Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts

8.6.09

Canada's Energy Problem: Interlude - Do You Remember the Night of the Blackout?

First, some videos and questions to preface my blog entry. Where and what were you doing during the Northeast Blackout of 2003? What are you going to do when you realize nothing is in place to prepare for a protracted infrastructure failure, be it a blackout or a lack of oil?



Personally, I think a more accurate commercial would be a bunch of teens staring at monitors wondering why they can't see the latest juicy gossip about [insert celebrity name here].



This actually reminds me of a video tape of a man stuck in an elevator for 41 hours. You can see it here but the story behind it is probably more dramatic (although it is eight pages long).

To be honest I'm not sure what I would have done in his situation. I do know my typically sweet, understanding and reasonable self would be very, very PO'd by the 12 hour mark. Interestingly, White was not compensated a large amount for his troubles. I think this is telling...when the elevator stops and no one seems to care you're inside, who's going to come to your aid? Personally I can't help but compare this to the current state of Canada's energy infrastructure and power sources. Who is going to save us when we're stuck without power or a proper infrastructure in place to prevent the same disorder that occurred 6 years ago?

Perhaps you were at a home during the blackout and simply did as most of my friends did. They had a barbeque! Afraid the meat would spoil, their parents cooked up steaks (and whatever other meat they had in the freezer) and had plenty of ice cream for dinner. The general consensus was that everyone in the neighbourhood was quite friendly, despite the occasional commuter nearly collapsing on their porch when they finally reached home. As time passed and they grew hot and bored, they wondered how long they would have to last until the air conditioner and television would turn on again.

The blackout of August 14th, 2003 affected Northeastern and Midwestern United States as well as parts of Ontario. The numbers of affected residents were estimated to be approximately 55 million (Please note, according to Statistics Canada there are a little over 33 million Canadians). There was a lot of good will during the black out. Average people would direct traffic while motorists and pedestrians listened willingly. Neighbors had barbeques and speculated about the source of the blackout, as well as their various horror stories involving their trek home. It was kind of nice actually. Everyone went outside because it was too dark to stay at home.

But it wasn't all nice of course. While several gas stations could not operate without electricity, a rare number of Burlington, ON stations were selling gas for 99.9 cents (with lots of ready and willing customers lining up), claiming their supply was limited despite prices being in the low 70s prior to the blackout. How's that for blatant price gouging? At one point the Canadian government was seriously considering rationing the gas supply. The supply chain system was also disrupted, for example transport trucks could not proceed on their routes because they required refueling before making the long journey to Manitoba. Oh and those that believe they can survive using their cellphones and 3G networks should probably consider how the generators powering cellular towers ran out of fuel.

To be honest, sometimes I do wonder if Jeff is right to say we'll plunge into chaos as soon as we run out of oil and gas to power our technology obsessed lives. A surprising fact that I discovered through my research was that there was looting in...Ottawa, Ontario. Can you believe it? Actually, my naive self believed (at the time) that Canadians were too polite to loot and pillage as their cars stalled on the highway and became useless roadblocks, while their fellow drivers tried to maneuver through the mess.

According to this Slate article by David Greenberg, for NYC it was a mixture of technical and socially-motived reasons. The most important reason was 9/11. Conscious of the blackout's source not being from a terrorist attack, New Yorkers nonetheless recalled how they banded together to ensure their city did not succumb to the same events that overtook them in 1977. What happened you ask?



The infamous New York City Blackout of 1977 resulted in looting, arson, vandalism and assaults all over the city. It was chaotic, but here are the stats for a brief look at what occurred (Source):

In all, 1,616 stores were either looted or damaged during the blackout. More than a thousand fires were set, 14 of them resulting in multiple alarms. And in the biggest mass arrest in city history, 3,776 people were thrown in the jug. The jails were so overcrowded that the overflow had to be held in precinct basements and other makeshift gaols...A congressional study later put the damage caused by looting and vandalism at $300 million.


Experts generally offer the following (probable) reasons for the chaos:
  • NYC was in the middle of a harsh heat wave,
  • United States was experiencing a nation-wide economic downtown (I suppose when you get the chance to get the TV you always wanted...), with NYC struggling with bankruptcy
  • General public's fear stemming from the Son of Sam murders
  • When the blackout occurred, most store owners had gone home and were not there to defend their property
  • NYPD morale was low due to the Mayor's attempts to assign only one officer in each patrol car (During the summer of Sam!), and the night of the blackout only 8,000 of 25,000 police officers reported for duty, while some just stood passively by*

Alright, I will admit that with the right conditions (which I feel we are a few steps away from) I do believe a protracted blackout or other energy related infrastructure failure will result in chaos. I'm just not sure how long it will take for people to realize that they're like Nicholas White in his claustrophia-inducing elevator with just a lighter, a pack of cigarettes and Rolaids. Not only are they not prepared, their cries for help are going to go completely unheeded as the authorities scramble to maintain order when someone decides that a five finger discount isn't so bad during this recession. At least White didn't have to worry about anyone else in the elevator with him...you have all your unprepared neighbours to deal with.

As for being prepared, here is a bit of an extreme example. My friend's father stocks up two cellars, a freezer and two fridges full of food as well as a power generator in preparation of an impending oil crisis. Many people laugh and marvel at the amount of food and drink he constantly keeps restocking, but to be honest if I'm in the area during a blackout, I'll probably head their way. I also don't laugh, especially after watching that documentary on peak oil (and because I'd rather they let me in when I run out of food and water at my own home).

So tell me...what were you doing in the Blackout of 2003? Are you ready for another?

The truth is we're probably not. The mindset is also that we shouldn't need to be. The government will take care of this. Well you should probably pay more attention to how the government seems to be screwing up on a consistent basis lately (For more current examples, feel free to Google: Lisa Raitt, cancer treatment and isoptopes, AECL sale, eHealth)

*(Please note: The truth is that the NYPD were ordered to act slowly, to be deliberate when dealing with the mobs of looters (this was due to a National Riot Commission advising against a heavy hand when dealing with riots because they proved to make situations worse than better). Ultimately there were only two civilian deaths despite all the rioting. Perhaps it was a poor consolation to store owners but by the end of the blackout the streets were not littered with dead bodies as some would expect. Especially when the looters of '77 began to loot each other, many brandishing weapons to defend their ill-gotten gains. Technically there should have been more arrests, but police chose to try to maintain order than arrest every single offender.

30.3.09

How much is it worth to you?

I try to keep up on any new technological developments that could help me be more environmentally conscious (and, if I'm really lucky, some of the better ones help me save money!) But I'm torn on this one. Philips has just released their new energy-saving LED light bulb called GeoBulb that draws a mere 7.5 watts of power to run (big money saver for those of us who don't like sitting in the dark) and provides as much light as a generic 60 watt bulb. Even better, it's got a ten-year lifespan with regular use.

Sounds great, right?

Here's the catch -- a single bulb, a SINGLE BULB, is going to set you back a whopping $120.00. Now I don't know about you, but I have more than a single lamp in my entire place. In fact, if I were going to replace all the bulbs in my house with these GeoBulbs, it would run me a one-time payment of damn near a thousand bucks. Great idea, Philips, but until you find a way to make these technological wonders just a little cheaper, I'm afraid the earth is going to have to deal with my crappy old 60 watt bulbs. Because, you know, I need to eat.

But, if you happen to know somebody with the funds and the desire to go out and buy these, check out the link here.

17.3.09

Clap On, Clap Off

We all know that turning out your lights is both fiscally and environmentally responsible -- if you're not using them, why have them on? Saves you money and cuts down on emissions, right? Okay, this is a great idea on an individual level. I even think we should have a national "no power day" to promote energy conservation (remember how much fun the blackout was a few years ago? Why not plan for it?). But I can't help but think this idea isn't nearly as good as it sounds.

The author of this article advocates reduction of streetlight use in urban areas, citing the fact that it's our fundamental human right to see the stars, and also mentioning that powering streetlights produces five hundred thousand tonnes of carbon emissions every year. Right, that's never a good thing, I agree.

But are streetlights really that big a problem in the grand scheme? I mean, I'm all for reducing emissions, but has anybody thought of the safety implications of cutting back on lighting up the night? When the blackout happened a few years back I was working at a retail shop, and the minute the lights went out, fully half the people in the store grabbed merchandise and booked it. I don't really like what that says about people, and it makes me worry about the prospect of poor lighting in our streets at night, especially as a smaller-framed woman.

Also, 500,000 tonnes of emissions sounds like a lot (and it is) but there are other elements that produce WAY more pollutants every year (cars anyone?)...why would we risk the safety of our population in order to curb a relatively small portion of the problem?

I don't know about you, but when you stack up Clean Air versus Possible Rape, the risk just isn't worth it to me. Let me know what you think about this.