In the Westergaard site today, 22 January 1999, Dick Mills authored a column titled "Balkanization of the Grid" and for me it has raised some questions about the basic premises implict in it. In the section headed "72 Hour Blackouts" he gives his most likely scenario and to quote, "Immediately, the workers at the power plants will begin working on restarts. Even black starts, if necessary." This seems quite reasonable and likely, given the gravity of the situation and the importance of re-establishing electricity. However, his next sentence contains a serious logical flaw, if considered solely as an argument. "WHEN THE FIRST PLANTS ARE RESTARTED, (emphasis mine) they will be used to energize the transmission system, but not serve customer loads." and further on "IN THE FOLLOWING HOURS, MORE AND MORE PLANTS WILL COME BACK ON LINE (again emphasis is mine) and correspondingly more service will be restored to customers." The fallacy in the above is that you are assuming a favorable conclusion to your argument. Given the premise that the power plants WILL BE ABLE to be restarted within a few hours, then yes, everything else logically follows and a resumption of power service is only a matter of hours. But the key question is exactly about this premise. How can power be resumed without first repairing any y2k impaired software or embedded chip damages and why does he think it can be done so quickly? If the required repairs can be made so quickly, then why don't the utilities undertake them now, when the grid is up and the infrastructure still viable? Why have they budgeted so much money in such an effort? Or is he saying that these y2k repairs aren't directly related or important to the actual generation and distribution of electricity? These are important issues, especially if you intend to prepare for disruptions in power supply. If Mills is correct that the 72 hour blackout is the most likely scenario, then it's a lot easier and far less expensive then planning for a shutdown lasting for weeks or even months.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 1999

Answers

"How can power be resumed without first repairing any y2k impaired software or embedded chip damages and why does he think it can be done so quickly?"

Really. And does this scenario assume intact telecommunications? I'm far more confused than I was yesterday...perhaps Rick's NERC analysis this weekend will straighten me out.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 1999

I know what you mean. Reading all this y2k stuff can be quite entertaining and very educational but I do it to get a feel for what to prepare for. A few hours without electricity in the middle of the night is very different from a few months without.

Yesterday I read over Duke Power's y2k website, (my local provider). On first read it looked okay. On second read it looked fishy. Then on close examination I saw far too much "Clinton-speak". It made me wonder what the definition of is is. It definitely has it's spin. The spin says; "Everything's gonna be okay". Do I believe it? No. I don't have any real good reason to believe it and it could actually be dangerous to believe it.

I don't mean to be too parochial about this but what I really want to know from this site, and others like it, is how long will MY power be out? Sure, I'd like to know how long the power will be out in other parts of the country so I can ask people I care about to excercise a little caution if necessary, but my first responsibility is to take care of those persons who rely on me, my family right here.

If someone says the power will be out for six weeks or six months I look for confirmation of that info before buying a generator and stocking fuel, etc... Trouble is; nobody seems to know for sure what's going to happen. There are plenty of heady rumors and plenty of people who say forget about it.

I like to base important decisions on facts, logic and understanding. Unfortunately in this world there are layers upon layers of hidden agendas that obscure the facts of the matters. Truths are guarded, held close to the chest, as in a card game. Say the wrong thing, even if it is the truth, and you could get fired or sued. Tell it like it really is and maybe your company's stock goes into the toilet or maybe you spark a riot? Let it be known you are stockpiling coal and your competitors do the same and the price goes up.

It's frustrating to not know what to expect. It's frustrating to hear rumors of how terrible it could all turn out and not be able to gather all the facts and dismiss the rumors. Maybe it's just frustrating to be an individual who doesn't make important decisions based on opinion polls.

Maybe it would be nice to be able to go along with what "they" say. "He", "she", and "they" say the whole y2k thing is nothing to worry about, therefore we can all go about our business. Of course there's the other side of that which is going along with what the other bunch of "they" say, i.e. head for the hills, or if you can't do that then put your head between your knees and kiss your rump goodbye.

Every now and then I let out a very heavy sigh, I give up for awhile, and sometime later I find myself looking over my favorite sites for more info. This is definitely one of my favorites. I think it's because of the cooler heads that prevail here. There seems to be a persistent effort here to find out what the truth really is. I'm really grateful for that but I must admit to wishing it came a lot faster.

A lot of y2k sites, or rather the people hosting them and many of those visiting them, appear to have jumped to the conclusions that it's gonna be really really bad. End of the world stuff. The folks there are obviously resigned to that fact. They are preparing whole heartedly. You get the idea they are going to be quite disappointed if it doesn't all fall apart. Trouble is you can't counter their position with any degree of certainty because you know there are too many facts still hidden.

Too much rides on electricity to ignore this site. The questions this site focusses on are too important. There's too much at stake.

I'm a lay person with enough sense to be afraid of the potential for disaster within the current scene. Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge of the power industry to investigate all the issues and come to logical conclusions on my own. I rely on this site and the knowledgeable contributors here to keep me abreast of the situation as it unfolds. And sometimes I can ramble here and no one reaches out and slaps me. ;-)

steve

-- Anonymous, January 22, 1999

Steve, I found myself nodding my head in agreement with your response. The vast majority of the public don't work for power plants and thus have no direct experience or knowledge about them. Yet, if y2k is as serious as some claim, we will have to make a decision about what preparations, if any, we should make. Logically, someone could assume the worst case unless proven otherwise and spend vast amounts of time, money, and emotions in an attempt to avoid harm's way. This is why preparing for the worst case scenario ("The Postman") is NOT a form of insurance. You buy insurance to transfer risk, the liability for financial responsibility, to another party in exchange for payment of premium. Consider car insurance. A relativity small monthly payment protects you from potentially crushing judgements. If you decided to prepare for the Postman scenario, then you have committed yourself and your family to huge outlays for food, non- electric appliances, etc., or unbelievably expensive alternative energy sources. Ever try to price what a PV system would cost that could supply the equivalent amont of electricity from your power utility? It's staggering. A 72 hour blackout scenario would be a picnic in comparsion. To me, what the real question is, what's it going to be? the Postman or 72 hours? If we knew, then the public could make the proper choice and prepare accordingly.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 1999

Sure M>>>, Huge outlay? You can purchase a years worth of food for 4 for less than car insurance in most cities. Why install a PV system? Your comfy predictable life just went out the window. You need heat, shelter, water, food - Not electrons.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 1999

i beg to differ. the word insurance has more than one definition, one of which happens to be the transfer of risk.

the word insurance is derived from the word insure this is the english form of the old french word enseur which literally translated is 'make sure' and predates insurance as we know it.

another definition of insurance is the act of making safe or secure, or another, something that provides protection or security.

why do i belabour this point? because in this instance there is no one to whom we may transfer this risk. this is our risk...each and every one of us must make the decision to prepare and provide our own safety and security.

it does not matter whether or not we know who is correct at this point, the point is that we do _not_ know and to take the risk with our lives and wellbeing on the chance of an 'expert' being right or wrong is not a risk that i am willing to take.

if you would like a way to gauge whether this is a very real problem watch the insurance industry and their reaction and response to the problem. insurance companies have systematically worked towards removing the word risk from insurance...it is now an actuarial science.

for every 100 life insurance policies sold x percentage of the people will die between the ages of w and y and another percent between the ages of y and z and so on. it is almost an exact science!! one at which they make huge amounts of money.

when aids entered the equation and could not be proven and predicted actuarily they refused to cover anyone with the disease and immediately required bloodtests for clients in the younger age brackets in order to stay off the risk.

insurance companies are already 'backpeddling' and refusing to cover many y2k related risks. this will most assuredly allow you to see how serious this particular problem has the 'potential' to become.

watch the insurance companies but don't wait too much longer to make your decision to prepare. the risks far outweigh the money you are hoping to save. if you choose not to prepare and are proven wrong it could cost you and your loved ones in more ways than you could ever imagine.....m

btw, i bought a fireplace insert that i will use for heating and as it protrudes 18" i can also cook on it. my reasoning for the wood as a source of fuel was my ability to secure same through my own efforts and not depend on anyone to deliver or manufacture or refine it for me.

a 50 lb bag of long grain white rice costs approximately $11.59 at costcos...no major capital outlay for me to remain safe and still supply the items necessary for survival until we sort this out.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 1999

Steve. I, like many others, found your comments in this response very germaine and easy to relate to. Thank you for your articulation of the frustrating experience we are having in assessing likely scenarios. There is not alot else we layfolk can do but rattle the cages of local officials, utility Y2K project managers, get our own desktop compliant, talk about the issue w/ local businesses, neighbors & family. It's like, work! What an equalizer! Each of us must do the hard work of being an activist, a researcher, building from the ground up our own individual assessment of what y2k will unfold to be. All this without falling prey to bandwagon fallacies, panic reactivity, denial, feelings of hopelessness, uselessness, whathaveyou. I'd like to follow up with you & others who are taking y2k seriously but need ongoing risk/remediation/contingency assessment based on hard data.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 1999

The only way to find out what will happen is to demand (1) full, (2) public, (3) embedded system by embedded system --disclosure of what has been learned so far, what still needs to be tested.

The only way to get this is not by scanning web sites and praying but by organizing and demanding it. Get whatever organizations you belong to --civic, professional, service, unions -- to have a y2k task force which is prepared to kick butt.

Industry organizations like NERC and EPRI would rather charge $75k to corporations to learn about embedded systems bugs and solutions than give it to the general public for free.

Yet unless the public knows, the small businesses and smaller utilities and the journalists and political activists won't get busy.

This is the single key to the whole y2k problem: full disclosure.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 1999