Thread

1. atoav · 1791104660 · focus · HN ↗

   If every building and other piece of infrastructure essentially powers itself, that means to disable a bunch of targets you now can't just disable a central substation that feeds them, you have to disable the targets themselves, and depending on the nature of the targets that may no longer be economical.

   It also no longer makes sense to attack the connecting lines between them as well.

   1. gnull · 1791106665 · focus · HN ↗

      Disabling them is a means to deal economic damage, not an end-goal in itself.

      People built centralized grids because it's cheaper to build and service when the equipment is concentrated in one place. The economy of scale kicks in.

      If you move to decentralized so there's fewer outages, but now you're paying extra to maintain it, your solution is not as good as it used to be, that's economic damage right there.

      And your enemy probably will also stop targeting the small decentralized grid elements, so they're not spending bucks on missiles. They can use more of them to hit other parts of your economy that are still centralized.

      Estimating the net impact of this change is bigger than the article suggests.

      1. glenstein · 1791107505 · focus · HN ↗

         What does the distinction between economic damage and not being an end goal in itself have to do with anything? Either way it's a live goal being pursued and decentralizing will mitigate Russia's ability to inflict pain.

         You're right that centralized grids are cheaper (as long as the utilities maintaining them are good faith actors) and that switching to decentralized solutions brings new maintenance costs. But this is a war, the choice isn't been idealized central distribution and costs of decentralization, it's between the latter and a grid under siege by missiles. Relying on a grid that's being struck by missiles with no backup plan isn't economical either.

         Also in your other comment you were claiming PV being outside was "much easier to hit" but now you are saying those systems probably won't be targeted.

         1. gnull · 1791109870 · focus · HN ↗

            > mitigate Russia's ability to inflict pain

            The crux of the distinction I'm making is right there. Russia is not doing some ephemeral "inflict pain", it's pursuing a clear objective of draining Ukraine's budget.

            The way I'd do it if I was in Kremlin is something close to make up a list of targets, rank them by (Ukraine's cost to maintain)/(Russia's cost of missiles), pick the top 3-5 and hit them. Also continuously update the cost estimates and reevaluate those 3-5 targets.

            In this vocabulary, Ukraine moving to decentralized is a cost in itself, so if it does pay that cost to move "energy grid" item down Russia's list, Russia can celebrate it and move on to the next target. If this happens, Ukraine will have paid the cost of moving to decentralized, and will be continuously paying a penalty for it, while Russia's coat of incurring that on Ukraine goes to zero (since the new missiles are hitting different targets).

            And critically, if we assume moving to decentralized will make it pointless for Russia to hit the grid, deciding how much will it help requires knowing what target they will aim those newly freed missiles at, and how much cost that is going to incur.

            > you were claiming PV being outside was "much easier to hit" but now you are saying those systems probably won't be targeted.

            These are all hypotheticals, I assumed we're on the same page about it. We don't really know here in this forum what's going to work. Considering two contradicting hypotheticals in different threads is alright.

            My comments are not about what is true, what's going to actually happen on the ground. They're about how one should go about arguing whatever they're arguing for, what reservations they're missing, and what assumptions they made they're not aware of.

            1. derriz · 1791115704 · focus · HN ↗

               > Russia is not doing some ephemeral "inflict pain", it's pursuing a clear objective of draining Ukraine's budget.

               This is not true - they’ve regularly targeted and hit kindergartens, supermarkets, gas stations, town squares/markets, residential buildings, etc. None of these targets are “budget draining” but instead are intended to terrify and hurt civilians. Russia isn’t calculating or being strategic at the level you suggest - instead its actions are often simply cruel, inhumane and vindictive even at the cost of its own strategic interests.

               1. codedokode · 1791121165 · focus · HN ↗

                  > instead its actions are often simply cruel, inhumane and vindictive

                  Every war is cruel and inhumane, so why single out Russia here?

                  1. derriz · 1791124967 · focus · HN ↗

                     Because I was responding directly (I even quoted the line) to the claim that Russian’s actions could be understood as being part of a “clear objective of draining Ukraine's budget”.

                     Your attempt to deflect is very odd. We’re discussing an aspect of Russia’s behavior and strategy with respect to the invasion of Ukraine. If you want me to comment on the behavior of a different belligerent in a different conflict then feel free to start such a discussion concerning that conflict - then I may (or may not) respond to claims about the behavior of some country that isn’t Russia.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.