Winter blackout contingency planning

Swipe

kethry said:

CurlySue2017 said:

The electricity goes off then so does the router, which means nothing is online, which means pretty much everything stops.

I'm sorry about your Dad, I can well imagine many people are in the same boat - I hope if rolling blackouts do happen that this is planned for.

Had to chip in about the internet though - yes, the router will go off, but actual websites will still be accessible. The large internet companies (e.g. Amazon Web Services), the ones that host websites etc have standbyplans and generators for this kind of situation, not to mention fallback plans located in other countries, so assuming you can still access the net somehow (e.g. through your mobile) then yes, the internet itself will still work. It's only individual access to it that will stop.The only way the internet will stop is if the world as a whole is having problems - and that's a whole other thang to worry about!

If the power goes out to the green box in your road you won't have internet even if you are able to keep your router running

kethry

Swipe said:

If the power goes out to the green box in your road you won't have internet even if you are able to keep your router running

I understand that, and I agree. That wasn't my point. The original poster seemed to be suggesting that the internet itself would go down. It won't. Even if, for argument's sake, there was a web hosting company in the same area as you, experiencing the same power blackouts, they'll have contingency plans, generators, backups from alternative locations etc., to still provide service to the rest of the world. My point was more that while individual access to the internet, or even geographical access dependent on the location of the blackout would be prevented, the internet as a whole won't be. So if there's a blackout in Leeds, someone in Devon, not having a blackout, would still be able to send an email.

QrizB

Swipe said:

kethry said:

CurlySue2017 said:

The electricity goes off then so does the router, which means nothing is online, which means pretty much everything stops.

I'm sorry about your Dad, I can well imagine many people are in the same boat - I hope if rolling blackouts do happen that this is planned for.

Had to chip in about the internet though - yes, the router will go off, but actual websites will still be accessible. The large internet companies (e.g. Amazon Web Services), the ones that host websites etc have standbyplans and generators for this kind of situation, not to mention fallback plans located in other countries, so assuming you can still access the net somehow (e.g. through your mobile) then yes, the internet itself will still work. It's only individual access to it that will stop.The only way the internet will stop is if the world as a whole is having problems - and that's a whole other thang to worry about!

If the power goes out to the green box in your road you won't have internet even if you are able to keep your router running

I can't speak for the one in your personal road, but from the warning signs on the ones around here they seem to contain UPSes (or something similar).

The photo here says "battery backup":

https://kitz.co.uk/adsl/fttc-cabinets.htm#fttc_cab_interior

kethry

Getting_greyer said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

Getting_greyer said:

Deleted_User said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

 

In general response to the entire thing, rather than to one specific person (which is why I've removed all the actual quotes) I think the PM's refusal to countenance rolling blackouts and measures to deal with the unavailability of energy may actually be more concerned with being labelled with/equated with the PMs who introduced the three-day week (Ted Heath, 1973/74) and the Winter of Discontent (James Callaghan, 1978/9). I think, in the popular historical memory, the two have in many ways have been conflated into one (esp. for those without direct memory of the period). Those particular prime ministers, and that whole period, has in many respects been condemned for its bad political management, again, in the popular memory. For a PM that is already politically struggling being equated to Heath or Callaghan may be the death knell and I can well imagine she'd be keen to avoid such an association. I mean, you can see the headlines from certain parts of the media now, can't you? "The NEW Winter of Discontent"... etc. (they trot them out every time there's trouble over a winter....)

Miser1964

Every newspaper, consumer advice show and morning TV has been wall-to-wall on fuel prices and (supposedly) how to make savings. It seems highly unlikely £15M in paid advertising will reach any more people, or at least those who will take action.

TBH, the real issue is the legacy of combi boilers fitted by bodgers which are oversized for the house. have inadequate thermostatic controls, set on 'max' flow temp, unbalanced rads etc. leaving householders with large bills.

Unfortunately, the £5K rebate on heat-pumps is attracting another wave of chancers who will throw a system together and scarper.

Ultrasonic

Miser1964 said:

Every newspaper, consumer advice show and morning TV has been wall-to-wall on fuel prices and (supposedly) how to make savings. It seems highly unlikely £15M in paid advertising will reach any more people, or at least those who will take action.

There is a difference between giving people advice on how to save energy/money, and actively asking people to try do so for common good.

wittynamegoeshere

Section62 said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

Getting_greyer said:

Deleted_User said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

PM who previously worked for an energy company and had her leadership campaign part-funded by another one announces shocking news that she doesn't want people to use less energy.  Shocking, not.

PM announces that she doesn’t want to spend £15 million to tell people to turn off their lights and turn down the heating - that would be a more accurate summary but perhaps wouldn’t score the political point that you are attempting to.

Political point aside. If it cost 15mil and it resulted in a miniscule % reduction in demand across the population it would still pay for itself in saving the gov paying the EPG.

You're assuming that the PM is bothered about whether she wastes or saves the country's money, if this was the case it would be an illogical decision.  Perhaps she isn't illogical though, and the reasoning makes perfect sense to her personally, rather than to the rest of us.

As I understand it, one of the key factors in the decision was concerns that the people most likely to absorb and act on a "cut your energy use" campaign are older and more vulnerable people.  People who need to keep warm, or die in their homes.

It is easy to believe that DHSC officials would have had an input into the decision making process and pointed out the risk of elderly people needlessly dying 'doing their bit' to save the power networks. Not to mention the cost and additional pressure put on the NHS if a well-meaning but misguided public information campaign leads to an increase in hospital admissions of people suffering from severe hypothermia and other low-temperature induced medical problems (e.g. heart attacks, strokes etc)

Of course thinking about how a decision was arrived at - and whether that decision makes sense in a wider context - takes a bit of effort.  And doesn't really suit those who want to make a purely political point in suggesting such decisions are the sole responsibility of one person, and/or made for personal financial gain of the decision taker.

I do understand the reasons that have been provided.  If you accept this at face value then fine, all makes sense and the world is wonderful.

However, we have elderly relatives who have been sitting in the dark as they're worried about their bills.  I had to tell them not to worry at all about their LED bulbs that I fitted, I also told them that the iron probably uses the equivalent of 200 bulbs so this is might be a good place to save energy instead, with little or no pain (they even iron socks).

This is an illustration of the sort of reason why a campaign could be a very good thing, not only for saving energy but also to combat some of the illogical things that some do in a misguided attempt at saving energy, causing themselves needless suffering and not actually saving any tangible amount anyway.

There's possibly an ideological angle, in that Liz doesn't want to boss people about, something that may be seen as a bit socialist.  But this makes no practical sense, especially as they've just announced that they're going to start a mass anti-obesity campaign, which I'd personally agree with but this is surely much more nanny state and controversial than practical energy saving advice would be.

I'm saying that the reasons given don't make logical sense.  I'm also suggesting that, contrary to popular portrayal, Lizzy isn't Thick.  So this leads me to wonder what the actual motives may be, and there are some pretty obvious contenders.

Obviously this isn't smoking gun evidence of anything, but it pays to remain alert to such things as so far every decision made has been entirely beneficial to the energy industry with absolutely no downside for them and at vast public expense.

Saga

Recommendations for a decent 1.5L thermos flask pls?

QrizB

Saga said:

Recommendations for a decent 1.5L thermos flask pls?

If you don't want to take pot luck with random unknown brands, Stanley flasks have a good reputation (although not especially cheap).

I'm not sure if they do a 1.5 litre size, but there's a 1.4 or a 1.9 litre of either of those would work for you?

Sea_Shell

Ironing socks!!??!! 🤣😱


Seriously though, I did a few bits the other day and thought "phew, I'm getting warm doing this".

NSS, it's a 2800w iron I'm wielding about!!!


We need to embrace our creases!!