Hmm...doesn't look very carbon-neutral to me.
Russia isn't dumb enough to target Turkish ships... Attacking a ship flagged in a NATO country while it's providing disaster relief would be a quick way to opening the flood gates of NATO supply to Ukraine.
I dont know about that. One Russia has proven itself to be plenty dumb enough. Two it would be a legitimate military target, what would be the point of knocking out infrastructure only to not target its replacement?
Interesting concept but we have a lot of landmass (and population) that is a long way from the sea (the Great Lakes, maybe, depending on the size of the ship), and every km of transmission adds losses. The utility infrastructure would have to be located shore-side in sufficient capacity to accept and transmit a decent load, even if it was just to the surrounding community. I don't think our problems are or would be related to generation, but distribution. The Quebec/eastern Ontario ice storm didn't take out generation. Having said that, there is room for creative thinking. I recall one Quebec community where they parked a locomotive at a road crossing and tapped it to the grid. I thought 'brilliant'. There would be some obvious technical issues to work out but what better than to have several thousand potential generators spread across the country.
Any vehicle transporting war materiel to Ukraine is also a legitimate target, but I don't expect Russia to shoot down NATO transport aircraft flying to Poland.
Ya, fair point (although getting a ship near Niagara Falls might be tricky). I qualified the Great Lakes as 'ship dependent' and the Arctic would be seasonally dependent. My point of shore-side transmission remains valid. There is little point in having a multi-megawatt generator parked at the pier when there is little or no capacity to get the power to the masses. Large extension cords won't cut it.
What about lots of small ones from Princess Auto and Canadian Tire?
The difference is those vehicles werent in the war zone they were in a NATO country. If it wasnt a big deal then why wouldnt we just fly into Kyiv? Anyway its a curious game of chicken and a no win prospect for Russia if it happens. Leave ship alone=lots of power for Ukraine. Blow ship up = huge PR win for Ukraine probably resulting in more assets transfered to Ukraine
Fair.
Was that that not the plan on Y2K? I thought I remember the Frigates were to be in Harbour and ready for hook up to the grid if there was problems on the date roll over.
Transformers and cables don't care but a lot of the rest of the infrastructure does. All the technology loaded into grids now makes it more complex including all of the self-protection technology required to be part of an international synchronous grid. The grid was originally designed to take power from a relatively small number of big generators. With solar and wind generators popping up on country roads, now there are multiple small generators scattered into the system and in some cases they've actual had to limit connections because the grid can't keep up. You are right about stand-by generators. Now, the farm down the road has a solar array feeding the grid. if the grid goes down, it needs the tech to disconnect the farmer, not only to protect the grid protect itself and its crews but also the farmer's equipment because the existing load will try to suck the nuts out of the equipment.
fb.watch
This! Absolutely this! I can tell you from real world experience that there are never enough tankers kicking around when you need them, and warships need to top of with fuel far more often than non-navy folk realize.
www.navalnews.com
Ah, rearming - at first glance (tired old eyes) I missed the send r and thoughtAt-sea rearming - no doubt too late for JSS, but interesting nonetheless, and hopefully being tracked by the RCN:
At-sea rearming deemed a "Main Priority" by SECNAV - Naval News
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Carlos Del Toro once again emphasized the need for at-sea reloading at this year’s Combat Systems Symposium.
