The words "it's a miracle it works at all" routinely popped up in those conversations, which is... something you don't want to hear about any sort of power generation - especially not nuclear - but it's true. It's a system basically built to produce "common accidents". It's amazing that it doesn't on a regular basis.
Funny thing is, those are the exact words I use when talking to people about networking. And realistically anytime I dig deep into the underlying details of any big enough system I walk away with that impression. At scale, I think any system is less “controlled and planned precision” and more “harnessed chaos with a lot of resiliency to the unpredictability of that chaos”
Components aren’t reliable. The whole thing might be duct tape and popsicle sticks. But the trick for SRE work is to create stability from unreliable components by isolating and routing around failures.
It’s part of what made chaos engineering so effective. From randomly slowing down disk/network speed to unplugging server racks to making entire datacenters go dark - you intentionally introduce all sorts of crazy failure modes to intentionally break things and make sure the system remains metastable.
Seek only to understand it well enough to harness the chaos for more subtle useful purpose, for from chaos comes all the beauty and life in the universe.
The syncronasation of a power grid ... Wow.
Tell me more about this paradise.
Or the U.S. financial system. Or civilization in general.
The reason people work together is fundamentally the same reason you go to work - self interest. You're rarely there because you genuinely believe in the mission or product - mostly you just want to get paid and then go do your own thing. And that's basically the gears of society in a nutshell. But you need the intelligence to understand the bigger picture of things.
For instance Chimps have intricate little societies that at their peak have reached upwards of 200 chimps. They even wage war over them and in efforts to expand them or control their territory. This [1] war was something that revolutionized our understanding of primates behaviors, which had been excessively idealized beforehand. But they lack the intelligence to understand how to bring their little societies up in scale.
They understand full well how to kill the other tribe and "integrate" their females, but they never think to e.g. enslave the males, let alone higher order forms of expansion with vassalage, negotiated treaties, and so on. All of which over time trend towards where we are today, where it turns out giving somebody a little slice of your pie and letting him otherwise roam free is way more effective than just trying to dominate him.
Citation needed on that one.
> Consider that Sparta and Athens were separated by only 130 miles, yet couldn't possibly have been further apart!
They spoke the same language, shared the same literature, practiced the same religion, had a long history of diplomatic ties. When the Persians razed Athens, they took refuge with the Spartans.
> For instance Chimps have intricate little societies that at their peak have reached upwards of 200 chimps.
Again, I don't think this claim stands to evidence. The so called chimp war you mention is about a group of about a dozen and a huge fight that broke out among them. That doesn't support the idea that they are capable of 200-strong 'intricate' groupings.
"They spoke the same language" ... not exactly, the Spartans spoke Doric, while the Athenians Attic. (Interestingly, there is a few Doric speakers left [0].) While those languages were related, their mutual intelligibility was limited. Instead of "Greek" as a single language, you need to treat it as a family of languages, like "Slavic".
"shared the same literature" ... famously, the Spartans weren't much into culture and art, and they left barely any written records of their own. Even the contemporaries commented on just how boring Sparta was in all regards.
If we delve deeper into ideas about how a good citizen looked like, or how law worked, the differences between Sparta and Athens are significant, if not outright massive.
While those two cities weren't entirely alien to each other, had some ties, same gods, and occassionally fought on the same side in a big war, there was indeed a huge political and cultural distance between them. I would compare it to Poland vs. Russia.
Not "entirely alien, had some ties" is not it. They were part of the same cultural cluster, participated in the same games, traveled to the same sanctuaries, had mutual proxenies. The very fact that we know the opinions of several Athenians about Spartans is telling. We don't know what they thought of inhabitants of Celtic population centers, or Assyrian cities, or Egyptian ones. But we know what they thought of individual Spartans that they mention by name, biographical detail and genealogy.
Yeah, we have a lot of opinions of one another, yes we understand basic vocabulary of our cousins, though details in fine speech are another matter, yes, we are technically Christian, but still the political and societal difference between, say, Czechs and Russians is quite big.
As was the difference between the Spartans and the Athenians. Constitutionally, the poleis were all over the map, from outright tyrannies, through oligarchies and theocracies, to somewhat democratic states.
That's called circular reasoning.
Put another way, you're arguing against an example and not a fundamental premise. Proving the example is correct doesn't really get us anywhere since presumably you disagree with the fundamental premise.
That sounds very much like "Just believe me." or even more "The rules were that you guys weren’t gonna fact-check"
> I have no idea what you're trying to argue.
Presumably you know what you are trying to argue. That is what the questions were about.
> Proving the example is correct doesn't really get us anywhere
You would have solid foundations to build your premise from. That is what it would get us.
First we check the bricks (the individual facts), then we check if they were correctly built into a wall (do the arguments add up? are the conclusions supported by the reasoning and the facts?). And then we marvel at the beautiful edifice you have built from it (the premise). Going the other way around is ass-backwards.
> you're not really formulating any argument or contrary view yourself.
I don't know what viewpoint namaria has. I know that "Sparta and Athens [..] couldn't possibly have been further apart" is ahistorical. They were very similar in many regards. If you think they were that different you have watched too many modern retellings, instead of reading actual history books. That's my contrary view.
> For instance Chimps have intricate little societies that at their peak have reached upwards of 200 chimps.
Here the question is what do we believe to be "societies". The researchers indeed documented hundreds of chimps visiting the same human made feeding station. Is that a society now? I don't think so, but maybe you think otherwise. What makes the Chimps' behaviour a society as opposed to just a bunch of chimps at the same place?
I'd much rather focus on "prepping" by building social resiliency, instead. The local community I'm plugged into is much stronger together than anything I could possibly build individually.
I am an ex-scientist and an engineer and had a look at the books of my son who studies finance in the best finance school in the world (I am saying this to highlight that he will be one of the perpetrators, possibly with influence, of this mess)
The things in there are crazy. There are whole blocks that are obvious but made to sound complicated. I spent some time on a graph just to realize that they ultimately talk about solving a set of two linear equations (midfle school level).
Some pieces were not comprehensible because they did not make sense.
And then bam! A random differential equation and explanation as it was the answer to the universe. With an incorrect interpretation.
And then there are statistics that would make "sociology science" blush. Yes, they are so bad that even the, ahem, experts who do stats in sociology would be ashamed (no hate for sociology, everyone needs to eat, it is just that I was several times reviewer of thesises there and I have trauma afterwards).
The fact that finance works is because we have some kind of magical "local minimum of finance energy" from which the Trumps of this world somehow did not maybe to break from (fingers crossed) by disrupting the world too much.
Computer networking is not the same. Our networks will not explode. I will grant you that they can be shite if not designed properly but they end up running slowly or not at all, but it will not combust nor explode.
If you get the basics right for ethernet then it works rather well as a massive network. You could describe it as an internetwork.
Basically, keep your layer 1 to around 200 odd maximum devices per VLAN - that works fine for IPv4. You might have to tune MAC tables for IPv6 for obvious reasons.
Your fancier switches will have some funky memory for tables of one address to other address translation eg MAC to IP n VLAN and that. That memory will be shared with other databases too, perhaps iSCSI, so you have to decide how to manage that lot.
EVPN uses BGP to advertise MAC addresses in VXLAN networks which solves looping without magic packets, scales better and is easier to introspect.
And we didn't even get into the provider side which has been using MPLS for decades.
A problem with high bandwidth networking over fiber is that since light refracts within the fiber some light will take a longer path than other, if the widow is too short and you have too much scattering you will drop packets.
So hopefully someone doesn't bend your 100G fiber too much, if that isn't finicky idk what is, DAC cables with twinax solve it short-range for cheaper however.
What’s your source?
Perhaps the safest assumption is that system reliability ultimately depends on quite a lot of factors that are not purely about careful engineering.
Most operating systems are based on ambient authority, which is just a disaster waiting to happen.
I wonder however how being part of the "continental Europe synchronous grid" affects this, and how it isolates to Portugal and Spain like this.
But yeah there are a lot of capacitors that want juice on startup that happily kills any attempt to restore power. My father had "a lot" of PA speakers at home and when we tripped the 3680w breaker (16A 220v) we had to kill some gear to get it back up again. I'm also very sure we had 230v because I lived close to the company I worked for and we ran small scale DC operations so I could monitor input voltage and frequency on SNMP so through work I had "perfect amateur" monitoring of our local grid. Just for fun I got notifications if the frequency dropped more than .1 and it happened, but rarely. Hardly ever above though since that's calibrated over time like Google handle NTP leap seconds.
I love infrastructure
I realized the tech must have been winding up a flywheel, and then the pilot engaged a clutch to dump the flywheel's inertia into the engine.
The engineer in me loves the simplicity and low tech approach - a ground cart isn't needed nor is a battery charger (and batteries don't work in the cold). Perfect for a battlefield airplane.
---
I saw an exhibit of an Me-262 jet fighter engine. Looking closely at the nacelle, which was cut away a bit, I noticed it enclosed a tiny piston engine. I inferred that engine was used to start the jet engine turning. It even had a pull-start handle on it! Again, no ground cart needed.
---
I was reading about the MiG-15. American fighters used a pump to supply pressurized oxygen to the pilot. The MiG-15 just used a pressurized tank of air. It provided only for a limited time at altitude, but since the MiG-15 drank fuel like a drunkard, that was enough time anyway. Of course, if the ground crew forgot to pressurize it, the pilot was in trouble.
Again, simple and effective.
point of trivia: Messerschmitt, yes, but Bf-109, produced by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke.
you don't want to get your flugzeug works confused
BTW, since we are Birds of a Feather, I bet you'd like the movie "The Blue Max". It's really hard to find on bluray, but worth it! The flying sequences are first rate, and no cgi.
And, despite the news reports, this is not a true blackstart. Some power survived.
Similarly, the US Navy maintains banks of pressurized air flasks to air-start emergency diesels. Total Capacity being some multiple of the required single-start capacity
Random fact: Those starters are a plot point in the 1965 film The Flight of the Phoenix, where the protagonists are trying to start a plane that’s stranded in the Sahara, but only have a small supply of starter cartridges left.
Is that what Dr. Sattler is doing in this scene from Jurassic Park?
Nice attention to detail by the filmmakers.
There will be costs/losses by the various power companies which weren’t generating during all this of course, but also fixing this is by definition outside of their control (the grid operators are the ones responsible).
I’m sure public backlash will cause some changes of course. But the same situation in Texas didn’t result in the meaningful changes one would expect.
That’s because there is no effective regulation of the state’s power industry. Since they’re (mostly) isolated from the national grid, they aren’t required to listen to FERC, who told them repeatedly that they should winterize their power plants. And a state-level, the regulators are all chosen by the Governor, who receives huge contributions from the energy industry, so he’s in no rush to force them to pay for improvements.
The real irony was the following summer during a heatwave, when they also experienced blackouts. Texas energy: not designed for extreme cold, not designed for extreme heat. Genius!
I miss the food in Texas, but that’s about it.
Rather, it's the typical Republican approach--reduce costs, never mind the safety systems.
Small diesels could be an option but they're harder to pull start for a given size.
I once needed to jump-start a small marine diesel, many miles from land...
There was a small lever that cuts compression. You have to get it spinning really fast before restoring compression! It's definitely a lot of work!
EDIT - Here is a cheap modern small marine diesel [1]. The operation manual suggests that you don't have to do anything to get it spinning quickly, you just have to crank it 10 times, put away the crank handle, and then flip the compression switch. That's progress!
[1] https://www.yanmar.com/marine/product/engines/1gm10-marine-d...
Cranks and decompression levers are gone for at least 30-40 years now tho.
They're my kryptonite, but I accept it's mostly my ignorance.
Air compressors have more valves and gaskets that are vulnerable to oxidation, especially in salty environments, so I'd have thought the upkeep between the two, the two stroke would be easier.
Look at how the military builds surface-based missiles these days: it's in a factory-sealed box. Molten salt batteries so they last for decades. (You don't see molten salt in most purposes because once it's been triggered it's lifespan is in minutes or even less. They're used in applications that only need to deliver power once.)
Having good, fresh fuel on an oil rig. They need an engine that can run on crude.
It’s not the type of thing that using directly is economically feasible, even for emergency situations.
Maybe there are other concerns for an oil rig.
The hand-pumped air compressor is the tool of last resort. You can try an engine start if there's someone there who's able to pump it. You don't have to worry about how much charge is left in your batteries or whether or not the gasoline for the 2-stroke pump engine has gone stale. It's the tool that you use as an alternative to "well, the batteries are dead too, guess we're not going to start the engine tonight... let's call the helicopters and abandon ship"
Could the batteries be dead and the generators not start? I guess but it's very unlikely. I get that on an oil rig it might be a matter of life and death and you need some kind of manual way to bootstrap but there's not much that's more reliable than a 12V lead-acid battery and a diesel engine in good condition.
I think I'd take Lithium Ion batteries over lead acid for almost every conceivable use-case. They are superior in almost every way. Lighter, less likely to leak acid everywhere, better long term storage (due to a low self-discharge) and better cold weather discharge performance. The only drawback would be a slightly increased risk of fire with Lithium.
Most vessels will experience a blackout periodically and the emergency generator start fine, normally on electric or stored air start, and then the main generators will come up fine. It's really not delicate, complex or tricky - some vessels have black outs happen very often, and those that don't will test it periodically. There will also be a procedure to do it manually should automation fail.
There are air starters on some emergency generators that need handling pumping. These will also get tested periodically.
The most complex situation during black out restoration would be manual synchronisation of generators but this is nothing compared to a black start.
In a real black start, the guys might very well grab a portable generator and just use that instead. But having the option to hand crank something rather than rely on batteries that might run flat is good.
And then phase will align itself a couple times a minute so what's difficult about that part?
That tends to be for very large engines, where the extra plumbing isn’t a problem.