3 ms·
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" f
by 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 agoThink 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 agoWhich 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.