The Night The Lights Went Out.................. in San Diego

[tombogan03884]

Even though you want to, I really don't think Obama is to blame for this outage Tom.

That isn't what I meant, but............
I meant that the "Smart grid" increases vulnerability to a cyber attack such as those launched by Russia against Estonia and Georgia, and by N Korea against the US and S Korea.
And then there was the Israeli action when they took out the Syrian/N Korean  Nuke facility a few years back.
No one is really sure what the hell they did, but they owned the Syrian air defense system for hours.

[david86440]

That isn't what I meant, but............
I meant that the "Smart grid" increases vulnerability to a cyber attack such as those launched by Russia against Estonia and Georgia, and by N Korea against the US and S Korea.
And then there was the Israeli action when they took out the Syrian/N Korean  Nuke facility a few years back.
No one is really sure what the hell they did, but they owned the Syrian air defense system for hours.

I do agree we are more vulnerable today and it is getting worse with ever more dependence on the internet in controlling the grid, but, and I hate to say it, it did start before Obumma.

[Timothy]

Please explain, why two operating (on-line) nuclear power plant generators would loose electricity?    It would seem to me that a plants own power would first and foremost be used to keep the plant operating.   The "grid" would be the first backup and generators would be the second.

Though is sounds stupid, the plants generated power is sent offsite to the utility and bought back from the utility to run the nuclear plant.  At least most plants operate that way.  With a sudden drop in electricity, the fail safe built into the system must shut down the reactors.  It would take a bit of time to re-route the power, the reactor trip is a pretty quick operation.  Remember, the reactor doesn't make electricity, it makes heat which boils water to steam and that is passed through a steam turbine and that powers the generators, etc...

[Solus]

Though is sounds stupid, the plants generated power is sent offsite to the utility and bought back from the utility to run the nuclear plant.  At least most plants operate that way.  With a sudden drop in electricity, the fail safe built into the system must shut down the reactors.  It would take a bit of time to re-route the power, the reactor trip is a pretty quick operation.  Remember, the reactor doesn't make electricity, it makes heat which boils water to steam and that is passed through a steam turbine and that powers the generators, etc...

Much the way a coal power plant works except for what is used to heat the water?

[alfsauve]

Though is sounds stupid, the plants generated power is sent offsite to the utility and bought back from the utility to run the nuclear plant. 

No it doesn't "sound" stupid.  It is stupid.  Generated power should FIRST be used to keep the plant safe, then the excess can go to the grid.   Or how tough is it to put in a small extra turbine (or 2) to generate power just to run the plant?    That would smart, especially when dealing with nuclear reactors.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

No it doesn't "sound" stupid.  It is stupid.  Generated power should FIRST be used to keep the plant safe, then the excess can go to the grid.   Or how tough is it to put in a small extra turbine (or 2) to generate power just to run the plant?    That would smart, especially when dealing with nuclear reactors.

It is likely an accounting "sent".  All power generated is owned by the Utility Company and it then bills the plant for it's usage....what ever is generated but not received by the Utility Co.
Probably the only way to keep the Plant from having unlimited free power for the workers to coming to work with their pickup's full of batteries needing charging.   Also makes cost analysis accurate.

[Timothy]

No it doesn't "sound" stupid.  It is stupid.  Generated power should FIRST be used to keep the plant safe, then the excess can go to the grid.   Or how tough is it to put in a small extra turbine (or 2) to generate power just to run the plant?    That would smart, especially when dealing with nuclear reactors.

Alf, according to a report I read this morning, San Onofre never actually lost power but the electrical blackout caused a trip which shuts down the reactor for safety reasons.  Everything worked the way it was designed.

Just a bit of trivia but San Onofre is one of the most well guarded facilities in the industry as it's actually sitting on Camp Pendleton.  I worked there off and on for more than a decade.  It was one of the few plants I was allowed unescorted access.

[david86440]

I work for a major independent power producer (28000 MW) so I am only speaking for merchant plants here.

When the plant is operating, the power consumed within the plant is called parasitic load and is not charged back to the generator by the utility because it hasn't yet entered the grid but it reduces the amount of electricity that passes through the revenue meter exiting the plant. Every attempt is made to keep parasitic load to a minimum in order to lower the heatrate (lower heatrate means higher efficiency) of the plant and thereby increase revenue. (more power going out)

The turbine/generator is designed to trip offline for safety and equipment protection reasons when an upset is detected. If you lose a major transmission line or other powerplant on the system the powerplants currently online have to be able to pick up that load instantly and if they can't, such as in this case, they have under/over voltage and current protection relays that trip them offline. You don't want to be sending 500 or 1000 MW out that could possibly be going to a dead short in the system. If it's a small upset they can usually react fast enough to keep things going and all you see is a slight voltage drop.

Also, most merchant plants are not designed to operate as a power island. They need outside power in order to start up the unit and provide service to the plant when it is not operating which is purchased just like at your house.

[kmitch200]

And then there was the Israeli action when they took out the Syrian/N Korean  Nuke facility a few years back.
No one is really sure what the hell they did, but they owned the Syrian air defense system for hours.

From Military.com:
In September 2007, for example, Israeli jets destroyed a suspected nuclear facility under construction in a remote part of Syria. From what journalists have discerned, Israel jammed Syrian radar and other defenses, allowing sufficient time to launch the strike undetected. During the attack, cyber-tactics appeared to involve remote air-to-ground electronic attack and network penetration of Syria's command-and-control systems.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,210486,00.html

Is network penetration the same as porn online? 

[tombogan03884]

More like "Cyber sex". Those little bits and bytes f*ck you.