I am an electronic engineer working for a controls company who supplies the control systems for power generation prime movers. The company I work for is a leader in this industry, doing over 500M in sales per year. I would like to address the Y2K issue as related to our products. To do this, let me start off by giving a brief discussion of what our products do in the power generation application. The base for providing power is a prime mover (engine or turbine). The prime mover uses fuel to produce rotational energy. This rotational energy is translated into electrical energy through a generator. To vary the power produced by the generator, the amount of fuel to the prime mover is varied.

My company's basic products control the fuel to the prime mover. Many of these devices are analog or mechanical in nature, and are not affected by the Y2K rollover. I would estimate that 40-50% of our generator set application sales are these type of products.

Stepping up a level, are the base digital controls used to control the prime mover power. These digital controls have no real time clock, and operate directly from the core processor operating system. These products, therefore, are not affected by the Y2K rollover either. These products account for about 40% of our generator set application sales.

On the top level are the complex digital systems. These systems may have real time clocks, and may interface with Unix or OS-2 operating systems, and therefore may be susceptible to the Y2K rollover problem. However, the use of date coding in the applications software is not integral to the operation of the equipment. There is no function in the software which links machine operation to a date. Worst case would be an incorrect date display on a operator control panel screen.These complex systems are typically used on critical applications (large power producers, satellite tracking systems, etc), and have manual backups which allow continued operation of the prime mover in the event of a total control system failure. The sales of these high end digital systems make up the final 10 -20% of our generator application sales.

In many applications, especially the lower end products, there are typically some sort of upper level controllers that take care of starting/stopping, and monitoring the prime mover. I can make no statements regarding the health of these products at the time of the Y2K rollover. However, even if these systems were to fail, manual operation of the prime mover would still be possible. In many systems, this type of failure mode is accounted for, and the system essentially has auto/manual switch configurations for this purpose. Switching to manual operation totally bypasses any upper level control commands, and puts operation of the prime mover directly in the hands of the operator . In systems where this type of failure is not accounted for, the generator could be brought back on line by bypassing any inputs provided by the upper level controller with manual command inputs provided by jumper wires, etc to the base prime mover control. It is a rather sloppy way of taking care of the problem, but it does work (believe it or not these type of system failures occur even without the Y2K problem!).

I doubt that we will experience any major power outages in the US due to the Y2K bug due to failures of the prime mover control systems. This might all be a moot point, however, if those Russian computers controlling the warheads have a Y2K countdown problem....

Jeff

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 30, 1998

Answers

This was posted on rick cowles site.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 30, 1998.

Pretty much confirms what I have been saying, though from a much different perspective.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), October 30, 1998.

>I doubt that we will experience any major power outages in the US due to the Y2K bug due to failures of the prime mover control systems. This might all be a moot point, however, if those Russian computers controlling the warheads have a Y2K countdown problem....

Jeff<

A great weight lifted from my shoulders until I got to last sentence. Then crush.

-- yoyo optimistpessimist (de@dmeat.here), October 30, 1998.

Finally a post from someone other than a doomsayer. It must be a bummer living in a pessimistic state. The end of the world is not coming. There really are people working on this problem. There are too many people in power that don't want to lose it. Y2K will be a non-event.

-- Believer (OYe@littlefaith.com), October 30, 1998.

I don't know about a non event, but I rate economic troubles on an entirely different scale from starvation and collapse of the infrastructure.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), October 30, 1998.

It boggles my mind that the power industry is so vulnerable to "The Unknown"! I've read so much from "grid experts", how come none of them can say and explain why with certainty that the country's power grid will not be affected by embedded systems for extended periods?

I hear that the nuclear plants will be shut down "just in case" during the turnover. And I hear nukes provide 40% of consuption in the east coast. I hear that the power industry is totally dependent on the telecommunication insdustry being fully funtional to function itself. I hear that the country's grid is separated into 3 main grids. I hear that if too many plants fail, the others will be "tripped" off in a domino effect, and if this starts to happen, individual plants will disconnect themselves from the grid to protect themselves.

That's a lot of potential outages across the country.

Has any new hard evidence come along since June to disprove the above mentioned?

Has any one plant(fuel or nuclear) shut down and moved the clocks forward to 2000 yet for testing?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), October 30, 1998.

Believer said : "Y2K will be a non-event".

It's one thing to debate the state of the electrical grid based on differing input from electrical engineers and other sources. It's quite another to make such obviously false and ignorant statements such as "Y2K will be a non-event".

The fact is, Believer, that most of the people here are neither 'doomsayers' nor 'pollyannas' but concerned people attempting to get as clear a look as possible at a very large, very complex issue that has the potential to directly impact their lives, their families and their businesses. A great deal of the discussion in this forum has dealt with gathering and evaluating evidence. Understanding the issues and the possible impact requires expertise garnered from a large number of disciplines. This is not a trivial task.

How you can characterize the majority of posters here as 'doomsayers' escapes me. Maybe you simply haven't visited some of the more truly radical sites out there. If you had, you would know that this forum is, comparatively, a quiet little backwater.

Your continued attacks on the efforts of the people here are quite puzzling. Why would you even bother to be here if you truly believed "Y2K will be a non-event"? Indeed, the very few people I've met who really think "Y2K will be a non-event" couldn't care less what was being discussed in this forums or others. To them, it's totally irrelevant and simply not worth bothering with. But not to you. Why? Could it be that you have real concern for the lives, families and businesses represented here?

No, I suspect that you, like Gary North, take Y2K very seriously and for some reason of your own choosing have decided to take the approach you have. I also suspect that you, like Gary North, are driven by fear. But at least Gary North had the courtesy to setup his own web site when he decided to use Y2K to peddle his own twisted personal agenda.

Have you considered doing the same?

-Arnie

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), October 30, 1998.

The common denominator with Y2K "good news" is always that it is loose. A posting from someone who says they work in the industry, someone who's aunt works in a bank, etc., etc. To expect us doom-and-gloomers to change on that basis is expecting a lot. When electric utilities, banks, etc., "belly up to the bar" and state that they are Y2K compliant (or "ready", or "A-OK", or whatever) in writing, that will carry a lot more weight. Even the kick-off posting for this thread just paints with a broad brush as far as how likely or unlikely a Y2K failure might be. I'm sure that this is a great way to start a Y2K project, if its say 1993, but when its late 1998, and concerns something vital like electricity, I kind of expect more -- like "we are FINISHED with our Y2K work, we are READY for the year 2000" -- you know, that kind of stuff.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), October 30, 1998.

There are different types of grids Chris - local and national. As long as power goes into your local grid - you have power. And it is not very dependant on much but the lines staying up. The national grid is for redistribution of power into places like New York or Southern California that don't generate enough power of their own. Now if a large group of plants shut down without warning - your local system would be trying to carry the load for more of the national grid than it could - so it would disconnect and just feed the local grid. The utility companies take care of local customers first - then national customers. So areas that import power might be in trouble if anything knocks down a number of power plants. In the past when large numbers of power plants have been down for various reasons - they have closed factories and certain energy hungry buildings until the power crisis was over. During the great freeze of 77 many coal fired plants across the northern tier could not operate due to not being able to push coal into the hoppers that feed the units. The coal was frozen so hard that a bulldozer could not break it loose fast enough to keep the fire burning. Nuclear power was all that kept a lot of folks from freezing to death, or at least getting their homes badly damaged from freezing if the power had gone out. Of course hydro power was frozen too. I have pictures of the Ohio River frozen completely over and snow over that - south of the Mason Dixon line! The states worst affected put extreme power conservation into effect - and it worked.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), October 30, 1998.

Paul said,

".....As long as power goes into your local grid - you have power.

Paul, that's true, but you and I have different ideas of what a "local" grid really is. Many people live in areas that are served by power distribution companies -- as opposed to generation companies. If problems arise, there is a lot of talk about 'islanding,' or cutting loose from the national grid.

Under those conditions the "local grid" (which is really the distribution company) simply may be cut off from the sources of power as the generation companies take care of their own. And, this can be true whether the distribution company is compliant or not, simply because the generation company is using all it generates.

"And it is not very dependant on much but the lines staying up."

Even the distribution companies control distribution of power and have embedded systems.

".....Now if a large group of plants shut down without warning - your local system would be trying to carry the load for more of the national grid than it could - so it would disconnect and just feed the local grid. The utility companies take care of local customers first - then national customers."

Read that, if you aren't served by a generating company, and if islanding goes into effect, they can turn out your lights.

"So areas that import power might be in trouble if anything knocks down a number of power plants."

Right -- and with deregulation, the money is to be made in importing and distributing power, not in generating it. Much of the country is now served by companies that do not generate electricity. This includes many municipal and private companies. And BTW, many of these got a very late start on fixing their systems.

It's going to be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

-- rocky (rknolls@hotmail.com), October 30, 1998.

"The common denominator with Y2K "good news" is always that it is loose. A posting from someone who says they work in the industry, someone who's aunt works in a bank, etc., etc."

Be fair though, I have seen of the gloomiest things on the web done in the exact same manner.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 30, 1998.

Arnie, Every time someone posts good news here, most of you start tearing it apart. There is so much negativity going on. I never expectd to be called a "moron" and a "jerk" and chastised for missing a (?) by Gayla because I thought Senator Bennett might have something positive to say. It's obvious that unless the newcomers here are in step with all of you, they don't have a chance. I have been following and reading about this issure for almost two years. Try and have some faith. (Did I spell everyting right, Gayla? Any punctuation errors?

-- Believer (OYe@littlefaith.com), October 30, 1998.

Rick brings up an excellent point: Both "good" and "bad" Y2K news is often loose. E.g., no electric utility has been certified to be Y2K compliant (bad news), but then again there certainly has been no certification that it will have Y2K problems (good news). The problem, however, is in the RISK associated with not having that Y2K compliant certification. I mean, I would not want to eat in a restaurant that had not been certified by the health inspector as being clean, and would think it risky if someone tried to get me to eat there because noone had proven that it was dirty. It all gets down to where the "burden of proof", so to speak, is on the Y2K issue. For the sake of our very lives, certainly we should the position that until something has been proven to be Y2K-clean, it should be considered Y2K-dirty.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), October 30, 1998.

Very good, Believer, except for this: "expectd." If you have read this forum for very long, you know that I enjoy "picking" on lots of people and it's just for fun. I certainly wasn't chastising you. When I put your quote in parentheses, that means I am quoting you verbatim. I could have added the ? myself, but then I would have altered your post. As far as being optimistic about what Senator Bennett said, if someone can show me where he actually said those things, I will be encouraged. If you will look back in that post, I asked Papa Bear earlier on for more information, as the Y2KNews site said nothing.

Believer, if you can't stand the "heat" then get out of the kitchen as the old saying goes. Personally, I believe by your posts that you are LOOKING for an argument. I for one would like to see the facts you have to support your optimism. Then we can all rejoice.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), October 30, 1998.

Jack,

At last....we agree:)

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 30, 1998.

Gayla (and others):

Believer has no intention of participating in a discussion. Believer is just a child looking for attention.

-- Mike (gartner@execpc.com), October 30, 1998.

Like I said, go read today's press clippings on the Year 2000 information center. About 10 of the first 13 articles are positive. What more proof do you need? Y2K is fading away. Yes, they are working on it and they will succeed.

-- Believer (OYe@littlefaith.com), October 30, 1998.

Believer, I'm not a mean person at heart, I'm not a pessimist either, I look for the silver lining in everything and make lemonade with lemons when I can. But I don't believe instantaniously what people tell me on such important subjects as Y2K without doing serious research and looking into possible motives for saying what an expert is saying, positive or negative.

"Y2K is fading away. Yes, they are working on it and they will succeed."

Yes Believer, there is a Santa Claus. Now go play.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), October 30, 1998.

Paul and Rocky, I almost forgot to thank you for this explanation.

I switched to an independant distributor when we were first given the oportunity to do so, saving 10% on distribution cost of my electric bill, but still paying my original electric company for everything else (PECO). So then, would I be better off going back with PECO, in case this independant distributor won't be compliant and experiencing failures? Is it necessary, or would PECO still keep the juice flowing to my house if that was the case? (I think PECO generates, but I'm so clueless about this whole subject of plants/generation/distribution.)

-- Chris (Catsy@pond.com), October 30, 1998.

Believer said:

>Arnie, Every time someone posts good news here, most of you start tearing it apart. There is so much negativity going on. I never expectd to be called a "moron" and a "jerk" and chastised for missing a (?) by ...<

Believer, I posted some experiences from my decades-long y2k rehearsal, such as eating animal guts from a (fresh) manure pile and I was hammered here also, even though it was absolutely true and matched the tone of negativism on these threads. Laughing is the best medicine. Haha hehee, lawyers will have to grow blisters and shovel manure like the rest of us, to stay alive after TSHTF. And there won't even be any deoderant to smear on their soft bodies. ROFLMAO.

-- Trying to forget (seenit@ww2.com), October 30, 1998.

Yeh, and you toughed it out and stuck with us, I'm proud of ya laddie. Not like that Deering guy, who took his ball and went home after a few taunts.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 30, 1998.

Uncle Deedah, you ol' grouch. Were you in Nam?

-- TTF (seenit@ww2.com), October 31, 1998.

Nah, I was just starting my pube sprouts then, so I missed that sad place, woulda went if they wanted me though.(Anything to avoid Canada, hee hee)

Grouchy? Sometimes, a trait shared buy many Dutchmen, some more famous than others. (I still have both ears, need to try harder) The Scots are a somewhat gloomy bunch too, and I got a half of that in me as well.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 31, 1998.

So, in a nutshell, about all we can count on, longer term is the sun.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 31, 1998.

This initial post is very correct. This is the same type of thing my husband keeps telling me ( He does similar type of work) So they both can't be wrong can they???? :>

I know they have a conspiracy going right????? :>

-- deborah cunningham (dac@ccrtc.com), October 31, 1998.

Chris the honest answer is I don't know. I think what you have is just a billing convienence - that is the folks you buy power from ensure they have that much power going into the local grid from the national grid - but electrons don't come with name tags and the power you get comes from the local grid. But if that power fails to arrive then you might get double billed or even removed from service - though I rather think they would give you the chance to sign back on with the local company.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 01, 1998.

Ms. C, I'm not sure - it's the terribly difficult part of the whole mess.

Until the whole system is tested "full up" at the same real time affecting everything at once, you can't say.

For example, Richard Dale posted a good detailed account of prime movers and generators from "Jeff" (probably as reliable a source as anyone, certainly one who is willing to cover a specific piece of machinery as the lead in this thread. Reread those details. From his descriptions and terms, I'd say its probably a large gas turbine, possible (less likely) to be a large diesel generator too.

Not a steam plant, not a coal powered plant driving a steam turbine.

Gas turbines serve as standby power, emergency power, peak load sources, and some base load. Almost all base load is from coal or fossile/nuke steam plants becuase they are least expensive (also oldest). Peaking and newer plants are more likely to be coal (or if load permits, to be gas turbines, possibly in several sets next to each other.) You startup the ones needed based on demand.

A single prime mover like he is assumed to describe is indeed very likely to run, given the info he has provided. Like a nuke plant - this gets voltage to the "end" of the last circuit breaker at the local plant - not down the grid to your house.

Controlling and monitoring the grid is a whole separate problem than provding power from any given plant. Even if on a case basis - one could assume most/some/all power plants can be run, might be successfully controlled (manually more difficult than automatic), and do have fuel available - then you are faced with controlling the grid.

And I don't have an answer to that one.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 01, 1998.

My personal view is that (as yet) it's impossible for any agency to declare itself 100% compliant, since the situation is similar to beta tests of new software.No one can know-- until all the clocks roll over to Jan. 1, 2000, and all the myriads of interacting computer systems have exercised all possible interactions, and all the users have done whatever they do, expertly or otherwise, and all the RTC's in all date-sensitive embedded systems, discovered and undiscovered, have gone through their duty cycles.

That's a googol, at least, of permutations and combinations.

What firm, or agency, could ever say more now than "We are working on every aspect of this thing as hard as we can, it is our highest priority!"? There aren't any guarantees here.

Life is full of contingencies. The mother of all contingencies seems to be approaching.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 05, 1998.