in response to another thread linda posed these questions:

With regard to shutdown of the nuclear plants - either of all of them to assure a safe restart - or of any that have not proven they are compliant - I still maintain that there is a Catch 22 in that the whole "grid" depends on the power from the nukes. If we shut down the nukes we would risk the shutdown of the whole grid. Especially true in the northeast where a higher percent of the power comes from nuclear plants than here where I am in CA. How do we get around this? Only by massive energy rationing? Could this even be done?

And politically/economically would it be likely to be done? And WHEN could it or would it be done?

alright let's look at this from 'outside' of the box.

first, let me say this, i am a troubleshooter. i can either create a system[design flow through the house]or take it outside of the existent systems and do workarounds. my father was a troubleshooter for the federal government and my daughter is a highly paid one for a 6 billion dollar corporation. there seems to be a genetic predisposition. is this hard to do... not in my world...there is a trick... k.i.s.s.[keep it simple stupid.] most problems can be easily solved by breaking things down into their most simple components and then tracking how these components impact all other components.

there are figures flying around the net regarding it projects and their failure rates. i have a very strong opinion about why so many it projects either fail or take so long to accomplish.

whether an outside firm is brought in or there is a resident it department most of the design/flow ideas must come from the management staff... in other words they tell the it professionals what they want to do and what data they need to get there. most of these 'management' types are not capable of seeing the bigger picture and/or how their area impacts other departments in the generation of information, or forget major areas of necessary data and inform the it staff after the project is well underway or make the situation appear much more complex than it actually is.

so, in my mind, it is not totally the fault of the it professionals when a job fails to reach completion or comes in way over budget... far from it as a matter of fact.

i would like to propose an excercise that would come from the professionals that make the electricity flow, uninterrupted to the consumer on a daily basis. no managers, no hidden agendas, no need to meet impractical demands or follow nonsensical dictums from unknowing management types bent on making themselves look good... just a creative free flowing approach to a problem and resolutions to same.

so what is this excercise?

brainstorming.

this is a specialized area. it requires specialized knowledge, information, and education. it requires the help of the people that know and make this technology work.

i can figure out how to do certain functions, with alot of help, on mitigating societal impact but i need the input, ideas, and the suggestions of the engineers in order to make this doable.

it is being said that we are polarized into positions and will remain there until the rollover. i do not believe that this is necessarily so... it requires awareness of the situation we are in... we have that awareness we know we are entrenched. so what do we do now that we have awareness? we work around our entrenched positions. how? by doing something that does not violate our 'entrenchedness' and does not preclude us from working together towards a solution.

can't we make this an intellectual excercise? ... with input from the engineers and any and all that might have suggestions? instead of throwing barbed comments at each other and wasting alot of time arguing over what will happen and do what to whom?

we can hold ourselves and this forum out to the rest of the net that it is possible to come from opposite sides of an issue and still work together and accomplish something concrete.

participation would not imply that any or all felt that there would be a problem but only address how to take the nukes offline and still provide electricity to a given area in the event the need arose.

the need could come as a result of a terrorist attacks to a large number of nuclear plants. this is a very serious concern at the federal level.

so what do you think? does anyone want to give it a go?

let's take the hardest part of the country first... let's start with the northeastern quadrant... the one with the preponderance of the plants.

how do we provide electricity if we lose the generation of the nuclear facilities in this geographic area?

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

Answers

How long do you speculate the nukes could be down in this scenario? Howzabout this: Quickly erect coal- or gas-fired boilers in a corrugated shack next to the nuke plant; pipe the steam into the turbines of those glorified coffee pots until their systems are completely remediated.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

The Editor

1. You should go and see what a modern steam generator looks like.

2. The supply of neither coal or gas is assured on a continuing basis.

3. Fuel supplies likely cannot be developed in the time remaining.

4. time time time time..............................

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

marianne,

The reason we have not come to the point of brainstormiing in this country is that the full scope of this thing has not been made plain and public. We have not been set to problem solving. That sucks. I think we very well could ration electricity, as Linda said. Why the hell not. Are we such babies? I spend the summer without AC. Do I love it? No, but I am much more comfortable than you would expect. It's 90 degrees right now and I have my shades drawn and am cool enough.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

mara,

this is why we must wait to see what the engineers think is possible. there are many things that can be accomplished once we have the rules of the game... we need the engineers to give us the perimeters in which to work. we need to know what can be done and what can't.

as an aside, during the oil embargo of the '70's it was touted at the federal level that the 'people' would not be able to adjust to the need to reduce consumption.

well, we did, i remember reading somewhere at some point in time, and guys, please don't make me go searching for it, that we reduced consumption by almost 30%... can you imagine, 30%?

we bought smaller cars, we bought woodstoves, we *really* insulated our houses, we became conscious of how much fuel we wasted on nonessential trips in the car, etc.... in other words, we hunkered down and we did it.

there is much we can accomplish if we all attempt to work together and not at cross purposes.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

I agree there is much we could do together.. but wonder if it can be accomplished without leadership. The NRC *could* say that safety is the most important thing, and therefore since compliance has not been verified, all (or these many) plants WILL BE SHUT DOWN in perhaps a stepwise plan over a 3 month period. With such notice the grid could either adjust or rationing could happen or whatever. But I don't see the NRC or the DOE or the Congress or the President or anybody else with the will or balls to do that.

And remember.. even if we assume that all nukes are taken offline and somehow the grid stays up because of rationing or whatever... the other power plants have their own Y2K issues. So the grid STILL may go out.. even if it can adjust to the lack of generating capacity from the nuclear plants.

And remember.. the nuclear plants MUST HAVE OFFSITE POWER to keep the cores from melting down, and the spent rods in the cooling pools cool.

Seems like you ought to be able to have sort of a self-sufficient system for those cooling pools... the heat generated could be used to generate enough power to circulate the cooling water. But what do I know?

Dang. If they just pushed solar/wind/water power harder during and after the oil crisis, we wouldn't be in this stickywicket.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

The reason we have not come to the point of brainstormiing in this country is that the full scope of this thing has not been made plain and public. We have not been set to problem solving.

Too true, I think. Ann Fisher has just started at thread at TB2000 in a similar vein. She thinks a big part of the problem is that, instead of business and government looking to the public as a part of the solution, they have instead looked to the public as a part of the problem ("panic", whatnot).

That set us on a bad trajectory.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

Lane, I agree with Ann on that matter, and it's a shame it has turned out that way. I personally thought (last year) that by July, 1999, the public would be going full blast to prepare for contingencies. I never imagined the power of the "spin" machine to take attention away. Roleigh Martin just now issued some more listserv information. One is the latest, detailed, DoD bulletin regarding their preparation for civil disorder. Another is an official report about the severe problems anticipated in foreign supply chains for many items. These matters are going on intensely behind the "public/media curtain" and it boggles my mind to know that so much contingency planning is taking place without the public being openly told about it.

Marianne, I think your suggestion for brainstorming is on the mark. If we could get a lot of talented people contributing ideas about how to meet the Y2k challenge with electric power during the Y2k difficulties it would go a long way toward solving both the physical and psychological impacts that are bound to be coming.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

amen to you folks, lets get everyone on the same page and work this problem untill it dies. i hope someone at the nrc level and fed. government is looking at these posts, the tragedy of Viet Nam destroyed the credibility of the federal govenment, what do you think will happen if the grid goes sour and you have told everybody "dont worry be happy". i would much rather have been the person who told the public that in six months we will need to work through some problems but if everyone works at it we can whip this thing together. we cant do this without honesty at the top. my concern is "i never had sex with that woman" mentality of cover your butt is going to squander the time we have to prepare. good luck al

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

Marianne, I think you have a good idea, but in reality it's just too late. The die has been cast, because we don'nt even have concenus on the problem, how can we brainstorm? Who would we brainstorm with, certainly not the nuclear insiders who frequent this site, because they clearly don'nt think there is a problem.

I tried to get people excited about six months ago about lobbeying for congessional support for a program on putting to rest the issue of type testing. Got nowhere. Paula Gordon wrote a white paper and spent a tremendous amount of time trying to get the government to do something. She got nowhere.

Please don'nt think I'm being negative, I'm jst being realistic.

Warm Regards

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

Yes, Marianne, as we approach the 2000th anniversary of the birth of the Christ we do indeed face a challenge. In your last posting you spoke movingly of your struggles with polio and the ardent attention a priest of Christ had for sheparding you towards peaceful repose and I am sure, also with your health. As you mention, you felt you saw a glimpse of this repose, from this n of 1 study, prayer should go hand in hand with brain storming. And yes, I mention this despite a cacophonous multiplicity of personal shortcomings. If one can not see the intrinsic value of praying, consider at least that if the less optimistic scenarios are realized a communal spirit of self sacrifice may be all that keeps us from chaos.

That said, in considering the specific difficultly of commercial nuclear reactors one finds oneself, as Kelly Bundy once said, "on the horns of an enema". Can nearly half the generating capacity of the northeast be taken off line without risking the lives of citizens? Who would be most at risk from an unstable grid, the most vulnerable in society, those on respirators, in ICU settings, in urgent need of surgery. Depending on how well, power could be maintained the lists of those at risk grows. If, as some engineers, on this forum hold, safety will not be compromised at the millennium rollover, deaths caused from a lack of what should have been available generating power will be charged to a misanthropic mistrust of our fellow man. Radiation, however, is not something organized living systems respond to well. Shielded, as we are, from it primarily by the invisible magnetic field we have not evolved, in 50 years, systems for dealing well with high dose radiation, it is an entropy inducing event. At high dose it remains an invisible, odorless, tasteless killer about as desirable as contracting Ebola. The design flaw we have now with the date, reveals pride and shortsightedness, though from some of the posts you would think it was left uncorrected (and undiscovered) only to make the New Year interesting. Boxed in like this, one might start to wonder how Shroedinger's (sp?) cat felt, assuming Shroedinger's cat was a very deep-thinking cat.

What's my brainstorm, 1) re-evaluate, there is still a brief window to gather data, while allowing for safe shutdown. If more data points paint a gloomy picture shut em (or some of em) down and expect you may have to pay the piper for it. 2) There is concern for diesel generator reliability and fuel reserves. Provide an alternate back-up to the diesel generators, hydroelectric springs to mind as ideal. Reactors, often vent their heated water into large rivers and a small hydroelectric system could be set up within a brief time. Unlike wind or solar it would provide continuous, uninterrupted power, not require a battery bank and not require refueling as long as the river was flowing. ... Oh for national leadership.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

Marianne,

I agree with you fully about brainstorming, but I thought that was the whole purpose of any public discussing. We get ideas from all parts of the community on what te problems are, what is being done to correct them, and what more needs to be done.

Unfortunately this arena appears to be becoming something of an anti-nule campaign, but still there are some ideas and information coming through. There is also quite a lot of ideas that are simply built on fear.

for example, Linda wrote "...And remember.. even if we assume that all nukes are taken offline and somehow the grid stays up because of rationing or whatever... the other power plants have their own Y2K issues. So the grid STILL may go out.. even if it can adjust to the lack of generating capacity from the nuclear plants.

And remember.. the nuclear plants MUST HAVE OFFSITE POWER to keep the cores from melting down, and the spent rods in the cooling pools cool. .."

This statement has been made despite the fact that it is been shown on this forum many times that every nuke station must have two operational EDGs to provide for the case when there is no off line power, and it has also been shown that there are few, if any, Y2K issues that will cause generation plant to trip off line.

So I would like to throw in my 2 cents worth by asking for an example of a Y2k problem that will cause a generator to (any type) to trip off line, then lets solve that problem.

As each potential fault is raised then solved we will soon see just where the threat may be.

I will start by listing the protection types that we commonly use and show that they will not be affected by Y2K, and then perhaps some of the nuke experts can add their bit.

Turbine Protection: Overspeed = a simple speed tranducer. Final overspeed = (purely mechanical). Vibration = An electro mechanical device. Guide bearing oil level = a float switch. Guide Bearing Temperature = a thermocouple.

Generator Protection: Inverse Time Overcurrent = an electromechanical device. Stator Earth fault = a simple relay. Rotor Earth Fault = a simple relay. Unit differential = a set of current transformers wierd to a simple relay. Thrust bearing oil level = a float switch Thrust bearing temerature = a thermocouple. Stator air temerature = a thermocouple. Stator winding temerature = a thermocouple.

Transformer protection: Bucholz = either a float switch in the conseravator tank, or a flap switch in the explosion vent. Differential protection = a set of current transformers wired to a simple relay. Restricted earth fault = a simple relay.

Plus there are many alarms that do not directly cause a trip, but may suggest to the operator that the plant gets shut down.

Well, there are no Y2K issues here.

However the control systems are electronic, but even if they did fail they would not cause a tripping to occur.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa... that translates into my fault.

i did not convey what i was proposing in the correct fashion. i have received email[see below] that would initiate the study of this problem in the correct fashion... with a feasibility outline.

it is much too late for anything of this nature. it is overwhelming and daunting in its scope.

what i am suggesting here is triage... it is too late for anything else.

so let me rephrase the question into something more manageable and i realize that even this will have to be 'tweaked' in order to address the problem at hand.

let is assume, for the sake of this excercise, that 8 or 9 nuclear plants in the northeast quadrant have been taken out... whether by well thought out terrorist attacks, acts of god, non compliance, etc. it was precipitous, unplanned, they are out of action,... gone.

now... what can we do? and how can we do it?

how would the power industry address this issue on an emergency basis? forget the nuclear plants... they are down and by some miracle there is no radiation spewing into the atmosphere, all i want someone to do at this point is tell me how we would work around the loss of their generating capacity, if, in fact, it can be done.

nothing sophisticated, don't factor in any political ramifications, or societal responses, just tell me how we would be able to keep the grid intact after experiencing the loss of 8 or 9 nukes.

as i am sure that the location and size of each plant 'taken out' will be a factor... i'll leave that up to you. why don't we use limmerick as one of the plants and start from there?

while the proposal listed below is an excellent approach in the best of times... i put forth that it is far too late for something as sophisticated and all encompassing as this at this point in time.

text of proposed study:

I - Assumptions: II - Definitions 1. All word type and concept definitions. 2. Definition, of power production capabilities by source and type. 3. Definition of power consumption requirements by region, etc. 4. Definition of means of limiting/increasing amount of production/consumption III - Problem Definition and Breakdown into component parts. 1. Desired outcome 2. Part 1 3. Part 2 4. etc. IV Initial proposed Solutions, generalized categories - including identified problem areas with each type of shutdown, including technical feasabilility, legal feasibility, and political feasability, geopolitical feasibility, supply chain feasibility (fuel, other consumables, parts, personnel) 1. Individual plant shut downs 2. Class shutdowns 3. Regional shutdowns 4. Shutdowns based on time V Grid System Components and Assets 1. Fuel Sources 2. Power Generators a) Fuel Source/Type b) Locations c) Sizes 2. High Tension Transmission Lines and components 3. Local transmission components VI Grid Assets Assesments VII Grid Liabilities Assesments VIII EUY2k Forum Assets IX EUY2k Forum liabilites X Assignments and due dates - XI Miscelaneous Comments (EUY2k sub forum) XII Schedule, due dates and flow plan (what deadlines are necessary to accomplish this task) XIII Volunteer and selecton of moderator, manager, technical, political, publicity personnel to make it work XiV Intitial Consolidation and findings summary XV Finalized initial consolidation and findings summary XVI Plan for distribution and comment and return by those impacted by the program XVII New finalized version XVIII New comments and concurrences XIX Final Version XX Plan for to get the plan approved by the powers at be XXI Plan for consumers and power users XXII Press coverage and implementation

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

in addition,

i am attempting to keep this as open ended as possible... this would allow for the free rein of creative juices.

if the average load at that time of year must be adjusted downward to meet generated capacity... just do it and explain how much and why. it is not necessary to say that so and so manufacturing, and so and so chemical plant must be offline, just give a baseline figure in order to achieve delivery, if rolling black and/or brownouts are a necessary component... indicate how often and for what duration.

create your own scenario and what would be necessary to achieve the optimum delivery capabilities of the power industry based on the reduced but available generated capacity.

also, address the restrictions that t&d may impose.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999