so where are we???

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

we are six months from the rollover, all the power companies seem to say all is well, do we know if the lights will be on on jan. 1 ,2000??? i have seen the greenees argueing to get rid of nukes, forget it there is not enough non-nuke generating capacity in the US to meet the needs of the economy, that is the long and short of this argument. who wants to see massive unemployment, severe economic depression please raise your hand. we are forgetting that reliable and available electricity is the backbone of any and all nations. nukes are a significant part of the power grid, this is a fact.

again losing sight of this object of this forum, to make some sense out of the available information as to the likelyhood of power outage, shortage, and the duration of these events. lets refocus on the problem at hand and stop quibling about whether we should have built the nukes, they are there, they are integral in the power grid.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 1999

Answers

well alllllllll,

i suggest you let koskinen know that there is not enough non-nuke generating power. he doesn't seem to think so... and that is the long and short of it.

btw, you do the math.

here is what he said at a 'community conversations' conference in austin.

Q: I have heard that 35% of the nuclear plants are not ready. The dates went from June 30th to now Oct 30th and Nov 30th. I am particularly concerned about the GlenRose facility. (Comanche Peak)

A: Carol Gittinger, Information Tech Proj Mgr y2k, Austin Energy. "The problem with the dates is that everyone already had their testing plans scheduled to work with planned outage times in place before the deadlines were imposed."

A: John Koskinen. "At none of the places that has missed the date is there a safety issue. NRC will monitor very carefully and will be prepared to take appropriate regulatory actions. On Jan. 1 they normally operate at about 50% load, and nuclear plants provide about 20% of our power needs overall. We could shut down all the nuclear plants and not affect the grid."

community conversations

as to your other remark which follows:

lets refocus on the problem at hand and stop quibling about whether we should have built the nukes, they are there, they are integral in the power grid.

where do you get your information? from little men that whisper in your ear as you sleep?

i do not remember anyone on this forum stating that we should never have built the nukes... only that they should be taken down for the rollover and brought back up 3 or 4 at a time.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 1999


Al, I agree that making some sense out of available information, with the end purpose being to aid individuals in perceiving options and making decisions which they see as the most optimal for them, is the primary purpose of any Y2K debate.

Recently I stopped at a highway rest area returning home, and as I was leaving my eye caught a message on a rack of postcards near the door. The picture was of a man on a podium and the words said, "The Time For Action Is Past!" then underneath, "Now Is The Time For Senseless Bickering!" *smile*

My initial thought after seeing the card, was that the Y2K issue may now be in in that kind of status. Unless there are newcomers who are not aware of the various ideas put forth, or there is previously unknown information forthcoming, any individual decisions to prepare or not to prepare should already have been made. Any debate on Y2K becomes just an intellectual game of what-ifs if the offered info and viewpoints are not used to formulate some decisions in a reasonable amount of time.

You asked, "So where are we?" The best answer I can come up with at the moment is that we're fighting a replay of the first World War. Most positions are entrenched; we're firing potshots at any perceived "enemy"; fear is present; distrust of those in a position of authority is pervasive; there is little advance or retreat; nobody is sure what the future will bring -- and boredom with the same fighting day after day can reach even into a muddy trench. (A soldier once related that there were guys who reached the point where they hoped they'd get shot. Either they died or got to go home. Anything to end the miserable, deadlocked, status quo.)

I figure the quibbling will stop in about five and a half months, and probably not before. Then we'll either have peace or a different kind of war on our hands.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999


i was interested in the type of responses i would recieve with this post, marriane your post was as expected antagonistic and nonconstructive, bonnie your post was as usual insitefull and constructive thanks al

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999

al,

you are not a professor and i am not one of your students. i am not seeking your approbation regarding my thought processes nor should you expect that i do so.

now, instead of the ad hominen attack, why don't you respond to the comments made by john koskinen regarding the ability of the power industry to take the nukes offline and still function during the rollover.

his statements are in *direct* contradiction to your assertion that there is not enough non-nuke generating capacity in the us.

A:John Koskinen. "At none of the places that has missed the date is there a safety issue. NRC will monitor very carefully and will be prepared to take appropriate regulatory actions. On Jan. 1 they normally operate at about 50% load, and nuclear plants provide about 20% of our power needs overall. We could shut down all the nuclear plants and not affect the grid." as for bonnie's position... i respect her opinions and love her to death, but even in the best of marriages there are differences. i do not believe that we differ on the risk or exposure but more our reactions to the risks and exposure.

i do not believe that it is over till the fat lady sings and she is just now beginning to hum. i will continue to express my opinion that the nukes should be taken down during the rollover, if this threatens or violates your delicate sensibilities that is your problem... not mine.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999


Marianne,

Doesn't it seem like it is pretty hard to get the "don't worry, be happy" people to address the specific, tough questions about y2k? I don't seem to have had much success either, along with a number of others asking questions..

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999



mariannnneeeee, i think that since you believe mr K then we should too, he says nukes arent a problem then nukes arent a problem so lets get on to other topic more germaine.

since nukes arent a problem what are you going to talk about. al

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999


cute al,

i am glad to see that you are developing a sense of humor.

al wrote: mariannnneeeee,

as i have said before, i will accept data from any source if it makes sense to me. this does... the math works.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999


xBob,

Your statement is my feelings exactly. It is also my frustration. Whether we are talking about Electric, Telecoms, or Banking, the official reaction is always the same. No big problem. We got it all under control. Trust us. And *don't* try to pin us down over the details!

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999


i was wondering about the math, the figures i recall are that in each of the major grids nuke power is at least 20%, the northeastern grid is about 40%, the strategic reserve in the usa is thought to be about 20%.

how can we shut down 40% of the gen capacity in the northeast grid and still not fall short, that is assuming that all the conventional plants are at full production. a dubious assumption as the problems that will pague nukes will also plague nonnukes when it comes to the power distribution portion of the equation? where is mr k when we need him?

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999


--al,

It's actually worse than that for me. I live in NJ where it is estimated that 60% of my power comes from nukes. So if the Engineer is correct about resistance and loss over long lines then I can't expect to have dependable power with all the nukes shutdown. So, what I need to know, and believe me I have been trying to find out, is should I be stocking a couple months fuel for my portable generator?

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999



well al,

well, according to the power industry we will only require 50% of the normal gen capacity at that time of the year.

even if we lose 40% we still have a 10% buffer

as for problems read the nerc reports... the fossils will be up and running. they had very few embedded chip problems and scada is nada problem for them...

oh... and don't forget the plants they are bringing out of moth balls.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 1999


the problem that i have is can you believe NERC remember it is an industry run organization. if the outlook was less than sunny would they be forthright aboout it and tell us? are we getting the skinny or are they giving us smoke and mirrors? are they are only reporting what the utilities tell them? al

-- Anonymous, July 14, 1999

i don't know al, what do you think?

can we trust nerc or the nrc to tell us the truth and put our safety ahead of all that money and all those lobbyists?

i get this funny feeling in my stomach whenever i think about it.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ