Solar panels produce electricity. Electricity can be converted into heat with close to 100% efficiency.

That's misleading, since there are three conversions there and you've picked the only efficient one. The other two are:

• Converting BACK from heat to electricity is inefficient - you only get about 30-50% of the energy you put in. So a pure hot-liquid storage plant that takes in electricity (from any power source) and outputs electricity, wastes half to two-thirds of the energy you put in.
• Converting sunlight to electricity is inefficient,15-25% for typical solar panels.

So doing "sunlight -> solar panels -> electricity -> electric heater -> hot liquid -> storage -> boil water -> steam -> turbine -> electricity" is silly and horrendously inefficient. Probably 8% or less overall efficiency.

As the grandparent mentioned, there are solar thermal plants that use mirrors to focus sunlight on a small area at the top of a tower, and heat liquid that way. That's "sunlight -> mirror -> reflected sunlight -> heating tower -> hot liquid -> storage-> boil water -> steam -> turbine -> electricity", which is much much more efficient. This is actively used, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . It's apparently about 15% efficient, which is comparable to solar panels. But it has an advantage over solar panels in that it provides energy storage.

In contrast, a standard nuclear reactor already produces heat, which is then converted to electricity. So while the conversion to electricity is inefficient at 30-40%, that's already been factored into the design of the nuclear plant - the 345 MWe electrical power reactor actually generates a lot more thermal (heat) power. (I can't find the actual number but would guess around 1000 MW(th)). So adding a storage step doesn't affect the total efficiency much.

I hope this gets update to comply with RFC 5785. There are far too many people inventing "special" URLs at the root level of sites, which are likely to clash with pages that already exist. RFC 5785 says that such URLs should be like http ://example.org/.well-known/security.txt instead of http ://example.org/security.txt . That way, they won't clash with existing pages. RFC 5785 also defines a registry for these URLs, to avoid the situation where two specs define different meanings for the same URL.

Because they're not going to be handling the iceberg in sterile conditions, and even if they did the iceberg isn't pure water to begin with. There will be dirty boots from the people moving around on the iceberg, seagull poop, germs because germs get everywhere, seawater and whatever germs and muck are in the seawater, the odd dead fish that got frozen in the iceburg when it formed, etc. If a bit of muck gets in with the ice, that's fine, the water treatment plant will filter it out.

If you look at it on Google Earth, you'll see that it's fairly spread out. There are a large number of separate warehouses (around 100?), and each warehouse has large earthen banks around it, then a large amount of empty space. That's intended to contain fire & explosions, so if something goes wrong you might lose a single warehouse but they don't spread to other parts of the complex. That's clearly not working very well. But those earthen banks and empty spaces take up a large amount of space, probably over 90% of the site.

So it's fairly spread out, even though it was at a single site.

People tend to object if you build an ammo bunker next to their house, so it's always going to be awkward to get more sites. You also need to secure ammo bunkers very well, so having less sites lets you have better security for the same money, or spend less to get the same level of security. Making a base 4 times bigger only doubles the perimeter fencing needed, probably doesn't change the number of guarded gates you need, and the number of guards needed only goes up a little bit since the guards are mostly there to man the gate and to react to an intruder. So having a small number of large sites does make sense.