• TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    Has anyone considered that turning off the power might not even be possible without turning it off at hospitals and other critical locations…?

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Say what you mean: “I do not care what is true because what I want to happen is way more important”.

    • ickplant@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      all critical locations have huge DC batteries specifically design to take over during a short outage. Then generators.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        There would always be a risk any backup systems fail. As another commenter pointed out, in other countries it would be illegal to cut power like that for that kind of reason. And that’s a good thing. Power is literally keeping people alive and shouldn’t be turned off because it seems mean to leave it on.

        But a better point is, no one discussing this knows what downstream effects could happen if they killed the power. Seems kind of crazy to me to pretend we do.

        • scratchee@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          A backup system that isn’t tested regularly is not a backup at all, just the illusion of one.

          If you can’t turn the power off with 24h notice then nature will turn it off with zero notice at the most inconvenient moment.

          • Robin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            They should indeed do regular tests of their backups. They should also ensure technical staff is on-site during those tests.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 month ago

            I do not follow the logic of people being so blinded by their love of cats that they literally think they can become electrical grid engineers and know all the risks, just because they want to know them.

            It does not matter if every single vulnerable building has backups and tested them yesterday (obviously none of that could ever be close to true), it’s still a non-zero risk to human lives, for one cat.

              • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 month ago

                It’s amazing because electrical grids are designed to be able to have sections shut down at any time. The intended purpose is literally to prevent a catastrophic shutdown.

                Imagine pompously stating that your suggestion is somehow more logical on the basis of 1) there’s a good likelihood you aren’t an electrical engineer and 2) that there’s some kind of genuine risk here (because apparently this guy thinks the whole lynchpin to the fucking grid happens to be this exact pole).

                Dunning Kruger, at its finest. Glad to see you still have your head on straight.

                  • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    It is a sentiment that treats potential loss of life like rounding errors instead of tragedies (big and small).

                    Tolkien’s words live in my brain

                    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 month ago

                Sure go ahead and assume I want the cat to die. Which I didn’t. What the fuck.

                The cat was rescued apparently anyway.

            • scratchee@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              The cat isn’t part of the equation, I gave no opinion on that. The risk of never testing your failure response is much higher than the risk of testing your failure response.

              If a test happens to save a cat? Lucky cat. If not, they’ll still have to test it at some other point anyway.

                • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  No you’re just trying to suggest that a test can’t be pushed up because you hate cats.

                  Unless you genuinely just do not understand what they mean, which is likely.

                  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Since you’re going to assume the worst possible reading, I will assume projection on your part.

        • ickplant@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          If their back up system fails then it’s their fault for not keeping it up to date. Seriously, my husband is an engineer who designs these battery systems. They do not “fail” if they are maintained and replaced properly.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 month ago

            Patently absurd. Technology often fails regardless of what you do. Inviting that failure would be negligence and should be illegal.

            The one thing I know for sure about any engineer is that we are intimately familiar with the concept of things failing when it’s least convenient.

            • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 month ago

              We’ve got the Lemmy/Reddit worldview out in force. We should shut down vital infrastructure, risking life safety of many, for a cat. I say this loving cats: that’s silly.

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yeah, I knew when I commented it might get some backlash, but the strength of it is somewhat depressing. Isn’t Lemmy supposed to be mostly rational intelligent people?

                I guess it just tells us how commonplace it is for people to declare a risk either worth it or non-existent without a fucking clue about the actual risk they are talking about.

                In any case, thank you for demonstrating that there are still some sane people left out there.

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Just adding that these operations are federally regulated to remain in operation. They likely don’t even have the choice if they can’t justify the liability.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Careful, a bunch of downvotes and nasty comments probably are coming your way despite there being a good reason for such regulations.

        • ZMonster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Lol, I was an electrical product investigator/inspector for 15 years. I’ve dabbled in being a pariah of sorts. But thanks for the heads up! A level head is a balm these days.

    • wabafee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I guess by not turning it off they risked people being electrocuted and possibly result to a brownout within the area, seeing how eventually resulted to bystanders attempting to rescue the cat and a bad PR.

      Personally I think it’s just a lapse in risk analysis on the electric company.