The July 22, 1999 SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE has a front page story about generation capacity issues in California. URL: http://www. sfchronicle.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/07/ 22/MN69456.DTL.

The article states in part: "Energy experts fear that California is veering toward shortages of electricity that could cause rolling brownouts or outright blackouts like those that paralyzed parts of the Northeast two weeks ago. The outlook is especially troubling because California has been extremely slow in building new plants, relying instead on electricity surpluses from other states to meet rising peak demand. . . Simply put, the state has used up the 'excess capacity' that once looked inexhaustible. Still two to three years away from any hope of relief, the situation could become dire. 'Our ability to reliably meet the summer peaks is becoming shaky,' says Richard Grix, an energy analyst for the California Energy Commission, which is expected to release a report next week showing that the state is headed for trouble."

Is this an accurate assessment of the situation in California, and if so, does this 'dire situation' have any implication regarding probable y2k outcomes for California electric utilities?

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Answers

Link

Seems like this could be good news. Just like a 4 million gallon sewage spill is good news. If/when we really get blasted with a heat wave in Aug. or Sept. if there are power interruptions it could wake up a lot of folks to the possibility of power interruptions caused by Y2K... and increase the percentage of GI's.

I have an unconfirmed report from Minnesota Power and Light that: on New Years Eve, all technicians will be on duty and at 11:00 pm Central time they are expecting to re route power from the central time zone to the eastern time zone. This is an effort to maintain the power if it goes down due to Y2k problems.

If... IF.. this is true, if power companies expect to re-route power from west to east, then might that trigger outages in places like California if they don't have much excess generating capacity? Of course this will not hit in a heat wave. Just wondering.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 1999

Jeff: This is more of a deregulation issue than anything else. To me, this is going to have a much greater impact on power operations than anything Y2k would bring. Because Y2k day comes at a very light loaded time, generation availability will not be an issue.

Linda: It is electrically not feasible for California to be affected by any possible power shortages in the east. The western grid is only connected to the other interconnections by some weak ac-dc-ac ties, which severely limit their capacity to allow flow from one grid to another.

Again, this is a deregulation/financial issue, not Y2k.

Posters known as "cl" and "The Engineer": Are you still out there?

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

gee dan,

since you seem to be in an answering mood today maybe you want to take a shot at this... haven't really seen the other guys since this was posted and i am very interested in hearing what you have to say.

the name of the post was called 'brainstorming.'

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0016QS

i'll catch the others when they come back... they must be on vacation.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

oops,

sorry about that.

brainstorming

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

Hello Marianne. I read (past tense) the thread "brainstorming". I didn't have anything significant to add at that time, but since you asked, here are my thoughts.

I had a hard time following the thought process in your post, but the gist as I understand it is that you would like folks on this forum to brainstorm how we might be able to take the nuclear units off line during the rollover and still not impact system reliability.

As a realist, I'm not seeing how such a proposal could ever have your intended result. Two-thirds of the units are reporting Y2k readiness, and all of the remainder are scheduled to be completed before 12/31/1999. The NRC does not appear to be taking any steps toward preventing any unit from operating. I believe that this is because the units have demonstrated that they can operate safely during the rollover; obviously there are many on this forum who think there is a more sinister motive. For whatever reasons anyone thinks, the units will most likely be on line to be a part of maintaining grid stability and economically providing electricity to customers.

For those who want to see nuclear units shut down in the future, the most promising solution I've seen is in research and development projects. There is a decent chance that fuel cells could eventually replace the need for much of the energy coming from large power plants. In sunny areas, solar energy could eventually be a competitively priced energy source. Many customers have signed up for "green power" projects, even if it costs them 10% or more extra for their energy.

In the long term, if the present political and environmental concerns about nuclear power continue, nukes could become a thing of the past within 50 years. As you know, new units have not been built in many years.

In summary, I think that it would be too late for anyone to shut down nukes for the rollover. Bonnie's suggestion that we minimize our own personal risks and not fret over things outside of our area of control is a good one. You mention that you live near several nuke plants. Is it possible for you to move somewhere further away, or perhaps at least temporarily stay someplace far from nuclear plants during the rollover?

Finally, I detected an edge in your post above. Aren't we still forum friends? :)

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

hi dan,

what edge would that be? hey, i wanted to catch you before you went somewhere, i will respond to your post above shortly but, i have a question that perhaps you could answer.

i got this from tb2k today and i would appreciate your input as it is beyond my ken. here's the link

cold fusion

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

Marianne,

Neat link. I'm a firm believer in new solutions. Hope springs eternal. If not through this particular avenue then another, or another, answers will come. There are a lot of people researching, inventing, developing, all sorts of cool stuff. A lot of it has to do with electricity/energy. These are exciting times to be alive!

Steve

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

dan, dan, gosh i guess i missed him, oh, well, he can get back to me on the cold fusion later when he answers my response to his post.

now, dan, maybe you read my original post so long ago you forgot what i was trying to do, because i know that if you remembered you would not have responded in the manner that you did.

here is what i proposed:

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?

and you responded:

I had a hard time following the thought process in your post,

m]gee dan, i'll be glad to explain. just was it that you didn't understand? i pasted the exact same thing that i wrote in my initial post... what part of the above confused you?

then you commented:

as a realist, I'm not seeing how such a proposal could ever have your intended result. Two-thirds of the units are reporting Y2k readiness, and all of the remainder are scheduled to be completed before 12/31/1999.

but see dan, i didn't ask your opinion on whether not it would ever be put into play... i simply asked for input from the engineers on how to do it... now do you understand?

and as a realist... i'm sure that you realize that waiting until 12/31/1999 is cutting it a 'tad' close leaving *NO* time for testing, and this for *one third* of the nuclear plants in this country.

then you said:

The NRC does not appear to be taking any steps toward preventing any unit from operating.

yes, and that really has me worried. as you know the nrc has consistently stated over the years that the electrical grid must remain stable for the safe operation of the nuclear plants and now they have reversed their position and are saying the opposite is true.

then you remarked:

I believe that this is because the units have demonstrated that they can operate safely during the rollover;

m]but, dan, i feel the jury is still out, one third one of the nukes still aren't 'ready.' since none of us have a crystal ball how are we to know until they test?... and remember that nerc has gone on record stating that even if they aren't ready they can say they are ready or words to those effect.

your next comment:

For whatever reasons anyone thinks, the units will most likely be on line to be a part of maintaining grid stability and economically providing electricity to customers.

m]yes, and that is *very troublesome* because, as i said above, the nrc has done an about face and totally reversed their positon. i feel this places us in a more precarious position, how can the nrc advocate that the grid must remain stable in order to run the nukes safely and then abruptly change their minds... is it due to political pressure?

your last paragraph:

In summary, I think that it would be too late for anyone to shut down nukes for the rollover.

m] but, as i said at the beginning of this post... that was *never* the issue, what i had proposed was an intellectual excercise, remember?

Bonnie's suggestion that we minimize our own personal risks and not fret over things outside of our area of control is a good one. You mention that you live near several nuke plants. Is it possible for you to move somewhere further away, or perhaps at least temporarily stay someplace far from nuclear plants during the rollover.

well, dan i guess you missed my other post fear and the nukes

or you would not have made that statement. you see dan, i am single, with many friends around the country and the globe... i can go many places if i so choose... fear does not drive me...but the other several hundred thousand men and women, young mothers, children, can't all leave, and the farmland can't leave, and the rivers can't leave, and the lakes can't leave, and the animals can't leave... and who will fight for them... if i leave?

finale:

Finally, I detected an edge in your post above. Aren't we still forum friends? :)

of course dan, why would you ask that? ... and besides, i would never ask you not to post whatever you felt relevant.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

Hello again, Marianne. I think I have a better feel for what your "brainstorming" is about. Even though I think it very unrealistic, and I disagree with what would be accomplished, this is how the situation could lead up to no Nukes on line Y2k day.

1) Convince each of the reliability councils (there are ten of them) to run a power system flow and stability study to determine if the system can handle zero nuke plants on line during the rollover.

2) If the studies show that this is do-able, convince the power companies, utility commissions, and reliability councils to calculate the economic impact (it would definitely be in the $millions for even a few hours of operating this way)

3) Once the $ figure is calculated, determine an acceptable way to pay for the cost...through a temporary rate increase, or some other special fund.

4) Convince the people that would ultimately decide this that it is a good idea.

There you have it, in four (not so) easy steps!

Regarding the cold fusion article...this technology for some reason never got very far, after the promise it showed several years ago. I believe the article sums it up, referring to "difficult to achieve conditions". Would you be comfortable with this technology anyway, since it is "nuclear" in nature? I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory about the government trying to stop such a technology. We are going to eventually be forced to use alternative energy sources.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 1999