Those are interesting coincidences, Hilmar, and we may one day learn that the events were linked in some way.

But this idea that neither economic model allows for the costly redundancy required is, to me, the "excuse du jour".
It has been used with great regularity regarding Iraq... oil processing/delivery facilities antiquated to the point of inutility, thus the reason for the excessive time and the high cost of getting it going again. Funny that Iraq was shipping oil in volume, and regularly, before the war and also sold same to its citizens for pennies a gallon!
Getting drinking water flowing again was attributed to antiquated and decrepit equipment/facilities, making the time to fix it far longer than previously assumed. gain, Iraqis were drinking water without problem before the war.
Exactly the same with electricity, though in this case I understand that there had been frequent outages for years (can't say that I actually believe that, given the sources, but I'll let it ride).

What worked so well for Iraq is now attempted for the U.S. and Canada! Sorry, but I can't buy it!

If two of the world's most modern countries have such problems with its most CRITICAL infrastructure, then I pity the rest of the world! Memory tells me that it was made so it 'couldn't happen again' after the New York (and southern Canada) fiasco of the mid-70s.

As regards that actual failure, I have no idea but I wouldn't discount terrorism, personally.
But as regards the time to (full) repair, I think we can attribute a significant part of the time it took to ever-popular "downsizing". I don't doubt that a good many of the poeple who KNEW WHAT TO DO were no longer around, having been terminated or fired or early-retired in order to save the bucks their salaries once commanded. In other words, along with the departure of those people also went the "institutional memory" that is invaluable all the time but specifically in instances like just happened.

It will be interesting to watch the fallout happen.


>I find a comparison between the blackout in the United States, and the one in Bolivia (perhaps 3-4 weeks ago) quite troubling.
>
>There are differences, of course. The blackout in Bolivia was resolved in 2-3 hours.
>
>Now, to the similarities. First and foremost is the fact that several major cities, in a large area, were affected in both cases. Second, nobody seems to know the exact cause. Finally there is the fact that the blackouts occured within a relatively short time between them.
>
>Now, all this doesn't add up to a tremendous coincidence, but it does get me thinking.
>
>The first thing that may come to mind, of course, is terrorism.
>
>This has already been ruled out, and it really doesn't require terrorism to explain the facts.
>
>The problem simply seems to be that there is not enough redundancy, and other safety measures, in the system. Probably both Bolivia and the U.S./Canada work on similar economic models, that discourage the large investments that would be required to obtain this redundancy and safety.
>
>Also, and returning to the subject of terrorism, if there is a single point that can make the entire system fail, this can easily be exploited. I am talking about the future now, not about what happened.
>
>Also, I suspect that a similar lack of investments exists in many other countries. Therefore, I wouldn't be too surprised if similar large-scale blackouts appear in the news from other countries, in the near future.