This is a "one more time with feeling" post underscoring the one vital element we must have if we are to have electricity. I live within two hrs. travel to the Houston Ship Channel and Texas City. Farther down the coast is Corpus Christi. At these locations are refineries and pipelines. These pipelines run from Texas to California and up the east coast to Maine. These lines carry your gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas. The country's strategic oil reserves are in salt mines in Texas and Louisiana. If power and/or refineries in Texas go down, you go down. That is certain. Factfinder, cl, and Dan the Power Man will have no fuel for electricity - nada. They can push buttons and flip switches manually all day - nada. In order for Texas to keep Factfinder & Co. in fuel, the international links (yes, dots) must work.

We are in a deadly serious situation. It's time to get real. I urge you to read the entire report to the UN from the International Energy Agency made up of 24 countries and the European Commission. The report is at www.un.org/members/y2k/y2k2nd/iea.htm Here are some quotes with my comments in ():

"It is important that the public understand that some problems are inevitable." (Oil Industry) "...for those institutions coming to the problem late, contingency planning may be the only measure they may have time to put in place. Interdependencies have highlighted the necessity of such plans. Some problems are inevitable."

"Most potential problems lie in pipeline control and monitoring systems and a vulnerability to disruptions in the electrical supply."

(Refineries) "...even small problems can have a global impact. AS A RESULT, THEY FACE PROBABLY THE HIGHEST RISK OF Y2K FAILURE OF ANY LINK IN THE OIL SUPPLY CHAIN." (Dots, Dots, Dots)

"Offshore oil production is generally at greater risk than onshore production..." (Texas, LA gulf coast, North Sea) "The maritime industry is susceptible to risks in tankers [y2k failure rates of 20% to 30% in embedded systems are commonly expected.] Switching to manual controls in the event of failures...is...not a practical option (not enough crew.)

"Little information is available on compliance of individual port facilities and no one body seems able to povide it. Where compliancy certificates do exist, their value is questionable."

"The oil supply chain (dots, dots) is extremely complex and heavily dependent on other sectors (dots) such as shipping, telecom, electricity, water, banking, and labour. Problems in these other sectors could quickly ripple through the oil supply chain, resulting in less oil reaching consumers. The y2k readiness of those interdependent sectors is crucial to the oil industry's prepardness."

(Interdependence) "Oil refineries and production facilities...cannot function without electricity. Similarly most electricity supply industries [ESI] require delivery of fossil fuels to maintain an adequate supply of electricity." (Electricity and fossil fuel are cemented together - remember my equations? Fuel = Electricity, Electricity = Fuel, 0 Fuel = 0 Electricity, 0 Electricity = 0 Fuel)..."a large percentage of global oil supply is transported by tanker, problems arising at sea and/or in port facilities would disrupt the flow of oil to consuming countries. Potential navigation problems in the world's choke points such as the Suez Canal, Panama Canel, English Channel, Molucca, Bosphorus, Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb are of concern."

What more can I say? Think about it. If there are world failures, who has the expertise to fix it and how long would it take to fix international problems. The international problems would have to be fixed before our supply of oil resumed. Countries are concerned about their fuel supplies. Shouldn't you also be concerned enough to store some water, food, a source of heat, and medicines? Marcella

-- Anonymous, July 07, 1999

Answers

Marcella, when you wrote "(Electricity and fossil fuel are cemented together - remember my equations? Fuel = Electricity, Electricity = Fuel, 0 Fuel = 0 Electricity, 0 Electricity = 0 Fuel).." I believe that you have mistated the equation.

Try Fuel < Electricity, Electricity > Fuel, 0 Fuel = some Electricity, some Electricity = some Fuel, and some Fuel = increasing amounts of Electricity.

Let me explain. The mix of electricity generation is some nuclear (no external fuel required), some Coal (sourced from close to power station), some Oil (sourced both from within USA and from other countries) and some hydro (fuel falls from the sky in the form of rain). Now lets assume for the moment that the worst happens, and the entire North American grid collapses leaving all of USA and Canada black. Here is what will happen.

All power stations will "trip" off load. Many of these will automatically shut down (particularly steam stations), but some will simply trip to speed-no-load. Most hydro stations and some fossil fired stations will have black start capability and can restart without any external power source. The grid control engineers will open all feeder lines, and most grid lines conecting points over long distances. Those plants with black start capability will start all generators in preparation for charging the high voltage lines with reactive power. (Incidentally, hydro generators can usually be started in less than two minutes from a complete shutdown, but from speed-no-load can be connected within seconds of receiving the instruction). The few hydro generators that USA and Canada do have will then close onto their respective buses, and then charge the lines to the nearest fossil fired or nuclear station. A small amount of external load may be connected (mainly for voltage control), and there is now external power available for the fossil fired and nuclear stations to restart. I dont know how long it will take to get a nuke back on line, but a hot thermal machine should be able to run up and reconnect within an hour. Warm or cold plant would take considerably longer.

Within a few hours most parts of the grid would be reconnected, and power restored to high priority consumers (such as refineries etc). Thus fuel is still available for those stations that need it, and the integrity of the grid is restored.

Now this is a worst case scenario, and it is extremely unlikely for such a collapse to occur. Most likely is that some plant may have some undetected bugs that could cause some items to malfunction. Not all such faults would mean that the plant would trip, but could simply result in some controls having to be operated manually, or some event logging functions not working correctly.

So overall, your concerns that a collapse in the electricity system would cause a collapse in the fuel delivery system, and hence prevent the electricty system from being restored, appears to be unfounded.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, July 08, 1999

Malcome - "Within a few hours most parts of the grid would be reconnected, and power restored to high priority consumers (such as refineries etc). Thus fuel is still available for those stations that need it, and the integrity of the grid is restored."

Why is this true if the reason for the shutdown was because of faulty software or embedded chips?

If this is true, then obviously there is NO Y2K PROBLEM.. no need to fix anything. Just FOF. Wait till it shuts down, then just turn it back on. [those Russians knew it all along]

Call Tom Brokaw.. this is the Fleasing of the Century.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 1999

Thank you Linda, I was just thinking the same thing as I read this and am most curious to see the response. I am no computer whizzz but I do rank pretty high on both the IQ and CHS (Common Horse Sense)scale and the. I have a great deal of trouble reconciling some of the "no problem" explanations with CHS, as in this case.

I am a long time "lurker" at this forum and have learned a great deal from the give and take of both the pro's and layfolk that regularly visit here. I seldom feel that I have anything constructive to contribute and most of my "burning" questions are addressed by one you, usually sooner than later. But I could not pass this one up.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 1999

Malcolm, you are thinking small. Look at the big picture. What can fail outside your electric plant using any kind of fuel that would cause it to fail? Tanker ships, ports, offshore platforms, refineries, and pipelines to name a few. If there is a failure in this chain how does that affect your plant? The short answer is after a short period of time you and everyone else in your industry have no gas to get to work. Parts and supplies can't get to your plant. Water and food delivery stops. How do you get water and food for your family? What are your priorities at that time? Seeing to the needs of your family or walking to work? You have to extrapolate the problem into the large picture; you have to follow the chain reaction; you can't isolate one problem and think you can fix that one and the chain works. Marcella

-- Anonymous, July 08, 1999

Uh, Malcolm, Wyoming is a long way from Chicago. While it is true that some coal generating plants are close to their supply mines, MOST plants are not immediately adjacent to the fuel supply.

I have some difficulty with the notion that the transport of large quantities of coal will not be impaired, when the coal must be transported long distances over a route served by maybe fifty different utilities, all of which must be up and running for the coal to move. Ditto and more so for oil and gas running through long pipelines.

The coal requirements are huge, and easily may be several unit trains per day for one large generating plant.

And then there are the banks.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 1999

If Texas fails, we've got big old problems for many reasons. I am somewhat comforted by the fact that TX is pretty much on it's own for juice and could possibly island.

The reason I say this is that the refining sector in Texas and the crude oil distribution network (which by the way includes SPR waterborne distribution) are critical to sending crude oil north to PADD II which depends heavily on that crude to produce fuels, some of which find their way into utilities "up there".

Let's hope old TX stays up and running smooth. If not, the nation has some big problems right in it's midsection.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 1999

I suspected that my answer to Marcella's post might draw a lot of responses, and it looks as though it did. I will try to answer as many as I can, but there are some questions being asked here which require answers not connected to the electricity industry. For those questions I will have to defer to people who are more closely associated with those industries (ie rail, shipping, banking etc).

Linda: You ask "Why is this true if the reason for the shutdown was because of faulty software or embedded chips?" In this case I believe that you have made the wrong assumption for the reason for the shutdown. Remember we are talking about a worst case scenario. A complete grid collapse is an extremely unlikely occurance as it requires more than one fault to occur at the same time. But lets look at some possible causes.

A cascading grid fault can occur through a system fault (generation or transmission) not being properly cleared close to the source (a second fault possibly caused by poor protection). This causes circuit breakers at more distant locations to trip, possibly disconnecting generation plant, and/or causing line overloading to occur (SCADA not performing correctly, or human errors creeping in). Frequency and/or voltage may go outside the required limits and the initial fault can cascade into surrounding or even more distant areas. At some lower frequency limit (its 47.5 Hz here in NZ, but I belive it is around 58 Hz in USA), generators will start tripping off line for their own protection. This action will actually cause the frequency to spiral downwards, and result in a grid collapse. So the cause of a total shutdown is not the initial faults (which may have been due to software or embedded systems), but the instability of the frequency following these faults.

The system controllers who have the task of restoring the grid will be aware of the initial cause or causes of the fault, and will leave this generation plant and/or transmission equipment isolated from the rest of the system. In my origional answer to Marcella I described the process which would be used to restore the grid.

Georgia: I would never claim that there is "no problem", just ask any controller who has ever had to restore any or all of a grid following a cascading fault. But what is being discussed here is not a computer problem, but an electrical engineering issue which can be largely handled without computers.

Marcella: No, I don't believe that I am thinking small on this issue. I was answering your claim that 0 Fuel = 0 Electricity. I am not able to comment on the transport industry which seems to be one of your concerns, but if I have understood your equation correctly then one of the main causes for a collapse in the transport indstry (and I'll include pipelines in this) is that the electricity has failed. i have shown that even without the ships, railroads, and pipelins, some electricity can still be produced. And if you are correct with your concern that no power means no transport for the fuel for the rest of the power stations, then I have shown that there will be sufficient power to get these ancilliary indutries running again.

The rest of your concerns about food and water supplies, gas to get to work (I normally walk or bike anyway), are outside my area of expertise, and perhaps should be more correctly asked of Y2K-survival or similar. :-)

Dave: You are correct that some plants are quite some distance away from their fuel source, but I think that you will find MOST plants are close to their source of fuel. The reason for this is that its much cheaper to move electrity by wires than it is to move coal by rail. I can't comment on the banks, do they produce electrity? :-)

Jim: You may be right that Texas can island, and that is one of the reasons why a total grid collapse is so unlikely. There are other areas that can probably island as well, and having these areas does make grid restoration a lot easier as there is less reliance needed on black-start capability. The group of power stations that I control here in NZ is right at the spot that a potential break in the grid can occur. So we have to right up with the procedures for re-joining islanded systems.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, July 08, 1999

As Marcella stated above, Malcolm, you really do not get the big picture. The generation of electricity clearly depends upon the operation of the railway system and it CLEARLY depends upon the operation of the entire petroleum industry from wellhead through shipping, refining and transport. It also CLEARLY depends upon the operation of the banking industry, and upon a functioning government, and a viable telecommunitations system.

Other ESSENTIAL dependencies include food, water, etc., etc. If the operation of any of these "systems" is seriously (or not so seriously) impaired, the the production of electricity will be impossible, or seriousy impaired.

Likewise, the operation of any of the complementary functions noted will be seriously impaired if there is no or insufficient electricity.

This is all that Marcella was saying in her original post, and I believe that Marcella is correct.

And no amount of saying that its not so on your part, Malcolm , will change the truth.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 1999

Malcolm, you said, "The mix of electricity generation is some nuclear (no external fuel required," Nuclear plants do not operate in a vacuum. Outside electricity generated from outside fuel brings in water to the nuclear plant as well as supplies and parts. Outside fuel brings employees to work.

"Coal (sourced from close to power stations," You are really off on this one. Do you know how big Texas is? Coal for the eastern part of Texas comes from Louisiana, hundreds of miles. Coal to central Texas comes from up north, hundreds of miles. Coal slurry goes through pipelines to other parts of Texas, hundreds of miles. Do you know how big the United States is? Trainloads upon trainloads of coal travel hundreds of miles every day through northern and western states. Coal has to come from coal mines (a no-brainer); our country and cities were not created around coal mines.

"some oil (sourced both from within the US and from other countries)" Do you know how much oil this country uses per day? If we are down to "some oil", FEMA is designated to take over distribution and give first to the federal government (mainly the military,) then to state governments, and finally, to consumers. "Some" oil just won't cut it.

"Some hydro (fuel falls from the sky in the form of rain," Rain falls from the sky at my house and I have never seen any electricity go into my house from that rain. There must be something else that has to happen - maybe collect the rain in one place and do things with equipment of all sorts and have some employees to do things and maybe use computers in some way. Son of a gun, I'll bet there must be outside fuel required to deliver supplies and parts and I'll bet the employees do not live on the site so they probably have cars that need fuel. I have never seen a subway near a hydro plant. Maybe they furnish bicycles for everybody to cycle 20-30 miles every day.

You said you can't comment on the transport industry but just because you can't comment doesn't make the problem go away. You can't just dismiss it.

"One of the main causes for a collapse in the transport industry (and I'll include pipelines in this) is that the electricity has failed." No, the pipelines themselves can fail, trains can fail, and trucks can be without fuel.

"I have shown that even without the ships, railroads, and pipelines, some electricity can still be produced." "Some electricity" instead of most or all will severely cripple this country.

"I normally walk or bike anyway." You know, Malcolm, I really don't care how you get there. You are in New Zealand. Employees here mainly use cars to get to work because generation plants are seldom in the middle of town and we have big towns and cities.

You say food and water are outside your area of expertise. Perhaps so, but you can't just dismiss it because you don't know diddly about it. Water and food are fuel for employees. Without fuel for them there is no work force, there is nothing. They are a dot in the chain.

I didn't make up this interconnectedness problem. The IEA has been researching all over the world and are now reporting. They understand the global interconnections that must work. Alas, you don't.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 1999

Marcella,

Please don't misrepresent what I say. If I haven't made myself clear enough, then I apologise. But I am not dismissing problems that may occur in the transport, food and or water industries by not commenting on them. They are outside my field of expertise, and I will leave any defence or explanation of these issues to people who know something about them.

I do know something of the electricity industry however, and what I have said, and will re-iterate, is that not all forms of electricity production are as reliant on these peripheral issues as you are claiming. I have been in the industry for over 20 years, and have worked on or controlled a large number of power stations, substations, and networks. I will not dispute that some power stations are reliant on outside fuel sources for their energy production, but there are also some that are not so reliant.

I have not found any sites on the net that are able to give me an accurate breakdown of USA power stations with their sources of energy, and location in relation to their fuel usage, but some information I have brought home from our files at work (unfortunately a few years out of date) gives the following information for USA:

Coal fired: 41% Oil/gas: 24% Nuclear: 23% Hydro: 11% Other: 1%

I assume that "other" refers to the wind farms that are springing up all over these days. However from this data over a third of USA's electricity production is not dependent on outside fuel sources, and as some coal stations are next to the mines and fed by overhead cable ways, and some oil/gas stations are next to the refineries, it does appear that around 50% of USA's power stations could be up and running for an extended period even if there are no shipping and/or rail services.

The point is that some electricity can be produced without any external fuel.

As to your comment about whether power station employees would stay home to look after their families or go to work in the event of a major outage, I believe that a power station employee would be best able to care for his family by doing everything possible to keep the power flowing.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, July 09, 1999

Ditto all of the above....and there is an additional problem to the hydro plant issue that is probably unique to the USA. As I understand it, ALL of the Hydro plants in this country are "managed" from a single control center in Virginia (just outside Washington D.C.). If their systems go down from either a Y2K "fault" or regional power shortage/outage they will be unable to open and/or close valves and flood gates at any of the hydro sites anywhere in the country.

Malcom, I did not intend to imply that YOU were promoting "no problem" scenairos, rather I ment it as a generalized statement. However, I believe the contention from this side of the big-blue- water is that you seem to be analyzing with tunnel vision as if power is generated in a vacuum. We are only pointing out that there is much more involved if the power plants are to remain viable.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 1999

Marcella,

Thanks for bringing up this very good point. It is what I have been saying for years. There is another equation which is a corolary to your equation. That is 56% of the our fuel is imported. The majority of this imported fuel comes from 3 countries - Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria. These countries on average are admittedly 18 months behind the US in y2k repairs. I know of no refinery which has yet declared itself to be y2k compliant in the US, let alone, the world. There are only 6 months left to go. So the basic is 18 - 6 = 12 months (minimum) in trouble.

Malcom, there are a few places in this country where the energy supplies are located near the generating supplies. The giant coal plants near Buhela, Montana, and Utah. The hydro plants of the pacific northwest. The lignite and gas plants in Texas. The total number of these plants could probably (less hydro) be counted on your fingers and toes, out of 6800 plants. Florida, for example, has no fuel in the state, period. It is all imported gas, oil, coal, some from Indonesia thanks to clinton. I once helped on a study for a coal slurry line from Whyoming to Florida, but it was cancelled. I don't know if it was ever built. Texas has (if I remember correctly) among its plants 368 gas fired plants. I don't know of any gas fired plants which have been declared compliant. Does anyone else. Our two nuclear plants are not scheduled to be ready till 30 October and 30 Nov. That's cutting it pretty close.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 1999

Sorry. I guess I must have a lot of fingers and toes. I didn't mean to include the gas plants in Texas in the count.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 1999

Folks, as far as I can see, there really isn't much disparity between what Malcolm is stating and the opposing arguments. It's more a matter of whether one is looking at the glass as half full or half empty. I think Malcolm is right when he says that some of the U.S. electric generation could recover and/or keep producing electricity given a worst case scenario where there are many other infrastructure failures. I personally have been counting on this aspect and am grateful the electric industry does have a measure of stability not always found in other infrastructure areas. The fuel mix has changed some from the data Malcolm has, however. As of 1998, coal fired generating units accounted for 52% of the electricity in the U.S., natural gas and petroleum 18%, nuclear 19%, and hydro (and "other") supplied 11% of generation.

For Malcolm and anyone else interested, there is a summary of U.S. energy usage from many aspects, with a lot of charts at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh1998/eh1998.html

You will have to scroll a little more than half way down to get to the data specific to electricity generation.

The glass half empty viewpoint also has valid considerations. While a good part of electric generation could continue in a worst case scenario, that will not help those people in the areas where there are problems with generation or fuel supply. For instance, the electric utilities in the state of Hawaii use petroleum for fuel and that is all imported. For a look at each state's fuel use for electrical generation go to:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/sep/states.html

Just select a state from the drop down box and click on the "electric utility use" link at left. (There's also a petroleum link, and other energy consumption profiles.)

It was quite a while ago, but at one time I posted a personal experience my family had in the seventies during a cold winter when natural gas supplies were short. There were pleas from the gas utilities and communities asking homeowners who heated their homes with gas to turn down their thermostats as low as possible so that the people located towards the end of the pipelines could get at least a little gas for heat, too. (Sort of a reverse of the summertime pleas by electric utilities to raise the thermostats on air conditioners.) Unfortunately, given human nature, a lot of people huddled in 40 degree temps in their homes or had to evacuate because there was no gas getting to them.

The biggest problem is that it's next to impossible for individuals or businesses to know beforehand where problems might arise and if they will be the ones affected by any potential infrastructure failures or global failure interconnections. If 85% of the electrical generation continues, the people served by the 15% who are without power (or oil, or gas, for whatever reason) are still in a crisis situation especially if they are in the colder northern areas. Considering the size of the U.S. population, even 5% of our 273 million people equates to over 13 million individuals. ONE percent, depending on where any problems might occur, can be from 500,000 to 3 million or more people.

The combined global infrastructure risk factors which could affect so many, are the reason why I and others continue to believe that it's common sense for families to have contingency plans and preparations of their own. There are always risks in everyday life; it's just that in 2000 the risks of various disruptions are greatly escalated. Just as having backup communication systems and a larger than normal stockpile of coal, for instance, gives utilities more flexibility to get through any potential disruptions, so do individual preparations give a family more flexibility. Better to acknowledge there *might* be problems outside of an individual or organization's control and have contingency plans, than to be closed off in what Jim terms hubris, the definition of which is "exaggerated pride or self-confidence". This is in no way a slam or denigration of the competency or efforts of industry people. It's simply an acknowledgement of greatly increased risk. Pretty simple, really. Better safe than sorry.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 1999

Marcella , others . There are three more concerns NOT mentioned by anyone so far. One is the effect of the magnetic storms from the sun, which could seriously disrupt communications AND the GPS. Secondly, and of greater importance, are the know viruses (130 at last count) , set to be triggered by 2000 or 00. Finally, if I were a terrorist group trying to inflict a "knockout" blow to US capabilities, I would target power plants with viruses and/or some form of explosive devices to diable them for a long time. I would give two to one odds that the terrorists have thought of this too !!! Eagle

-- Anonymous, July 10, 1999

Hal, I was holding my post to the IEA report. You are right about magnetic sun storms cresting around Jan., 2000 and you are right about the computer viruses and you are right about possible terrorist activity. Our military is putting plans in place for this scenario. If you stack all the possibilities for things to go wrong in a pile you have a very large pile. How many of those possibilities will happen? It is that unknown that requires us to be prepared for all.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 1999

Bonnie, I am past half full or half empty. I believe, after much research, that we are looking at one fourth full and three fourths empty; therefore I think the three fourths empty will bring down the one fourth full. We are looking at too many connections that must work and when we throw in the human elements of indecision, wrong decision, unintentional errors, etc. it only intensifies my belief of break-down in electricity and the infrastructure of the country.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 1999