Watch What They Do! State Department Has Spent $6 Million For Emergency Generators

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

On October 22nd the House International Affairs Committee held hearings regarding the Y2K issue.

From CNET News.com, URL: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1009-200-922251.html?tag=st.ne.1009.thed.1009-200-922251

"John O'Keefe, the State Department's top Y2K troubleshooter, said a key concern was the possible loss of electricity in places like Eastern and Central Europe at the height of winter.

Replying to a question from committee chairman Rep. Ben Gilman (R-New York), O'Keefe said the State Department had spent about $6 million for emergency generators for overseas U.S. diplomatic posts.

Another $1 million had been earmarked for diesel fuel so they could operate for up to 15 days if local power grids failed, he said."

And from the same report:

"The United States has topped off overseas emergency caches to help cope with crises that could be sparked by the Year 2000 computer glitch, a senior official said yesterday.

'Strategically located stockpiles of food, blankets and emergency supplies are at capacity level,' Richard Nygard of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told the House International Relations Committee."

The Associated Press reported on other aspects of this hearing at: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19991021/tc/y2k_international_6.html

WASHINGTON(AP) - The CIA informed Congress on Thursday that it is "highly confident" Y2K computer failures will not lead to the accidental launch of a ballistic missile by any country.

But the intelligence agency expressed some concern over the safety of aging Soviet-era nuclear power plants in Russia and Ukraine.

These so-called Chernobyl-style reactors could develop year 2000 computer bugs that would be further aggravated by any power failures, said Lawrence Gershwin, the CIA's national intelligence officer for science and technology.

Gershwin told the House International Affairs Committe that these older reactors have "inherent design problems," including lack of total containment systems.

"The chance of a nuclear incident in Russia, Ukraine or another state with Soviet-designed reactors during the Y2K rollover is low," Gershwin said. "It is, however, higher than normal because of the likelihood that the power grid could experience failures."

"In the worst case, this could cause a meltdown and in some cases, an accompanying release of radioactive fission gases causing localized contamination," he said.

At this late date, testing and making all Soviet-designed nuclear power plant systems Y2K compliant "is not feasible, particularly given the age of the computer systems and the fact that many of the original manufacturers have gone out of business," Gershwin said.

Also from the same report:

Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, the State Department's inspector general, said that the United States needs to guard against complacency and that there remains serious risk of major Y2K-related problems.

"We must recognize the potential for disruptions," she said. In particular, she testified, "developing countries are generally lagging behind and are struggling to find the financial and technical resources needed to solve their Y2K problems." _____________________________________________________________________

Jeff's Editorial Comments:

The U.S. State Department has spent $6 million on emergency generators and $1 million on diesel so that their at-risk overseas posts can function without electricity from local grids for 15 days.

Strategically located stockpiles of food, blankets and emergency supplies are at capacity level.

I draw two conclusions from this:

1) Someone in authority in the U.S. government (who might just be in a position to know something ) has concluded that the probability of serious problems occurring because of the Y2K bug is significant enough to justify taking these actions, and

2) I think I'll go out and buy some more beans.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 1999

Answers

Just for shits and giggles, a million bucks will buy you approximately 33,000 barrels of diesel fuel (using the Cal avg spot price of diesel [not the retail!] or 1.39 million gallons. Depending on the size of the gens, (i'm estimating that they are using gens that cost about 80k per) that would give them 18,000 gals per gen at 75 locations around the world.

Hmm. Some bump in the road.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 1999


The State Department has been taking this very seriously for quite some time now. The CIA was warning about extensive problems last year. The only real difference between last year and this year is "perception". There seems to be a perception, by the general public, that extensive work/success has been achieved. Yet the gurus who know what actually happens in complex system remediation were saying that we probably lost the "big" battle at 500 days and counting. So, the State Department is making serious plans for serious problems. I will say this one more time: We have never in recent history made these kind of plans, *worldwide*, for some earthquake or storm threats.

Also, personally, I believe the original Navy report published by Jim Lord was legitimate and correct. It was the best forecast the Navy had. Data that was "uncertain" was *not* going into the 3 catagory. The 3 catagory was a correct and valid conclusion based on what the Navy had discovered. Were there some errors in that forecast? Sure. Both ways. Some things will turn out to have been overly pessimistic and some things will turn out to have not been pessimistic enough, by a large margin. Anyone who wants to throw away that Navy report is free to do so. We are all free to throw away any forecast for any scenario, any time we please. That's why we have Pollys and Gloomers.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 1999


Its one thing to tell ME that a coupla cans of food and a coupla batteries is all that I will need, but when it gets personal, well thats something else.

dave

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999


Jim,

Thanks for contributing your expertise to help make my point that our government is acting like Y2K could be much more serious than a 'three day storm'. I had a hunch that a million+ gallons of diesel fuel was a significant purchase.

Speaking of hunches, you're a fellow inhabitant of 'PG&Eland'. What's your current best guess about PG&E's Y2K prospects?

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999


Please note that Y2K did not scare the State Department into creating contingency plans and supplies. The supplies they have _always had_ have been beefed up a little. This is not an indication that they know something we might not, but a 'just in case' action that we all agree is prudent. (The government knowing something that the rest of us can't find out??????? Give me a break!!! Or is it some kind of guvvmint conspiracy???)

-- Anonymous, October 26, 1999


Walt,

The point is that the government is saying one thing and doing quite another(what else is new?). We, the people, are constantly being told by Koskinen & Company that all we need to do for Y2K is prepare as we would for a "three day storm". Meanwhile, they're preparing to be able to operate without electricity for fifteen days! I agree with your assessment that what the government is doing is prudent. I think it would be prudent for individuals to be similarly prepared.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ