[jhayward]

Saying that we could make transformers 100 years ago is not the same as saying we would use 100 year old transformer tech. It simply points out that there is a scale of technology, and we can use whatever point is appropriate. Manufacturers know quite well which requirements are longevity- and cost- related, and which are must-have functionality.

As to the other objections, do we really think that manufacturing and transport would not be given top priority? The US military is the largest, most capable logistics operation on the planet. They specialize in black-start operations. They can make sure manufacturers get materials, and products get delivered.

In any case the idea of a transformer massacre by GMD is a fading one because the cost-effective way to address the issue, by monitoring and mitigating the effects, are under way and improving over time.

[toss1]

Yes, the US Military is likely the greatest logistics organization in the history of the planet, and manufacturing would be prioritized.

And sure, THEORETICALLY, we could install mitigating tech to instantly disconnect each transformer the millisecond induced over-currents are detected. But in REALITY power companies are insanely tech-backwards. Even today, in a major developed area like around Boston, the technology for DETECTING outages is [wait for customers to call in] and [drive a crew out to look for a break]. Last month, there was a storm that caused widespread outages in much of Maine and NH. Crews were in for over a week, brought in from over a 1000-mile radius; I personally was up there and saw convoys of crews from Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Canada, etc.. It took over a week to restore power in just that region, with zero shortage of supplies. They rely on mutual-aid cross-covering regions to get things working again. In a global-scale event, EVERYWHERE is down at once, and the crews are each on their own.

I had to call in repeatedly about a serious undervolt situation (99V-103V) that persisted for hours and was damaging equipment, and they had no clue about it. They are not even installing technology to detect outages; they sure as hell aren't spending money to mitigate them.

Now, seriously consider a Carrington+ event or EMP attack. The reasonable assumption, even with the mitigation tech you promote, is that almost nothing works. Perhaps a few zones got disconnected in time, but no grid.

This means the entire population will have to survive on the available stock of just-in-time fuel, food, and other supplies.

Most vehicles will not work. Only pre-1980s vehicles and vehicles stored well underground or in basically Faraday cages will work. Charging systems won't work. Fuel pumping stations won't work. So, we've got manual pumping for single-digit percentages of working vehicles, which need to deliver remaining food stocks, and all the equipment for your manufacturing effort.

Most telecomms do not work.

What's in most people's refrigerators will last a few days. Skip a few meals and civil disorder starts. There are at most a few weeks before serious starvation and civil unrest starts.

Now, under these conditions, you propose to gather enough people to:

1) design these new models of transformers that are easy-to-construct-but-still-work-in-modern-systems,

2) determine the logistics of finding factories that can work, getting those factories working, and sourcing material,

3) moving that material to those factories

4) obtaining, moving, watering, and feeding the people to man the factories,

5) actually building the transformers,

6) distributing the transformers to where they are needed.

7) FINALLY, we can get to work rebuilding and cold-starting the grid

There is no way even in a Polyanna++ optimistic scenario that this will work within three-six weeks.

By the time even some of the first 3-5 steps are completed, much of the population will have passed the starvation window of a few weeks, and that is assuming no ad-hoc local wars, and that it wasn't an EMP attack as the start of a war.

In contrast, spending only about $500 million on a reserve inventory of transformers, pre-cashed in appropriate locations, we can jump directly to step 6 or seven on day-2.

Even under the pre-stocked transformers scenario, it's unlikely that everything could be restarted in time to prevent serious follow-on societal-scale damage.

Plus, since each transformer would need to be disconnected (it's the length of attached lines that generate the damaging current), will the cost of building and installing mitigation devices on every transformer, and a system to operate them, actually be cheaper than building spares? It actually seems like and warehousing building spares is likely a cheaper option.

[jhayward]

Now you are conflating a GMD with an EMP, which isn't anything like accurate.

A GMD is a long-duration event that creates movement in the Earth's magnetic field, which induces low-frequency ground currents (literally: current flows in the earth) in the surface of Earth.

An EMP is a very short duration, high-frequency pulse of energy in a local or regional electric field. The effects are completely different, the objects that are affected are completely different, they are completely different cases to consider.

Your anecdote also conflates wind storm damage, which affects local distribution systems, with (hypothetical) GMD damage, which affects long-distance transmission systems. With wind lines, poles, and the occasional transformer, is damaged and there is a lot of labor-intensive repair. With GMD, a very small number of high-capacity transformers are potentially affected. Different deal completely.

So talking about cars that don't start, etc is just nonsense when talking about GMDs.

I don't see any way to continue this dialogue given that we aren't even talking about the same thing.

[toss1]

I wasn't conflating the two, I understand that the effects are different, and m recognizing that both are a serious present threats to the same system, but if you don't want to talk about EMP, ok.

Even if we have a mild-Carrington event that directly takes out "only" the tens of thousands of transmission-level transformers, there are still orders of magnitude more distribution-level transformers, and even though many of those are likely to be damaged by the disregulated power system as it goes down, let's assume those are OK.

So, we've "only" got to replace hundreds of high-voltage transformers in every metro area, and then reboot the grid. And there are no spares.

But, although cars and trucks are mostly undamaged, there is no power to pump fuel, and there is no power for refrigeration.

So, we still have to perform all of the 7 steps above (plus a BIG one I forgot 5A: Test all the new transformers).

And we still have to do it under conditions where the entire economy is based on just-in-time delivery and stocks of food are rapidly being eaten down, and rotting in unpowered refrigerators, and the entire fuel distribution network is unpowered.

What is your actual plan to design, build, test, and install these thousands of high-voltage transmission-level transformers, and do it before the society rips itself apart from lack of basic supplies?

Saying "oh we could just use old lower-tech solutions adapted for a high-tech grid. is extremely hand-wavy.

And, how is it actually even more cost-effective to design, build, install, and maintain equipment to automatically protect the transformers, when the power grid operators are so backwards half a century after automated monitoring was available but they still refuse to install it?

I'd seriously like to see a good answer, because nothing I've seen from any official or your proposals even remotely seems to solve the problem. What real technology would actually apply? What military op would scale to the entire nation's needs, that wouldn't already be allocated elsewhere?