Slashdot Mirror
Blackout Week Continues
RedCard writes "Back in April of 1999, Wired magazine published an issue featuring a black-on-black cover with the title Lights Out. In it, they detailed what could've happened had the Y2K bug not fizzled. There's the cover story detailing the Y2K worries, a guide to the biggest blackouts of all time (before last week, that is), survival stories from New Zealand, and finally a look at the myth of order - how our power system is as chaotic as any complex software system. By the way, whatever happened to those backups put in place for Y2K that were supposed to prevent one grid from taking out a zillion others? Where'd my tax money go? Enjoy!" Dennis Kucinich has also written an informative piece about the energy utility that seems to have been responsible for the recent blackout.
Check out, with Onkel Babelfish if your Deutsch is as bad as mine....
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/ju-15.08.03
> how is this a troll? it's an honest criticism of slashdot's most idiotic editor. i love how slashdot can dish it, but can't take it themselves when the eyes are on them. talk about hypocrites.
Sounds like you're not much a fan of "let the market decide".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Nice try. Most power transfer mechanisms rely on the venerable E-TAGing system. Most are highly customized, and written in C. AFAIK, none of them use Windows RPC code.
Conspiracy theories are only good when they are believable. Do some more research next time.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
IIRC, power transmission has never been deregulated, only power generation. So, if you're about to jump on the "deregulation = evil" bandwagon, like Lessig, note that a lot of the problems (the majority, probably) in this current blackout happened on the transmission end of things, so deregulation's role was probably minor.
I just found out that the 12 blackouts a week that I was having was because the little powerbox, that joins the wire from the power pole to my house, had shit itself. Diagnosis confirmed because my house was the only one powerless, and my mains switch and all fuses were still on (up). They (ETSA) were quite sure that the power box had died of old age, and that the plank that it was screwed to and that the wires ran through was all wet and rotten at the back had nothing to do with its untimely demise. The workers all seemed very cheerful though it was late on Sunday afternoon and raining. Maybe the double overtime rate had something to do with it?
Since deregulation of our power supply (Adelaide South Australia), blackouts have become a regular occurance, especially during really hot weather or windy weather. Can't we make airconditioners that run using heat, the same way as a kero fridge does? And obviously there isn't enough money to fund maintenance of the wires or pruning of trees. So everything is falling apart.
Not to mention, that this house has about one power point per bedroom, and just two in the office. In 30 years since this house was built, I've gone from one powerpoint in the bedroom for a reading light, to one each for the light, the stereo, the fan heater, the phone charger the AA battery charger, alarm clock, mozzie zapper, hair dryer etc. And don't get me started on the room full of computers. Etsa/AGL are charging double (instead of less as they promised) and I'm using triple.
What the APC guy wrote:
>I would suggest a new product we have available which is the BR1000I. This UPS is sufficient to support two PC's, two monitors and the 8 port hub. Because laser printers draw so much power, the laser printer will need to be plugged into the Surge Only outlet at the rear of the UPS, as it will not be able to be held up on battery power. >
>Recommended Retail Pricing for the BR1000I is $919.00. Below is a link to the spec page of the BR500I.[wadiwood: how did we get from BR1000I to BR500I?] >
> BR1000I
Maybe I should just get a diesel generator. Or imagine the sleek athletic bod I'd have if I hooked the computer to pedal power?
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
Your second example is what deregulation is. different companies can now offer "power transmission", instead of having a single power generating company, different companies are now responsible for the transmission of power and maintenance of the power grid. Because there is competition though, they can't set an arbitrary price, say one that that will help upgrade the power grid. So, no, the companies can't really charge enough to help them keep the grid up, because then nobody would buy power from them.
Really ?
You better read this (in German) or the (automatic) translation.
Why couldn't the SCADA systems been affected by some RPC blocking firewall ?
Of course no one will ever admit that such a thing has happened. Otherwise she/he will end up in Guatanamo. It's your turn now to do some research.
"The" Ohio plant? Which one?
The article is talking about the Davis-Besse plant which was out of service before the blackout.
"Accurate" predictions? Davis-Besse was not involved in last week's blackout in any way, since it was off-line!
Milalwi
I live a few miles away from Davis Besse, one of FirstEnergy's nuclear plants. In Feb 2002, they shut it down for maintenance (and I believe refueling). They found that boric acid had almost completely eaten through the steel cap on top of the reactor. A few more months and bad things would have happened. It's a very controversial issue around the area (Ottawa County, Ohio) as most area residents don't want to see the plant restarted.
FirstEnergy was also recently found guilty of breaking pollution laws when they rebuilt a power plant and did not install modernized scrubbers. No ruling on what they will be fined has come out yet.
Here is an AP article with a bit more info, and an article detailing the hole in the reactor vessel. TONS more info available via 'davis besse' on google.
As you profess to be a resident of Toronto, I seriously doubt that your "taxes are subsidising excessive users" in San Diego, CA, USA.
On the other hand, I am a resident of California and a customer of San Diego Gas and Electric and I can assure you that electric utilities have been deregulated and that our bills did, in many cases, triple.
When regulated, those utilities were guaranteed a profit of a few percent on their operations by the regulators. Operations meaning not just the generation and distribution of power, but also the expansion and maintenance of their systems. Whatever they spent, they were guranteed to make a profit. They spent money on maintenance and upgrades because those expenditures actually increased their profitability.
That gurantee of profitability gave utility companies stellar credit ratings which allowed them to borrow money for expansion at low rates.
The net result was excellent maintenance, aggressive upgrade programs, and plenty of employees to handle problems.
Free-market capitalists saw most of this benefit to consumers as irrelevant. What they saw was that a few percent of guaranteed profit wasn't enough. So they set out to increase that profit by freeing themselves of regulation. They promised that deregulation would cause companies to compete to sell me electricity and that competition would drive prices down and, by some never explained voodoo, to drive profits up.
It didn't work. Companies did not compete to sell me electricity cheaply. They conspired to withhold electricity in order to create the appearance of shortages and then sold power at extortionate rates. The problem for the utilities is that the deregulation wasn't complete. The State retained control over the maximum amount that could be charged for electricity. Who knew this would ever be a problem as we'd all been told that prices would only go down.
Utilities, which are now mainly distribution companies having sold their generators to outsiders, got stuck in the middle. Too bad for them. They all lobbied to get deregulated and they got screwed by their free-market buddies.
I'll tell you why -
01) the UK deregulation was in favour of the consumer rather than the supplier
02) the generating companies have switched as much of the generation to natural gas 'stations as quickly as possible. This is much cheaper than our old coal fired stations, but will leave us increasingly dependent on Russian gas in the future.
03) UK electricity used to be really expensive.
As an aside, my electricity bills are now AMAZINGLY low - I pay less than 25 ($40) for 3 months of domestic power from British Gas, but getting my meter moved took me over a month of chasing people around on the 'phone. What does my power use consist of? 2 x Powermacs on 24/7 (a dual G4 and a 500 G3), a 28" widescreen Panasonic TV, around 20 x 60W lamps, an electric oven, a really nice Samsung washing machine with 1600rpm spin, 2 x power amps with 500W power supplies, an 850W microwave oven and a multitude of other low Wattage electronics like DVD players and whatnot.
In fact, power costs in the UK are SO low that they act as a positive disincentive to look into more environmentally sustainable alternatives.
That was classic intercourse!
While Congressman Kucinich praises Cleveland Public Power (CPP), he fails to mention that it still has no generating capacity. It depends on First Energy and others to supply it with power. (That's part of the reason why Cleveland water department didn't have power to pump its water when the grid failed.) CPP also pays no taxes. Sure, CPP can provide cheaper electricity than investor-owned utilities. However, it's no more reliable and the taxes it doesn't pay have to come from somewhere. And do you really think a government-run utility is necessarily more efficient than an investor-owened one?
One amendment to your description: the price cap in California was meant to be a temporary price *floor*, and was enacted at the request of the energy industry lobby, not at the request of consumer groups. Energy producers asked that a fixed price be secured for a limited time in order to pay for the costs of deregulation. It was, in a sense, a contract with the state of California to provide energy at a certain rate.
As an avid outdoorsmen and survivalist, I can say you're on the right track here but there are a few things neccesary to your survival that you're neglecting.
A non-electric cooking solution is probably something that most people should have anyway. As someone already mentioned, cooking with gas is a much better way to cook due to predictability and fast reaction to change. Gas service is available in most suburban and rural areas, however it may be impractical for those in the city. For those who are some reason bound to their electric stove, or for those who want to be prepared for emergencies, camp stoves are an excellent alternative. Cheap camp stoves can be found at walmart, like this one. That stove relies on propane for its fuel and is a bit bulky for some. For those who are interested in a portable and extremely flexible solution there are several backpacking stoves which burn just about anything. The MSR XGK Expedition advertises that it burns anything from white gas to jet fuel, including auto-grade gas and kerosene, and it only costs $109.95, really not too bad of a price for something that could be invaluable in a blackout.
While a warm meal is a wonderful "bonus" during a disaster, it's really not too much of a requirement. Considering most "disasters" seem to last around a week, one could easily survive on other forms of nutrition for that long. It's always a good idea to keep a few powerbars, clif bars, or other form of highly compacted nutritional bar around. More important than food though is water. Even if the worst case scenario were to hit and you were caught totally off guard with no food in the house, you can survive for quite some time on your lovehandles, thunder thighs, and beer (or geek) gut, as long as you've got WATER. Again for the camper/hiker/backpacker there are tons of great portable water filters out there that should make damn near anything drinkable. If you're planning on staying at home a filtration pitcher is a good thing to have, unlike faucet based filters, you can use the pitcher with water collected from any source (rainwater if need be).
But food and water are only one thing that you should be prepared with. Especially for the northerners, you should have some way of keeping warm. Now, if you're in a suburban or rural area, a woodstove may be the best way to "kill two birds with one stone", not only can they heat an entire house with flexible low-cost high-availability fuels, but in an emergency you can cook on them too. Regardless of what you're using to heat your home, there are a few simple items that can save your life in a "disaster" situation by keeping you warm. The first and maybe most important is a good sleeping bag. The body burns a ton of calories just trying to stay warm in cold weather, with food and water supplies possibly a concern, it is in anyone's best interests to stay as warm as possible. For those of you who are only looking at in-home emergencies, wal-mart sells cheap zero degree bags, and if your home should drop to below zero god help you. Anyone into camping/hiking or who would like something to keep in a car should check out a
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Not to mention the already linked Kucinich piece./ 16KUTT.h tml?pagewanted=print&position=
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/16/opinion
August 16, 2003
An Industry Trapped by a Theory
By ROBERT KUTTNER
n the search for the source of Thursday's blackout, the underlying cause has been all but ignored: deregulation. In principle, deregulation of the power industry was supposed to use the discipline of free markets to generate just the right amount of electricity at the right price. But electric power, it turns out, is not like ordinary commodities.
Electricity can't be stored in large quantities, and the system needs a lot of spare generating and transmission capacity for periods of peak demand like hot days in August. The power system also requires a great deal of planning and coordination, and it needs incentives for somebody to maintain and upgrade transmission lines.
Deregulation has failed on all these grounds. Yet it has few critics. Evidently, even calamities like the Enron scandal and now the most serious blackout in American history are not enough to shake faith in the theory.
Ten years ago, most public utilities were regulated monopolies. They were guaranteed a fair rate of return, based on their capital investment and costs. So the government compensated them for building spare generating capacity and maintaining transmission lines. Regulators, of course, sometimes made mistakes and the industry oversold technologies like nuclear power. Even so, in the half-century before deregulation, productivity in the electric power industry increased at about triple the rate of the economy as a whole.
However, the wave of deregulation that culminated in the late 1990's broke up the integrated utilities like Con Ed that once generated power in its own plants, transmitted it and sold it retail. It ushered in a new breed of entrepreneurial generating and trading companies. However, the prices the local utility companies could charge consumers remained partly regulated. The theory was that local utilities, no longer producing their own power, could negotiate among competing suppliers for the best price and pass the savings along to the consumer.
But deregulation hasn't worked, for three basic reasons. First, there is a fairly fixed demand for electricity and generating capacity is tight, so companies that produce it enjoy a good deal of power to manipulate prices. The Enron scandal, which soaked Californians for tens of billions of dollars, was only the most extreme example. California authorities calculated that a generating company needed to control just 3 percent of the state's supply to set a monopoly price.
Second, the idea of creating large national markets to buy and sell electricity makes more sense as economic theory than as physics, because it consumes power to transmit power. "It's only efficient to transmit electricity for a few hundred miles at most," says Dr. Richard Rosen, a physicist at the Tellus Institute, a nonprofit research group.
Third, under deregulation the local utilities no longer have an economic incentive to invest in keeping up transmission lines. Antiquated power lines are operating too close to their capacity. The more power that is shipped long distances in the new deregulated markets, the more power those lines must carry.
In addition, in the old days of regulation, a utility like Con Ed would be required to regularly submit a resource plan to a state's public service commission. The two organizations would forecast demand and decide how much money should be invested in power plants and transmission lines. Rates would be adjusted to cover costs. Under deregulation, however, nobody plays that crucial planning role.
Much of the Southeast, by contrast, has retained traditional regulation -- and cheap, reliable electricity.
When the blackout hit on Thursday, many of us first thought of terrorists. What hit us may be equally dangerous. We are hostage to a delusional view of economics that allowed much of the Northeast to go dark without an enemy lifting a finger.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and author of "Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets."
From Rich Galen's Mullings today:
The North American Energy Reliability Council which tracks such things has determined that, including last week, there have been seven grid failures since the big one on November 9, 1965. None lasted for more than a day.
Let's go to the blackboard...
The number of days between November 8, 1965 and August 14, 2003 is 13,793.
The number of days in which some portion of the national power grid failed during that period is 7.
Dividing 13,793 by 7 we get 0.000507504
Moving the decimal two places to the right (and rounding up) we get a failure rate of 51 THOUSANTHS of one percent.
Stating it the other way, the power grid (which was described by former Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson as being like one in a "third world country") has been up 99.949 percent of the time over the past 37 years.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
OK, here are my KWh stats from my last bill :
Electricity used (29 April - 29 July) 298 KWh
224 KWh @ 0.1001 per KWh
74 KWh @ 0.052 per KWh
cost of electricity used = 26.27 ($58.15 Canadian)
after tax & discounts = 23.84 ($52.78 Canadian)
I think the most obvious thing here is that you use EIGHT AND A HALF TIMES as much juice as me. I'm astonished at this multiple, but I don't know if you have AC or electric heating (neither of which I have). Certainly gives pause for thought, no? So your power is HALF the price of ours, but you use 8.5X as much!
That's North American life in a nutshell right there!
That was classic intercourse!