SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (79302)8/19/2003 4:31:55 AM
From: Yorikke  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 209892
 
OT The problem was not a result of the sub-standard infrastructure- which does exist. And its unlikely to be a simple problem of human negligence. Everyone was trying very hard to 'stay with the game plan'.

The problem results from the very concept of 'The Grid' and the philosophy that guides it. There is a 'We stand United' frame of reference in the power industry. When a problem occurs every one is supposed to stay with the grid and support the other areas. When a major problem occurs it leaves the system open to surges that charge across the grid like high surf. And one by one the plants and utilities get knocked overboard as the grid rocks from side to side in huge surges. The stand together concept leads to heavy damage and downtime.

Better to let the individual power utilities drop off the grid when they see a surge problem getting out of hand. They may go down but the damage is minimal and they can be back up and running in 4 to 8 hours. (Instead of a generator getting fried it goes off line and then must be reintegrated into the local system)

This is not politic for large metropolitan areas, but in terms of saving the grid from chaos it is what is likely to become the accepted solution to problem.

It is likely we will have more outages as a result of our 1960's power infrastructure, but they will be more localized and less catastrophic.