How practical would it be to turn of the electrical power to major cities and towns for 4 hours per day?

Question

to help in the fight against global warming? I was thinking 0200 - 0600 - Tell me your thoughts, maybe I am just a bampot!

Of course we would leave the power on to essential services like hospitals etc.

Anyway it was a bit of an impracticale idea, just wanted to know if anyone else came up with some sort of other suggestions / ideas.

Thanks to those that choose to insult good to see that Y/A's populace is as open minded as ever.

Answer 1

Anchor,
I see your environmental concerns, but I am afraid it would not work by a long chalk.
I am a power engineer, once responsible for very large areas in the Mid-East.
Oh, I could shut the whole show down to many a part of the country at any time.
There would have been chaos !

Factories with night shifts told to go home in the darkness to homes with no lighting, cookers.
Car crashes as the street lights pack up.
Supetmarkets that have to throw away rheir good stocks, as the freezers and chillers have sttopped working
Petrol station pumps would stop - no more fuel, so vehicles everywhere. Abandoned.
The world stock exchanges would grind to a halt as the market computers collapsed after an hour of back-up

Oh I could go on, but the implications are enourmous.
I, personally, am quite happy with paraffin lamps and an open fire at home during a short UK power cut, and indeed have made an evening family meal in semi-darkness, using the old log-fired kitchen range.

Great fun for a while for us and the kids, but if it did it every day for four hours, I would have to re-set all the alarm clocks daily, order extra logs and coal, and dear knows what.

Not so bad personaly in my rural community, then, but if I hit the big buttons on the Capital City of Oman, Muscat, being responsible for, and much worse, say, London, then all hell would break loose.

Looting, shootings and panic.

I would rather throw electrical energy at the job than see all that happening.

Hey Ho, we can't fully win - compromise is the best.

Bob

Answer 2

Ok yea your getting ripped off. For watching two children for 10 hours a day you should at the VERY least be making 5 dollars an hour for 50 dollars a day. The size of the town shouldn't matter too much. More so what the family can afford and what you think is fair. If they aren't paying you what you need, you should find someone else to watch. If they are adding more kids in the summer, you should add 3 dollars an hour extra for them (2 $ for one kid and an extra 1$ for the other one) In all honesty if you are watching 4 kids two who are under the age of 4 , one is not potty trained and one has behavior problems i think a fair rate would be 10 dollars an hour . For 2 kids 8 dollars an hour i believe is fair. And you should ask their parents to bring their own snacks and lunches absolutely. Or they can add 1dollar an hour on for the food to be provided. I have been a Nanny for 5 years, and i would never work for under 8 dollars an hour when i started. You didn't state your experience, but once you have a few years of experience you can ask for more money. Like now i wouldn't work for under 11.50 an hour(2 kids), they provide the food money for going out and any other expenses. When i would "babysit" my first year out of high school i got taken advantage of, because i would watch 2 kids for 4 hours a day 5 days a week and only make 50 dollars a WEEK. That was retarded of me. And 25 dollars a day for 2 kids for 10 hours a day is not fair. I would ask them to pay you 8 dollars an hour, with them bringing snacks . If they want you to provide food ask for 9 dollars an hour. When the other 2 get added ask for 10 an hour..and if they still expect you to pay for food then charge them 12 dollars an hour, feeding 4 kids cost money!

Answer 3

hmm this can't have a simple answer..

in some developing nations, there are already systems in place that cut off electricity to separate blocks of cities throughout the day. This happens in sequence, i.e. on block has no electricity for a number of hours, once it's back on the next block in the city has it turned off.
in countries that exist in states of war or armed conflict this is inevitable, either done intentionally as part of a rationing plan, or as a consequence of the destruction of war.

how practical is it? well, as any other remedy it will have advantages and disadvantages..
it doesn't always seem that practical in developing countries. Major cities are extremely crowded, roads and development are unorganized and there is constant commute throughout.. Many people already struggle greatly in pursuit of their livelihood..
this might not be the best solution for these kinds of conditions..

it might be feasible in cities with efficient civil planning, as well as efficient support services.. but more thought needs to be given to which parts of the day electricity will be turned off, and in which parts of the city.. shutting down an entire major metropolis is not a good idea..

Answer 4

In Mauritius some of the streetlights are powered by a solar panel situated just above the lamp. If all countries between the two tropics were to do this then there would be a considerable saving.

In less sunny countries such as Britain, then we could put a downward deflecting top on the lamp and thus use bulbs with far less wattage to the same effect.

Answer 5

Its a good idea in general but you need to consider the needy, like in hospitals awaiting major surgery, or, those who are recovering in IC units. The werewolves would have a field day though, especially tonight!.
Other considerations would be the enormous amount of power needed to boost everything back up again. For instance, fill a kettle with cold water, switch it on. How long does it take to boil?. Now do it again after 5 mins?.

Answer 6

Wouldn't bother me. Of course I'm not on a life support machine, and I guess I could ignore traffic light like everyone else does, and Maybe night-flights could be avoided in favour of ones that have air traffic control. I'm sure burglars would have the decency to stay away at the times they knew the alarms would be off, and I wouldn't mind re-setting every electrical appliance I own that involves a clock every single morning for the rest of my life. Yep, sounds like a good idea to me. Got any more?

Answer 7

Maybe the gov could make some kind of program where households that sign up to voluntarily cut their own power during the night could get a tax break or something. It would have to be something that individual people could control though because there might be some emergency where people need power and outside lights would probably want to be left on for safety.

Answer 8

Its an Idea and I take it you mean house hold electric as hospitals and street lights would still need to have electric. But I for see a problem fridges and freezers would melt tropical fish would die they are a few I can think off at the top of my head. I'm sure how ever good the intention of doing this would be it would never happen as there are to many risks involved.

Answer 9

I lived at Bolling Air Force Base in the 1980s and they had an energy management system that cut off electricity to base housing during certain hours of the day. It caused too many problems, like alarm clocks had to be reset ect. They finally couldn't justify the program and it was abolished. I experienced it once and don't want to go through it again.

Answer 10

I love the idea, but not for the global warming reason. I think that's bunk.

But I do think we need to be more resourceful. We are such a wasteful society. We are depleting the earth, and there's no need for it.

Yes, turn off the power. Because you and I both know that if you turn off the air conditioning to a politician's office, he'll be signing all kinds of legislation for windmills, solar power, etc.

If that's what it takes - I'm all for environmental tough love!