Individual and Collective Strategies to Limit the Impacts of Large Power Outages of Long Duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As modern society becomes ever more dependent on the availability of electric power, the costs that could arise from individual and social vulnerability to large outages of long duration (LLD-outages) increases. During such an outage, even a small amount of power would be very valuable. This article compares individual and collective strategies for providing limited amounts of electric power to residential customers in a hypothetical New England community during a large electric power outage of long duration. We develop estimates of the emergency load required for survival and assess the cost of strategies to address outages that last 5, 10, and 20 days in either winter or summer. We find that the cost of collective solutions could be as much as 10 to 40 times less than individual solutions (less than $2 per month per home). However, collective solutions would require community-wide coordination, and if local distribution system lines are destroyed, only individual back-up systems could provide contingency power until those lines are repaired. Costs might be reduced if more robust distributed generation were employed that could be operated continuously with the ability to sell power back to the grid. Our cost-effectiveness analysis only assesses what could be done, developing estimates of preparedness cost. A decision about what should be done would require additional input from a range of stakeholders as well as some form of analytical deliberative process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".