Subject:	Re: Fears of Y2K Power Failures Dim
Date:	1999/05/10
Author:	cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net>
	Posting History

 

Whoa Bob, I say, whoa.   On Mon, 10 May 1999 04:25:36, "Bob Brock" <bbrock@i-america.net> wrote:   > For the complete article: > > http://www.latimes.com/HOME/BUSINESS/t000041604.1.html > > Begin quoted text: > ------------------------- > > Robert Haverkamp's first take on the year 2000 problem at the San Onofre > nuclear power plant   Lemme get this straight, they're talking n-n-nu-cu-ler p-p-pow-ah?   >      After four months of work by 45 people, they discovered that only about > one-third of the 356 types were date-sensitive, and just 38 types, amounting > to a few hundred devices, needed replacing.   And the "GOOD NEWS" is that it took 4*45 = 180 man-months, 15 man-years to find the date flaws.   The "GOOD NEWS" is that there were a few hundred devices that needed replacing?   I make this May 1999.  They still have to procure replacement parts. Maybe these exist, maybe the vendor went out of business,  maybe the parts don't exist.   May 1999, find or re-engineer replacements.   SCRAM the reactor?  Replace the parts.   Test the parts.   Test the integrated system.   Write a bunch of documentation.  Get a letter from the NRC.  Push the big green ON button.   >      But as more power utilities have moved deeper into their repairs of the > computer glitch, they have discovered that the problems have been easier to > fix than expected.   December 19, 1999   Dear NRC,   We're writing to tell you that we're relighting the pilot light at the San Onofre nuclear power plant.  The chief nuclear engineer is doing it right now.   We found a few hundred defective parts in our n-n-nu-cu-ler power plant. We slammed a bunch of new parts in.  The vendors, when we could find them, claim the new parts work exactly like the old but unlike the old, they don't have the date problem.   We're not worried and don't expect any probl...  NO CARRIER     DECEMBER 20, 1999. IMAGE FEED FROM LANDSAT-1 SHOWS A LARGE EXPLOSION, POSSIBLY NUCLEAR.  TELEMETRY FROM UCLA GAMMA RAY SENSORS MONITORING THE GALATIC CORE INDICATES A 70% INCREASE IN BACKGROUND RADIATION LEVELS. BOTH EVENTS ARE CENTERED ON THE SAN ONOFE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.  LANDLINE AND CELL PHONE SERVICE TO THE AREA HAVE BEEN INTERRUPTED.  THE BLACKOUT IS SPREADING THOUGH THE WESTERN GRID.     December 22, 1999   -picture of Tom Brokaw in a Hazmat suit, massive traffic jam in background-   "The evacuation continues as survivors flee the area.   cory hamasaki 5,656 Hours, http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html

-- a (a@a.a), May 10, 1999

Answers

We will return after this word from our sponsor.

-- A. Hambley (a.hambley@usa.net), May 10, 1999.

That Cory sure cracks me up!

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), May 10, 1999.

At a Tom Brown course the other week I met a guy, I think from Connecticut. His major Northeast power company sent him a letter, saying they will be shutting down their 3 nuclear plants near the end of the year to safeguard against Y2K troubles. Says they'll pick up slack with other plants. Well, this guy worked for them as an engineer for ten years. Said no way the rest have sufficient capacity. Also said lots of digital devices at nuke plants. Wasn't taking notes and wouldn't have documentation anyway, so take it FWIW.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), May 10, 1999.

What's not posted here is the really important statistic. Would any of those few hundred devices in 38 types have been able to cause a serious reactor incident if unremediated? In other words, a melt-down rather than a shutdown or lesser inconvenience?

If the safety-critical design of the plant is right, the answer is no, though this is of course just re-stating the question!

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), May 11, 1999.

BOLLOCKS!!!

I'm off to Costa Rica!!!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 11, 1999.

whoa, cor dog! i only thought the denial heads posted in csy2k.

bobs everywhere. i guess hes trying to warn people to not waste the big 300 bucks on y2k supplies.

man that bob brock sure is a saint. taking time out of his busy

schedule to tell everybody THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE

I REPEAT THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT! PLEASE NOBODY PANIC!!

you really know a polly is in denial when he has to posts to 2 y2k ngs that EVERYTHING IS OK!! I REPEAT EVERYTHING IS OK! I SHOULDNT BE PREPARING, YOU SHOULDNT BE PREPARING!

soon the pollys are going to start posting that Y2K IS OK! EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL! DO NOT PANIC! YOU SHOULDNT BE PREPARING! on random usnet newsgroup like alt.celebrity.gossip , alt.90210, and misc.arts.crafts

i honestly didnt think that pollys would post on this site since its ed yourdons ng. but nope. thats what i get for thinkin' there still here

when i read posts from the polly denial heads i dont know whether to laugh or cry.

matt http://michael.mcelwain.com

-- matthew gregory vaughn esquire (mgv0415@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.

Costa Rica! Yikes! Arenal volcano is in Costa Rica. See http://photo.net/cr/arenal.html

"...the Arenal Volcano, one of the most active in the world. Arenal is only 5300 feet high and 4000 years old and still has a lot of growing to do. It has erupted eight or nine times, with the last two in 1968 and 1525. Before the 1968 eruption, there were ten hours of powerful localized earthquakes. Most of the people in a lakeside town on the present site of the national park visitor's center got scared and fled on foot to Santa Elena, where we had just come from. The folks who stayed behind were unlucky. The west side of the volcano blew out and emitted a cloud of gas at a temperature of 600 to 800 degrees C. This cloud destroyed 12 square kilometers. Then the caprock on the top of the volcano blew out and destroyed another 5 square kilometers. Between 60 and 80 people were killed and are buried under ash."

Aside from that, it's a nice little country.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 11, 1999.

Cory's full of shit. Last I heard he wouldn't comment on embedded systems because that wasn't his area. Now he's taken a few quotes out of context and gone running off with wild speculation.

Here's a clue for you clueless: Nuclear power plants can't cause a nuclear explosion. Radiation leaks, yes, but nuclear explosion no.

-- Buddy (1@2.3), May 11, 1999.

Read the entire article. Don't just read Cory's take.

Fears of Y2K Power Failures Dim

-- Buddy (1@2.3), May 11, 1999.

"Nuclear power plants can't cause a nuclear explosion"?

What the heck happened at Chernobyl then?

The explosion may not have been "nuclear" but the fall out sure was. The damage to the surrounding area sure was. The deaths to the citizens and workers was sure do to an explosion and the fire releasing nuclear material and the smoke in the air.

Is it your position that these people just had a bad case of sunburn?

Mike =================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

For Michael: Yes, explosions can happen. But Cory's comments here talk about a nuclear explosion, which cannot happen.

Best I can do on short notice:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

Q. Can a nuclear plant blow up like a bomb?

A. No. A bomb converts a large part of its U-235 or plutonium into fission fragments in about 10^-8 seconds and then flies apart. This depends on the fact that a bomb is a very compact object, so the neutrons don't have far to go to hit another fissionable atom. A power plant is much too big to convert an important part of its fissionable material before it has generated enough heat to fly apart. This fact is based on the fundamental physics of how fast fission neutrons travel. Therefore, it doesn't depend on the particular design of the plant.

Q. Can a nuclear plant blow up to a lesser extent?

A. Yes, if it is sufficiently badly designed and operated. The Chernobyl plant reached 150 times its normal power level before its water turned to high pressure steam and blew the plant apart, thus extinguishing the nuclear reaction. This only took a few seconds.

-- Buddy (1@2.3), May 11, 1999.

Buddy, stop being a stick in the mud. Cory's parody said "POSSIBLY NUCLEAR", and was referring to the fact that the cause of the explosion was unknown, but radiation levels were high.

Boy, these pollyannas we have on this forum sure are high maintenance...

-- a (a@a.a), May 11, 1999.

ANdY

STaY AWay fROm cosTA RiCa!!!!!! AWaY i SaY!!!!!! It iS WArM TheRe, Is iT NoT?????? YeS!!!!! iT Is a hIGh priORIty TarGEt!!!!! BEwaRE!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), May 11, 1999.

Cory wrote:

"I make this May 1999. They still have to procure replacement parts. Maybe these exist, maybe the vendor went out of business, maybe the parts don't exist."

Now, if Cory had actually bothered to follow the link and read the article, he'd have noticed that the description Brock quoted was the *original condition*. In fact, the parts have been procured, and replacements and upgrades made as necessary already. The article says that this turned out to be easy. And it's obvious that 'a' and Andy didn't bother to read the article either. Cory's entire fantasy is based on his failure to read.

As for Matthew, what can you say? He screams repeatedly that Brock is telling us not to prepare. You will notice that *not one word* of Brock's appears. At first glance, it would appear that Matthew and the truth are complete strangers.

But let's assume Matthew isn't quite as stoopid as he looks here. Let's say he wrote a parody on doomers to make them ALL look stupid. But sometimes it's kind of hard to tell.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 11, 1999.

Sorry Flint, it doesn't say that. The quote (fair use) is:

"Even at the most complicated power facilities such as San Onofre, the search for defective pieces, though laborious, has turned out to be straightforward. The actual repair of devices has been relatively simple, often amounting to replacing some computer boards and updating software."

It does not say that San Onofre has been tested, certificate of operation reinstated, NRC inspected, etc. Now this may have happened but the article does not say that.

We probably need a comment from Rick Cowles.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), May 11, 1999.

Sorry, Cory, you're quite right. The article says repair has been simple, implying repair has been done. But it doesn't say exactly where it's been done.

Your fantasy remains based on the opposite of what the article implied, but I suppose this *is* a fictional composition. Rick could probably tell us where San Onofre stands, but tends to be very coy when it comes to actual names. Don't you hate it when people do that?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 11, 1999.