Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[Yanagi]

If you're playing things more or less straight, and all the critters developed alongside each other, a better question is why are there mundane animals to begin with? Unless the magic has some major detrimental impact on fitness (or the mundane is just that good), wolf v. magic wolf favors the magic one. Besides, if magic is a natural force in the world, why wouldn't it influence everything to begin with- you don't expect animals to develop completely devoid of magnetism or electricity, so why is magic any different? You'd think eveything would have at least low levels of magic where it woulds actually help, and be mundanely specialized in areas where magic isn't that helpful.

One possible resolution is that "magic wolf" is not a species, but a randomly-occurring phenomenon unconnected to genetics.

Another would that being "magical" is an expensive adaptation, and the calorie economy/subsistence needs mean that non-magical animals that can make do with less are still a viable adaptation. A variation on that theme would be magical beings having a higher investment in offspring rearing, and thus producing fewer individuals per generation and experiencing greater loss

A third would be that magical beings have a sort of parallel ecosystem where magic is part of the food chain...thaumatrophy?. Or alternately, being magical means one can survive by magical energy...kind of thaumaturgic autotrophy...as opposed to other subsistence adaptations.

All of the above, of course, assuming something resembling evolution in the "adaptation and change over time" sense. The whole thing gets much hairier when extraordinary causal forces come into play: gods, spirits, demons, magical environmental phenomenon, and magicians playing at altering and creating lifeforms.

[hymer]

@ Storm Bringer: Very useful pingponging there, thanks! I guess the real strength for the nobles is that they control access to the town. If the merchant houses put them out of the council, the nobles would have to choose between blockading the town or disbanding their forces. In that situation, they'd probably find a way to unite until the merchant houses relented.

[Storm Bringer]

the nobles are a minority, but as it stands they are a unifed minority with the an effective veto over any 2/3rd majority vote. if the rules of the council say it needs a 2/3rds vote to pass a law, then the merchants need at least one of the nobles to pass a law. for a 50% majority vote, then the merchants can force it against the nobles provided they are unified.

this set up sorta leads to a stiuation where both camps can and will protect their own rights, but they can only get most things done with the assistance of are least some of the other camp.

[headwarpage]

The other, potentially more likely situation isn't a nobles vs. merchants split, as much as it is a merchants vs. merchants split, with the merchants competing for the nobles' votes. Assuming that the politics of the city are controlled by the merchants (which I'm taking as a given), the merchants still can't act without the nobles unless they are unanimous. There are certainly some things that the merchants might be unanimous on, as other posters have noted. But there are a lot more things that they won't agree on, because, at some level, they're in competition with each other.

One of the primary ways that the merchants can compete with each other is by trying pass laws that are harmful to other merchants, or overly beneficial to themselves. For instance, the merchant who controls the breweries in town wants to pass a law taxing imports of beer from the next city over (or wants to do something like replace the city gate and fund it with this tax). The merchant who imports the beer is against it. The merchant who runs the granary is for it, and so on. In this case, the deciding votes are cast by the nobles, and the merchants are likely to compete for those votes. Depending on the nobles, they might want personal concessions (or bribes), or concessions that will actually benefit the city (like guards to patrol the slums).

[hymer]

@ headwarpage: Sounds very sensible (and your assumptions line up with mine). I should start looking into the specific areas of the merchant houses and make sure they're not evenly matched in everything.

[fusilier]

@ fusi: Thanks, and you're right. Maybe I should've specified: They've collectively decided they have plenty of competition in each other, so you're disallowed from doing any sort of business if you're not attached somehow to one of the houses. So there's really not much of anything to tax but their own businesses, so they want that tax kept as low as possible. They're ok with having a force of thugs private guards, as these serve multiple purposes besides acting as local city guards.

Let me ask you some more questions, that I started thinking after writing my first response. What is the function of the government? Why does it exist, if they're not willing to pay taxes to the government for it to provide some sort of service? Or, what services are they willing to pay taxes for? If the merchant houses are happy to pay for their own guards, would they not be happy to raise their own military?

While I don't have much information about it, it sounds as if these merchant houses are almost their own government entities. What brings them together to form a government at all?

Stormbringer mentions the guards at gates -- one of the main functions of gates was to apply taxes on goods entering or exiting the city. If they're not applying taxes, and not funding a "neutral" city watch, then why would they have guards at the gate stopping traffic? You specifically said that they are almost totally laissez-faire, so they wouldn't have government regulations that might allow guards to disrupt trade. If a merchant house controls a gate then maybe they will have their own guards and apply their own taxes on competitors attempting to use that gate (individual households being granted the right to collect taxes at a gate I think was common -- and they were expected to keep a share of it). But then each merchant house would attempt to use its own gates for all of its traffic.

Maybe you need to flesh out the function of the government a bit more (or elaborate for us). Does the government manage the city? And how does it do it? Is it just for common defense? If so, what created it in the first place? (And in that case it would be more like a confederation).

Having said all that. If you're details align well, then perhaps you might want to look at some place like Florence. In that case, it wasn't so much membership in the assembly that mattered, as in who was in control of certain offices. So, for example, Florence had an income tax, (along with other tariffs on trade), but if the Medici controlled the office responsible for assessing such taxes -- they and their friends might find the tax burden quite low, but their enemies might be assessed something more. ;-) Also, there was an office that determined who was eligible to vote, if new members could be added to the rolls, or if old ones should be expelled (for failure to pay taxes for example).

[hymer]

@ fusi: Good questions! I guess it's time to put names in.

The function of this particular government is threefold:
1: To maintain one is required for some strong nations to accept the city, Miklagård, as a city state. If they didn't, all sorts of extra regulations and tolls would apply against the trade from Miklagård, as the city state can negotiate directly with other governments. The merchant houses have a lot of business in nations not dominated by them, and they need to cosy up to (or browbeat) a lot of rulers, some quite powerful.
2: The city is situated in the only known place on this subcontinent (Valland) where a port is possible. Maintenance of the port is paramount for trade, and the merchant houses need some sort of system in place to force each of them to pay their fair share. Taking part in government means you help pay the upkeep of things deemed important enough, such as the port. Not taking part means your competitors get a word in policies and you don't. This was originally achieved by the city's founder, Regar, as he gradually allowed merchant houses into the area.
3: To prevent the nobles from taking over political power (more on nobles further down).

What brings them together is geography and the church of a powerful goddess of trade (I'll probably just steal Waukeen from Toril). The city was founded by a cleric of Waukeen (Regar), after he was blown off course and discovered the subcontinent (mistakenly thought to be an island, but that's a whole other matter). In discovering the continent, he found a way for shipping to cross what had been thought to be the Sea of Certain Death, and connecting parts of a large continent that until then could only trade over land. All this trade tends to converge on Miklagård, which is remote, but has become the trade hub of a vast part of the world.
I haven't detailed the rest of the world, and I don't intend to. It's to be left vague, so new PC concepts can be brought in as they like.

About guards and city walls: Something like 90% of all trade is via the harbour, even when counting trade from the lands connected with the city (which is where most of the city's food comes from - but even so and with fishing, considerable amounts of food is from imports). Inland trade is so low mostly because Valland is settled by scattered local tribes, but there is some trade with a group of dwarves living not too far away (they have access to a mineral that dwarves otherwise have to go weeks through the Underdark to get, and this is why Regar decided to found the place before he knew how perfect the spot was for overseas trade).
The inland trade is subject to no taxation. That would just raise the price of foods/goods, which would drive up wages/sell prices, which the merchant houses are the ones paying. There is a rudimentary city wall, but it's defunct and doesn't run at the outer edge of the city. The council believes (mistakenly) that nobody in Valland could possibly threaten a town their size. The nobles are supposed to police their lands and keep raiders out, and they do a good job. But as the campaign starts rolling this won't last.

The government of the city is carried out (as mentioned) to maintain critical structures like the port, to give important trading partners a government to recognize and deal with, and to deal with internal city matters (mostly between the houses, but also regarding the church of Waukeen, the nobles, and nearby peoples in Valland itself - new power structures are bound to arise). It also keeps certain functions running, like water supply, and the merchant houses' guards are deputized to fill the usual roles of the city watch, at least within the confines of the areas each merchant house considers its own.
The gangs of armed men are kept to fill that critical role of policing, but also as a means of maintaining a terror balance against other merchant houses, and to deal with strikes and other local disruptions.
These guards are more thugs than soldiers, and in the event of a raid on the city would be of little help to the city as a whole. That's for the nobles who maintain small standing armies of professional soldiers. One of these nobles in particular is aware of the weakness of Miklagård, and he is quietly contemplating seizing the harbour and forcing the merchant houses to name him duke and ruler. With PC help he might well succeed. With their opposition, he might well fail.

When the city was founded, there were as yet no nobles, and almost all food was imported. Raids against caravans from the local dwarves alerted the merchants to the danger of small raids on the city, and the need for imported food meant less shipfulls of valuable tradegoods being moved. So it seemed a good idea to cultivate the nearby land and turn it into a buffer zone, especially since the population kept expanding as the trade did.
Agricultural and military activities were beyond the experience of the merchant houses, and owning large tracts of land might be diplomatically problematic in other places (they'd risk losing some of their trade advantages from being no military threat in certain nations). As such, they simply sold the land and newly invented noble titles (with votes in the city council) to people willing to pay. This worked pretty well, as retiring mercenaries and landless nobles took the chance and settled.

I'm thinking Miklagård is so far not on par with the political state of Florence, as it's not yet two hundred years since its founding. The city council deals with most matters directly (another reason to keep matters laissez-faire), and it is worried that strong officials will cause power to slip from the merchant houses - as it surely would, at least temporarily (since internal squabbles and defections are not unheard of).
A political restructuring is to happen as the campaign rolls out, but the merchants don't want it to, of course. And it may well be up to the PCs what sort of restructuring is going to happen, depending on who they support.

[Storm Bringer]

ok, thanks for the info. some more musings:

while the port may be the only viable port on the subconintent, it may not be the only place you can land thier may be small beaches or very shallow bays where a small boat can put ashore, but a trade ship must stay out to sea (and is this both unable to unload it's cargo and is vrunerable to storms and such.

Because almost all trade comes in via sea, and only the sea trade is taxed, thier may be a thriving smuggling trade where certian high-tax goods are landed on a beach a few days form the city and transported overland, where they can avoid the taxes (if anyone asks, they are goods from a nobles estate he's bringing into the city). as long as they can sell it for less than the "legal" price, it's worth it)

Now, if the nobles base of power is in the hinterlands, then they are argueably the ones with most to gain form such a black market. I#d suggest that all of the nobles (and the merchant houses, for that matter) know of at least one place they can smuggle goods into the city and its surrounds. while such trade is small scale compared to the flow of goods though the city port, it would be vital for the nobles, becuase it means they have a lifeline to the outside world that the merchants don't control.

[hymer]

Good point, smuggling should definitely be a thing! Something for the PCs to do or oppose.

[fusilier]

It sounds like the port will be the main area to focus on. The control of which can be manipulated -- harbor masters and inspectors can be bribed or bought (they would be the ones responsible for assessing tariffs, or barring ships from taking to sea, or unloading, etc.). The wharves will need to be policed as well; I don't know if you want a city harbor police, or to use private guards.

Stormbringer mentioned smugglers, so maybe there needs to be government inspectors on the lookout for them?

Councils running the government can be found in history. The Council of Ten in Venice would be an example, although it was part of larger more complicated government, power tended to concentrate there. City walls being defunct, and/or having run down was actually quite common. Overall it sounds like a pretty interesting idea.

Wealthy merchants or nobles might hire mercenaries during emergencies (keeps costs low during peacetime), but that depends upon whether or not mercenaries are available (and in the numbers necessary).

Ostensibly, there would be a militia to call on, especially in a city. Whether or not it would work out in practice is another issue. Militias were often neglected.

[hymer]

Thanks for all your thoughts guys! But do feel free to say or ask more, of course. Looks like it's time for me to get down to the nitty-gritty deal of detailing the merchant houses now.

[Beleriphon]

On the topic of the port I think the harbour master is probably one of those very important positions in the city, and completely thankless to boot. Its is likely a position that council likes to argue over endlessly since the merchants can lean on the holder to let their goods in faster or even block other factions for days or weeks at a time.

[Yora]

To give my setting an unusual touch, I want to have humans, elves, gnomes, lizardfolk, and goblins, but with the wildlife and vegetation of the asian countries along the pacific coast. That is China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philipines, and so on. Maybe some India/Nepal as well.
Does anyone know of good summaries on some websites, which animals and plants dominate these ecological environments?
Animals that went extinct relatively recently are also of interest, of course.

[hymer]

@ Beleriphon: I had originally thought that the church of Waukeen would be in charge of the harbour, but what you describe seems like a lot more fun (and of course opens up for more conflict). Maybe a PC could end up pressed into service as harbour master for a session, even.

@ Yora: Not the most original, nor I'm afraid the most helpful, but the categories Flora of Southeast Asia and Fauna of Southeast Asia on Wikipedia could be the place to start.

[Yora]

Those will do, I guess.

[Beleriphon]

Okay, here's a question. What is the longest reasonable period of time between the collapse of a modern power grid (or even slightly futuristic one) and the need to move into a realm of needing subsistence farming. Once we've looked at that what kind of time frame would it be before people resort to attacking each other with primitive weapons rather than firearms (I'd assume as soon as the bullets run out)?

Assuming that something could actually cause an event such as a world wide collapse of the power grid, what kind protection would be needed to keep a least a small part of the power grid, or separate one, from being destroyed.

[awa]

you don't need a power grid to make bullets or guns and the information to learn how is in books so just the loss of the power grid would not get rid of guns.

Keep in mind the Gatling gun was in use by the time of the civil war so the loss of a power grid would not even prevent you from building new automatic weapons.
edit
you need to specify what took out the power grid becuase if it power plants just stopped working you could probably rig up a small one up with in a few days using wind power or diesel or something

edit lots of people would die but we would not drop down to subsistence farming with just power loss. we still have cattle to pull plows and fertilize crops. the bigger danger from losing the power grid would not be the loss of the grid itself but the riots and starvation caused by such a loss.

[Ksheep]

It isn't unreasonable to suppose that most farms will have fuel stockpiled, at least a couple days worth. Once they realize that the infrastructure is down, they will start rationing it out, but they should still be able to get at least a partial crop in before running out (depending on when in the growing season this occurs). There is also a LOT of artificial fertilizers on hand, so they can still get large yields without as much machinery for some years, although you'd then run into the logistical problem of transporting the fertilizers to the farms (and food from the farms to the cities) once the fuel ran out.

Ranchers might have a slightly more difficult problem, as they would have to change how they process their products. While there are many methods of processing meat, milk, eggs, etc. without power, not many farms are set up to work that way, so they'd have to improvise. Then you run into the issue of storage and transport: you don't want the milk and eggs to spoil between the farm and the city. This may result in many ranchers moving their operations closer to cities, or more people moving out of the city and closer to the food sources.

While this won't necessarily result in subsistence farming right away, it will likely result in some form of communal farming: everyone pitches in to do the work formerly done by the machines, and in return they get a share of the produce. Excess food could then be sold to larger population centers…*at least as long as the farms can keep up the same levels of production (i.e. until they run out of fertilizers).

[hymer]

@ Beleriphon: Watch this guy, James Burke, talk about the thing you're describing (he gets into it in first half of 3/5 which I've linked, but you may want to watch the whole thing). It won't answer your question, but I think you'll enjoy it and perhaps find inspiration.

[Yora]

Assuming that something could actually cause an event such as a world wide collapse of the power grid, what kind protection would be needed to keep a least a small part of the power grid, or separate one, from being destroyed.

The most likely sources are EMP strikes with detonating nukes high in the atmosphere, or a massive solar flare that hits Earth spot on. The effect on electrical equiment would be identical.

The greater the circuit, the more vulnerable to EMP it becomes. A cell phone has very thin power lines, but they are very short, and electrons can only move along these lines, and there won't be much if any heating of the components that leads to damage. Car eletronics and notebokes might survive as well, depending on the intensity of the pulse.
Continental power grids are massive in size which makes the amount of electricity that will be "pumped" through them enormous as well. Fine electronics connected to the power grid will just be fried as the fine cables and circuit boards instantly heat up way beyond what is safe and at least produce micro-fractures that make them unusable, or possibly even melt or catch fire. Circuit breakers won't do much as the power in continental power grids would be so great that the electricity will just jump through the air on the outside of the breakers and continue along the power lines. However the even bigger problem is, that even power landlines will suffer fractures from the intense heating up, and lots of the heavy equipment used to regulate the power flow will just catch fire and be completely destroyed.

I've seen one estimate that puts the time required to fix everything back to the way it was before at 10 years. Because you will have to build pretty much a complete new power grid and there simply aren't that many spare parts in storage. And producing these parts while the power grid is down and possibly many of the manufacturing plants have been destroyed would be "problematic". So you would have to build new manufacturing plants as well. Again without use of the power grid and also with significant problems in petrol supply. Even if you have diesel generators, pumps to pump the fuel also contain electronics that might have been damaged.

Baseline is that the time you should pick up subsistence farming after a global massive EMP is "as soon as possible". Not only will supplies run out pretty soon, it is also a lot more complicated to get all those supplies to you in the first place. Don't wait until people start starving to come up with plans to grow new food.

[awa]

subsistence farming is only growing enough for you and your family.

Industrial agriculture came about in the industrial revolution so it does not require the electrical grid.

if you decide to drop all the way back to subsistence agriculture you will have no specialist capable of rebuilding or even maintaining society, no doctors no black smiths ect.

We still have oxen and horses we still have plows we still have manure we still know about crop rotation ect. theirs no reason to abandon the technology/ knowledge that still functions just because we no longer have electricity.

[fusilier]

subsistence farming is only growing enough for you and your family.

Industrial agriculture came about in the industrial revolution so it does not require the electrical grid.

if you decide to drop all the way back to subsistence agriculture you will have no specialist capable of rebuilding or even maintaining society, no doctors no black smiths ect.

We still have oxen and horses we still have plows we still have manure we still know about crop rotation ect. theirs no reason to abandon the technology/ knowledge that still functions just because we no longer have electricity.

I suspect that this question is related to the Revolution series, in which all electricity stops working for some reason (except, conveniently, for bioelectricity, or otherwise animals wouldn't be able to function).

The electricity grid going down, wouldn't result in the end of the use of electricity, instead it would have to be rationed, and many key infrastructure components probably have backup generators (for example natural gas distribution systems). Cars would still work, etc.

Even if all electricity was somehow interrupted, there are tons of things that would still work. Diesel engines do not require electricity! Many modern designs use glow-plugs and computer controlled injectors, but they're not required to make a diesel engine. All the things to make modern guns and ammunition for the most part can also be done without electricity. Refrigeration systems require pumps, which can be powered by steam-engines, and water mills. Supermarkets could still use them.

I think there are some areas where a lack of electricity would cause problems -- Aluminum refining usually requires electricity, I think, and Hydrogen generation.

The loss of electricity is therefore less a matter of reverting to horses and crossbows, but more a question of how long it would take to recalibrate to the new situation, and how bad things would be in the interim. Technically speaking we can make mechanical computers, although they wouldn't be much like what we are used to.

[TuggyNE]

The electricity grid going down, wouldn't result in the end of the use of electricity, instead it would have to be rationed, and many key infrastructure components probably have backup generators (for example natural gas distribution systems). Cars would still work, etc.

True, except that most hospitals etc have only maybe 48 hours worth of backup generation. Nowhere near enough to keep going for the months replacing main transformer cores might take. (And that's not counting the difficult problem of making sure the manufacturers of transformer cores can keep things functioning.)

Even if all electricity was somehow interrupted, there are tons of things that would still work. Diesel engines do not require electricity! Many modern designs use glow-plugs and computer controlled injectors, but they're not required to make a diesel engine. All the things to make modern guns and ammunition for the most part can also be done without electricity. Refrigeration systems require pumps, which can be powered by steam-engines, and water mills. Supermarkets could still use them.

Retooling to this would be possible, but would take a long time; also, a lot of applications (refrigerated trucks?) would be impossible, and being forced to situate supermarkets by a source of running water is not going to happen anytime soon.

Speaking of running water, good luck!

I think there are some areas where a lack of electricity would cause problems -- Aluminum refining usually requires electricity, I think, and Hydrogen generation.

Aluminum requires enormous amounts of power, so much so that recycling saves 90% of the cost.

[Beleriphon]

On the question of the power grid my thought was more along the lines of in immediate aftermath of total power grid shut down you'd have major problems. Like people murdering each other over that last tin of dog food in the supermarket, the fact that a good many modern conveniences that we rely on daily will stop working outright. Hospitals will fail, refridgeration will will stop working (since I've yet to see a refridgerator that doesn't use an electric compressor), gas stations won't work since the pumps run on electricity, even if you can get the gas out using hand pumps the tanks will run dry. You can't process oil into fuels, and the key here is that with a complete power grid collapse every single modern factory would shut down since most of them rely on some kind of electricity to operate, even with backups that wouldn't be more than a few days.

Even industrial cartridge production currently requires electricity at some level to power the machines. Sure, you can make ammunition by hand, but most people don't know how to do that. Then there's the issue that eventually you are going to run out of bullets. The USA has a massive stockpile of ammunition (seriously, its like a billion rounds for 5x5.54 NATO alone) but that wont last forever if its being used to suppress riots or civil war.

So, I guess my question is how long would it take before its reasonable that a crossbow instead of guns and horses instead of cars would be normal for most people?

[awa]

never bullets can be made without electricity and books that can telling you how exist. People will be making new bullets before the old ones run out.

Now individual people may be in situations that a crossbow is the best choice but society as a whole never. We have an insane number of bullets in the U.S.

now machine guns may be considered impractical but rifles arnt going to stop being a far superior weapon.

horses nothing bikes will be the superior method of transportation

[Zeful]

never bullets can be made without electricity and books that can telling you how exist. People will be making new bullets before the old ones run out.

And what about the cartridges? They don't have an infinite lifespan, and then will need to be restamped to prevent failures that would damage the gun. And the stamping process for the cartridge is very precise and gradual in order to standardize the powder load.

How is that happening without electricity?

[Chilingsworth]

And what about the cartridges? They don't have an infinite lifespan, and then will need to be restamped to prevent failures that would damage the gun. And the stamping process for the cartridge is very precise and gradual in order to standardize the powder load.

How is that happening without electricity?

Umm... wasn't cartridged ammuntion invented around the time of the American Civil War? When did electrcity start being commonly used for manufacturing? I'd guess the same way it was done between the invention of the things and that point.

[hymer]

awa's reply depends on society not falling apart with the power grid. Well, the bicycle thing doesn't fly either way (speaking as a cyclist and knowing a bit about horses). Cycling works really well with factory-produced rides on well-made asphalt roads. Neither are available without power, though. Some decent cycles would still be possible, but they'd be expensive, prone to breaking down, and very unpleasant and tiring to ride.
But the rest is correct if there's still a central government backed by most people.

Judging how long it would take for degeneration, nobody can really say. There's too many unknown factors involved. As such, you can set it at pretty much whatever you want. A few years if ammo storages got nuked and things fell apart within months. Of course, there'd be a mix of technological levels. Crossbows are fairly technical affairs themselves, so slings and bows would probably be more prevalent. If you can build a crossbow, it's not a long step to building a rifle and making ammunition.

Edit @ Chill: But the tools and machines used then don't exist any more, and building them would require an expenditure of effort and resources that may not be available. And you have to find people who have the skills to do this, which again favours a big organisation.

[Ksheep]

One thing to remember about guns vs crossbows vs bows: Guns require very little skill to use proficiently, while bows require lots of training to be proficient. One of the reasons crossbows replaced bows was that they were easier to fire for the common person, although they required more material to produce. The same can be said with guns replacing crossbows. Ergo, while bows may be the easiest to make, not many people will use them because they are difficult to learn how to use effectively. Crossbows will probably be picked up by a fair number of people, but you'd have to produce them, and that takes a fair bit of skill. More likely, people will want to continue using guns, as they are much easier to use and more reliable. You just run into the ammunition issue, but making ammunition would be less labor intensive than making a crossbow. I wouldn't be surprised if each town had a handful of people skilled at making ammunition, which they sold to other people in the area. They'd become a very important member of the community, and many people would willingly protect and provide for them, because they know life would be that much more difficult without him around.

[fusilier]

Umm... wasn't cartridged ammuntion invented around the time of the American Civil War? When did electrcity start being commonly used for manufacturing? I'd guess the same way it was done between the invention of the things and that point.

You're absolutely right. For some reason, people think that electricity == power. There are tons of other ways of powering things, many of which are still in use, although we now use electricity for many things.

You do not need "electricity" to make modern firearms or cartridges. You need a power source. This can be a water mill with belts, but more likely steam engines. There are other power transmission types too, but none have the range of electricity. This would mean that manufacturing plants would have to have their own power plants -- like they used to before the electric grid could provide enough.