Hypothetically speaking...

"GreenN_Gold" (GreenN_Gold) 10/08/2015 at 12:34 • Filed to: None

0

20

...if everyone on Earth were to drop dead this second, how long would the electricity stay on? What types of plants would shut down first? Coal? Hydro? Nuclear? Wind? I don’t see a reason the minimal amount of solar power out there wouldn’t keep on producing.

itschrome > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 12:37

7

I believe it was discovery channel that had a great little series called life after people. they cover all this and it was really well done. Believe you can find it on youtube.

Jcarr > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 12:42

0

BigBlock440 > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 12:45

1

Coal and wood would almost certainly be the first to go down. Nuclear would last a while longer, until there was a runaway event or it ran out of fuel as they’re mostly automated these days. Wind would last until a mechanical failure, as I assume hydro would. Solar would depend on the type, whether it’s steam generated or photo-voltaic.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 12:49

2

Nuclear would probably go first, then coal, then depending on the wind speeds wind would go down. Hydro would probably stay on the longest. All the connecting infrastructure would start tripping out pretty early on though due to frequencies going out of sync as you lose electrical production. On a residential level substations would also start to trip out pretty fast. I could ask my dad though, he actually works in the AESO and I’m certain there are simulations for this type of event.

GreenN_Gold > itschrome 10/08/2015 at 12:54

0

Thanks!

GreenN_Gold > Jcarr 10/08/2015 at 12:55

0

I don’t have an hour and a half to spare at the moment, but I’ll circle back and watch some of this another time.

Jcarr > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 12:57

0

It’s a good watch.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 13:00

1

Coal should go first because they require constant fuel input to keep producing.

Wind dies next due to lack of turbine maintenance.

Nuclear plants only need to refuel every couple years so they will last pretty long provided the automatic systems keep them running fine.

Hydro power will go for as long as the turbines hold out for. I don’t know what their service life is but it may be measured in years.

Solar panels don’t rely on moving parts so they will last an incredibly long time until exposure takes its toll. They may produce for a few decades.

I don’t know enough about geothermal to render a verdict on it.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 13:06

2

What do you have in mind, sir...?

tromoly > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 10/08/2015 at 13:24

2

Why would Nuclear go down first? From a fuel standpoint it would far outlast Coal/CNG, though I could see from a “you have to press a button to keep the reactor going, otherwise it shuts down for safety” aspect it shuts down first.

GreenN_Gold > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2015 at 13:37

1

Honestly, I was just watching Last Man on Earth, and they were using a gas generator for electricity. So I started thinking, just how long would the power stay on before the survivors had to resort to generators.

(BTW, I didn’t care for the show at first, but it has grown on me.)

Gonemad > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 13:48

0

History Channel can help you...

...but I worked in a German-design Nuclear Power Plant. The computer tries by design to keep the reactor running for 24 hours without human intervention self correcting the parameters as per expected in the design . Then, past that, any deviation of the regular operation and the computer scrams, call in the control rods despite it could keep going automated and go into emergency cooling mode. That’s NPP Angra 2.

White Westinghouse (American) designs will simply pull the plug at the slightest deviation beyond parameters. NPP Angra 1 does that.

Even both being manned and fully operational, guess which one pulls the plug more often...

And trust me, nuclear power plants are not that automated. They have a remote actuator for nearly everything, but a human needs to hit almost every switch. The computer only actuates by itself of events that no human could ever react fast enough. It gives time to the human operator rush to the operation manual and see what does he have to do next.

Don’t be fooled though.

These guys have NASA-level of concentration and memory, and still must consult the books VERY OFTEN. They are right behind air-traffic controllers and NASA themselves. If you ever run out of air-traffic controllers, these are the people you want in your airport calling the shots.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > tromoly 10/08/2015 at 14:15

0

That’s what I meant, nuclear has so many failsafes that it would probably be the first to need outside input. Wind could go down first if it is too windy though, as there would be no one to stall out the blades, which I believe isn’t automated.

GreenN_Gold > Gonemad 10/08/2015 at 14:16

0

See, this is a more detailed answer, and kind of what I was looking for. The reactor could last for a very long time, but it won’t keep running without humans. I imagine a similar situation for hydro; frequent human touches. I have no idea for coal or wind, or geo thermal. I get the sense that the grid will be stuck with solely wind and solar on it’s last days.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 10/08/2015 at 14:18

0

From fuel/maintenance aspect you would probably be correct, but I bet there are too many nuclear safeguards that need human input to last very long.

The real question is whether the grid would stay online, as frequency/voltage imbalance would sectionalize things pretty quick.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 14:27

0

Okay, thanks for not planning to eradicate humanity.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 10/08/2015 at 14:44

0

Our power infrastructure is woefully outdated and under-maintained. It can and will go to shit very quickly.

GreenN_Gold > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/08/2015 at 14:48

1

Phew, you bought it.

Gonemad > GreenN_Gold 10/08/2015 at 14:58

1

Actually, hydro could run for weeks on end. As long the water level in the lake doesn’t change, no adjustment to turbine vanes or valves is required. My dad is a Civil Engineer, and some plants after built require just eight personnel, being included operators and 2 guys on maintenance for all three eight-hour shifts.

Solar power plants would clap out after the first voltage transformer failed as the boards changed load with sundown and sunrise. Wind would have the same fate; the brakes on the windmills tend to fail catastrophically as they spin out of control and throw turbine blades at great distances but that happens because windmills are already unmaned to a point.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 10/08/2015 at 17:36

0

yeah I bet power generation will stay up longer than the actual grid itself will. They will just not be feeding anything.