Upon a request in a similar thread, lets raise the ante. Same question for the BIG rollover, 12/31/1999 - 01/01/2000. High rollers only, bets on the table please!

Much in-depth analysis of the embedded chip problem has been done here. It appears that in the Y2K cyberworld the most reasonable and knowledgeable frequent here. In depth analysis of the NERC reports, individual utilities progress via analysis of web sites and 10Q's, and cause and effect analysis of potential scenarios due to utility industries.

Place your bets here! Put it all together, you've got the big picture better than anyone else. Log in your your prognostications.

1. In the DECEMBER 12/31 rollover, how widespread will the power outages due to a Y2K code or embedded chip failure (NERC region only)?

2.How long will they last?

3. Will you lose YOUR power?

4. How long?

Place your bets, and we can all come back and see.

As for me: (drum roll please)

1. NONE

2. N/A

3. NO (unless a non-compliant drunk hit a pole with his pickup)

4. N/A

-- cl (cl@sky.com), February 09, 1999

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

Answers

Hey CL,

I'm glad that you've stuck around to contribute to the forum. Nothing is quite a stimulating as a good civilized argument over important issues. However, I must gasp at your answers to the questions. You are either using overstatement to make a point or you simply refuse to consider sound evidence.

1. Regional.

2. Intermittent outages for 2 weeks. I will take 2 months for reliable power. May/June power will be unreliable again until fall.

3. Yes (big town 45 miles away will get most of the power).

4. Power will be unreliable til fall 2000.

Power will fail in the most wonderfully ingenious ways. By the same token, hard working people will find the most ingenious ways to restore the power. If too many nukes won't work, we are in deep stuff. If the railroads have to be run manually, we are in deep stuff. If the gas wellheads in the gulf won't work, we are in deep stuff. Otherwise, the effects will mostly be ecomonic, not physical.

Best to you.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

David,

You'll have to give me an example. ALL I want is examples of test results indicating mission critical failure. See the thread on SRP plant rollover. I just don't see the evidence. I have a family too, and would like some sound evidence (not speculation or theoretical failure modes) indicating electric power failure before I spent the kids college money on generators and dry food.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

1. Uncertain

2. Uncertain

3. Uncertain

4. Uncertain

This family is going with the governments on this one. They don't appear too confident and are preparing. We shall do likewise.

A little food and water can be used next year whether or not Y2K zaps us. You can save on grocery bills then and replenish the kids college fund. I don't know which part of the country you live in but people have been known to survive without generators.

Anyhow it would seem that you have done your own reading and discerning and you have come up with your own scenario. I hope Y2K hums right through for all our sakes and that your kids get the benefit of being able to use that college fund to attend the college of their choice.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

CL,

Look up the Seabrook audit that the NRC did. Lots of mission critical Y2K failures. I don't remember off the top of my head the URL, and my main PC is at home...

Jon

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

Hi CL,

I too have a family and don't want to spend the college money on generators and dry food. I've got a problem. I have a certain amount of known information. Honesty demands that I act on it one way or the other.

Examples ... well, sometimes examples are hard to come by. The tricky part is to not confuse examples and evidence. Let me digress a bit to a very pertinent event that happened to me this last summer. I was selected for a jury for a capital murder trial. A young man was accused of raping (and other unmentionable atrosities) and murdering a young women that he knew. Twelve of us had to sit and listen to the evidence that was presented day after day and go home at night, cry a bit, and try to find the truth. There were no witnesses; only circumstances and physical evidence that pointed to him as the killer. The evidence demanded a verdict. We had to render a verdict even though we didn't have all the evidence that we wanted. We were forced to make a decision with the evidence on hand. It was a gut-wrenching, heart-rending time.

CL, I see Y2K issues in many of the same ways. Yes, we are all a bit unsure about wise choices. I deplore the lack of real information on this issue. I became involved in this whole discussion because I am charged with charting the technology course of a products company. What is the future of our economy? How do I develop products into which millions of dollars are invested? Big questions. Having looked at the "web" of our economy and the testimony of key government officials, I project certain outcomes. Those outcomes are based on evidence, not examples. If I wait for examples, it will be too late. This is not a unique situation. I face this situation each time that I consider launching a new product. If I wait to see if the product will really be a success, it is too late for me to create the product because my competitors are already there. Each time, there is a decision point; a go/no-go decision. No one knows the outcome, but after considering all the *available* information, we make a hard choice.

That is simply what many of us are doing with respect to Y2K. We stay plugged in because we would *really* like to see evidence that would make us believe the Y2K will be a non-issue. The vexing part is that evidence points to failure. So what do we do? We hedge our bets. If we assume the best and bad stuff happens, we lose everything. If we assume the worse and the best happens, we lose invested time, resources, and missed opportunities. To wait to take action in some direction is the worst of all choices. What would you do?

Best to you.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

Steve,

Well stated synopsis of the problems facing a concerned public in the face of rampant speculation regarding Y2K. I agree with you and have faced the same thought processes.

Your analogy of a courtroom trial is very astute. I would like to propose a different twist. There is testing results posted by NERC. This is like direct evidence. All others is circumstantial as you pointed out. It is muddy to sort out conflicting circumstantial evidence, but direct evidence is much clearer and should carry a greater weight.

If I may, the test results reported by utilities to NERC is like the DNA evidence in the OJ trial. Many want to be like Derschowitz and company and reject it because they do not trust the source. I say that in the absence of independent testing that show opposite results, my testing, SRP, and those reported to NERC should be the best evidence for basing an opinion.

NOTE: I do not think that the Seabrook report implies test results. Too much to take on here. Needs its own thread.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

CL, since I am not a gambler by nature, I have made preparations for alternate non-electric sources of heat for my family, and other arrangements. So it doesn't matter what my guesses are in the poll. Those who bet on a no-problem scenario are the ones who are taking the risks. They *must* be correct if they have made no alternate plans. For your sake, and many other's, I truly hope you are correct in your prognostications. In my family's case, if nothing happens, fine, we'll celebrate. If the lights go out, fine, we'll still be warm. We've done what is in our capacity to do. Whichever way it goes in 2000, I'm Y2K "ready" right now. For me its not about whos right and whos wrong. Its about people being safe in either eventuality.

If you can't bring yourself to spend your savings for some precautions, then if you live in New York State, e-mail me and you can come to my house if things don't go as you plan. We'll make room somehow, and you'll have a back-up. You see, I want you and your children to be safe, too.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

CL,

The reason that I am concerned is because of the lack of direct evidence. Reference the "Are testing methods good enough" thread that I started a few days ago. Please reread that post. You responded to some of the issues, but many more were raised.

Three anecdotal references tonight: One power generator in the Plains States has multiple gas fired boiler generators. Insiders say that they are planning to test 1 gas fired unit; if it's OK, they are going to assume that all like units are OK. Now that's type testing!!! I had a personal discussion with the wholesale power manager of another power generation company. I repeatly tried to pin him down on whether or not they are doing type testing or individual testing. He repeatedly ignored the question. CSW publicly stated that they are not testing 75% of their embedded systems until after the summer peak.

Where is the direct evidence of testing? Refering the "testing" post, even those doing testing are very rarely testing whole systems. You must test whole systems! In complex systems you must component test, unit test, and system test. Where is the evidence of system testing? I know that a few have taken the units down and rolled them forward. We need a massive amount of that type of testing.

Best to you.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 1999

CL,

Double or nothing? Double what? You gonna give me two weeks of electricity for every week I go without? Two weeks of food for every week I go without? Two weeks of water for every week I go without? You gonna give me double my life back? How about those who depend on me? Let's see the fine print CL. While you're at it bring along the fine print to the reassurances the utilities are offering us as well.

Steve

-- Anonymous, February 10, 1999

By the way CL, direct evidence would be evidence given by third parties (auditors) that impartially observed the facts (is a utility ready). That kind of evidence is exactly what we are calling for but not getting (so far). Direct evidence could also be put forth by utilities that opened up the process to industry and public observers by holding Y2K updates, plant walkthroughs, community action meetings, etc. One or two utilities seen to be issuing a little information now ... a trickle. We need a torrent!

-- Anonymous, February 10, 1999

No Guarantees: In her Feb. 9 post, Bonnie Camp has cut to the bottom line of the entire power reliablity subject. It's a matter of "buying insurance" for an indisputably uncertain period. Here's a quotation from an account of the East Coast blackouts of 1965 and 1977. Please take the time to read it, and go to http://www.concentric.net/~Wroush/black0.html to read the enire essay. It graphically cemented in my mind what we are up against.

"On July 10, 1977, Con Ed chairman Charles Luce told the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the U.S. House of Representatives that he could "guarantee" that there was no likelihood of a recurrence of the 1965 blackout. Three days later, a series of lightning strikes, equipment failures, and operator errors disrupted Con Ed's power connections to the surrounding grid and left the utility's internal generating capacity nearly two million kilowatts short of demand. The result was a 25-hour city-wide blackout and a night of lawlessness that cost Con Ed, other businesses, and the city government an estimated $1 billion."

These blackouts were not predicted, and their possibility was not announced to the public. Instead, the public was soothed and assured. This is not to attack the power industry; it is to emphasise that with a collosal system such as the power grid, and all its vulnerabilities, there are simply no guarantees.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 1999

CL,

Interesting way to put it, as a bet. Of course, we all bet every day that things will keep on humming along. We work, we save (well, some do), we love our families and friends, we raise our children. But, when faced with a _potentially_ severe problem, how much should we bet? And with what?

I don't remember who said this, so I'll paraphrase: Only the most naive gamblers bet against physics. Only the most irresponsible bet with their grandchildren's resources.

It appears as if you're placing your entire bet on one outcome. I hope for your children's sake you're right.

Life is full of shades of grey. Place your bet...

-- Anonymous, February 10, 1999

Sometime this year, we will hear the croupier say, "Rien ne va plus!" just before he spins the wheel.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 1999

CL and many others,

Are there any players from Las Vegas? I don't think so, because there is no money to win. This bet is like playing cards, one moment you have good cards and the other moment bad cards. At this moment I have good cards. I need hard evidence to proof that my good cards are not good enough.

We test components, systems, units and perform an integral test of the whole system. We only perform type testing. What's wrong with it?

For example: next week we perform an integral test on block 6 of our brand new power plant in Eemshaven (The Netherlands). The issue there is not the millennium rollover, but to bring the system back in a normal state. After the time travel you have to clean up the whole system.

Ted is right that only naive gamblers bet against physics. But is this a bet against physics? I don't think so. This is a bug made by humans and solved by humans.

Even with good cards in hand we are preparing for the worst by making contingency plans because there is always a change that another player has better cards. 100% control does not exist, 100% safety either. A lot of damage can be made by preparations for alternate non-electric sources. So take care and your families.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 1999