 sniper attack on a Silicon Valley substation, which cost $100 million and lasted 27 days –or computer hacking that causes cascading disruptions like in the Ukraine blackouts in 2016. In 2012, the US Department of Defense reported about 200 cyber incidents across critical infrastructure systems and nearly half targeted the electrical grid.

During any event, energy generation and distribution unhitch like a lost caboose on a runaway train. Microgrids provide flexibility and enable generation to persist even if distribution fails, maintaining performance for critical infrastructure while decreasing the chance of cascading failures. Solar, because of its decreasing costs and geographically distributed access to long-term solar “fuel”, makes the most sense for powering microgrids.

PV-Powered Microgrids

To quantify the technical impacts of distributed energy systems, the team looked at domestic military bases and their current electric loads. Then they reviewed where the military’s existing and planned PV-powered microgrids lined up with past grid failures as well as every state’s potential for solar power.

The team found that it would take 2,140 gigawatts to supply all critical infrastructure in the US with 100 percent solar power and a hybrid microgrid system with storage provide protection against grid failure. The military alone would need 17 gigawatts. To put that in perspective, the US has installed a total capacity of 22.7 gigawatts of solar to date.

The team then looked at the technical and economic feasibility of employing the top 20 contractors already working with the US Department of Defense to install more microgrids and performed a detailed case study of three companies, Lockheed Martin, Bechtel and General Electric, to gauge the extent of the technical skills and resources available.

Given the results, the challenge to meet grid resiliency with microgrid deployment is feasible because the resources to install these systems already exist domestically.

Renewable Energy Policy

Prehoda also worked with her PhD adviser Chelsea Schelly, an associate professor of sociology at Michigan Tech, to assess policy needs. Despite the substantial national security risk, policy that addresses electrical grid failures has been minimal. Schelly explains that support for PV makes sense in terms of national security.

“There is some policy recognition that energy can be a security priority,” Schelly says, adding that while the US does not have a national renewable energy policy, the military does, and it has the capacity for implementation through existing contractors. “If we recognize that this capacity already exists, then we can start thinking about PV as a security measure by integrating microgrids–and then creating local resilience based on military technologies.”

In the paper, the team examined how securing top-priority military microgrids could trickle down into different levels of critical infrastructure. Technology designed and implemented at military bases could lead to similar microgrids for other government facilities, critical infrastructure like hospitals, industry and commercial systems as well as homes and neighborhoods.

“For me, starting with the military is important for national security and grid vulnerabilities,” Prehoda says. “But it also jumpstarts technology.”

The first step is recognizing what it takes to outfit domestic military bases–and eventually military sites abroad–to combat power grid failure from natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

###

The full paper is available free and open access at: https://www.academia.edu/32808527/U.S._strategic_solar_photovoltaic-powered_microgrid_deployment_for_enhanced_national_security


First, the military already has plenty of backup in the form of diesel generators at most military installations…which can run 24/7, not just when the sun shines. This looks like a sales pitch for solar to me.

Their results found that the military needs 17 gigawatts of PV to fortify domestic bases–the systems are technically feasible, within current contractors’ skill sets and economically favorable.

Second, I generally don’t trust organizations that require me to give them my contact list in order to read the paper: (my email address is obscured on purpose)

Third, a fuel-cell system would be a far better approach, as they run 24/7 and the military has already deployed several:

On July 19, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced that, as part of an interagency partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to strengthen American energy security and develop new clean energy technologies, DOE and DOD will collaborate on a project to install and operate 18 fuel cell backup power systems at eight defense installations across the country. The Departments will test how the fuel cells perform in real world operations, identify any improvements manufacturers could make to enhance the value proposition, and highlight the benefits of fuel cells for emergency backup power applications.

Link: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f10/doe_dod_backup_power_fc.pdf

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sara
May 8, 2017 1:54 pm

Prehoda says she comes from ‘a military-oriented family’. I’d ask her to prove it first.
This is a ridiculous and weak attempt to justify a research project on an unneeded change to an already-addressed item, power generation on military bases. Get over it, Tootsie. The military has been doing this for yeas. You should go talk to them before you run your silly mouth. And please, while you’re talking to REAL military people, what in the blue-eyed world sociology has to do with your project? Quit wasting my tax money, will you?

May 8, 2017 1:57 pm

“First, the military already has plenty of backup in the form of diesel generators at most military installations…which can run 24/7, not just when the sun shines. This looks like a sales pitch for solar to me.”
Look like you’ve never done war planning.
basically you create a worse case scenario.
Here the scenario is
1. Central grids are taken out by attack or natural disaster: Solution; Micro grid, Just in case.
2. FUEL SUPPLY is taken out: So local diesel generation is not an option, solution solar
So you invent a scenario where solar is the solution.
Its how we get something like the F35.

John Smith
Reply to  Anthony Watts
May 9, 2017 3:42 am

Damn you just dont get it — solar microgrids dont only have solar – they have batteries and something else – like fuel cells – but if you only use fuel cells you are going to burn through your fuel super fast — solar lets you stretch it out -and if the PV is rated for 100% of the load it will stretch it out for a long time.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 8, 2017 3:00 pm

Didn’t Obama already spend a 100 million or so to install solar etc on a military base to “go green” in order to save one million a year?
Why not test the idea by shutting off all outside power to that base for a month or so and see if it still retains any useful military function?
(Aside from, maybe, keeping the light bulbs lit so they can see that all the blank radar screens etc have left them blind?)

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 8, 2017 3:01 pm

The base already has a huge supply of diesel as diesel is used to power most of the vehicles on the base.
If the base is isolated long enough for the diesel to run out, it will run out of many other things such as bullets or food first.
If the base is attacked, the first thing destroyed will be that huge PV array.

Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2017 4:55 am

They are not talking about base attack scenarios
Nothing survives that. Duh.
As for fuel. . It runs out..
It’s pretty simple. .
Design a power system for a base that
A… doesn’t rely on the grid.
B… doesn’t rely on resupply.
It need not be survivable under direct attack.
How probable is such a scenario? Not very.
But then the scenarios of two front wars in the 1980s
Drove the design of our current fighters and bombers.
Some guys sat in room and said. ..assume the soviets attack via Fulda gap. Assume we also have to assign units to a korean conflict. Assume an advanced Soviet fighter (asf) assume advanced us missiles.
Now.
Design a fighter that can achieve air supremacy ( not just superiority) in this environment.
The systems that resulted from these assumptions fly today. The scenarios that drove the designs. ..we’re crazy.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2017 7:39 am

Since as you say, nothing survives attack, then that would definitely include the solar array.
So we are back to having to rely on diesel anyway.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 8, 2017 5:32 pm

Combined cycle natural gas plants are now the world’s most efficient power plants and they can be designed for just about any scale now 5 MW to 3,000 MW.
Storage cavern of natural gas, 2 kms underground, 5 MW mini-natural gas combined gas plant and there you have it.
Cheap, efficient, and fully scalable, energy source stored on-site in impenetrable facility.
Perfect for a simple back-up source in non-combat conditions as well.
Why solar? Because a sociology Phd is the adviser and green brain-washing is everywhere.

Reply to  Bill Illis
May 9, 2017 5:16 am

Why solar?
It Solves A Corner Case Cheaply. Unless building caverns for gas is cheap.

Catcracking
Reply to  Bill Illis
May 9, 2017 10:28 am

Stephen,
We already store natural gas in caverns, we don’t build them they are natural and only need to be piped up. My natural gas might be supplied by a cavern near Northern NJ.
http://www.northeastgas.org/pdf/public_awareness_slides11.pdf
It is idiocy to think these people who wrote the article have a clue except to patronize a past president and get more of our tax dollars. Diesel. Natural gas and gasoline are already widely distributed and stored, just look at the existing pipeline system throughout the USA and the distributed storage system throughout the Country all developed w/o tax dollars just private companies which works best.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 8, 2017 5:56 pm

Mosh,
When were you ever a member of the military and involved in war planing?
When did you ever have a war planning paper published in a peer-reviewed paper?
Do you not know how hypocritical and ridiculous you appear? Is this lost on you?

Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 9, 2017 4:44 am

When were you ever a member of the military and involved in war planing?
From 1985 to 1993. But not as a member of the military.
Rather as a contractor. Basically planning and evaluations for taiwan. Malaysia. Korea. And us of course. We called it operations research.
“When did you ever have a war planning paper published in a peer-reviewed paper?”
What I published you would never be allowed to read.
Do you not know how hypocritical and ridiculous you appear? Is this lost on you?
Your first two questions were stupid. These two prove that your stupidity is limitless

South River Independent
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 8, 2017 9:12 pm

F35 is not needed and a colossal waste of money. Need more A10 Warthog for close air support. Pilots are becoming obsolete and most air missions will be performed by drones.

RPT
Reply to  South River Independent
May 9, 2017 1:49 am

You are just as right as the “no booths on the ground needed” belief which was pushed prior to the Iraq war!

Reply to  South River Independent
May 9, 2017 5:21 am

Yes.
Advanced design Northrop. 1988. We suggested autonomous drones dropped from c130. At that stage we already had algorithms for attacking systems and even cooperative tactics..
This answer was not allowed as the military insisted that machine’s should not kill people. Only pilots could pull triggers.

South River Independent
Reply to  South River Independent
May 9, 2017 8:29 pm

What is a drone pilot? Chop Suey?

South River Independent
Reply to  South River Independent
May 9, 2017 8:33 pm

RPT: I said “most.” Close air support (implies boots on the ground.) Can anyone on this site read?
Who was the last US combat ace? There will most likely never be another one.

South River Independent
Reply to  South River Independent
May 9, 2017 8:35 pm

Guess we will have to trash all our pilot-less missiles, too.

Joel Snider
Reply to  South River Independent
May 10, 2017 12:26 pm

‘We suggested autonomous drones dropped from c130. At that stage we already had algorithms for attacking systems and even cooperative tactics. This answer was not allowed as the military insisted that machine’s should not kill people. Only pilots could pull triggers.’
Wow. The Progressive bemoaning the fact that the military wants the decision to kill people to be left in human hands.
This is a psychological case study all by itself. I just don’t have the strength, right at this moment, on my lunch hour, to fully develop this, but it does fit into a general profile of the Progressive mentality that has been evolving over the last couple of decades.
As far as the models go, their validity is no greater than any other virtual reality scenario. It gives you something to practice – but I think it was Sun Tzu that said any battle plan dissolves the moment of first contact – everyone has a plan until they get hit.
And THEN… reality intrudes.

BallBounces
May 8, 2017 1:59 pm

This is the kind of “science” study that needs to be de-funded. Not all “science” is worth doing.

L. Smith
May 8, 2017 2:09 pm

What a pity that students at my Alma Mater are so into drinking the kool-aid. Seems to me that these Phd. students are too busy trying to be trendy and social reformers to exercise common sense and good science.What a pity.

Kevin Terrill
Reply to  L. Smith
May 8, 2017 3:35 pm

They must have never left the lab in the EERC, otherwise they would’ve seen that Houghton doesn’t get any sunlight between September and April.

Alan Chew
May 8, 2017 2:27 pm

What utter academic nonsense this is. A total waste of public money. The work does not pass the pub test! What problem is she trying to solve? She needs to get outside the class room and get a real job…..although the cost benefit of employing such people would be doubtful at best!
Any installation of national importance will probably have reliable, tested diesel or gas back up. If it doesn’t, diesel can be installed for a fraction of the cost, and can be made secure from attack. The same security is not possible for a PV system, even with batteries……although if there are enough batteries to act as back up without the PV, why do you bother to install the PV in the first place. Just charge the batteries from the main grid……
I think they totally missed the bus.
Ridiculous….

Reply to  Alan Chew
May 8, 2017 3:25 pm

And, at present, any attack that could take out a US base would likely be nuclear.
So much for solar panels and windmills. (Keep some in a storeroom to be installed after the attack as a last resort.)

May 8, 2017 2:57 pm

Since any PV solar cell that is pointed towards the sky will be instantly and totally zapped within the first few microseconds of an EMP blast in the sky, using this source for anything but a very few percent of utility-grade power is utterly dangerous as it relates to “security”.

May 8, 2017 3:46 pm

Emily Prehoda,
Obama’s https://www.google.at/search?q=Soldat+schwejk&oq=Soldat+schwejk&aqs=chrome.
sure will end all wars.

May 8, 2017 3:57 pm

Not that much military background with Prehoda’s;
more in Hotellerie and gerontology.
Schwejk and Prehoda, Czech ‘Geheimwaffen’.

May 8, 2017 4:04 pm
Reply to  kreizkruzifix
May 8, 2017 4:08 pm

Ahoi Czechia,
Did you count your Svejk’s and Prehoda’s lastly?

May 8, 2017 4:15 pm

Karl Kraus invented ‘fake news’ – to test journalists :
https://www.google.at/search?q=Karl+Kraus+Grubenhunt&oq=Karl+Kraus+Grubenhunt&aqs=chrome.

Sparky
May 8, 2017 4:23 pm

Obvious. But won’t help the masses who depend on a secure grid. Back bone cant wandle it. Micros and bomb shelters survive. Everyone else freezes or cooks.

May 8, 2017 4:28 pm

Jaques Offenbach: General Boum Boum
https://youtu.be/rBTsikKiIz0

May 8, 2017 4:49 pm

And that one is for Von der Leyen; didn’t get ”Scheinasylanten” – so it has to be “Flieger grüss mir die Sonne”:
https://youtu.be/cyOKGk4WvOE

May 8, 2017 5:32 pm

From MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY and the “what happens if they bomb you at night?”
__________________________________________
When Georgia with support of US and Israeli military advisers during the night canons the sleeping south ossetian capital tskhinvali then Putin wins.
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=8AoRWeqDLMfAgAa8-arwAw&q=georgia+bombing+zchinwali+&oq=georgia+bombing+zchinwali+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3.

May 8, 2017 5:42 pm

And Chancellor Merkel, as always, on the wrong side:
http://m.spiegel.de/suche/index.html?suchbegriff=Tskhinvali+&Suchen=Absenden

May 8, 2017 6:22 pm

“Wir warten nicht wir starten was immer auch geschieht”
“we won’t wait but we start straight whatever lies ahead”

P. H.
May 8, 2017 6:41 pm

Out of curiosity, how well does PV work with the 3 inches of snow that Mother nature decided to drop on my house here in So. Cal. Saturday night? (NWS said snow level was 5500′ but snow was down to 4000′ in some places.)
I seem to recall many mil bases are in places where snow is far more common.

May 8, 2017 7:20 pm

Berthold Brecht, Mutter Courage:
Es genügt nicht eine Wut zu haben.
Man muss eine lange Wut haben.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/6247620/EU-blames-Georgia-for-starting-war-with-Russia.html

May 8, 2017 7:46 pm
May 8, 2017 7:58 pm

All that Bush’s and Reagan’s and Clinton’s;
But Obama took the cross “Yes we can”.
And Merkel took the cross “Es gibt keine Alternative”.
https://www.google.at/search?q=Merkel+raute+pic&oq=Merkel+raute+pic&aqs=chrome.
TOA

Annie
May 8, 2017 8:10 pm

We seem to have a thread bomber…

Reply to  Annie
May 9, 2017 12:25 am

Annie get your guns.
That road putin wins.
Answer at /dev/null/tty.

Reply to  Annie
May 9, 2017 12:36 am
Butch
Reply to  Annie
May 9, 2017 6:10 am

And I don’t think he is sober…