East Coast outage?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Perhaps the lesson to learn is that very large networks don't always
lead to very high stability. A much larger number of smaller, more
autonomous generation and transmission facilities might have much more
reasonable interconnection requirements, and hence less wide-ranging
failure modes.

And if we extrapolate that lesson to IP networks it implies that any
medium to large sized organization should do their own BGP peering
and multihome to 3 or more upstream network providers. On the other
hand, if you understand why electrical networks shed load and develop
their cascading failures, you might see some parallels between "load"
and the propagation of BGP announcements which are worrying.

Perhaps we should start working on a hierarchical routing system in
which the concept of a "global routing table" cannot develop. Perhaps
announcements and withdraws should have a TTL so that they never
propogate very far from their source AS?

--Michael Dillon

2

And if we extrapolate that lesson to IP networks it implies that any
medium to large sized organization should do their own BGP peering
and multihome to 3 or more upstream network providers. On the other
hand, if you understand why electrical networks shed load and develop
their cascading failures, you might see some parallels between "load"
and the propagation of BGP announcements which are worrying.

Makes remember the days of AS7007... AS numbers are very much like power grids..

Perhaps we should start working on a hierarchical routing system in
which the concept of a "global routing table" cannot develop. Perhaps
announcements and withdraws should have a TTL so that they never
propogate very far from their source AS?

And how would global uniqueness and reachability of a route be done? Dampening
to some extent quite helps a lot..

-hc

3

Perhaps the lesson to learn is that very large networks don't always
lead to very high stability. A much larger number of smaller, more
autonomous generation and transmission facilities might have much more
reasonable interconnection requirements, and hence less wide-ranging
failure modes.

And if we extrapolate that lesson to IP networks it implies that any
medium to large sized organization should do their own BGP peering
and multihome to 3 or more upstream network providers.

I don't think that extrapolation is entirely reasonable. The purpose of the Internet is to provide global connectivity; the purpose of a power generation and distribution network is to provide access to power, regardless of where it was generated.

On the other
hand, if you understand why electrical networks shed load and develop
their cascading failures, you might see some parallels between "load"
and the propagation of BGP announcements which are worrying.

A mismatch between content providers and consumers seems like a natural challenge for an Internet of distributed content. It's not obvious to me that you need to engineer around that problem in the power network to the same extent.

I wonder how much of the understanding and "100 years experience" of building power distribution networks is based on the fact that affordable, distributed, small-scale power generation is not possible, mandating large-scale, centralised generation and correspondingly complicated transmission. Perhaps the power generation problem needs the attention of a fresh set of eyes.

Joe

4

Perhaps the lesson to learn is that very large networks don't always
lead to very high stability. A much larger number of smaller, more
autonomous generation and transmission facilities might have much more
reasonable interconnection requirements, and hence less wide-ranging
failure modes.

And if we extrapolate that lesson to IP networks it implies that any
medium to large sized organization should do their own BGP peering
and multihome to 3 or more upstream network providers.

While this certainly has its advantages, I don't think it follows from Joe's remarks. What would follow is having many smaller transit networks rather than a few big ones. But I think in this regard IP is well ahead of the electricity people.

Still, I don't think it's this simple, as the problem with power is that supply and demand must be the same at all times. So if a decent chunk of the network that connects the two goes down, the supply side gets into trouble because they're suddenly generating too much. If the difference is big enough it's probably impossible to arrive at a new equilibrium above 0 fast enough. If you connect everything together you can absorb bigger imbalances but then when you get one you can't absorb, the impact is larger of course.

Fortunately in our business we have queues to smooth the spikes in network use and when we drop packets there are no sparks.

Perhaps we should start working on a hierarchical routing system in
which the concept of a "global routing table" cannot develop. Perhaps
announcements and withdraws should have a TTL so that they never
propogate very far from their source AS?

Have a look at the work going on in the IETF multihoming in IPv6 (multi6) working group and the IRTF routing working group.

5

I wonder how much of the understanding and "100 years experience" of
building power distribution networks is based on the fact that
affordable, distributed, small-scale power generation is not possible,
mandating large-scale, centralised generation and correspondingly
complicated transmission. Perhaps the power generation problem needs
the attention of a fresh set of eyes.

You wrote "fact" when you should have written "assumption". There are
plenty of examples* of "affordable, distributed, small-scale power
generation." If our governments would more pro-actively encourage (e.g.
subsidize) local power generation via renewable energy sources (e.g.
solar, wind, hydro) it would go a long way towards solving this problem.

* examples:
http://www.solarhost.com/about.htm
http://www.solarliving.org/overview.cfm

Rich

6

I don't recall any any incidents during which similar numbers of people lost all internet access, or all telephone access, for as long as the power has been out -- and it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which that could happen (other than another widespread power failure).

Reliability is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

Joe

7

It was a fact at some point. That it's not a fact any more is exactly my point.

Joe

8

> mandating large-scale, centralised generation and correspondingly
> complicated transmission. Perhaps the power generation problem needs
> the attention of a fresh set of eyes.

You wrote "fact" when you should have written "assumption". There are
plenty of examples* of "affordable, distributed, small-scale power
generation." If our governments would more pro-actively encourage (e.g.
subsidize) local power generation via renewable energy sources (e.g.
solar, wind, hydro) it would go a long way towards solving this problem.

Rubbish.

If in order to make it viable such energy needs to be subsidized then it is
not "affordable".

Alex

9

> subsidize) local power generation via renewable energy sources (e.g.
> solar, wind, hydro) it would go a long way towards solving this problem.

Rubbish.

If in order to make it viable such energy needs to be subsidized then it is
not "affordable".

And solar nor wind are good for base energy production so we�re stuck
with other methods unless you want to move IP packets only when it�s windy.

Maybe we could attach the packets to hot air balloons and send them with the wind?

Pete

10

This seems to be a promising idea, given that the high-tech industry is
already adept at producing immeasureable quantities of hot air.

--vadim

11

Or only have cooling when the sun shines.

12

That's a rather amusing position for someone in the IP world to take.
I seem to recall DARPA subsidizing research into packet-switched
computer networks, which (I'm told) gave rise to this "Internet" thing
I keep hearing about.

"Rubbish" indeed.

--Jeff

13

Actually there is a major difference -

in one case you have fundamental R&D that results in "Internet"
in the other case you have a bunch of crybabies that cannot make in the
  competitive energy market so they scream that the government should
  subsidize their more costly energy.

Alex

14

If the net as a whole had to run at only 10-15% excess capacity or suffer
EQUIPMENT damage to the components, it would have happened MANY times
already. See ms blaster.

Jason

15

Thus spake "Petri Helenius" <pete@he.iki.fi>

> > subsidize) local power generation via renewable energy sources (e.g.
> > solar, wind, hydro) it would go a long way towards solving this

problem.

>
> Rubbish.
>
> If in order to make it viable such energy needs to be subsidized then it

is

> not "affordable".
>
And solar nor wind are good for base energy production so we�re stuck
with other methods unless you want to move IP packets only when it�s
windy.

Or you store excess power generated on windy/sunny days for later
distribution on calm/rainy days:
http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

That still ignores tidal, hydro, and geothermal power, which are available
24x7. And let's not forget ethanol, which is easy to make from excess food
crops and has already replaced gasoline entirely in a few countries.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

16

Thus spake "Petri Helenius" <pete@he.iki.fi>

> > > subsidize) local power generation via renewable energy sources

(e.g.

> > > solar, wind, hydro) it would go a long way towards solving this

problem.

> > Rubbish.
> >
> > If in order to make it viable such energy needs to be subsidized

then

> > it

is

> > not "affordable".
>
> And solar nor wind are good for base energy production so we�re stuck
> with other methods unless you want to move IP packets only when it�s
> windy.

Or you store excess power generated on windy/sunny days for later
distribution on calm/rainy days:
http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

That still ignores tidal, hydro, and geothermal power, which are

available

24x7. And let's not forget ethanol, which is easy to make from excess

food

crops and has already replaced gasoline entirely in a few countries.

Use hydrogen. One solar panel (which will last forever unless you drop
something on it) can split H2O into H and O. Store the H for windless days
or at night. Feed this to a turbine for electricity and recover heat for hot
water, store it in a heat sink, ect. Or feed the H into a fuel cell &
strip off the electron volts. Now a home user can produce wattage to
supply power for his neighbors. The amount of power to be had via these
hydrogen processes is huge. Now, try to take out this decentralized power
system. You can't, at least not on the scale we saw last week.

The by-products of this are water and Oxygen. Hydrogen is our new battery.
Please don't go on about it's storage dangers ! LPG (bottle gas) has been
used for quite some time and the safety is . We all drive mobile hydrogen
bombs, and show no concern.

The only problem is that the Oil men are in charge. They want to pipe NG
to houses and have us crack NG into hydrogen. Cut the cord !

To stay on topic, consider the long term savings in generating DC
directly, via a clean source, instead of converting AC to DC at colos.
We pay dearly for the amps on those A and B legs. Replace the multiple
utility service feeds, gennys, batt rooms, and DC chargers with a
hydrogen feed turbine for each leg. Recover the heat for cooling.

< end of rant by long haired *nix based hippie >

17

Use hydrogen. One solar panel (which will last forever unless you drop
something on it) can split H2O into H and O. Store the H for windless days
or at night. Feed this to a turbine for electricity and recover heat for hot
water, store it in a heat sink, ect. Or feed the H into a fuel cell &

What kind of land area of solar panels do you plan to produce enough H for
producing a gigawatt 24/7? Then multiply that by 60. You probably have to
produce H equivivalent of 180GW to accommodate for nights and cloudier
days, even if you would be somewhere where it usually shines.

If you want to add windmills to the equation, do the land area calculation
taking into account turbulence effects which mandate your mill spacing.

Pete

18

> Use hydrogen. One solar panel (which will last forever unless you drop
> something on it) can split H2O into H and O. Store the H for windless
> days or at night. Feed this to a turbine for electricity and recover

heat

> for hot water, store it in a heat sink, ect. Or feed the H into a fuel
> cell &

What kind of land area of solar panels do you plan to produce enough H

for

producing a gigawatt 24/7? Then multiply that by 60. You probably have

to

produce H equivivalent of 180GW to accommodate for nights and cloudier
days, even if you would be somewhere where it usually shines.

If you want to add windmills to the equation, do the land area

calculation

taking into account turbulence effects which mandate your mill spacing.

Pete

The calculations I have seen of hydrogen produced vs watts in indicate
solar could supply enough hydrogen to more than satisfy
the requirements of a residential user.

To calculate the theoretical (maximum) volume of the hydrogen produced,
also in cubic meters, from the other data for the current and the time,
using "Faraday's First Law":

Vtheoretical = (R I T t) / (F p z),

where R=8.314 Joule/(mol Kelvin), I = current in amps, T is the
temperature in Kelvins (273 + Celsius temperature), t = time in seconds, F
= Faraday's constant = 96485 Coulombs per mol, p = ambient pressure =
about 1 x 105 pascals (one pascal = 1 Joule/meter3), z = number of
"excess" electrons = 2 (for hydrogen, H2), 4 (if you're measuring oxygen
production instead).

6 hours sunlight, ave (it's 7.1 here in new mexico) 4 120 watt panels, so:

8.914* 28*303*21600=1.633529e+09

96485*105*2= 20261850

80.620965 cubic meters of hydrogen a day

Kyocera KC-120's are 1242mm by 652 mm

So, put them on your roof. Lots of unused space. No need to have huge
expanses
for centralized generation. I've read of Solar Cells as building
materials, using the Cells as the shell of the house.

Sorry, I do not have a formula to factor in the Exxon Valdez damage,
other damage to our enrironment, billions lost last week, ect !

19

> >
> > And solar nor wind are good for base energy production so we�re stuck
> > with other methods unless you want to move IP packets only when it�s
> > windy.
>
> Or you store excess power generated on windy/sunny days for later
> distribution on calm/rainy days:
> http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm
>
> That still ignores tidal, hydro, and geothermal power, which are
available
> 24x7. And let's not forget ethanol, which is easy to make from excess
food
> crops and has already replaced gasoline entirely in a few countries.

Use hydrogen. One solar panel (which will last forever unless you drop
something on it) can split H2O into H and O.

Sure, burn energy to store it.

Store the H for windless days
or at night.

Burn energy here as well.

Feed this to a turbine for electricity and recover heat for hot
water, store it in a heat sink, ect.

Burn energy.

Or feed the H into a fuel cell &
strip off the electron volts.

Burn energy.

Now a home user can produce wattage to
supply power for his neighbors.

Release energy.

The amount of power to be had via these
hydrogen processes is huge.

Release energy.

The by-products of this are water and Oxygen.

Release energy.

The only problem is that the Oil men are in charge. They want to pipe NG
to houses and have us crack NG into hydrogen. Cut the cord !

So let us use N J to let us release M J, where N is significantly greater
than M. What a brilliant concept. When someone starts actively doing it,
please remind me the name of the company so I can short it all the way to
zero. Thanks god that the oil people are in charge.

Alex

P.S. The problem with ethanol is the same - the total amount of energy
needed to crate useful fuel is greater than the amount of energy it
generates.

20

The calculations I have seen of hydrogen produced vs watts in indicate
solar could supply enough hydrogen to more than satisfy
the requirements of a residential user.

Sure, a regular house has enough surface area to generate this electricity, but not appartment buildings or businesses. But why have the hydrogen in the middle? Batteries aren't as explosive. Also, it seems that the large amount of hydrogen that will leak out (remember, tinyiest molecules ever, but this is well established for other gasses as well) don't do the environment much good.

I don't think wholesale replacement of our current power systems is an attainable goal in our lifetime. (And it will happen automatically anyway as oil starts running out and gets so expensive that people who just want to burn it can't afford it anymore.) However, it is still a very good idea to add more solar energy to the mix, both on the large and the small ends of the scale.

Small: a few solar panels (with batteries) will give you at least _some_ power when the utility power is out. Being able to recharge your cell phone, run a light, a laptop and an ADSL or cable modem is much, much better than nothing.

Large: demand for power peaks when it's hot, but generating capacity is often much lower under these circumstances because river water gets much warmer so power plants that need this water for cooling can't run at full capacity. (We could be facing rolling blackouts because of this soon in Europe.) Guess what: solar panels don't need cooling and their output is highest when the weather is hot = lots of sunshine.

So, put them on your roof. Lots of unused space. No need to have huge
expanses for centralized generation. I've read of Solar Cells as building
materials, using the Cells as the shell of the house.

There has recently been a breakthrough that makes it possible to convert more of the sun's spectrum into electricity. This could potentially double the efficiency of solar cells in the future, then maybe they'll be more cost efficient.