Power: Dick Mill's Latestgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Dick Mill's latest piece takes a more pessimistic tone than his previous pieces:
http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/PP/RC/dm9845.htm
-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), November 13, 1998Answers
This is bad, bad, bad, very bad news. Dick Mills has always been the most optimistic of the power industry experts (e.g., Rick Cowles), and has always been the one to always see a possible way that the electricity can flow. But he has always hedged it with a big IF, such as power plants can be run manually IF the planning, preparation, training, additional personnel, etc., etc., get started pronto. This, coupled with the recent statement from the Alliant electric utility folks (covered on an earlier thread), pretty much spells w-o-r-s-t c-a-s-e s-c-e-n-a-r-i-o, in my humble opinion.
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 13, 1998.
Gary's gonna love this one. If memory serves, the NRC will have to close down any of the 110 or so Nuke Plants if they cannot certify their operational safety, by next July. The previous info we had said that they generate about 22% of the power in the country, as much as 40% in some regions, but the grid has only about a 15% excess capacity. After looking at that graph, we may be in negative territory sooner than we think....even without Y2K.
-- Robert Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), November 13, 1998.
After reading what was posted here I ran over to Dick Mills' article and gave it a good look over. I even logged off with it on my screen so I could read it several times without tying up a phone line.Jack - "and has always been the one to always see a possible way that the electricity can flow."
I have now read the article four times, and I fail to see where he said that power will cease to flow. Yes, Mills has said time and time again that there is an extremly good chance of shortages, but I do not see where this article changed his view point of getting through Y2K.
"But he has always hedged it with a big IF, such as power plants can be run manually IF the planning, preparation, training, additional personnel, etc., etc., get started pronto."
He did not address manual operation in this article, so I am not sure why this is brought up.
Jack, I know this sounds a little harsh, and believe me I am having a lousy day so the last thing I want is a fight, but I just fail to see where you got what you did from this paticular article.
Rick
-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 13, 1998.
Dick Mills notices something else: in most people's minds, y2k seems very compartmentalized. Very strange. He points out that when NERC reports on y2k, their text (if not their summary) notices slow progress and warns of possibly serious problems. But when NERC reports on the power situation in general, y2k vanishes. y2k is simply not part of their normal predictive tools and trends.I've seen articles in some publications, on facing pages and by the same author, talking about the electronics industry. The y2k article (on the lefthand page) is gloomy -- lots of bugs, little action, major manufacturers facing major problems in accounting, supplies, transportation, the usual litany. On the righthand page, this author projects growth in the industry from now til 2005, and it's a nice, smooth rising line all the way.
These authors switch in and out of 'y2k-think' seamlessly. When they focus on y2k, they see real problems, and give every indication of 'getting it'. But when not focused on y2k, they go on about their business without giving y2k any thought at all. Why?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 13, 1998.
And that, Flint, is the $64,000 question! We may never know. . .
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 13, 1998.
# # # 19981113A major medical insurance company in a medwestern state sent it's muckety-mucks to confront the muckety-mucks at one of the largest electrical power concerns in June ( 1998! ) to get a DIRECT ANSWER to whether the grid would be "available" post-Y2K. All they walked away with, were assurances that they "are working on it" and otherwise blank faces.
Needless to say, this was NOT what they wanted to hear. Immediately, they started planning to "shut down" Y2K remediation, not happy about the prospects of throwing good money after bad. Corporations -- having no leverage, whatsoever, over suppliers, will realize by end of 1Q1999 that Y2K-due diligence is a real bad joke.
Even Dick Mill must be able to figure _that much out.
How many others will get beyond the smoke and mirrors -- in time?
Regards, Bob Mangus # # #
-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), November 13, 1998.
Dang...sorry...CLOSE your tags...I have talked to some folks who think that Mills' article portends bad news indeed...
Did I close the tag?
-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), November 13, 1998.
Just a quick note, Not really a response to the mills thing, but the Muckity Muck in one reminded me of this. Hubby was required to go out of town to be meeting for IT story on "It in the new Millenium." We were very excited about the info we would hear on Y2Y ...does it suprise anyone that it wasn't even mention???? This a huge utility company. DAC
-- deborah cunningham (dac@ccrtc.com), November 13, 1998.
One of the possible post rollover scenarios is a slowmotion collapse of the infrastructure. He alludes to this in his article and is the source of the gloom in this piece. I wonder how weeks/months of power surges/undervoltages will affect things like the telecomm interfaces.
-- R. D..Herring (drherr@erols.com), November 13, 1998.
My Mom was at lunch with a very high ranking Michigan politician two weeks ago. She asked ,"How are the electric companies in Michigan doing with this Y2K problem?" The politician answer was a short "Not good". Mom is getting a generator this weekend.
-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), November 13, 1998.
General Gripe not aimed at anyone in particular - if I posted second hand rumours saying I heard from someone that knew someone that Y2K was a bunch of s**t you guys would be all over me. But you will accept the same level of information as 'proof' that disaster is in the offing. Can anyone say bias?About the energy figures on how much is generated by what source : here are the right figures as of 1995 at this link.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/epa_1995/volume1/table10.html
The vast bulk is coal fired - nuclear is next with natural gas and hydro combined producing about as much as nuclear - oil fired and renewable are a small fraction of the total.
If you read some of the other information available from the DOE site you find out our nuclear plants in the US were ordered before 1974 - otherwise not completed due to lawsuits, etc. The implied assumption above that no nuclear plant would be proven to be compliant, is not a good assumption.
-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 13, 1998.
If the plants have to be shut down because they can not prove that they are compliant, the biggest problem is that it takes a core SIX MONTHS to cool down.To the best of my knowledge that means that they can not shut them down in December 99. They would have to be assessed for compliance and shut down no later than July 1 99. They could not wait until later because they would not be able to get the core cooled down enough while still relying on their systems past Jan 1 2000.
What would happen would be that a large portion of generating capacity would be lost about six months from now if many had to be shut down. Remember, the East coast gets 40% of its juice from nukes.
-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), November 15, 1998.
Rick,You may be correct. However, from the way I read his article, he appears to be furious with the NERC. Anger always comes from fear. Dick appears to me to be very afraid. The following is pretty much how I read his bottom line assessment. Be prepared to seek revenge through the judicial system!
Dick says:
"Are they right? Only time will tell for sure. However, one thing is apparent today. If they aren't right, and if significant Y2K-caused power disruptions occur in 2000, then this report will be the smoking gun used by plaintiff lawyers to prove lack of due diligence by the industry. Because they've had so many advance warnings liability for lack of due diligence extends personally to the officers and directors of the corporations. Like turkeys at Thanksgiving time, their necks are fully extended. They better be right.
My advice to everyone who is a customer of an electric utility in the USA is to download the forecast report, print it, and give it to your attorney to file for possible future use."
It doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Best regards,
Anna
-- Anna McKay Ginn (annaginn@aol.com), November 15, 1998.
There is one other point I would like to make in regards to Dick's article. In Mr. Gorzelnik's response to Dick, his very last line referred to the "miracle" of electricity.Are we to believe that it takes heavenly intervention to provide electricity? If so, I'm going to start praying today.
Dear "Higher Power" . . . . .
Best regards,
Anna
-- Anna McKay Ginn (annaginn@aol.com), November 15, 1998.
Mr. Milne,Regarding your statement that, ". . .it takes a core SIX MONTHS to cool down.", please refer to the thread titled, "Robert A. Cook, P.E., Please comment!" Here's the link: (click here)
Although your statement may be in some measure accurate, it simply does not meaningfully address the subject of reactor cool down. If you'll take the trouble to verify them, you'll find that Mr. Cook's credentials make him eminently qualified to speak to the subject.
Rick Cowles has also addressed the issue on the forum at the EUY2K site and is in agreement with Mr. Cook's reply.
Whether or not the east coast will get any power from its "nukes" is certainly an open question at best, but it also seems quite clear that the cooling down period is not a major concern.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 15, 1998.
Rick, my comments on Dick Mills is my impression of him after reading the many articles that he has put out, with this last one striking me as being very different -- read very pessimistic. My take on his previous articles is that, no matter how bad things looked, there was always some workaround or whatever that he envisioned. This article does not say, and I sure did not mean to imply that he said, that literally electricity will cease to flow. Just that it clearly is reporting some very bad news, news that Mills does not seem to have an "Ok, well if we do this ..." type answer to.
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 15, 1998.
Jack,I read it exactly the same way.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 15, 1998.
Hardliner - My reading of this article (And I also read all of Dick's articles) is this, he was angry. Y2K should not have been ignored in the report, and by doing so they have opened themselves up for all sorts of legal problems. Really it all boils down to how you read it, I will agree it was a little bit more pessimistic sounding than usual for him, but I also see a man who may feel like he is pounding his head against a wall.Didn't realize that my take on this article was going to stir up such a dust cloud.
Rick
-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 15, 1998.
Rick,I agree with your reading also but I don't see your interpretation and Jack's as being mutually exclusive.
Mills has a quite capable mind and I suspect that he's angry at a bit more than the clown from NERC that esentially blew him off after the report blew everyone off.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 15, 1998.
Maybe Nerc needs to look at the latest filings on y2k. For you denialheads do this:Go to http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar Type in Conectiv Click on 10-Q filed on 11/12. Scroll down to page 22. Forget Mills, Forget Nerc...Remember the facts. I can't wait to read the spin doctors on this.
-- Bob Brown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 19, 1998.