How long until the electricity fails?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

So okay, this article was written in response to a "What if the zombies attack?" question but the basic info is valid. Plus the writer has let their sense of humour out for a little bit of a play and that saves it from being a dry technical talk.
I thought this might prove interesting in light of past discussions about the general level of destruction from a world war let alone due to EMP problems.
Straight Dope article (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2165/when-the-zombies-take-over-how-long-till-the-electricity-fails)

[dragoon500ly]

very intresting and useful material!!

[pmulcahy11b]

That article touches on something: it's not how long fuel will last, it's how long until a valid operator response and how long the load in the lines is being used before plants begin self-shutdown to protect themselves. That's not long.

[helbent4]

Like the questioner in that article, I live in Vancouver and one day I found myself sitting beside a BC Hydro (the local electrical company) employee. His response was essentially the same, that hydroelectric would be the last to go, that there would probably be deliberate "islanding" of hydro dams by the authorities and the power company, and critical installations would be protected as long as possible.

There is even a scenario along these lines in the ATZ ("All Things Zombie" miniatures game) scenario book "Haven". I ran the "Protection" scenario at my local miniatures game club, and the objective was for a section of militia (squad of reservists) to guard a BC Hydro crew as they attempt to replace a downed electrical power line. This being early in the outbreak the militia were mostly harassed by civilians and not too many zombies. When they were attacked by zombies, the player always opted to hold his fire and engage with rifle butts and bayonets (presumably to the skull) because zombies are attracted to gunfire. He managed to successfully complete the scenario with no casualties except for one minor wound caused by a drive-by shooting.

But I digress!

Tony

[mikeo80]

I would think that yes hydro would be the easiestnto maintain. Here in North Carolina, the options are relativly few. We have a couple of nuclear power plants and many more coal fired plants.

I would think that the nuclear plants would go off line very quickly. Just the trained man power to keep the PLANT running would be difficult a BEST.

THe coal plant might last a little longer. At least until any stockpile of coal was exhausted.

THis could set up an interesting scenario. IN NC, there are still some coal mines, some coal fired locomotives and coal fired electric plants. I could see this combination of resources being at the center of a power play between any existing civilian govt, military backed pockets of organization (Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base, Camp lejuene Marine base, and others) and a civilian "militia" type.

Mike strikes with his two cents....Again!!! :p

[Panther Al]

I would think the other way around to be honest regarding Coal vs. Nuke. Assuming that until the TDM things more or less worked as they should manpower and supply wise. I can see the nuke plants staying online into the april-may timeframe with ease: no concerns about fuel supply but parts a manpower will become a issue fast, even if the military steps in to help the plants out. Coal on the other hand tends to have a 45 to 60 day on hand supply, let's assume the trains don't run on time and its 45. With the loss of so much use they can probably keep burning for 90 days- provided nothing major breaks (or the bulldozers run out of gas and they can't get more to reload the actual feed bunkers) they will drop dead before the end of February, at best.