3 ms·

I'd bet the US national grid would be back up in some capacity within a year. People tend to assemble in times of crisis.

by uoaei 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago
I'd bet it wouldn't. You might have some tiny local grids but anything city sized would require a lot more coordination than you might think.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Likely there wouldn't be as many services, but don't you think long-range transmission and a good set of scattered plants would provide at least some "modern" facilities within that time? I'm sure the ownership and management structures would look very different as well as usage patterns (probably many services would be centralized in communities).
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Think about the infrastructure behind those plants required to keep them running. maybe you could keep a hydro plant running for a while, at least until the bearings fail. But anything relying on high tech, fossil fuels or nuclear would stop long before solar and wind power became unavailable.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Which is probably acceptable to a lot of people, who would have adapted to the new reality by then. Capacity would have to be rebuilt. The grid is always changing in capacity and output. What makes the grid "the grid" is the ability to transmit power long-range based on demand. I'm saying that that kind of high-level coordination would be a pretty high priority for people in the face of apocalyptic disaster because people tend to be like that. Just trying to counter the cynical doom and gloom that nudges people toward hard-libertarian/ancap/mad-max mindsets.
KerrAvon 3y ago
Have you been in a coma during the past decade? I can’t fathom how you could possibly come to this conclusion after COVID.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Despite all the kerfuffle there were massive mobilizations of people and resources still, and that was even in the face of a silent killer, one that didn't trigger apocalyptic feelings in a critical mass of people as much as, say, widespread EMP attacks from nuclear explosions in orbit that affect every piece of electronics we've come to rely on, or a horrendous chemical spill that changes the atmosphere's chemistry. The latter are much more immediate and appeal to deeper instincts as regards risk assessment than an invisible microbe that only infects a few species of mammal.

I'd bet the US national grid would be back up in some capacity within a year. People tend to assemble in times of crisis.

by uoaei 3y ago

I'd bet the US national grid would be back up in some capacity within a year. People tend to assemble in times of crisis.

jacquesm 3y ago

I'd bet it wouldn't. You might have some tiny local grids but anything city sized would require a lot more coordination than you might think.

uoaei 3y ago
Likely there wouldn't be as many services, but don't you think long-range transmission and a good set of scattered plants would provide at least some "modern" facilities within that time? I'm sure the ownership and management structures would look very different as well as usage patterns (probably many services would be centralized in communities).
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Think about the infrastructure behind those plants required to keep them running. maybe you could keep a hydro plant running for a while, at least until the bearings fail. But anything relying on high tech, fossil fuels or nuclear would stop long before solar and wind power became unavailable.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Which is probably acceptable to a lot of people, who would have adapted to the new reality by then. Capacity would have to be rebuilt. The grid is always changing in capacity and output. What makes the grid "the grid" is the ability to transmit power long-range based on demand. I'm saying that that kind of high-level coordination would be a pretty high priority for people in the face of apocalyptic disaster because people tend to be like that. Just trying to counter the cynical doom and gloom that nudges people toward hard-libertarian/ancap/mad-max mindsets.

KerrAvon 3y ago

Have you been in a coma during the past decade? I can’t fathom how you could possibly come to this conclusion after COVID.

uoaei 3y ago
Despite all the kerfuffle there were massive mobilizations of people and resources still, and that was even in the face of a silent killer, one that didn't trigger apocalyptic feelings in a critical mass of people as much as, say, widespread EMP attacks from nuclear explosions in orbit that affect every piece of electronics we've come to rely on, or a horrendous chemical spill that changes the atmosphere's chemistry. The latter are much more immediate and appeal to deeper instincts as regards risk assessment than an invisible microbe that only infects a few species of mammal.