This is a terrible idea. We live in the digital age, so almost everything depends on data. As in all mechanical devices, generators have a tendency to either break down(Let's not forget about associated switching gear.) or become subject to maintenance cut backs instituted my buffoons in management. We cannot depend on human errors, we can depend on the electric grid, if properly handled and maintained. Depending on generators just adds another link in the failure chain.
Texas is the perfect example of how not to run an electrical grid by not allowing other states to assist in an emergency.
No, it isn't. Any decent datacenter will have on-site generation in event of power grid failure, anyway. When I was an intern, the company I worked for would routinely go off grid during the summer at a call from the electric company. The electric company actually gave us significant incentives to do so, because us running on our own 12MW generator was effectively like the grid operator farming out a 12MW peaker unit.
Not only will a data center of a generator, they will test it regularly and if it doesn't work get it fixed.
The power company has a long list of who has backup power. I know of one factory where the generator was installed in the 1920s on a boiler from the 1880's - it is horribly inefficient, but the power company still gives the owners incentive to keep it working because for 4x the normal cost of power and 12 hours notice that generator can run the entire town it is in, which they do every 5 years when things really go wrong with the grid.
> they will test it regularly and if it doesn't work get it fixed.
What is your definition of regularly, and what qualifies as getting it fixed? I know lots of places that had things scheduled, but on the day of, something "came up" that the test was pushed. I've seen others where they tested by only firing up the generator, but didn't actually use it to power the facility. I've also seen repair tags that sat "unlooked" at for years.
Not every facility is managed/financed the same for such a blanket statement as yours.
There was recent news that a datacenter is going to be built that will consume few times more power than all homes in the state. I don't think they are gonna have on-site backup power. Although they'll probably have on-site powerplant for normal operations.
> We live in the digital age, so almost everything depends on data
Data that I can't consume if my house is browned out and my router doesn't work (on top of heating/cooling, lights, and other basic living-related services that are less essential than the almighty ONT).
> As in all mechanical devices, generators have a tendency to either break down(Let's not forget about associated switching gear.) or become subject to maintenance cut backs instituted my buffoons in management
Famously, power infrastructure relies on no moving parts whatsoever since the abolition of contactors, relays, rotors (but not stators), turbines (both water and wind), and control rod actuators, though even before abolition, none of these devices needed any maintenance.
> We cannot depend on human errors, we can depend on the electric grid, if properly handled and maintained
The electric grid, which famously has no human or mechanical errors like line sag or weirdly-designed interconnects or poorly-timed load shedding.
> Depending on generators just adds another link in the failure chain.
Weird way to frame a redundancy layer, but sure.
> Texas is the perfect example of how not to run an electrical grid by not allowing other states to assist in an emergency.
Again, weird way to frame this. You're actually technically right about this, but the redundancy offered through a better-integrated interconnect goes both ways, rather than just externalizing weaknesses in TX's own interconnect design.
> We live in the digital age, so almost everything depends on data
Agreed, the datacenters need to be extremely durable. What's more durable than proving you're able to withstand a power outage event? The grid does go down from time to time; they need to be ready to handle it. That's not a Texas-only kind of thing; power outages happen all over the US.
If the datacenter can't handle the outage that was announced as a probability ahead of time, they have no business running critical applications.
I'm happier with Texas being independent. Why should my state brown out because a bunch of companies put data centers in the hottest part of the continent?
IIRC the reason Texas cannot get 'assistance' from other states is that the feds made it illegal to connect to most interstate grids without following their regulatory regimes. I believe Texas does connect to Mexico and possible some other regional grids although I don't really understand the exemption for those.
In this case it's not really Texas 'not allowing' other states to help but the other states not allowing Texas. Conceivably federal law could be updated to remove those regulations and Texas would absolutely connect to the interstate grid at that point.
> Conceivably federal law could be updated to remove those regulations and Texas would absolutely connect to the interstate grid at that point.
That, of course, ignores the fact that those regulations are in place for a reason. Texas refuses to play by the rules, and the impact of that is that they don't get help when it's important. It is unfortunate, but a direct consequence of the choices they made.
The Texas Interconnection does tie in to surrounding grids through DC-ties. Those are limited in how much power can be sent through them and ultimately isolate the AC frequency.
Rules like hardening your system to be resilient in high or low temperatures.
Super abusive. Let’s do away with safety systems that literally save human lives. Heck Texas doesn’t like them so let’s do away with them for the whole nation? How many people died during the last couple heat and cold induced grid outages in Texas? I lost count after a couple dozen. But those people were weak or poor anyway right? Texas strong!
If crime was going crazy in D.C. the GOP would be all over it in a flash and the local and national press would be monetizing the info. All this is a stunt to deflect from whatever is bothering the big orange dummy at the moment.
It is, in part, a distraction, from (particularly) discussion of the Epstein files, but the one thing the Trump regime is efficient with is using elements of their real authoritarian agenda as their distractions when they need one. So, sure, DC is a distraction, but its also a part of a fairly overt broad campaign against the homeless (not against homelessness as a social condition, against homeless people as subhuman enemies), that is itself tied into the national campaign of ethnic cleansing and the national campaign against the mentally ill (again, not against mental illness), and the DC operation is also part of the progressive militarization of civilian law enforcement.
If this sounds like things that occur together in fascist regimes, well, there's a reason for that.
> So for those who keep trying to make the connection, it has little, if anything, to do with US politics.
Right now, as the world turns, we have the greatest number of appointees in positions of governmental influence on policies, that have no idea what they are doing because of a lack of expertise. Almost all these vital positions are politically appointed by the current administration. Need an example: soon the policies of JFK jr., God help us, are going to, unfortunately, prove my point.
Yeah, the way we’re turning our backs on one of the most important medical miracles in recent years is horrifying. I hope COVID or something worse doesn’t cause too much carnage.
If this was written in jest, it's always fun to learn new words. If not, if you've been taking your doctor's advice for years and had no problems, your words are out of context for most of us.
Yep, on a recent vacation to my favorite city, London, we couldn't find a seat for a coffee break because of the laptop users. If they're drinking a beverage and it's packed, we didn't worry so much.
I would argue the three branches should rarely be aligned with each other. They should follow the Constitution AND keep checks and balances on each other. Neither of the branches should have absolute power over the others. This opinion, although not an expert one, is because of what is currently happening in the US and the lack of wisdom being employed.
The point of checks and balances is not obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It is that no branch should be subservient or overly deferential to the other branches.
For example, Congress should not do everything the president wants just because he's the president as is happening now.
Congresspeople have said out loud that the job of Congress is to ask "how high" when the president says "jump". Congress last year backtracked on immigration reform because the Republican candidate demanded it. Congress just took vacation early because the president needs a break from the stress of being on a sex traffickers contact list. Congress has allowed the executive to destroy congressionally mandated departments without challenge.
Each body of government should be protective of their own power and responsibility and fight against other branches illegally usurping it.
I recommend reading Federalist 51, and perhaps 53 and 76. Also John Adams "Thoughts on Government".
I don't think they're doing it just because he says so, they're doing it because they are aligned with him. 40% of the country also agrees with him and 15% don't care either way.
Ultimately, this is the government the people have chosen, those of us in the other 45% have waning political power and cultural influence. Not really much can be done at this point besides hang on for dear life and hope the pendulum remains functional enough to swing back the other way.
What you're describing is the least of your problems with Trump. In a Westminster system, the leader of the party in power is basically the head of government, the head of state, and the leader of the legislature all rolled into one. And it works without destroying democracy. I genuinely believe that good can come out of American political parties becoming single leader parties. The democrats should do the same, honestly. The fact that Trump has completely eliminated any internal distinction within his party, and deemed it vital that his R-mates have to do exactly what he says, is not what concerns me with Trump.
Well, we don't have a parliamentary system, and our executive has more power than a UK prime Minister, I believe. What you're advocating for is a vestigial legislature to do the will of the king (in the US system).
Between a two party system, a gerrymandered House and a useless Senate, the last thing we need is an absolute ruler.
The British PM isn't "basically" or in any way the head of state or of the legislature. The monarch and the House of Lords still exist and the latter should and very much do assert their power.
You believe that the monarch has any vestigial power?? If the PM calls the King to prorogue Parliament, they HAVE to do it. And the House of Lords has given its authority to the House of Commons.
A British Prime Minister has more power than an American President.
> You believe that the monarch has any vestigial power??
I believe they are the head of state and that they carry out the functions of the head of state in a way that is consistent with comparable states such as Ireland or The Netherlands.
> And the House of Lords has given its authority to the House of Commons.
No they have not. The 1911 Act is alive and well. It is occasionally called into question but the Lords have retained their authority. And all of this is to say nothing of the courts etc.
> A British Prime Minister has more power than an American President.
This is neither here nor there in regards to the claim made above. They are not "basically" the legislature...
If you believe the British Monarch has the leeway of the elected Irish President, oh boy, you have drank the kool-aid of the monarchists who are adamant the monarch is needed.
The reality is the British monarch acts, and only acts, under recommandation of their Prime Minister. The King could not deny the letter of credence to a nation without advice from a PM, or accept letters of credence without advice as well.
That means the PM effectively controls the Head of State, and when you control the Head of State, you are exercising their power.
> oh boy, you have drank the kool-aid of the monarchists who are adamant the monarch is needed.
I have to say before anything else that this comes across as extremely condescending and not at all in keeping with the site guidelines. It's unlikely that I will give a further response after this.
> The reality is the British monarch acts, and only acts, under recommandation of their Prime Minister.
You mean similarly to how the president acts under recommendation from the Taoiseach?
> The King could not deny the letter of credence to a nation without advice from a PM, or accept letters of credence without advice as well.
You think the president could do this in the ROI?
> That means the PM effectively controls the Head of State
Ok? There is more to being head of state than your cherry picked examples. In nether case are they the same role and to reiterate: the House of Lords and the British court system are very much not without authority.
Yep, in the states our politics and most of our churches have become become so dogmatic/confusing/schizophrenic (In the sense that they don't seem to know what truth means anymore.) and divisive, most don't know who to trust. That really sucks.
reply