It's also like to see a comparison to giving people/companies a discount if they have alternative methods of heating for 3 weeks and agree to be powered off. Places like hospitals and universities often have generators and do this. Sand "batteries" (aka electric resistive heaters in a few tons of sand heated to 1000°C) might be cost-effective if standardized. You keep it insulated and hot until the power goes out, then you let it bleed heat out to keep you from dying.

▲

nandomrumber 2 days ago | parent [-]

You’re ok if governments give up and simply tell consumers “you deal with it”?

Places like hospitals have back up in case the mains goes out. It’s no longer a back up if used as the primary supply.

	▲	coryrc 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		They get cheaper electric rates by agreeing to be the first loads shed if the grid is overloaded. This is a standard thing. If their generators didn't start, they wouldn't be cut off, but it'd be a big deal. > You’re ok if governments give up and simply tell consumers “you deal with it”? Paying people to be prepared and willing to go without electricity in times of extreme supply-demand balance is a part of the solution. It's a regular thing for data centers, hospitals, etc. It may be cheaper to pay people to install sand batteries than to install longer-distance interconnects, and if people voluntarily agree, why would you object?