Y2K and Energy Sector Problems

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread

Here is something I just posted on EZBoard. I thought it might be of interest.

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=21038.topic&index=17

What I recall saying in 1999 and as late as April of 2000 is that it could take until the first quarter of 2001 before impacts might reach a level 3 or 4 on the impact scale. Whether or not this would happen would depend on how much was done by the public and private sectors to make sure that necessary remediation had been done. I would add that it would also depend on the success of those "fixing on failure".

Note: There are several versions of the impact scale. The one I was referring to is described in Part 1 of my White Paper at www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon

A few days ago I had drafted some of the following thoughts concerning what has happened and what is happening regarding the energy sector.

Most of what is happening was predicted. We may never know whether or not what is happening is a prediction being borne out or a coincidence.

I believe that in 1999 an International Energy Agency report included a statement that Y2K-related embedded systems problems affecting the energy sector could be expected and that there would be no way to trace these problems back to Y2K. The initial aberration or malfunction that can lead to a system breakdown can be impossible to trace.

In Part 3 of my White Paper, I urged that deregulation be put on hold so that problems likely to result from Y2K would not result in even greater negative impacts.

The embedded systems experts with whom I was in touch in the summer of 2000 felt that the electric power grid was under great strain owing to the buffer overflow problems that they were aware of. Evidently, the more a system has to be rebooted, the more the system is weakened. Eventually it fails. This makes it all the more important to try to understand and address the actual causes of embedded system and complex integrated system problems at as early a stage as possible. If the causes are not understood or identified, there is little or no chance that they can be effectively addressed before there is a failure.

It seems reasonable to assume that the cost of having a system fail is far greater than the cost of taking preventive action or taking remedial action as soon as you have acknowledged the fact that you have a problem and as soon as you have identified its source or likely source.

When plants have had to work "flat out", the likelihood of problems is increased. Increases in demand combined with an increase in the need for maintenance and repair have been some of the factors that are contributing to our present situation.

I think that what we have with the faltering of the energy sector reflects a confluence of interconnected problems affecting everything from production, distribution, and generation to transmission. If Y2K had not been a factor, I think that we would have a much less serious situation than the one we face right now.

The impact on banks, on businesses, on the national and global economy have begun and will continue so long as the eighth largest economy in the world (California) is in such dire straits. Ripple effects are beginning to be felt regionally within the US and as well as within Canada.

Perhaps the situation can be addressed and reversed without a mention of the role that Y2K-related problems involving embedded systems and complex integrated systems are playing. Perhaps all that matters is that those addressing the problems understand what has happened and gear their actions accordingly. If those on the front lines who have hands on responsibilities for addressing the problems fail to understand the causes and if they fail to address the causes, then they may run the risk of merely providing short term fixes that will have to be repaired again and again down the line.

Policymakers and regulators may never fully comprehend the extent to which Y2K has played and is playing a role in our current growing energy problems. As of March of 2000, I was able to identify no technical experts at the Department of Energy who were aware of the possible connection between Y2K-related embedded and complex integrated system problems and problems involving the oil and gas sector. There was also no one at DOE or in the rest of the Federal government tasked with monitoring or assessing Y2K-related problems involving the energy sector and taking action to see that these were acknowledged and addressed.

I saw Carl Sagan quoted on the GICC website yesterday. The quote was as follows:

"We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

How things unfold from this point forward has much to do with the understanding and action of those in key roles of responsibility, including those on the frontlines. It is still possible to ameliorate present impacts and minimize those that we can otherwise expect in the future.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), January 23, 2001

Answers

Thank you for your thoughts and help, Paula. We have all wondered about the dead silence and the immediate energy problems after the rollover. In reviewing our Y2Kids site recently http://www.y2kids.net, I looked at the great cartoons we created under the link "CoCo goes to the White House." In these cartoons former President Clinton shows concern for helping ordinary people, children and schools through the concerns around the Y2K rollover. I realized that on the surface he was very successful in handling the Y2K rollover. I wondered why there was no mention of this success in the year 2000 or as he was leaving office in 2001. It really was remarkable that such a smooth transition was accomplished. My conclusion is perhaps as Paula is saying it was not over and that was well known at the top. It was a matter of riding it out and keeping a low profile about it to prevent panic, lawsuits and particularly, political backfire. So the plug was pulled on Y2K in a most remarkable fashion the likes of which we may not see again in our lifetime.

-- Jeanette Thomas (y2kids@y2kids.net), January 23, 2001.

Archived story from 08/04/99 "Beyond the Hype: likely Y2K Impacts on the U.S. Electricity Service"

Power engineer and Y2K analyst Dick Mills makes the following predictions regarding the availability in the United States of electrical power in the year 2000:

1.Prepare for blackouts in the first days of January 2000, lasting up to 72 hours. 2.Prepare for shortages of power in the warm summer months of 2000.

Mills predicts that carefully regulated power shortages eventually affecting most U.S electricity customers is much more likely in the year 2000 than uncontrolled localized power blackouts. The odds of power shortages are particularly high during the summer of 2000, especially if the summer is hot in most areas of the United States. Power shortages result when power generation "margins" dip below 0%. Margins of 15-30% are standard for the industry in the United States, meaning that generation capacity is usually 15-30% larger than demand.

The following is from a current article.

Experts set out to de-bug systems

``Most view reliability issues as dirty laundry,'' said Dale Way, who led Y2K research for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. ``A lot of organizations have methods of reacting when things fail and keeping it in-house. . . . It's serious and expensive, but it's buried inside the cost structure of organizations.''

The Mercury News

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), January 23, 2001.

Great to hear from you, Paula. I was wondering what your thoughts were. How abour another brainstorming session? I miss them.

On ex-Pres Clinton... If he had done such a good job, the country would be much more prepared than it is. You would have had prepared households in the areas where ice storms took out power. You would have prepared businesses where they are having outages in California.

I don't think nearly enough was done to encourage the people of this country to a higher level of preparedness.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Being prepared is a really good thing!

Sally Strackbein www.Y2KKitchen.com

-- Sally Strackbein (sally@Y2KKitchen.com), January 23, 2001.

Jeanette,

You wrote that you conclude that what I said in my posting was that "...(Y2K) was not over and that was well known at the top. It was a matter of riding it out and keeping a low profile about it to prevent panic, lawsuits and particularly, political backfire..."

That is not really what I was saying. I think it is more complicated than that and that the Federal policymakers had exhibited and have continued to exhibit an absence of technical understanding of Y2K- related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems. There was (and is) an "ignorance factor". Their efforts were not informed on a continuing basis by an understanding of the technical problems associated with embedded systems and complex integrated systems. Certainly, the Administration was concerned about negative political fallout if things went poorly, but so far as I have been able to determine, there was never adequate reliance on the technical expertise as it related to Y2K-connected embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems, so there was no way of their being fully informed concerning what happened. There is no way of their being fully informed concerning what is continuing to happen. There was only intermittently interest in such technical matters, mostly in late 1999. Based on what I know of what went on, Federal efforts appeared to be only intermittently informed by persons with an understanding of these technical matters. From what I have been able to determine, no one at the Department of Energy, the Information Coordination Center of the President's Council, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board had or have both

~ the expertise in embedded system and complex integrated systems technology to adequately track or monitor problems that occurred before and after the rollover and extending through the present and

~ the task of doing so on a continuing basis.

I discuss various aspects of this in further detail in a presentation that I gave in April 2000. A summary of the presentation is available on my website along with a link to a realvideo version: http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon

Similar concerns are also discussed in the John Koskinen questions and answers piece that is also posted on my website. Background information is provided in the appendices to the Q&A piece.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), January 23, 2001.

-- Poster (P@Y2K. finally.arrives), January 23, 2001

Answers

Deja vu all over again. Even the sales pitch hasn't changed. Gotta buy those preps from me.

OT

-- OT (oldtimer@tb2000.xxx), January 23, 2001.

"Ain't tenure grand?"

--Carl Sagan

-- (nemesis@awol.com), January 23, 2001.

Nemesis:

""Ain't tenure grand?" " Unless it is a recent development, Paula doesn't have tenure.

OT

-- OT (Old Timer@TB2000.xxx), January 23, 2001.

Paula gourd-on-head is a has-been, washed up old twit.

As correctly predicted by the debunkers, the doomers would look at any...ANY failure post-rollover as being y2k related, even when they know it isn't. Gourd-on-head KNOWS better, but she is selling herself and doesn't seem to know when to quit. I suspect ol paula g. is the one that started this thread.....naw.....couldn't be.....

Dry up and blow away, old tumble weed....

-- Psych Major (psychob@b.le), January 24, 2001.

Even the sales pitch hasn't changed. Gotta buy those preps from me.

This is the first time I've seen someone claim Paula Gordon was selling Y2k preparedness supplies. Provide some documentation for this claim -- if indeed it's true.

-- (Document@tion.please), January 24, 2001.

BS

The same type of BS that is being spewed by the UN "global warming" folks.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), January 24, 2001.