What About Breaking Up the Grid?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

What about breaking up the power grid? Does anyone know if that would be a feasible strategy for January 2000? Do power companies currently have the technical ability to take themselves off the grid, and if so, are there currently regulations which make it difficult for them to do that?

I would think that having hundreds of small power grids which can isolate and fix their Y2K problems would be much more manageable than one huge power grid which has failed because of a massive number of problems.

If anyone has any opinions or information about this, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1998

Answers

"The Grid" is really a misnomer. It consists of 180 +/- Control Areas which already manage their local generation and transmission needs. These Control Areas are grouped into NERC Regions which manage the security of a larger area.

It is best to keep this structure tied together as long as possible and provide the Security Coordinators the most options for providing a stable transmission network.

The rollover contingency plan will be to reduce scheduled transfers between Control Areas and to have reserve units on-line.

This topic has also been discussed in eariler threads.

Jim

-- Anonymous, November 17, 1998


Helen, one of the big reasons for the interconnections between power generating facilities is to balance the needs in one area with overproduction in another, and vice versa. I'm copying part of a response I made to a Washington Water Power question here, to illustrate:

"Neither PGE nor PacifiCorp consistently produces enough power to serve all of its customers. So in the peak winter months they buy excess power from thermal plants in the Southwest to power heaters.."

That sounds like not only do PGE and PacifiCorp need to be compliant and up and running, but those "thermal plants in the Southwest" had better be, too. (Along with the interconnections intact for power transfer across the grid.) I'd say January, 2000, qualifies as a "peak winter month".

Think of the "grids" as swap meets where electricity is bought and sold. I know it's not a very scientific analogy, but I'm only trying to point out that isolating one generating facility from the rest creates problems of its own. In the winter months, the northern areas need extra power for heating, and in the summer months the southern areas need extra for air-conditioning. Plus, there is also an hour to hour, day to day, balancing of supply and demand, for the benefit of all.

It's my understanding that some generating facilities do have the capacity to separate themselves from a grid, and have made this part of their contingency plans for a worst case scenario. As you can see from the above, however, this is not something any utility would want to do. As Jim said, the most options are in a stable transmission network.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 1998


At a recent public forum I was at about a week ago which was being led by y2k directors for Bonneville Power, Pacificorp & Portland General Electric, a similar question was asked. The representative from BPA said that NERC is discouraging power companies from "islanding" come the rollover. Perhaps going to the NERC site would be helpful. Here it is:

http://www.nerc.com/y2k/y2kplan.html

Jeff

-- Anonymous, November 17, 1998


Hi Jim, Bonnie, and Jeff,

Thanks for your replies. I had read mention of this strategy in a piece by Jim Lord, but only this evening got a hold of the article in which he writes more of this strategy. He gives no technical explanation of why this would work other than to say that he had lunch with Rick Cowles and Rick confirmed his thinking. But Rick isn't advocating any kind of grid breakup strategy, is he?

Lord seems to be taking it as a foregone conclusion that without such a strategy, we're headed for the dark ages, and even with such a strategy in place, there'll be severe population loss in certain areas. I think he's been listening to Gary North a tad too much.

Helen

-- Anonymous, November 18, 1998


Helen, could you post where this article by Jim Lord is located? Or e-mail it to me? I've read all of Lord's "Tip of the Week" columns at Westergaard, but no bells are ringing in regards to what you spoke of. Many people have discussed all kinds of possibilities concerning the grid, and it's hard to comment without specifics.

Everyone who is researching Y2K as it relates to electric power develops their own "gravity meter" based on the knowledge they acquire. While Gary North's views are considered the worst case, others with expertise acknowledge that a North scenario IS within the realm of possibility. Since a grid-down scenario cannot be absolutely discounted (all the utility SEC filings I've read admit to the possibility, however small they deem it) it stands to reason that discussions of "what ifs" and possible contingency plans will happen - and should happen. I believe breaking up the grid, or "islanding" falls into that category. Better to talk about possible ways to mitigate outcomes in advance than get caught with your pants down, so to speak. (Or your lights off!) Notice that one of the questions the SEC expected answered in the recent 10Q's is what contingency plans utilities have in the event of failure. There are no guarantees the power will stay on coming from anywhere, including our own government. A lot of hopes, but no guarantees. We've never had a national technological deadline before, and there is no precedent to help define the outcome. I wear a seatbelt when I'm in a car. I keep my seatbelt buckled when I'm in an airplane, as the captain suggests. I don't think the odds are great that the car will crash or the plane hit a violent air pocket, but I do what I can to prudently reduce the risk. I have also made preparations for an alternate heat source in case the power goes out in 2000. I consider this to be a reasonable precaution, based on the data I have acquired to date. Everyone else must make their own decisions about how much risk is acceptable to them. All best wishes to you!

-- Anonymous, November 18, 1998



I haven't seen any report that verifies this but if you listen to this audio report by Donald McAlvany he claims that the CIA have said that the grid could be down for three months. http://www.audiocentral.com/rshows/mir/ram/mir981109.ram

From http://www.y2knightmare.com/believer-radio-mia.html

What I wonder is? If they aren't able to fix it with the time they've had and have to go. And it's down for three months then how do they expect to get it back up again? If the leading countries around the world can't manage this, then how will the other countries do it?

Surely after three months (or less) without power, most vital supplies and resources will have been used up. If oil is not moving and food has run out. Most factories on a global scale will be dysfunctional.

So where will they get the power from to work on the broken systems? And where will they get the necessary parts from to fix these systems?

Pointless ordering parts from thousands of miles away if oil has run out and transport has ground to a halt.

Send a carrier pigeon with gold attached to Taiwan with an order for that special chip that no one else makes?

It seems that if the systems are broken and cannot be fixed prior to the rollover. And that they can't get them fixed in the first few months. That they may well stay down for a long time.

Especially if the flow of oil stops.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 1998


Hi Bonnie,

I first read about this at http://y2ktimebomb.com/Tip/Lord/lord9845.htm In this piece there's information on how you can order a 1200 word article in which Jim Lord was to have explained the break-up strategy in more detail. In my opinion he doesn't succeed at doing that other than to say that Rick Cowles confirmed his thinking.

I absolutely agree that we need to have as many contingency plans for worst-case scenarios as possible, but what doesn't make sense is implementing a strategy right off the bat which we know is going to leave sections of the country without power. It seems like he is basing this breakup strategy on the assumption that the loss of life in certain areas is inevitable. I want a strategy based on a different assumption.[g]

I guess the only possible benefit I can see to implementing such a plan at this point would be to put more pressure on every company that has anything to do with the power industry to become y2k compliant. If that were to make a big difference and really help us, I'd want to do everything I could to help clear the political roadblocks that stand in the way.

Helen

-- Anonymous, November 18, 1998


I'm back - I've been away for a week of R&R, so pardon me while I catch up.

As Jim Lord said in his Westergaard Article, I agreed with him that in concept, his idea is sound (though not detailed). I did indicate to Jim that I didn't think it was practical, given the time remaining, to coordinate such an 'islanding' scheme between all impacted and interested parties. Trying to get two or more electric utility companies to agree on anything is usually a protracted exercise that requires many months of coordination, and ultimately, cooperation of all companies. In a case like this, if one company in a region "opts out", then it doesn't matter if everyone else is playing or not.

I think we're going to have to rely on very close real-time monitoring of systems problems when the rollover occurs, and wait as decisions are made on the fly by each of the 200+ control areas that Jim Lynes has previously described. That is kind of a scary thought, but because of contractual and techincal issues, I really don't see any other way.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 1998


Thanks for the feedback, Rick.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 1998

Moderation questions? read the FAQ