As a society depends more on energy sources for its daily functioning, it becomes more vulnerable if the supply of energy is interrupted. This obvious fact is ignored in current strategies to achieve energy security, making them counter-productive.
What is Energy Security?
What does it mean for a society to have “energy security”? Although there are more than forty different definitions of the concept, they all share the fundamental criterium that energy supply should always meet energy demand. This also implies that energy supply needs to be constant – there can be no interruptions in the service. 1 2 3 4 For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy security as “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price”, the US Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) defines the concept as meaning that “the risks of interruption to energy supply are low”, and the EU defines it as a “stable and abundant supply of energy”. 5 6 7
Historically, energy security was achieved by securing access to forests or peat bogs for thermal energy, and to human, animal, wind or water power sources for mechanical energy. With the arrival of the Industrial Revolution, energy security came to depend on the supply of fossil fuels. As a theoretical concept, energy security is most closely related to the oil crises from the 1970s, when embargoes and price manipulations limited oil supply to Western nations. As a result, most industrialised societies still stockpile oil reserves that are equivalent to several months of consumption.
Although oil remains as vital to industrial economies as it was in the 1970s, mainly for transportation and agriculture, it’s now recognised that energy security in modern societies also depends on other infrastructures, such as those supplying gas, electricity, and even data. Furthermore, these infrastructures increasingly interconnect and depend on each other. For example, gas is an important fuel for power production, while the power grid is now required to operate gas pipelines. Power grids are needed to run data networks, and data networks are now needed to run power grids.
Power grids are needed to run data networks, and data networks are needed to operate power grids.
This article investigates the concept of energy security by focusing on the power grid, which has become just as vital to industrial societies as oil. Moreover, electrification is seen as a way to decrease dependency on fossil fuels – think electric vehicles, heat pumps, and wind turbines.
The “security” or “reliability” of a power grid can be measured precisely by indicators of continuity such as the “Loss-of-Load Probability” (LOLP), and the “System Average Interruption Duration Index” (SAIDI). Using these indicators, one can only conclude that power grids in industrial societies are very secure. For example, in Germany, power is available for 99.996% of the time, which corresponds to an interruption in service of less than half an hour per customer per year. 8 Even the worst performing countries in Europe (Latvia, Poland, Lithuania) have supply shortages of only eight hours per customer per year, which corresponds to a reliability of 99.90%. 8 The US power grid is in between these values, with supply interruptions of less than four hours per customer per year (99.96% reliability). 9
How Secure is a Renewable Power Grid?
In the current operation of infrastructures, the paradigm is that consumers could and should have access to as much electricity, gas, oil, data or water as they want, anytime they want it, for as long as they want it. The only requirement is that they pay the bill. Looking at the power sector, this vision of energy security is quite problematic, for several reasons. First of all, most energy sources from which electricity is made are finite – and maintaining a steady supply of something that’s finite is of course impossible. In the long run, the strategy to maintain energy security is certainly doomed to fail. In the shorter term, it may disrupt the climate and provoke armed conflicts.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), which was set up following the first oil crisis in the early 1970s, encourages the use of renewable energy sources in order to diversify the energy supply and improve energy security in the long term. A renewable power system is not dependent on foreign energy imports nor vulnerable to fuel price manipulations – which are the main worries in an energy infrastructure that is largely based on fossil fuels. Of course, solar panels and wind turbines have limited lifetimes and need to be manufactured, which also requires resources that could come from abroad or which can become depleted. But, once they are installed, renewable power systems are “secure” in a way and for a period of time that fossil fuels (and atomic energy) are not.
Renewable energy sources pose fundamental challenges to the current understanding of energy security
Furthermore, solar and wind power provide more security concerning physical failure or sabotage, even more so when renewable power production is decentralised. Renewable power plants also have lower CO2-emissions, and the extreme weather events caused by climate change are a risk to energy security as well. However, in spite of all these advantages, renewable energy sources pose fundamental challenges to the current understanding of energy security. Most importantly, the renewable energy sources with the largest potential – sun and wind – are only intermittently available, depending on the weather and the seasons. This means that solar and wind power don’t match the criterium that all definitions of energy security consider to be essential: the need for an uninterrupted, unlimited supply of power.
The reliability of a power grid with a high share of solar and wind power would be significantly below today’s standards for continuity of service. 10 11 12 13 14 In such a renewable power grid, a 24/7 power supply can only be maintained at very high costs, because it requires an extensive infrastructure for energy storage, power transmission, and excess generation capacity. This additional infrastructure risks making a renewable power grid unsustainable, because above a certain threshold, the fossil fuel energy used for building, installing and maintaining this infrastructure becomes higher than the fossil fuel energy saved by the solar panels and the wind turbines.
Renewable energy sources like wind and sun have advantages that current definitions of energy security don’t capture
Intermittency is not the only disadvantage of renewable energy sources. Although many media and environmental organisations have painted a picture of solar and wind power as abundant sources of energy (“The sun delivers more energy to Earth in an hour than the world consumes in a year”), reality is more complex. The “raw” supply of solar (and wind) energy is enormous indeed. However, because of their very low power density, to convert this energy supply into a useful form solar panels and wind turbines require magnitudes of order more space and materials compared to thermal power plants – even if the mining and distribution of fuels is included. 15 Therefore, a renewable power grid cannot guarantee that consumers have access to as much electricity as they want, even if the weather conditions are optimal.
How Secure is an Off-the-Grid Power System?
Today’s energy policies related to electricity try to reconcile three aims: an uninterrupted and limitless supply of power, affordability of electricity prices, and environmental sustainability. A power grid that is mainly based on fossil fuels and atomic energy cannot achieve the aim of environmental sustainability, and it can only achieve the other goals as long as foreign suppliers do not cut off supplies or raise energy prices (or as long as national or international reserves are not depleted).
However, a renewable power grid cannot reconcile these three goals either. To achieve an unlimited 24/7 supply of power, the infrastructure needs to be oversized, which makes it expensive and unsustainable. Without that infrastructure, a renewable power grid could be affordable and sustainable, but it could never offer an unlimited 24/7 supply of power. Consequently, if we want a power infrastructure that is affordable and sustainable, we need to redefine the concept of energy security – and question the criterium of an unlimited and uninterrupted power supply.
If we look beyond the typical large-scale central infrastructures in industrial societies, it becomes clear that not all provisioning systems offer a limitless supply of resources. Off-the-grid microgeneration – the local production and storage of electricity using batteries and solar PV panels or wind turbines – is one example. In principle, off-the-grid systems can be sized in such a way that they are “always on”. This can be done by following the “worst-month method”, which oversizes generation and storage capacity so that supply can meet demand even during the shortest and darkest days of the year.
Matching supply to demand at all times makes an off-the-grid system very costly and unsustainable, especially in high seasonality climates
However, just like in an imaginary large-scale renewable power grid, matching supply to demand at all times makes an off-the-grid system very costly and unsustainable, especially in high seasonality climates. 16 17 18 Therefore, most off-the-grid systems are sized according to a method that aims for a compromise between reliability, economic cost and sustainability. The “loss-of-load probability sizing method” specifies a number of days per year that supply does not match demand. 19 20 21 In other words, the system is sized, not only according to a projected energy demand, but also according to the available budget and/or the available space.
Sizing an off-the-grid power system in this way generates significant cost reductions, even if “reliability” is reduced just a little bit. For example, a calculation for an off-the-grid house in Spain shows that decreasing the reliability from 99.75% to 99.00% produces a 60% cost reduction, with similar benefits for sustainability. Supply would be interrupted for 87.6 hours per year, compared to 22 hours in the higher reliability system. 16
According to the current understanding of energy security, off-the-grid power systems that are sized in this way are a failure: energy supply doesn’t always meet energy demand. However, off-gridders don’t seem to complain about a lack of energy security, on the contrary. There’s a simple reason for this: they adapt their energy demand to a limited and intermittent power supply.
In their 2015 book Off-the-Grid: Re-Assembling Domestic Life, Phillip Vannini and Jonathan Taggart document their travels across Canada to interview about 100 off-the-grid households. 22 Among their most important observations is that voluntary off-gridders use less electricity overall and routinely adapt their energy demand to the weather and the seasons.
Voluntary off-gridders use less electricity overall and routinely adapt their energy demand to the weather and the seasons.
For example, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, power tools, toasters or videogame consoles are not used at all, or they are only used during periods of abundant energy, when batteries can accommodate no further charge. If the sky is overcast, off-gridders act differently to draw less power and have some more left over for the day after. Vannini and Taggart also observe that voluntary off-gridders seem to feel perfectly happy with levels of lighting or heating that are different from the standards that many in the western world have come to expect. Often, this shows itself in concentrating activities around more localised sources of heat and light. 22
Similar observations can be made in places where people – involuntarily – depend on infrastructures that are not always on. If centralised water, electricity and data networks are present in less industrialised countries, they are often characterised by regular and irregular interruptions in the supply. 23 24 25 However, in spite of the very low reliability of these infrastructures – according to common indicators of continuity – life goes on. Daily household routines are shaped around disruptions of supply systems, which are viewed as normal and a largely accepted part of life. For example, if electricity, water or Internet are only available during certain times of the day, household taks or other activities are planned accordingly. People also use less energy overall: the infrastructure simply doesn’t allow for a resource-intensive lifestyle. 23
More Reliable, Less Secure?
The very high “reliability” of power grids in industrial societies is justified by calculating the “value of lost load” (VOLL), which compares the financial loss due to power shortages to the extra investment costs to avoid these shortages. 110 26 27 28 29 However, the value of lost load is highly dependent on how society is organised. The more it depends on electricity, the higher the financial losses due to power shortages will be.
Current definitions of energy security consider supply and demand to be unrelated, and focus almost entirely on securing energy supply. However, alternative forms of power infrastructures like those described above show that people adapt and match their expectations to a power supply that is limited and not always on. In other words, energy security can be improved, not just by increasing reliability, but also by reducing dependency on energy.
Demand and supply are also interlinked, and mutually influence each other, in 24/7 power systems – but with the opposite effect. Just like “unreliable” off-the-grid power infrastructures foster lifestyles that are less dependent on electricity, “reliable” infrastructures foster lifestyles that are increasingly dependent on electricity.
Industrial societies with “reliable” power grids are in fact the weakest and most fragile in the face of supply interruptions
In their 2018 book Infrastructures and Practices: the Dynamics of Demand in Networked Societies, Olivier Coutard and Elizabeth Shove argue that an unlimited and uninterrupted power supply has enabled people in industrial societies to adopt a multitude of power dependent technologies – such as washing machines, air conditioners, refrigerators, automatic doors, or 24/7 mobile internet access – which become “normal” and central to everyday life. At the same time, alternative ways of doing things – such as washing clothes by hand, storing food without electricity, keeping cool without air-conditioning, or navigating and communicating without mobile phones – have withered away, or are withering away. 30
As a result, energy security is in fact higher in off-the-grid power systems and “unreliable” central power infrastructures, while industrial societies are the weakest and most fragile in the face of supply interruptions. What is generally assumed to be a proof of energy security – an unlimited and uninterrupted power supply – is actually making industrial societies ever more vulnerable to supply interruptions: people increasingly lack the skills and the technology to function without a continuous power supply.
Redefining Energy Security
To arrive to a more accurate definition of energy security requires the concept to be defined, not in terms of commodities like kilowatt-hours of electricity, but in terms of energy services, social practices, or basic needs. 1 People don’t need electricity in itself. What they need, is to store food, wash clothes, open and close doors, communicate with each other, move from one place to another, see in the dark, and so on. All these things can be achieved either with or without electricity, and in the first case, with more or less electricity.
Defined in this way, energy security is not just about securing the supply of electricity, but also about improving the resilience of the society, so that it becomes less dependent on a continuous supply of power. This includes the resilience of people (do they have the skills to do things without electricity?), the resilience of devices and technological systems (can they handle an intermittent power supply?), and the resilience of institutions (is it legal to operate a power grid that is not always on?). Depending on the resilience of the society, a disruption of the power supply may or may not lead to a disruption of energy services or social practices.
For example, although our food distribution system is dependent on a cold chain that requires a continuous power supply, there are many alternatives. We could adapt refrigerators to an irregular power supply by insulating them much better, we could reintroduce cold cellars (which keep food fresh without electricity), or we could relearn older methods of food storage, like fermentation. We could also improve people’s skills in terms of fresh cooking, switch to diets based on ingredients that don’t need cold storage, and encourage local daily shopping over weekly trips to large supermarkets.
To improve energy security, we need to make infrastructures less reliable.
If we look at energy security in a more holistic way, taking into account both supply and demand, it quickly becomes clear that energy security in industrial societies continues to deteriorate. We keep delegating more and more tasks to machines, computers and large-scale infrastructures, thus increasing our dependency on electricity. Furthermore, the Internet is becoming just as essential as the power grid, and trends like cloud computing, the Internet of Things, and self-driving cars are all based on several interconnected layers of continuously operating infrastructures.
Because demand and supply influence each other, we come to a counter-intuitive conclusion: to improve energy security, we need to make the power grid less reliable. This would encourage resilience and substitution, and thus make industrial societies less vulnerable to supply interruptions. Coutard and Shove argue that “it would make sense to pay more attention to opportunities for innovation that are opened when large network systems are weakened and abandoned, or when they become less reliable”. They add that the experiences of voluntary off-gridders “provide some insights into the types of configuration at stake”. 30
Arguing for a less reliable power supply is sure to be controversial. In fact, “Keeping the lights on” is a phrase that is often used to justify energy reforms such as building more atomic plants, or keeping them in operation past their planned lifetimes. To achieve real energy security, “keeping the lights on” should be replaced by phrases like “keeping some of the lights on”, “which lights should we turn off next?”, or “what’s wrong with a bit more dark?”. 31 Obviously, a less reliable energy supply would bring fundamental changes to routines and technologies, whether it is in households, factories, transport systems, or communications networks – but that’s exactly the point. Present ways of life in industrial societies are simply not sustainable.
This article was originally written for the UK Demand Centre.
Reactions
To make a comment, please send an e-mail to solar (at) lowtechmagazine (dot) com. Your e-mail address is not used for other purposes, and will be deleted after the comment is published. If you don’t want your real name to be published, sign the e-mail with the name you want to appear.
Reactions
Rob Storms
Thought provoking as always ! Thanks! Rob in Rochester, NY
Hilton Dier
In the off grid solar business we have a rule of thumb that if a system gets 90% of its energy form solar and 10% from a generator it will cost “X”. 100% solar will cost 2X, at least.
Part of the solution is building in the possibility of interruptions in non-vital situations. If a household is at work from 9 AM to 5 PM, then a planned one hour outage from 2-3 PM to reduce peak load wouldn’t be noticed. Likewise allowing the air conditioning in a number of large buildings to raise their set points by 2-3 degrees mid-afternoon for an hour. There are all sorts of optional uses that can be timed to go on and off depending on supply.
We can also store the products of electricity rather than electricity itself. A plastic tank to store 100 gallons of water is far cheaper and longer lasting than the batteries necessary to pump 100 gallons out of a well.
Better solar/thermal/lighting design of houses makes them less dependent upon constant energy flows. It won’t take high tech solutions, just good design and execution.
Mohamad
I think you need to take a look at our country Lebanon. We have some of the worst electric service on earth. Energy security (electricity supplied by the government) is at 50% in most of the country. During the rest of the time private generator owners sell electricity to people.
Most people have a 5 Amperes limit on consumption, so you can’t turn the AC, fridge, and water heater at the same time unless you pay more for a 10 Amperes limit. The government is making private generator owners install meters but still they have much higher rates that the electricity supplied by the government.
Most people want 24/7 electricity but still miss the advantages of not having so. I remember when I was younger (in the 1990s early 2000s) these private generators were not common so we had to live with 12 hours of electricity per day. Sure it meant missing a lot of TV shows and we were bored much of the time but it helped me develop my drawing skills and play outside. So I’m grateful for that. We still wait in our village house for the government electricity to come so that we mow the lawn, pump water to our water tank, vacuum clean the house, use the microwave, or iron our clothes. We have a private generator subscription but the rates are too high so we avoid high electricity consumption.
And it’s interesting to see how much our people are aware of the energy consumption of appliances since in reality they can’t turn on everything at the same time. In the past you had to unplug the AC so you can use the microwave and you have to check if someone else is using energy intensive appliances.
https://blogbaladi.com/7-electricity-issues-you-only-face-in-lebanon/
Stanley Gu
I’ve recently been reading about how many elderly and chronically ill Puerto Ricans have struggled or even died after Hurricane Maria last year. The death toll was in part because the hurricane knocked out the power grid for weeks or even months in some areas, and many patients rely on electrical equipment like oxygen tanks, refrigerators for insulin, and dialysis machines. Many people also use adjustable beds to avoid developing ulcers.
If we could operate more medical equipment without grid electricity, how many lives would have been saved? Perhaps some of this equipment could be replaced with non-electric alternatives, or be made less energy intensive (like the refrigerators) and hooked up to solar panels and batteries.
Mario Stoltz
Thanks a lot for this excellent article, great to get people starting to think.
A few years ago, there was a winter power outage that lasted more than a few days in one smaller area of Germany, because a storm had taken down a high-voltage power line, and it was not so easy to repair.
I remember TV reports of some people who were trapped in their dark house because all their windows had electrical blinds without a mechanical backup and the outage had occurred at night. There was simply no way for them to even use daylight. Serves as a nice reminder how a bit more planning could help being prepared for changes.
Then, awareness of the things that make our lives easy and comfortable is a big thing. You can actually expand this from energy-awareness to other topics: awareness how easy and relaxed 70 years of peace has made life in most of central Europe. Awareness of the benefits of modern medicine. Sometimes I try to talk about these things to my children (11 and 14), and they sort of understand, but then I see in their eyes that it is just very abstract to them.
Thank you so much for running Low Tech Magazine, Kris. It really means a lot to me that you do this work.
SanMiguel
Good thoughts with valuable links, thank you!
However, I’m having a problem with your using the term “renewable power” because it is a contradiction, a management - speak, used to blind the populace.
Renewable power means business, that’s it.
Renewable power, as they use it, suggest we can waste it AND bring it back then. Completely wrong, not only in thermodynamics!
Yes, we can waste it - bring it down to lower forms of energy (in the very end thermal energy) - but we are not able in any way to renew it / bring it back.
We always use / waste power that comes or came from the sun.
Doing so we remove / steal power from other systems on earth without acknowledging that this power is missing there and that it will have consequences.
The most obvious example is solar: You may argue that there is enough area we have already taken from nature so let’s reuse now it for panels. That’s OK but it only veils the fact that we already have stolen a lot of surface and are going to change the climate in doing so.
Hydro power is similar, we (ab)use nature to provide us with power, but we are not able to renew hydro power.
Wind energy is worse because it is obvious (but not to many people) that slowing down the wind in large scale will change the (micro) climate (besides of other negative effects for birds, insects and the whole symphony of life which we still do not understand).
But the biggest issue with this management speak is the illusion of being the master of the universe, only we don’t have the slightest clue of the whole picture.
Each and every mayfly is more valuable to nature than we are.
Posted by: SanMiguel | December 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM
Mike Ruff
Decentralization is the real key to the problem.
Decentralize power production–the more the better.
This reduces the impact of problems, and brings folks closer to the source, making them more aware of the inputs and costs, which will cause them to make more informed choices regarding their usage, and not create the blind rage folks get when they lose something to which they feel entitled.
Shoal
This is a great article because it shows a paradox of increasing modernity. As we try to achieve increased reliability and efficiencies of our energy systems we are actually decreasing our resiliency and lowering overall reliability.
This article is saying that off grid and 3rd world systems are actually more robust in regards to potential interruptions even though they show more immediate unreliability. When we have a system with very high reliability then activities that increasingly depend on reliability are exposing ourselves to failure. We need to accommodate intermittency and demand management in regards to best behavior in regards to consumption and resilience in regards to potential interruptions.
I am living with a hybrid of on and off the grid power. I have an 1800 watt solar system with batteries and inverter. I want to add a 1000 watts wind generator down the road specifically to lower intermittency and to have more power to charge an electric tractor I want to get. I used wood to heat my home and heat water. In the summer I only burn wood once or twice a week for high hot water usage days.
I am adapting my lifestyle to intermittency. I am changing behaviors to reflect off grid living but I can still access the grid because I use transfer switches to switch any circuit in the house to grid or off grid. Things like electric oven, hot water, and dryer are not switchable. My well pump can be switched but I can only use it to pressurize a water tank. It takes all my system can handle so it is very manual and cannot be left on or I will trip the inverter if other circuits are used. I have water when the grid is down others with wells don’t. This system is much like a sailboat with its master panel of switches for shore power, generator, solar/wind, and battery.
I am a firm believer in this way of incorporating renewables into the mix instead of all off or a feed in grid renewable system. I have resilience from the grid for bad power days and I have resilience if the grid is down from my renewables power. My system is less expensive than a system trying to cover all power needs by all renewables. I have propane, electric, and charcoal cooking abilities. My heating is wood and or electric and the same for water. I adapt my behavior to accommodate as much solar as I can so we do certain activities during the week based upon solar and wood use. I usually have solar on running something depending on the sun. I do not use batteries at night so they are not being cycled too much to maintain longevity.
In the summer if we are going to shower, run dishwasher, and wash cloths then I burn wood that day so we combine activities on wood heat day. In the summer I do not want to burn wood all the time for hot water because wood is expensive in time and effort. In the winter I am always burning wood for home heat so hot water is always from wood. In the winter I sacrifice some hot water performance because I am running off a heat exchanger without an electric water heater so water will not be as hot.
The point is demand management along with supply sourcing can make you more efficient with lower cost with a minimal change to lifestyles. It takes a little education and investment you can change an all on grid life to a hybrid one. All off grid is a different animal. I would love to be in a secluded place with off grid living but I am not. There is no reason for me to be all off grid with the grid available and electric prices so low. My solar system cannot compete with grid power with cost and availability but the combination of the two make the system at a higher standard than both separate. It comes at a cost though. This system (wood & solar) cost me an extra $23,000 over just grid. Some of that I will amortize back over time but I imagine not all unless power prices go way up.
This becomes complicated when applied to macro situations. Society needs reliability to be a high functioning society able to be modern and robustly economic yet this also increases vulnerability and deceases good behavior. If people are all on grid with high reliability they do not learn to adapt and control their usage than if they are subject to unreliability. Price is a motivator but it cannot do all the motivating. Active demand management requires sacrifice and motivation.
I would advocate a combination of the two to increase reliability of both supply and demand in that good attitudes and lifestyles are incorporated. I am saying we need the very reliable grid in some locations but also people using hybrid systems so people develop demand management behavior and are motivated to lower usage. We should not try to make all places highly reliable. Places in the 3rd world should be left to be less reliable with a population that adapts to unreliability.
Leave the highly reliable part to certain regions to accomplish economic tasks that need high reliability. Of course this is not realistic because we are a global world of nations with each nation wanting to be the most affluent but within a nation where policy can be managed in such a way we should have more hybrid systems and more regions left to less reliability.
The cost may be more with a hybrid system I advocate but it means more resilience and in the end a more prepared population and resilient system. I know some argue here for industrial solar and wind as much cheaper in all cases but these systems do not promote demand management of an enlighten conservation oriented population. A mix is our best policy in my mind.
Bram Pauwels
It is an interesting viewpoint to take demand side management to the extreme, namely intermittency. What interests me is how you transfer these valuable insights to the current energy system.
When we installed wind turbines in a desert village years ago, the connection to the grid was an issue. We thought of having some kind of traffic light on the market square with a green light when there was enough wind power to power the village and a red light when consumption was higher than production so people could adapt their power usage.
What signals could be used to incite people to adapt their behaviour, enjoy the abundance of the sun and the wind and enjoy the darkness without electricity?
Mattias
@Bram
You can find some examples of ‘Energy demand management’ in the Wikipedia-article [1].
Recently, there was a blog about ‘Demand Side Response Development (DSR)’ of OpenEnergyMonitor.org [2], which refers to a project EnergyLocal CydYnni. That project has a website [3] to show if it’s a good time to use electricity.
As you see: most of the DSR-examples are rather high tech… but better than nothing, I guess?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management
[2] https://blog.openenergymonitor.org/2018/11/demand-side-response
[3] https://dashfwrdd.energylocal.org.uk/?lang=en
Caleb Crawford
This is where the concept of passive survivability is important. Designing to Passivhaus, for instance, means the building can go for days with minimal or no power input, and in general demand is leveled.
Meticulous work as always!
Joshua Spodek
This article combined with another Low Tech Magazine article, Vietnam’s Low-tech Food System Takes Advantage of Decay https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/02/vietnam-s-low-tech-food-system-takes-advantage-of-decay.html, prompted me to try an experiment in resilience.
I unplugged my fridge to see how long I could make it. I thought a few months with my fridge unplugged would be a feat. After all, isn’t a fridge necessary? I never considered otherwise before these articles. A fridge also represents something we think we need nonstop, forcing higher availability.
Next week I’ll reach six months! I live in Manhattan. My food has never tasted better. I avoid packaged food, so I eat mostly fresh, local produce or dried legumes, nuts, and grains from bulk. Nothing has gone bad. On the contrary, the experience taught me to ferment. I expected difficulty, but it turns out to be easy. And fun when I got the hang of it. I see on my counter vinegar, chutney, and potatoes in various stages of fermentation. Also some lettuce and herbs in water keeping them growing.
I’m practicing resilience as a power grid user, experimenting to see if someone living in an American city can handle going without power. It turns out it’s easy with a little practice. My last three electric bills have been $1.40, $1.70, and $1.70. At ten cents a kWh, that’s 14 kWh, 17 kWh, and 17 kWh each month. Besides saving money, increasing resilience, and increasing security at the individual level, living like this would greatly enable renewables since their intermittency becomes less of a problem. We could decrease peaker plants and fission, maybe getting rid of many, and drop the costs of our grid a lot. I’m looking into solar panels and a battery to see if I can disconnect from the electric grid, at least a few months out of the year – in Manhattan.
Thank you for the inspiration. I hope to inspire others to try.
Andrew Sackville-West
Joshua Spodek, what an inspiring story! You’ve inspired me for sure.
Andrew Sackville-West