Utillity Update........this is good news.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I am attaching a post from the c.s.y2k newsgroup. The message reference number is attached.
First, there is some good news here. Mickey, the gentleman posting, works for a large power generation organization. He now is beginning to feel that this organization will be ready. Yes, this is one person's opinion, but it's the opinion of a person working in the trenches, who is very familiar with the problem and the solutions.
Second, contrary to views I've seen expressed elsewhere on this forum, it is possible (legally) to detach from the national power grid: one of the contigency plans this organization is considering is to do just that so that they may continue uninterrupted [their customers will appreciate that]. Note, however, that there are problems still to be worked out, including how to re-attach (which probably requires excellent communications (read this as telecoms).
Third, in this person's opinion, his organization is out in front of the power curve.......and other company's efforts. So this is a "good news --- bad news" message: one company will probably make it, others probably won't.
This is the first positive indication I've seen out of the electric utility industry.
Author: Mickey Email: email@example.com Date: 1998/08/23 Forums: comp.software.year-2000 Message-ID: <35E0687A.EA8B7D30@nospam.home.com>
ET wrote: > > Hey Mickey > > Mickey wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > As regular readers know, I am involved in remediation of PGs. I do this > > because it is what I know best, and what I feel is most important. Power > > utilities are somewhat different than most business as we have both the > > business software end of things, and the plant remediation. Two paths, > > and two teams, two government agencies (DOE and NRC). Last week we had > > our quarterly status review with all three concerned parties (the client > > being the third). As a result of this meeting, the following was arrived > > at. > > > > Our plants, whose remediation was scheduled to be complete by third > > quarter 1999, are on schedule and on budget. We have found more problems > > than expected in some arenas, and less in others. Our nukes seem to be > > in the best shape, and barring some completely unforeseen issues, *WILL* > > be up and operational at rollover. Hydros also look good, but the grid > > issues are more complex and causing some concern. Fuel fired plants are > > where the big issues are at this point in time. The older ones (mostly > > coal) are our main source of concern. All this said, I think we will > > make it. > > What are the grid issues that are causing concern? What issues are > concerning you about the older coal-fired plants?
Most of our hydros are part of the TVA. TVA has its own internal grid, which is causing concern with our contingency planning. As part of our these plans, we have looked into the possiblity that we may have to leave the national grid. This may be a problem as detaching the hydros from the TVA grid is VERY complex. As to the coal burners, these plants are old and have little or no documentation. We have identified some that we will not be remediating. These will be shut down and the load picked up either by new plants or by operating our nukes at higher capacity. In addition, we have identified fossil plants in proximity to our main nuclear facillity and hard wired a path between the two. In the event of a grid crash, we will draw down all the power from this fossil plant and dedicate it to re-starting the nuke.
> > > mickey > > Thanks for your info - as you are aware, it is difficult to get any > hands-on views of the power industry. One more question if you don't > mind, do you think your experience so far is typical of the industry in > general? Thanks again. >
As far as I know, we are way ahead of the others. This is why our contingency plans call for a detachment from the national grid if necessary. The problem then is to re-attach. One just cannot start pumping kilo-watts into the grid as we are the largest producer in the country. Were we to just flip a switch and start pumping into the grid, we would burn it out. This re-attachment must be done in a *very* controlled manner.
mickey >>>>>>>end of paste<<<<<<<<<<
-- rocky knolls (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 24, 1998
I have a question about power in the USA and Canada: In the event there are REAL problems, i.e. one or more of the ten pools domino and shut down; I believe it is reasonable to assume that FEMA will "take over". I would foresee that some of the pools will be directed to brown out in order to help other pools that are dark. I truly believe that those in the rural areas will be shut off so that the cities will have power, and thus not "invade" the rural areas. What's wrong with this basic thesis??
-- cjbrown (email@example.com), August 25, 1998.
cjbrown, the idea sounds good. But.........
In my opinion, it doesn't gain too much. I guess an analogy would be that of shutting off a leaky kitchen faucet in order to be able to get more water out of a fire hose. Rural areas use very little power compared to the cities, for several reasons. Now, if you were to say that efforts would be made to get the power on in cities because:
Doesn't mean that this won't be tried, though.
That said, most large utilities feed cities. From what I've read, the larger companies have come the farthest and stand the best chance. The least prepared companies might be the ones that feed rural areas (like mine), so that power goes back on in the cities before the countryside simply because those companies are better prepared.
-- rocky knolls (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 25, 1998.