The Cause and Effect of a Power Blackout in a City or Town

Discussion

Power blackout which is also known as a power outage or failure is the loss of electricity within a particular area. In most cities, power blackouts are usually caused by the effects of Mother nature. The natural climatic conditions, such as heavy rains, strong winds, and lightning may cause power failure in a whole city. Water is known to cause short circuits, which results to power blackouts. Too much humidity can lead to power blackouts. Heavy winds may cause destruction of power infrastructures resulting in short circuits. Short circuit is a common cause of power blackouts, it normally occurs when a wiring installation has broken down. Short circuits can also be caused by water seeping into an electric circuit. Snow and frost may cause power failure by building up on the electric power cables. The mass of the frost and snow may result in wire breaks. It is usually not easy to avoid power blackouts that results from the natural calamities (Braimah, 2012).
Electricity is a fundamental part of the contemporary daily life. The suburban and urban area depend highly on the electric power for their daily activities. Power blackout can create a great impact leading to monetary setbacks as well as relative chaos. Power failure usually slows down traffic flow due to nonfunctioning traffic light. This might result in congestions of vehicles and people in major cities (Braimah, 2012).
Power failure can be devastating when it comes to the life supporting facilities in major city health care centers. Most city health care facilities do have power backups systems, however, the, majority of the local general practitioners, such as the dentists and other specialist do not have the systems. Even though urgent care can be provided in emergencies that are considered short term, the standard care will definitely not be assessable. Even though the medical professionals will still be capable of seeing clients’ luxuries like the digital reports, the hi-tech diagnostic facilities, diagnostic softwares, and the computerized encyclopedia will not be available (Braimah, 2012).
Many banking facilities may have battery power backups, however, the banking today do not only involve the closed systems. All of the banking activities including checking account balances, making withdrawals and deposits, and cashing a check, depend on communication between banks in a very secure financial version of the Internet, which function only when there is electric power. The ATMs only functions when there is electricity. Banks usually have a limited amount of money on hand, therefore, in case of a power blackout emergency; it may be difficult to withdraw a large amount of cash from the bank account (Braimah, 2012).
Power blackout may greatly affect sewerage operation. Sewage is usually transported uphill using pressurized systems in some areas. Electricity is also used in other places to move sewage through treatment centers and other gateways. However, some sewage systems may not experience the effects of power blackout since they may have power back up systems while others are fortunate as the systems are driven by gravity (Braimah, 2012).
It is very vital to be familiar with the potential effects and basis of power blackout in order to shun the great consequence of power outage. Identification of the common causes of power blackout will make it easier for one to ensure adequate safeguarding measures are put in place (Braimah, 2012).

Reference
Braimah, I., & Amponsah, O. (2012). Causes and effects of frequent and unannounced electricity blackouts on the operations of micro and small scale industries in kumasi. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(2), 17-36. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1016745143?accountid=1611

POWER BLACKOUT 2

Running head: POWER BLACKOUT 1

Transformer

Without the study of electromagnetics, the idea of making transformers would not have emerged. Transformers were invented to offer solutions to power transmission problems, as well as distribution problems. As the current move through the wires, the wires create resistance, causing a significant amount of power to be wasted. The core function of a transformer is to maintain a constant flow of current and power through the wires. Transformers are also essential in increasing the voltage. Thus, power is the product of voltage and current (P=VI). In electronic products, transformers are used to regulate (step-down) the power supplied in order to suit the electronic gadget. To decrease the current while maintaining a steady power, the voltage is increased.
Most transformers in electronic products are made of three parts: the primary winding, which receives the current and power; the secondary winding, which distribute the current and power in the electronic gadgets; and the transformer core, which facilitate the flow of magnetic flux. As the current flow through the primary winding, it generates a magnetic flux. The magnetic flux moves through the transformer core towards the second winding, creating an alternating current. A changing flux is created, which then produces an induced current, which flows through the second winding.

Transformers can work through magnetism or electromagnetic induction processes. In magnetism process, electric charges have to move to create a flow of current. The difference in voltage makes electric charges move towards the region of lower electrical field concentration. The Biot-Savart law expresses the magnetic field created by the electric current. Different current elements cause a difference in magnetic field in some points of the transformer. To identify the direction the magnetic field takes, a right-hand rule can apply, where a thumb indicates the current direction while the folded fingers signify the bearing of the magnetic field. The idea of creating a winding on both sides of the transformer emerged when the magnetic field was proved to increase with an increase in the loops. Thus, when loops are made quite close to each other, a strong magnetic field is formed.

In electromagnetic induction, electrical current is induced using magnetism. This process is supported by Faraday law, which foresees how magnetic fields react with electric circuit to create electromotive force (EMF). The law indicates that when magnetic flux changes, an EMF is induced in a coil. Winding a wire around the magnetic core can assist in production of magnetic field, which is required for the electromagnetic induction on the output side of the transformer. The change that occurs in the flux determines the voltage to be induced at the secondary winding. To have an incessant change in flux, the power at the primary side should never be constant.
The output of a transformer depends on the voltage that enters through the primary winding and the number of turns that coils on each side. If the number of turns in the primary side is less than in the secondary side, this type of transformer is called a step-up transformer, and is normally used to increase the voltage to sustain invariable transmission of power through the power line. Power companies usually boost the voltage using the step-up transformers, as they transmit the power along their established lines. A step-down transformer is normally used to reduce the voltage along the power line, and is generally found in electronic appliances. Figure one and figure two below are step-up transformer and step-down transformer, respectively.


Figure 1: Step-up Transformer


Figure 2: Step-down Transformer

Surname 2

Solyndra Solar Company

Background

Solyndra was a California-based manufacturer of thin-film lunar cells attached to cylindrical panels that could produce relatively more power than the usual flat photovoltaic solar panels. The panels were more efficient as they could take in energy from any route, including indirect and reproduced light (Etzioni, 2010). The company came into existence in 2005 and was meant to produce low-priced solar panels. By the year 2008, Solyndra had raised $450 million from financiers and had submitted an application for a loan warranty from the Department of Energy under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. But the loan request was rejected in January 2009 in the fading days of the Bush administration because there was nondependent survey as to the future prospects of the company carried out (Kennet & Heinemann, 2006).
Solyndra’s expertise showed potential that the United States administration granted $535 million in credit guarantees during the Obama’s adminstration. The company was the first to obtain a loan certification under a program founded by President George W. Bush and extended as part of President Barrack Obama’s 2009 trade and industry incentive package. The wound up solar-panel Company, which was later subjected to various investigations ran short of finance in December 2010 and was incapable of satisfying certain conditions of its U.S. loan obligations. The contract obliged Solyndra to supply $5 million in equity to an additional building of its industrial unit but cash-flow deficits stopped those disbursements (Beard & Halluin 2009).
Consequently, it applied to the Department of Energy for its loan restructuring to enable it raise additional finances. Under the new arrangement, the private investors’ interest was put ahead of the taxpayers and governments interest in case of default on the part of the company which would call for its liquidation. This move violated the law but it had to be invoked to save the company. Despite the company having been so financed it closed its doors in the year 2011 and subsequently filed a voluntary winding up petition leaving more than 1,100 workers jobless (Vorster, 2010).
Legal and Ethical Issues Surrounding Solyndra
The company was being scrutinized by the Republican-led House energy committee appointed by the President some days before and after it filed a voluntary winding petition after it emerged that the company was not financially sound and there were plans to have its employees dismissed.

Legal issues

The legal issues that were to be determined were whether the solar company’s executives in any way colluded with the auditors of the company to misrepresent the financial statements. This because there were allegations that the financial statements presented to the Energy department had been ballooned to show higher turnover than was actually achieved to convince them that the company was healthy and eligible for the loan (Beard & Halluin 2009). Another important issue to be addressed was whether the procedure followed in selecting the company as the first to benefit from the subsidized loan was lawful and the motives behind the company’s bankruptcy despite large sums of money having been pumped into the business by the government and other private investors.

Violation of the federal law

The company violated the federal law by the reason that it did not consult the treasury as regards to the restructuring of the loan as the law required. The treasury had concluded that the renegotiated loan deal violated the law because it allowed private financiers to be first in line for repayment in case of a default. There were allegations that some officials from the Office of Management and Budget as well as those from the Treasury Department had cautioned the Department Of Energy (DOE) that the restructuring of a portion of the loan that allowed private investors priority payment in case of default is illegal. Moreover, the department should have obtained a second opinion from the Justice Department (Kennet & Heinemann, 2006). However, the warnings fell on deaf ears as the DOE went ahead with the loan without consulting with the Justice Department. The DOE has no compliance officer or corporate styled compliance program.
Conflict of interest
Documents released in response to a House investigation of Solyndra revealed that DOE ethics officials recognized that allowing DOE employee Steve Spinner to work on Solyndra’s DOE loan guarantee application presented at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Spinner came from Silicon Valley to serve as a senior adviser on the loan program, while his wife was a partner in a law firm that worked for Solyndra and other employees of the energy department thus he was supposed to refrain from active participation in the applications made by Solyndra as this would present a conflict of interest. However, Spinner emerged as a key figure in advocating for getting the deal done, actually in an attempt to achieve the loan as an opinionated success for President Obama (Vorster, 2010). This occurred despite having obtained an ethics opinion restricting his duties to monitoring the progress of grant and loan application without involvement in Energy department’s decisions on individual application.
Legal issues as regards employees
After the company went into liquidation, more than 1,100 workers were left jobless. This was against the law as no notice had been issued to them on such dismissal. Consequently, the workers filed a case against the company requiring the company to pay them their benefits as well as damages for the unlawful dismissal. In the petition, the employees claimed that the company failed to consider the provisions regarding notification which required employers to furnish their employees with a 60 days’ notice of their intention to dismiss them (Beard & Halluin 2009).

Unethical conduct

There were also allegations that one of the biggest shareholders of the company, George Kaiser was a close ally of president Obama and was a key financier of his 2008 election campaigns. This connection is believed to have influenced the selection of Solyndra and the subsequent quick release of the funds (Russell & Gronvall 2012). The energy department was also indicted of having requested the executives of the company not to lay off pending after the primary elections of 2010. Also their denunciation of Solyndra’s financial problems even it was in their knowledge is a clear indication of ethical weakness on the department’s side.
Ethical issues on DOE officials
Energy Department officials ignored warnings issued to them by various stakeholders on the illegality of their plan to help a failing solar company by restructuring its $535 million federal loan and went ahead to approve the new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company defaulted. Also, they failed to consider in deep the financial statements of the company as there were reports by the company’s auditors that expressed public concern on the poor performance of the company. According to the auditors, the company had reported huge operating losses and negative cash flows over a number of years (Vorster, 2010).
The Energy Department claims the company’s financial deficits prompted the restructuring of the debt and that the officials were under political pressure to have the loan restructured. Under the arrangement, private investors agreed to provide a new $75 million credit in exchange of the right to rank ahead of the government if the company went into liquidation. The vetting process used to select the solar company and the special help it was given as its finances deteriorated was in question as great differences existed between the energy department and the Treasury Department at the time.
Two Laws and an Ethical Code that Apply to the Situation
The following laws were ignored in the Solyndra Company’s case:
The energy policy Act of 2005 which requires that the Energy Department to consult with the Office of Management and Budget as well as the Treasury before any restructuring of a loan can be effected. In this case, the rule was disregarded as the Energy Department approved the restructuring despite the various warnings of illegality from the other departments (Albertson, 2012).
In addition to the Energy policy Act, the company also violated was the law regarding to taxation. The company applied to be would voluntary to evade tax and keep the money that would otherwise be disbursed in form of tax to use it for the reorganization.
Solyndra on its part failed to observe honesty as applied in business ethics when filing its financial statements with the Energy Department. The statements filed did not reflect a true and fair financial position of the company and are believed to have been ballooned to reflect the company’s financial soundness while in reality it was collapsing. In addition, the solar company lacked honesty as it failed to disclose the fact that it had experienced financial wrangles before acquiring the restructured loan. This is because it was established that George Kaiser, a major financier for President Obama 2008 campaigns, had granted a sum $75 million to help position Solyndra in a better liquidity state in February at the time of the government’s refinancing (Kennet & Heinemann, 2006).

An Ethical Framework That Applies To This Situation

The government should refrain from investing in particular industries such as new upcoming businesses in the name of venture capitalism regardless of their expected potentials (Holder & Josephson, 2012). The role of the government in business matters should be restricted to the establishment of an ethical framework that best regulates the business environment as a whole and to oversee its implementation. The framework should be structured to apply uniformly to all businesses in the same industry and clearly define the social responsibilities expected and the consequences of non compliance. There should be well established rules requiring individuals to obtain clearance before engaging in any matter that could result into a conflict of interest. This is to avoid addressing such a conflict when it is too late or when the wrong has already occurred as it was the case in the Solyndra loan application saga.
Milton Friedman’s Philosophy as Applies to This Situation
Milton Friedman advocated for the termination of government intrusion into the financial markets and insisted that the market should be left free devoid of externalities. He claimed that things would work far much better if the party in charge of something is the same person who directly suffers the consequences if it is ineffectively managed. From the economist’s school of thought, a conclusion can be drawn that if the government had left the company to manage its own affairs and left the money market to experts in that field, then most likely the loss of almost half a billion in taxpayers’ money would not have occurred and the company would not have gone under. The executives of the company also admitted that the government played a role towards its downfall and the subsequent loss of almost half a billion in taxpayers’ money (Salinas, Smith & Viswanathan, 2012).

How the Issues Influenced the Solyndra Executives

Senior executives at the company declined to disclose to the U.S. officers appointed to investigate the company whether they continued to receive salaries and management bonuses even as they realized the company was failing and even attempted to frustrate insolvency proceedings by refusing to avail any insight into the company’s unanticipated closure. They also pleaded not guilty in front of the committee of investigation and have succeeded in a suit filed by them demanding payment of their salaries and bonuses that they forewent at the time when the company experienced liquidity problems. A number of investors argued that had the government left the company to run its own affairs devoid of its intervention, they would not have lost their investment (Salinas et al. 2012).

References
Albertson, Q. (2012). The gods of business: the intersection of faith and the marketplace. New York: Civilian Media.
Beard, J. W., & Halluin, A. P. (2009). Analysis of CIGS Solar Cell Technology, An. Nanotech. L. & Bus., 6(5), 19.
Etzioni, A. (2010). Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Holder, R. W., & Josephson, P. B. (2012). Obama, Romney, and Christian Realism. Society, 3(4), 1-5.
Kennet, M., & Heinemann, V. (2006). Green Economics: setting the scene. Aims, context, and philosophical underpinning of the distinctive new solutions offered by Green Economics. International Journal of Green Economics, 1(1), 68-102.
Russell, P. K., & Gronvall, G. K. (2012). US medical countermeasure development since 2001: a long way yet to go. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 10(1), 66-76.
Salinas, F. M., Smith, D. M., & Viswanathan, S. (2012). Nanotechnology: Ethical and Social Issues. Nanotechnology: Ethical and Social Implications, 1(3), 125.
Vorster, N. (2010). An ethical critique of Milton Friedman’s doctrine on economics and freedom. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, (26), 163-180.

SOLYNDRA SOLAR COMPANY 6

Running head: SOLYNDRA SOLAR COMPANY 1