I'm issuing a precise, date-specific PREDICTION for Y2K nuke problems....greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Well, since it is true I really didn't show up till after the rollover, I basically put nothing on the line beforehand.So, to show I'm not a big wimp, I'm making a precise, date-specific prediction regarding US Nuclear Reactor shutdowns.
I predict that between now and the end of 1/31/2000, there will be no more than eight US Nuclear reactor shutdowns. As based on
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/DAILY/drlist.htm
Criteria: I'm only counting (and I've only counted these in my previous posts of comparisons) shutdowns (they all will have a "SCRAM" code in the event report) of OPERATING reactors, or reactors in startup that have some level of power reached.
I am not counting SCRAMs of reactors already in cold shutdown, or SCRAMs of reactors in refueling. (None of those this year but a few in previous Januaries.)
In 1999, from 1/7 to 1/31, there were four reactor shutdowns, including two on 1/23 alone.
In 1998, from 1/7 to 1/31, there were 4 reactor shutdowns.
In 1997, from 1/7 to 1/31, there were 6 reactor shutdowns and 5 shutdowns in 10 days, from 1/22 to 1/31.
We've been told over and over again, since there were not massive problems instantly after the rollover, that Y2K problems would "cascade" and slowly build up over time. Hence, 1/7 to 1/31, theoretically, should be a period where we see evermore US reactor shutdowns, if Y2K IS a serious US reactor problem.
Considering we had 6 shutdowns in that period in 97, One would think that 9 or more shutdowns in 2000 would at least hint at systemic problems.
(Personally, mathematically, I think it would be easily possible to get 10 or more shutdowns in the period at random, based on dumb luck, but I'm willing to take that chance.)
If there are 9 or more shutdowns I'll NEVER post on this board again after 2/01, and I'll leave by posting a doomer message where I admit they were all correct and society is finished.
If I'm right, we all agree that US nuke power is a total non-issue.
-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 07, 2000
Come on ( Nine )..................
-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.
You have a talent for making the obvious appear simple.I predict the following will hold true on Jan. 31, 2000.
1. College Basketball will be in full swing. 2. Muhammed Ali will be one of the most beloved former athletes in the world. 3. It will be cold in Montana. 4. John H. Krempasky will have forgotten about his brilliant post- rollover analyses of Y2K and will have found some other newly dead horse to beat . . . with authority.
-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.
John:I've appreciated the research into the NERC statistics you've posted. Thank you.
However, may I say (gently) that very few of us here care if any one person continues to post or not. I'm quite sure I do NOT have a fan club, anxiously awaiting my every word.
And you are playing with the "Either/or", either we are completely doomed, or everything is hunkie dory. The world is a bit more complicated than that.
And NO ONE will get this bunch to totally agree on ANYTHING. LOL
-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.
Well, we see that there was a shutdown on 1/6 at Salem in today's report.However, the event date is before my window.
I note that in 1997 there was a shutdown on 1/6 which I left out of my information on 1/7-1/31 shutdowns in 1997. There were consecutive shutdowns on 1/6-1/8 that year, actually....
So 8 shutdowns from 1/6-1/31 in 1997......
If you REALLY want to count Salem, you can, if you give me 10 or more shutdowns and a leave :-)
-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 07, 2000.
come on ( ten )
-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.
John, Why don't you leave now and we'll just notify you if there are fewer than 10?
-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.
PuddinTame, wrong on the 'cold in Montana'. Never been a warmer winter thanks to Y2k. you see, all this hermits cussin' up a real storm at trying to return their generators has 'generated' a lot of heat. As to the nuke plants, WASTE ON!!!!!!
-- robert gridlock (plutusx2@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.