Peter de Jager stated on Friday, February 12, 1999: "I believe, personally, there will be no power disruptions in North America because (no problems)have been found." The headline of the February 13, 1999 story in the "Ottawa Citizen" reads: "Y2K expert: Power, planes, banks won't fail." This is truely a bold statement.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/990213/2273979.html

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 13, 1999

Answers

Maybe he would like to begin his journey at the Atlanta Airport. Hmmmmm, I thought not!

-- Doubting Thomas (doubtful@AtlantaGa.com), February 13, 1999.

What an idiot!! Just because they haven't found something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's pretty brave to say "North America" because that also includes Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

-- (@@@.@), February 13, 1999.

O'Hare tower to de Jager flight, "You have disappeared from our screens.. Please divert to Sydney, the closest compliant airport...."

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), February 13, 1999.

Where is my flame thrower when I need it!

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), February 13, 1999.

You see, PNG, de Jager's brain has already suffered a power disruption .....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 13, 1999.

As someone else pointed out ...

January 2, 1999
Year 2000 Chip Danger Looms

http:// www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/1_2_99/fob1.htm

... A recent audit of the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire revealed that 1,304 software items and embedded chips are affected by Y2K problems. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission report described 12 of them, including a reactor coolant-level indicator, as having "safety implications." ...

What are the odds that "something" won't be fixed in time and will impact a local blackout or brownout ... or worse?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

So these numbers like 15% 50% 85% are just measuring nothing? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

c'mon PNG, de Jager has been slipping into bozospace for almost a year...I don't know if he's simply trusting that there aren't enough armed canadians left to do him in when he's proven wrong, or if he's simply delusional...especially since he's making statements like this without any factual support.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 14, 1999.

As an ex-Computer Operator, Peter de Jager is giving Operator's a bad name. (I'm an ex-Op too :) )

We're not all as dumb as young Peter.

I was in San Francisco recently when the power went out after a mouse walked across a live feed - this took out power to 300,000 people....

The system is extremely fragile... as is Mr. de Jagers' brain it seems...

Later,

Andy

-- Anders (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 14, 1999.

Not my quote, Arlin!!...his. I posted this because I think this ridiculous statement is going to get picked up by most wire services next week and spewed out as 'gospel' by those searching for good news.

No mention of banks was included in the body of the article, yet the headline read that they won't fail. The writer and Peter de Jager get paid to write and speak like this?

I, for the life of me, can't understand what is going on inside PdJ's mind?

What do we call this kind of thinking? A "Formerly Got It?" (FGI)

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 14, 1999.

The irony about de Jager's "no power disruptions" comment is that the possibility of Y2K affecting power was a factor in him becoming a GI. Here's a quote from an interview with him:

http://www0.bbc.co.uk/the_net/4/3/peter.html

In fact, one of the things that got me into this and got me fired up about it was a show "Connections" by James Burke. The first installment was an expose of the great blackout on the Eastern Seaboard and all of that happened because of one single power switch that did what it was supposed to do but had a very unexpected consequence. Well the Year 2000 is power switching, it's calculations, day calculations, millions upon millions of them in programmes all over the world that are all set to fail on a particular time...

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 14, 1999.

Like everyone else, I've been trying to keep up with the status of the utilities. My summary observations:

1) Initial concerns were very justified. We knew that utilities relied on countless embedded systems, and both the compliance status and the noncompliance impacts were complete unknowns when investigations started.

2) Intensive remediation efforts (which really are and have been taking place) have shown that the noncompliance rate of these systems was less than feared, that most noncompliances didn't affect actual power generation and distribution, and that the repair rates of those few systems that represented potential hazards have been acceptable. Fears of blackouts among experts (including Rick Cowles) have been diminishing, though we're not by any means completed everywhere yet.

3) The NERC questionnaire had a critical ambiguity. In one place, it clearly stated that remediation percentages should be expressed in terms of how much actual required remediation has been completed. In another place, it implied that already-compliant systems should be counted as remediated.

What we really needed was TWO figures: percentage of TOTAL systems that are now OK (whether they needed work or not), and percentage of systems that actually needed work that are now finished. These are two very different numbers, and NERC's effort to combine them into a single representative number has created total confusion.

4) Experience has shown that there are critical points in the grid such that key failures of specific equipment will cause at least regional power failures. My understanding is that this equipment has been determined to be largely non-dependent on dates. The claim that there are no KNOWN y2k problems with such equipment becomes more meaningful as we get increasingly close to having investigated ALL such equipment. We are probably close enough to justify some confidence that the system won't suffer such problems. We can never have COMPLETE confidence.

5) External dependence of utilities (on shipping, refining, telecommunications, transportation, etc.) of course remains an issue. Managerial responses to these issues (such as cutting off certain customers, rationing power, and other allocation strategies) are part of the contingency planning, and will probably need to be played by ear depending on the exact nature of the external problems we encounter.

6) As individuals, it remains wise for us to plan for periods of no power. As things stand, reasonable confidence that we probably won't suffer blackouts is not sufficient. A complete, end-to-end test of the entire grid and all utilities on it will be done at the actual century change, and cannot really be attempted before that. As a result, there are just too many unknowns to justify a belief that nothing bad will happen. Maybe this picture will clarify during 1999, but I'm not holding my breath.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 14, 1999.

Flint, this is an excellent summary. Perhaps you could post this on euy2k.com and get some of the electricity types to expand on your points.

The one addition I would like to make is this: the NERC report has been so obviously deficient in critcal data that their next report will, no doubt, tell us much more about the status of the electric utilities. Although the truth is coming out slowly, it is coming.

-- Tomcat (tomcat@tampabay.rr.com), February 14, 1999.