Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The chances of that happening are fairly small compared to other scenarios to prepare for, however.
The solar storm of 1859 will eventually repeat. I wouldn't say small odds or "if" but really it's a question of when will it happen. Telegraph wires caught fire on poles during that event, today it would be a serious problem for those reliant on power.
I was told a long time ago that were the power grid to go down at any time the likely hood of it ever coming back on was very remote, spare parts are no longer kept on the shelf in this era of globalisation and each part has to be ordered, made and shipped from somewhere abroad(this is the UK grid i'm talking about you'll have to do your own research for the US one) probably China, and it takes several months for each part, if the whole UK grid needed spare parts, say in the case of an EMP or Carrington type event, this would take up to 2 years, that's if they had enough engineers to do the work which is never the case even now.
My understanding is that'as essentially true for the US as well. We have limited manufacturing capacity for certain large transformers, as typically few are needed at any given time. And those factories themselves rely on electricity of course. It would be quite the puzzle to try to put the grid back together again.
My understanding is that'as essentially true for the US as well. We have limited manufacturing capacity for certain large transformers, as typically few are needed at any given time. And those factories themselves rely on electricity of course. It would be quite the puzzle to try to put the grid back together again.
A partial solution that would have been unthinkable a couple of decades ago may have come out of the California mega-fires. An unexpected outcome of the legal battles is that power companies now may find it acceptable to shut down the grid completely for extended periods to avoid causing fires. A complete shutdown would isolate circuits, limit overload conditions, and protect transformers. Previously, fears of power outages causing loss of life to those depending on respirators, air-conditioning, elevators, traffic signals, etc. led to an attitude of "the grid must remain up at all cost."
Soap has been important for centuries. The first video briefly outlines the beginnings of washing. It is offensive in that it emphasizes the needs of manual workers, but we can overlook that. Thee second two videos show us how to make soap with chemicals which were widely available in 1880. Shaving soaps were available in a variety of compounds as well as scents.
I would put forth the opinion, if permissible, that a huge difference between the effect of a "crisis" in 1880 and a "crisis" in 2019 is that of dependency. Was John Q. Public dependent in 1880? Is John Q. Public dependent today? (mind you, I'm talking about the "typical" citizen during the respective times) The answer is yes to both questions. But as to the degree of dependency upon the "collective"? Well, that is where there is a glaring, bunyanesque difference.
In the 1880's if Jane Doe lost her telephone (if she had one) or "comm line" (what, a telegraph or mail carrier?), it wasn't a coronary-inducing crisis that could end up being deadly within a few weeks if not rectified. In fact, I'd doubt she'd care that much at all. If the power grid (what grid?) went down, Jane probably had nothing that even used electricity unless she was of the upper, upper class. And even at that, she'd again likely not really care that much. It would little affect her. Also, economies, although broadening, were to a large extent still local. Essentials were often produced locally (or "in-house" by each household). People were much less connected globally and much more connected locally/individually. It was still possible (even likely) to have a very insular community that was quite self-sufficient.
And today? I think we all know the answer to that, especially if we are old enough to have witnessed the huge changes that the young folks assume to be the norm (some even assume it has always been the norm). Unless one is living in a very insular community somewhere, one is dependent on the collective. Even those in the insular communities/compounds are more dependent on infrastructure and the gubbermint than Jane Doe was in 1885--mainly because the federal government hadn't gotten around to micromanaging its populace to any great degree and technology hadn't become a crutch ("essential," if you don't like the word "crutch") to the extent it now is.
So going back to the communication/power lines going down in 1880 and now. If you can't see the precarious position we are potentially all in, then normalcy bias has you firmly by the... well, you know. Will anything bad enough to mess our house of cards up happen? Who knows. But those of you saying it can't are playing the part of God or a fortune teller and you are not going to change anyone's mind who has pondered the situation, analyzed it, and made a different decision than you did. Gamblers cannot afford to be absolutists.
There isn't going to be a massive, system wide collapse that requires people to have to live off the land.
The more specialized society becomes, and the more reliant society becomes on intricate technological systems, the more likely it becomes that those systems will fail in some manner at some time.
I wish that I had your optimism, but I don't see how failure is not inevitable.
A partial solution that would have been unthinkable a couple of decades ago may have come out of the California mega-fires. An unexpected outcome of the legal battles is that power companies now may find it acceptable to shut down the grid completely for extended periods to avoid causing fires. A complete shutdown would isolate circuits, limit overload conditions, and protect transformers. Previously, fears of power outages causing loss of life to those depending on respirators, air-conditioning, elevators, traffic signals, etc. led to an attitude of "the grid must remain up at all cost."
That's not a solution. Its a problem in need of a solution. Inoperative power grids are the stuff of third world nations.
I would put forth the opinion, if permissible, that a huge difference between the effect of a "crisis" in 1880 and a "crisis" in 2019 is that of dependency. Was John Q. Public dependent in 1880? Is John Q. Public dependent today? (mind you, I'm talking about the "typical" citizen during the respective times) The answer is yes to both questions. But as to the degree of dependency upon the "collective"? Well, that is where there is a glaring, bunyanesque difference.
In the 1880's if Jane Doe lost her telephone (if she had one) or "comm line" (what, a telegraph or mail carrier?), it wasn't a coronary-inducing crisis that could end up being deadly within a few weeks if not rectified. In fact, I'd doubt she'd care that much at all. If the power grid (what grid?) went down, Jane probably had nothing that even used electricity unless she was of the upper, upper class. And even at that, she'd again likely not really care that much. It would little affect her. Also, economies, although broadening, were to a large extent still local. Essentials were often produced locally (or "in-house" by each household). People were much less connected globally and much more connected locally/individually. It was still possible (even likely) to have a very insular community that was quite self-sufficient.
And today? I think we all know the answer to that, especially if we are old enough to have witnessed the huge changes that the young folks assume to be the norm (some even assume it has always been the norm). Unless one is living in a very insular community somewhere, one is dependent on the collective. Even those in the insular communities/compounds are more dependent on infrastructure and the gubbermint than Jane Doe was in 1885--mainly because the federal government hadn't gotten around to micromanaging its populace to any great degree and technology hadn't become a crutch ("essential," if you don't like the word "crutch") to the extent it now is.
So going back to the communication/power lines going down in 1880 and now. If you can't see the precarious position we are potentially all in, then normalcy bias has you firmly by the... well, you know. Will anything bad enough to mess our house of cards up happen? Who knows. But those of you saying it can't are playing the part of God or a fortune teller and you are not going to change anyone's mind who has pondered the situation, analyzed it, and made a different decision than you did. Gamblers cannot afford to be absolutists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy
The more specialized society becomes, and the more reliant society becomes on intricate technological systems, the more likely it becomes that those systems will fail in some manner at some time.
I wish that I had your optimism, but I don't see how failure is not inevitable.
That's not a solution. Its a problem in need of a solution. Inoperative power grids are the stuff of third world nations.
Welcome to the third world. It'll take a generation or two to recognize the advantages of redundancy and a decentralized power system. The economics right now favor big and expensive power generators.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
