Yet again we see the impressive vulnerability of our large-scale,
centralised, integrated systems which are a feature of today's society.
Despite Y2K, terrorism, previous events, and decades of experience in the
energy industry and risk management, we still end up creating situations and
systems which cause severe, continental-wide crises. Whether this event was
deliberate, incompetence, a true accident (does that ever exist?), or a
combination, the system itself still has inherent vulnerabilities which we
apparently do not understand and which, perhaps, we are not willing to
invest the resources to tackle properly.
Since local coping mechanisms appear to be implemented across the affected
areas, is it perhaps time to consider more localised energy systems too? A
further advantage would be that having energy production much closer to the
users where possible could perhaps educate people about the economic,
social, and environmental cost of excessive energy usage, a key aspect of
tackling climate change.
Another question for this list relates to a previous blackout which this
event has again brought to light (pardon the pun). The Globe and Mail, a
Canadian national newspaper, reports at
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030815.ugrid1/BNStory/Front
that:
"Yesterday's failure was not the first of its kind. On Aug. 11, 1996 --
almost exactly seven years ago -- a squirrel found its way into a grid on
the U.S. West Coast and knocked out power in nine states and parts of
Mexico, demonstrating the weaknesses in the system."
Would that event count as a natural disaster?
Best wishes to everyone affected by this event and stay safe during it,
Ilan
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|