you guys (and gals) are killing me! i am a big time lurker who usually enjoys most of the posts, but ... come on, get real!

as marianne said, things in the NRC (Naval Retirement Community) and Nukeland are just "ducky". ya know "all calm on the surface, but paddling like hell underneath". that is the power industry to a "T". i know cause i am here, in it, listening and watching. this is all i have ever known, and maybe ever will. all this is Navy thru and thru, they ain't giving up the ghost without a fight. Navy is all they hire anymore for the most part. and all you tree humpers out there that lobby for clean air, water, ground, etc... just strengthen the position of the nukes every time. because we are essentially CLEAN. i will give you that we have a disposal problem, but with a little bit of time and work we can recycle alot of this stuff. the big taxes and fines get levied againist the BIG polluters, like coal,gas,etc.. go to a coal fired plant and come back and tell me who has the least enviro impact. I Dare You!I TRIPLE-Dog Dare you!

and this whole y2k thing. without nukes we are lost! who has better control of our plants? who is the MOST highly regulated industry in the world (we should be)? who has the most overall industry knowledgeable grunt force? i will make it easy...NUKES. who is going to be crapping in a hole come next march? not me, and no one who lives close to most of the Nukes. you see when NUCPWR says all the 'y2k guru'said we are going to lose is some maint. schedule is telling a partial truth. we are going to lose some nice to have systems that cutdown on labor intensive rounds ie... RVLIS, ERFIS, Rad Mon Sys, etc... these aren't knowns, but some plants are going to lose some bells and whistles, that have a minor impact on safety, but nothing that can't be overcome with ground pounders (hence our Dec and Jan vacation cancel). even as stupid as the sociocrats in DC seem, they understand linchpin, survival of our way of life (fat,dumb,numb,lazy,garbage in garbage out kids), type issues. Power should be the only discussion. Power is the end game. Wait, power is the only "game". with out power we lose it all, PERIOD. i have to commend CP&l (30%nuke) for coming out and saying the truth, that they will "island" their area to protect the integrity of the system. we need more 'real' thinking. we can't stay connected during the role over and have 250 million people freezing to death. 'island' and cut that figure to 10%. Sucks to get power from a CO-OP! anyway, flames are neither required nor desired. Tree Humpers unite and keep up the good work, every villiage needs an idiot.

love, jongalt

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

Answers

Power is the big ticket item in this here challange.

It must stay up at just about any cost.

It would be nice to have alternatives to the sources we rely on.

Y2K isn't a nice situation at all.

Even if the juice flows throughout the events coming, the potential for disruptions is still damn near overwhelming.

Lose the juice for any length of time and it becomes damned overwhelming. Really big, bad and ugly.

I say let the most overall industry knowledgeable grunt force do their jobs and keep the juice flowing for as long as we need them.

It'll be nice when we don't need them anymore.

Steve

-- Anonymous, July 24, 1999

Huh?

-- Anonymous, July 25, 1999

Go Navy! Beat Army!

There is a big assumption here that electric power is the linchpin. I personally believe that Y2K will unfold in three phases (1) Widespread power disruption lasting no more than two weeks; (2) A brownout/third world power system phase lasting perhaps through mid February and finally (3) a critical resource supply phase that will last as long as Y2K wreaks havoc (assuming it does) with critical resource supply lines from overseas.

Now here is where the Nuke Power is critical to society functioning. Let's assume that "in the name of humanity" we take all the nukes off line. We then face a critical dilemma for the economy and perhaps society as a whole if and when supplies or oil and natural gas are not reaching the US in ample enough quantities to power oil-burning plants. The strategic oil reserve is full now. But if we see a disruption in the supply of foreign oil, how long will it be before the same folks who know they have to keep the power on to ensure our way of life (fat, dumb, numb, etc.) will be faced with the decision to implement gas rationing?

Maintaining the power grid is important, but not as important as maintaining the psychological grid. The psych grid can be knocked off line by any number of different problems. Declaring all nukes unsafe and arbitrarily taking them all offline is tantamount to creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of societal breakdown due to Y2K, particularly if the supply of foreign oil is significantly reduced. I can just picture public reaction when "the Public" is told in May or June that we have to bring the nukes back on line (the most unsafe, hazardous and deadly devices ever conceived by mankind)because we cannot produce adequate power by conventional means due to fuel shortages. Add that debate to fuel rationing and increasing blackouts and brownouts due to the shrinking fuel supply and you will see the psychological grid stressed to the breaking point.

God Bless Admiral Rickover! Go Navy! Go Nuke Power!

-- Anonymous, July 25, 1999

It's a foregone conclusion the nukes will stay on line. May as well drop it unless you have info to help them stay on line safely. Detractors of the plan will be ignored. Trying to scare the crap out of one another with melt-down scenarios is futile and counter- productive.

Gas rationing will be far superior to blackouts.

We have strategic oil reserves and we also have some oil production in this country. Not nearly enough to meet the current demand but I wonder if it isn't enough to fuel the power plants that use oil. I suspect the fuel will be routed to them first as high priority, (IF it comes to that). Secondarily will be the means to get coal to the power plants that use coal; i.e. diesel fuel for the trains. Then energy for other infra-structure items, (especially government).

I have every confidence that the utmost would be done to maintain the electric grid. That includes getting it back up as fast as possible if it goes down.

We could call that the Macro-management plan. We can needle the NRC, the NERC and whoever else but I don't think we have much affect on them.

On the micro level we have to shift for ourselves. Individuals and small businesses can, (and really, really should), assess the situation, and prepare and plan accordingly.

If you think we are all in for a rude awakening about our dependence on electricity/energy, you might consider entering the alternate/renewable energy field. That field blossomed after the energy crisis of the seventies. So did energy conservation businesses; Insulation, et.al. At the very least you might consider selling any gas guzzlers you may own and getting a fuel efficient vehicle.

If foreign oil gets cut off or limited to any significant degree and or for any length of time I'd expect a very strong interest in ways to reduce our dependency on that stuff. Watch for tax breaks and incentives to help these businesses.

This assumes we aren't consumed with basic survival like eating, staying warm, managing our families, etc. If the "S... Hits The Fan" in a big way the have to have-not ratio in this country could dramatically change for the worse, overnight.

Interesting times.

Steve

-- Anonymous, July 25, 1999

Note: Didn't say the maintenance schedule was the ONLY thing that wasn't compliant, just an example of the difference between my plant being ready vs. compliant. But as I did say before, get yourself some guns and some groceries and move near a nuclear power plant. We'll be up next January.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 1999

Oh, I get it. It's about Army vs. Navy. Makes me feel so much better.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 1999

This forum is being hijacked by pronuclear agendists.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 1999

fred williams: hijacked by what?

i think you meant to say that people with a real CLUE are finally starting to make some intelligent posts. i understand how that could piss off all the tree humpers here that get their info from oprah and the militant Earth First! organizations.

some of us could stand the drivel no longer.

love, jongalt

-- Anonymous, July 26, 1999

Nucpwr,

You know, after that last post above, I am beginning to really take you seriously. Maybe you're right about the nukes after all. I feel pretty sure you are right about the other two recommendations. :-)

-- Anonymous, July 26, 1999

Jon,

Interesting post. Seems there are still nuclear power proponents with an attitude but.. I can certainly understand your frustrations. I have found some of your comments regarding the benefits of nuclear energy reasonably accurate and factual as well as your comment relative to the negative waste disposal issue. Although clearly tinged with some measure of provoked anger, your post was informative and I thank you. I presume you are an operator.. is this true?

I am not a nuclear expert and only profess some fundamental understanding of the nuclear steam generation process. In speaking of the reliability of required nuclear safety systems, I am compelled to admit, quite openly, my unmatched ignorance of what they are and how they work. Therefore, while I have concerns regarding these safety systems, they are related exclusively to the NRCs position that enforcement discretion is acceptable at a time of uncertainty. Obviously, you and your brethren are the least burdened with these concerns and, therefore, are an excellent source of assurance for the rest of us that every step will be taken to ensure plant safety.

My early career was spent on the fossil fuel side of the business in power plants but the bulk of my work life has been in generation, transmission and distribution system operations. I will not argue with you, the potential safety or environmental issues relative to fossil fired vs nuclear steam generation. I believe you would win hands down and frankly, I am a supporter. But as you must know, things are just not that simple. I would suggest to you that the bottom line issue in this respect is the ultimate fossil vs nuclear consequence of failure. This is the greatest fear.

I do respectfully disagree that without nuclear energy we are lost. Lets face it Jon, a power plants nuclear reactor is great for making steam. very economically and very cleanly. I do agree that the alternative is both more expensive and not very pretty. But there are alternatives and, ultimately, it is and always will be the choice of the American public. Isnt it ironic that your beloved Navy fought so magnificently and valiantly during the world war to ensure that that choice remains with them?

Finally, I do have to take issue here with your comment regarding CP&L. I presume you are referring to Carolina Power & Light when you say that they have chosen to island their area to protect the integrity of the system. I visited their website and found no implicit statement that indicated that it was the intent of the company, as a member of SERC, to isolate their system from their neighbors prior to the rollover. In particular, they seem to advocate cooperative and coordinated support for their region. For a more detailed explanation, see FAQ # 7 at:

http://www.cplc.com/about/policy/Y2K/Y2KFaq.html

Best of luck Jon

-- Anonymous, July 27, 1999