I called the media support line for this press release issues today, to ask a couple of questions, here are the answers:
1. Q: Besides the heat wave, what other factors are contributing? A: “A Natural Gas plant of 775 megawatts went offline last night. The San Onofre nuclear plant remains offline with no restart scheduled.”
2. Q: Where is wind power in all of this, is it performing? A: “Well as you know, wind has to blow for wind power to be effective. ”
The graph from CAISO tells the story, wind power has tumbled when it is most needed:
Of course, renewables are a drop in the bucket compared to the total demand seen here.
California ISO Declares Flex-Alert Statewide
With a major heat wave bearing down on California, the ISO is declaring a Flex Alert tomorrow through August 12.
Consumers are urged to reduce their energy use during the afternoon when air conditioners drive consumption. Find Flex Alert tips at www.caiso.com
Electricity conservation today, August 9, would also be helpful during the afternoon peak between 11:00 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Today’s Forecast peak demand: 47,125 megawatts
24-Hour Ahead Outlook for Friday, Aug 10: Flex Alert
High temperatures are forecast statewide. Energy demand is expected to be high and consumers are urged to reduce energy usage between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Forecast peak demand: 46,800 megawatts
48-Hour Ahead Outlook for Saturday, Aug 11: Flex Alert
The heat wave continues through the weekend. The California ISO is urging reduced energy usage between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday
Forecast peak demand: 43,000 megawatt
72-Hour Ahead Outlook for Sunday, Aug 12: Flex Alert
Temperatures will continue to be hot. Conservation is helpful between noon – 6 p.m.
Forecast peak demand: 43,000 megawatt
Go to www.caiso.com and click “Notify me” to sign up for Flex Alerts and other updates. Follow real time grid conditions at http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx.
================================================
Welcome to the third world. h/t to Roger Sowell.
Gerry Brown’s past history as governor of California; maybe thirty years ago, had him nicknamed Gerry MedFlyBrownout. History repeating itself?
Steve Fletcher says:
August 10, 2012 at 7:11 am
2. There is no way that the electrical energy generated in that wind farm(ed. Cut Bank,MT) goes to San Diego. It is just too far.
Montana is on the BPA/PNW power grid. The Cut Bank Windfarm is tied into the Hungry Horse Dam which is tied into the Grand Coulee Dam which in turn is tied into the John Day Dam where the Pacific DC Intertie is located.
The average export via the Bonneville Power Grid to CAISO over the last 30 days has been 6,000 MW. The max export capacity via the Bonneville Grid is 7,900 MW.(practical limit is lower) There is a 3,100 MW DC Intertie that runs from the John Day Dam on the Washington/Oregon border to Los Angeles. There is also another 4,800 MW of AC transmission lines running from Oregon to various localities thru out California.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powersupply/outlook.asp
Roger Sowell
Your entire post says at August 10, 2012 at 6:00 am:
I await your “facts” with genuine interest. In the interim, I draw your attention to this statement from David Tolley. He is Head of Networks and Ancillary Services, Innogy (a subsidiary of the German energy consortium RWE) which operates windfarms in the UK. He said of windfarms in the UK,
“When [thermal] plant is de-loaded to balance the system, it results in a significant proportion of deloaded plant which operates relatively inefficiently. … Coal plant will be part-loaded such that the loss of a generating unit can swiftly be replaced by bringing other units on to full load. In addition to increased costs of holding reserve in this manner, it has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions from the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part-loaded plant under NETA.”
NETA is the New Electricity Trading Arrangements, the UK’s deregulated power market. And Tolley made the statement in a keynote address to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on January 15, 2003. The UK has increased its use of windpower since 2003 so it can be assumed that the problem has increased since then.
Richard
A timely article link in an email just appeared. FYI, FWIW, YMMV, and all that sort of thing apply here. I’m just passing the link along 🙂
http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1395&doc_id=248263
With wind and solar power growing in popularity, “grid storage” has taken on greater meaning in the lexicon of utilities and power providers. Wind turbines and photovoltaic cells, it seems, need a backup if they’re going to take their place as major energy suppliers. When the sun’s not shining and the wind’s not blowing, they need help. As a result, a new breed of technologies — giant batteries and flywheels — are emerging as a way to store the energy from the sun and wind for later use.
I noticed on the graph that the wind power peaks around 1 am. I wonder if most of that power is coming from the wind farm at the west end of the Coachella Valley? I’ve driven through there a number of times over the years and found there to be little wind in midday but very windy at 5 am. It appears the wind blows at night there. That’s not much help for peak power demand in the afternoon and unnecessary for the low demand early morning hours.
“Matthew R Marler says:
August 10, 2012 at 9:45 am
Pipes in the cooling system had to be replaced due to wear; then the replacement pipes had to be replaced. You really would not want those pipes to fail during operation. Eventually the pipes will be fully repaired, and the plants will be up and running again.”
You are telling me there was no redundant system to keep the plant running during the replacement? I suppose if the pipes were in the “dirty” side of the loop they may have to shut down. Sounds like the excuse Enron gave to shut down a base load plant during 2000.
“harrywr2 says:
August 10, 2012 at 10:21 am
Montana is on the BPA/PNW power grid. The Cut Bank Windfarm is tied into the Hungry Horse Dam which is tied into the Grand Coulee Dam which in turn is tied into the John Day Dam where the Pacific DC Intertie is located.”
I hadn’t realized that! The Pacific Northwest DC tie is base load supply for southern California. Even though you can spin up hydro resources a lot faster than coal, I wouldn’t think they would risk much of that 3,100 MW dropping out suddenly due to fluctuations in wind. Then again, this is the federal government and California.
It is not at all clear that the California grid would be unstable if there were no ISO. In fact there’s no indication that the grid here is unstable, not in comparison with say the northeast where there have been major, multistate power outages far larger than any that California has ever experienced. The biggest problem in Ca. is cost, not availability (at least until the whackos convince people to vote to drain the hydroelectric system reservoirs). Since the late ’90s and early years of this century, California-produced electricity has been transmitted out of state by “brokers” and then sold back at a significant mark up. Enron, now happily defunct, definitely helped set that pattern up and without that mark up, energy produced here would be considerably less expensive. PG&E and So. Cal. Edison would simply be selling energy rather than selling, buying and selling again. The markup may very well go into the pockets of the one-per-centers; it certainly isn’t going to cost for production or wage earners anywhere.
I’ve had the CAISO site bookmarked for quite some time and check it quite frequently, although not daily. The wind production curve is almost always similar, although not always as extreme, to the one in the post. Wind nearly always peaks in the hours before and after midnight and goes in the tank just as the demand curve starts to rise toward its late afternoon peak. In many ways California is one of the states where wind power should be most viable, but if the government mandates, coercions , and subsidies were removed the entire wind industry there would very likely disappear in little more time than it took for the the lawyers to draft and submit the bankruptcy paperwork. This merely highlights the complete folly of attempting to inflict the worthless wind turbines on other states where they face much greater challenges to economic viability.
richardscourtney says: August 10, 2012 at 10:28 am
“When [thermal] plant is de-loaded to balance the system, it results in a significant proportion of deloaded plant which operates relatively inefficiently. … Coal plant will be part-loaded such that the loss of a generating unit can swiftly be replaced by bringing other units on to full load. In addition to increased costs of holding reserve in this manner, it has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions from the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part-loaded plant under NETA.”
Richard:
There are major differences between the UK grid and the current situation in CA. Certainly, trying to adjust the output of a coal plant is bad for the reasons stated. But in CA, the vagaries of wind power are mostly offset by adjusting natural gas burning Brayton cycle plants. They are better suited to that service. This is also true of the newer Brayton/Rankine “combined cycle” plants. They’re expensive to run, but not inherently dirty when throttled. But when did CA regulatory agencies ever care about the *cost* of electricity?
Steve Fletcher says:
I hadn’t realized that! The Pacific Northwest DC tie is base load supply for southern California. Even though you can spin up hydro resources a lot faster than coal I wouldn’t think they would risk much of that 3,100 MW dropping out suddenly due to fluctuations in wind.
In the Pacific North West day ahead wind forecasting is okay, well within the ability of hydro operators to load balance.
Here is a chart for the last 7 days comparing base-point(forecast) with actual wind generation.
http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/twndbspt.aspx
The problem comes when the wind and rain come together. A couple of years ago we ended up zeroing out all our fossil plants, throttling back the hydro as far as possible without killing the fish, throttling our nuke plant down to 20% power, exporting to anyone who would take our ‘excess’ for free and in the we ended up feathering the windmills. The wind farm owners demanded to be compensated for the fact that they had to feather their windmills and wouldn’t get their subsidy as a result.
I have never seen a ‘hot’ temperature (nor a cold one). Is it the same as a high one?
Dan in California:
Thankyou for the information in your post at August 10, 2012 at 1:47 pm.
Firstly, you say;
I said nothing about “dirty”: I discussed “emissions”. Some of those emissions are CO2 and the stated purpose of the windfarms is to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation.
At August 10, 2012 at 4:25 am I said:
Later, at August 10, 2012 at 10:28 am I quoted from a keynote lecture by David Tolley (which your post wrongly attributes to me) that also says the same but with specific reference to coal-fired plants in the UK.
Inportantly, the point is also valid for gas-fired combined cycle plants (as I explained in my post at August 10, 2012 at 4:25 am).
Secondly, you admit the additional cost induced by use of windfarms then ask me:
I answer that I don’t know, but add that nobody who desired low-cost electricity would add windfarms to an electricity grid supply. Also, your point supports my caveat (in my post at August 10, 2012 at 4:25 am) which said:
Richard
Drove over Altamont pass last night around 1900 PDT, about half the avian Cuisinarts were spinning but there was no wind at all – the flag on the east side was limp against the flagpole – stopping at the summit and getting out of the car confirmed that there wasn’t the slightest hint of a breeze at that level – so what exactly was the “output” of that wind farm? – what was the recorded wind speed?
Sorry, but, who would coordinate and oversee ‘economic dispatch’, which means (in part) acting as the ‘traffic cop’ on the system who maintains performs generator scheduling and enforces ‘operational constraints’ on transmission lines which means observing (and running the vaunted area state-estimator and this is state as in ‘stable’ phase or power-flow ‘state’) for the ‘safe’ non-overloading flow of electricity through the various transmission lines (some run in parallel or branch across different parts of the system) and if ‘free market’ principles are in play then the ISO can also act as the ‘settlement’ (billing) clearinghouse all the while assuring sufficient generator capability is scheduled for the upcoming 1, 5 and 10 day ‘windows’?
None of this would occur without some entity being ‘delegated’ the responsibility (and authority!; the force of law); in Texas, we have ERCOT who does all this …
http://www.ercot.com/about/profile/history/
http://www.isorto.org/site/c.jhKQIZPBImE/b.2604605/k.C12F/ERCOT.htm
.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney, from above.
RSC says “Wind power provides failure of supply for most of the time because a windfarm only operates when the wind is strong enough but not too strong. Hence, use of wind power increases the need for “spare capacity”. Indeed, this increase is such that if windpower is more than ~20% of supply then additional power stations need to be built and operated to provide sufficient spare capacity to enable the grid to use the wind power.”
Not true. Dispatchable power plants, such as natural gas, coal, or hydroelectric, are built to supply safe, reliable power to the grid no matter if wind generation is zero percent or 30 percent. It is obvious that wind sometimes does not blow but the demand for power exists. Therefore, there is no need for more power plants to be built simply because wind supplies energy to a grid.
RSC says “So, large addition of wind power to the grid supply without construction and operation of additional spare capacity provides severe risk of supply failures in the event of the failure of a power station or the transmission lines from it. This is the Californian situation which has required the reported “flex alert”. As the article says, Californian electricity consumers have been asked to reduce their electricity demand. Lower need for electricity supply provides reduced need for the additional spare capacity which California lacks because of California’s use of wind power.”
Again, not true. There is zero need for additional spare capacity due to the installation of wind energy. The flex alert has zero to do with wind, but has much more to do with high demand and major power plants being offline. As stated earlier, the SONGS nuclear plants and a large natural gas –fired plant are not available. The grid in California would have a flex alert even if the wind was blowing simply because wind is unreliable.
RSC says “About a decade ago this problem was so severe that California enforced reduced electricity demand by means of “rolling brown-outs”.
The severity of that problem was then obtained by California relying on excess electricity in adjacent States to provide much of California’s needed spare capacity, and risks of supply failures arose when those States increased their electricity use so they had reduced their electricity excess that Californian used as spare capacity.
So, no windfarms and there is no need for additional spare capacity.””
Again, not true. The rolling blackouts did occur but not for the reasons RSC gives. Power generating companies had recently been separated by law from the grid, and had strong incentives to manipulate the system into a false and unnecessary lack of power. After investigation, Enron and others were found to have deliberately shut down power plants to create a shortage, thus driving up the price of electricity sold into the grid. Additions to California power generating capacity were delayed by environmentalists despite sober warnings by electric utility experts. California finally allowed the needed plants to be built.
RSC says “And the windfarms contribute no useful electricity to the grid at any time.” (bold in original)
This is absolutely false. For example, according to the CAISO, wind generation on June 30, 2012 contributed 69,894 MWh into the grid. Peak wind production that day was 3,318 MW. As an exemplary day, the wind was very steady for almost the entire 24 hours. Average was 2,912 MW for the day. If wind “contribute[s] no useful electricity to the grid at any time,” to where did that almost 70,000 MWh of electricity go?
Electricity must follow the laws of thermodynamics, and those laws are never violated. The First Law requires that energy cannot be created nor destroyed – absent nuclear reactions – at normal Newtonian conditions. Therefore, electrical energy created by the wind generators entered the grid that day. It certainly did not disappear, as that would violate the First Law. Indeed, that wind-generated electricity was measured, metered, and was paid for by the distributors according to contracts.
RSC says “The power stations need to provide all the power supplied from the grid when the windfarms are not supplying to the grid. When windfarms do supply electricity then they displace the power stations (a) onto ‘spinning standby’ (so they continue to consume their fuel and emit their emissions)”
The first sentence is true. From there, again RSC makes a false statement. A power plant with reduced load consumes some fuel but not 100 percent. Emissions are also reduced.
RSC says “or (b) to operate at lower output. This reduces their efficiency so they increase their use of fuel and increase their emissions (this like driving a car at 10 mph in fifth gear: it can be done but it uses much fuel).”
This is almost completely untrue. At lower output, a power plant may have a slightly reduced thermal efficiency, but it may also increase, depending on the type of plant. In any event, the slight reduction in efficiency is more than offset by the reduced load. An example of how this works may be instructive. An analogy is made to riding a bicycle, one with only one gear. On level ground with no wind, a person must exert some force to propel the bicycle from standing still to a given speed, we shall use 10 miles per hour. Once the speed is attained, very little effort is required to maintain that speed. This is analogous to a power plant being brought from cold condition to spinning speed, but with zero load. The level road is equivalent to zero load.
Next, the bicycle is ridden up a slight incline, but the speed must be maintained at 10 miles per hour. The bicycle’s speed is analogous to the grid frequency, and cannot change. It is obvious that the bicyclist must exert more energy to propel the bicycle up the slight incline and maintain his speed. A power plant at part-load, we will use 50 percent load, must also consume more fuel to produce power at 50 percent of rated capacity. Finally, the bicycle is ridden up a steeper incline, with the bicycle speed maintained at 10 miles per hour. Much more effort, or energy, must be expended by the bicyclist to ride at 10 miles per hour up the steeper hill. Similarly, more fuel is burned in the power plant to produce its full rated capacity.
The reverse is also true, such that if the bicycle now changes to an incline slightly less than that from the 100 percent case, the rider can reduce his output of energy into the pedals. A power plant does exactly the same when the load is reduced.
Next, RSC offers this regarding a German grid, “it has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions from the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part-loaded plant under NETA.” “
The reduced emissions, or lack of reduction, due to wind energy integrated into power grids is a contentious issue. As with the catastrophic man-made global warming issue, there are various interests with conflicting data and conclusions. I don’t know the source of the data that purportedly support the statement that emissions reductions were negated. I do know that various US studies have shown that emissions reductions are real, quantifiable, and have been observed and quantified. See e.g. http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=16631
This is from the AWEA, the American Wind Energy Association. This association has an interest in promoting wind energy, and is under intense scrutiny by those opposed to wind energy. The references cited within the article are from the US Department of Energy (DOE) and data from Illinois, Colorado, Texas, and the Independent grid operators ERCOT, MISO, PJM, and New England. ERCOT operates the Texas grid, MISO operates the Mid-West grid, PJM operates the Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland grid.
Roger Sowell:
Thankyou for your long screed at August 10, 2012 at 7:35 pm in response to my comments at August 10, 2012 at 4:25 am.
I suspect that I alone read all your post but I write this reply because you were sufficiently kind as to write it all. And I apologise to Moderators and to readers that this reply is – by necessity – also long.
You dispute my accurate statements saying;
But your rebuttal is plain wrong. It says;
NO! Your answer suggests risk management is independent of the reliability of grid components. And your answer implies that you are being disingenuous because it makes no mention of my ~20% figure. The problem is induced by the non-linear nature of risk management. I explain the matter as follows.
Windfarms provide intermittent power. Hence, windfarms increase the risk of supply failures. Indeed, they give the certainty of supply failures when the wind is too strong or not strong enough.
But, as you say, the increased risk of supply failures from windfarms is insignificant when there is small contribution of electricity to the grid from windfarms. All the output from the windfarms forces thermal power stations to operate spinning standby or at reduced output that can cope with the risk.
But the problem of managing the risk increases disproportionately as the risk increases.
Electricity is not wanted in the same amounts everywhere, and electricity is lost when it is transmitted over long distances. The additional risk management difficulties require additional spinning standby when the risk of supply failures is very large. Otherwise it would be impossible to match supply with demand throughout the grid when a large supply failure occurred.
Therefore, additional power stations must be built and operated on spinning standby (using their additional fuel and providing their additional emissions) to manage the increased risk of power cuts from supply failures (e.g. of a power station or transmission lines) when windpower contributes more than 20% of the potential electricity supply
(ref. Laughton, M.A., Renewables and the UK Electricity Grid Supply Infrastructure, Platts Power in Europe. 2002).
Indeed, this limit is the reason why the UK target for ‘renewable’ electricity generation is 20%: the UK generates hydropower (mostly in Scotland) so wind power will not reach the 20% limit if the target is met. The problem is inherent to any grid infrastructure and not only the UK’s grid.
You then compound that error of omission by disputing my statement which said;
Your dispute consists of your repeating your fallacious assertion that
As I explain above in this reply, your assertion is plain wrong.
You follow that with dispute of my accurate explanation of the major reason for the enforced rolling “brown-outs” imposed around California in the latter part of the last century. I provided that history merely as illustration so it has little importance in this discussion, and this post is already too long, so I will not challenge your version of history: I merely mention that I stand by what I said concerning the “brown-outs”.
The remainder of your post is meaningless twaddle.
You make silly dispute of my accurate statement that said
So, the windfarms increase both the costs of electricity and the emissions from electricity generation but provide no needed addition to electricity generation.
Their contribution is not “useful” electricity: it is an expensive, polluting nuisance.
Nothing you say addresses that. Instead, you assert that all electricity is “useful” if it is put on the grid and you support that assertion with daft points (e.g. concerning Laws of Thermodynamics).
I think you know my point about usefulness is correct because you attempt to dispute my points (a) and (b) in my explanation of why the electricity from windfarms is not useful.
And the “evidence” you provide to deny my accurate points (a) and (b) is an assertion that they are “contentious” because the American Wind Energy Association tries to refute these truths.
Also, I said nothing about “the German grid” although my comments pertain to any electricity grid supply system.
Richard
Anthony said :
Anthony, I don’t understand why you are making such a big deal out of this.
Wind power in California is such a small percentage of overall power use, that it does not make any sense to even argue about is performance pattern w.r.t. consumption curve.
Wind power provided mimics us consumers using less power at irregular times.
As I see it, the market will solve the issue you raise all by itself. Wind turbine operators cannot decide to power-up or down. They always sell all they have the moment they get it, for whatever the price is. Same for solar-power plant operators, who just have the advantage that (so far) the price during the day is higher than during the night.
With or without wind/solar, conventional power plants can still decide to power-up or down based on the price (demand), as they have been doing since the first plant powered up.
And if consumers are going to be made aware (and be charged) for the price that it takes to generate power at any specific moment, then we can expect some really creative consumption behavior as well. For example, you could charge your electric vehicle when the price is low, and discharge it to the grid if the price is high. That way, you make money just having your electric vehicle parked and plugged in.
See ? It will all work out fine.
Rob Dekker:
Your post at August 11, 2012 at 2:23 am would be true
(a) if there were no subsidies (so price related to cost and demand)
and
(b) if the supply regulations were the same for all electricity suppliers (so all supplies had to compete on an equal basis).
Neither of these is true and, therefore, your conclusion is not true.
Richard
We should just build some large (really large) solar powered fans a few hundred yards behind the wind farms. When the power demand outpaces the wind generated electricity,the solar fans kick in and supply the wind necessary to move the turbines,and presto,all the electricity we could ever want.
No need to thank me,just send some grant money my way.
.
Thomas Sowell,
This is almost completely untrue. At lower output, a power plant may have a slightly reduced thermal efficiency, but it may also increase, depending on the type of plant.
Please get a degree in mechanical engineering. Every thermal engine ever built has an ‘optimal efficiency’ operating range. There are also issues related to plant maintenance costs and shortened life expectancy caused by ‘cycling’.
You also conveniently ignore why ‘peak power’ is so expensive. Fuel isn’t the dominant cost. The dominant cost is that there are billions of dollars of investment in generating assets that only occasionally get used, adding wind to the grid reduces the utilization rate..which causes ‘peak power’ to be even more expensive because those assets get used even less.
John Q Public ends up paying for ‘total system cost’…not just ‘fuel cost’.
Rob Dekker
For example, you could charge your electric vehicle when the price is low, and discharge it to the grid if the price is high. That way, you make money just having your electric vehicle parked and plugged in.
Peak power rates occur at about 3 PM – 6 PM in the US. Mr Electric Vehicle Owners car is plugged in at the office charging at 3 PM because he wants to make sure he has a ‘full charge’ to get home. He’s not going to let the grid borrow his charge leaving him ‘stranded at work’ until the ‘peak power period’ subsides. I witness it every day at the office.
A reminder that wind energy is a good idea in some places, such as Pakistan:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/08/10/143000-mw-of-solar-and-wind-for-pakistan/
Obviously, they are not going to install 25,000 MW of wind-powered electricity in 3 years, but Pakistan is one of the places where fossil fuel is expensive and unreliable. Costs of wind power are being reduced, but it’s doubtful that fossil fuel costs will decline.
“All of the above” is the right strategy for developing energy, imo. It’s a shame that we here in California have made it illegal to develop more of our fossil fuel resources. As an aside, we in S.C, maybe about 2 million of us, suffered a power outage lasting about half a day last spring when there was a mistake made at a facility near Yuma. One of my neighbors ran his gas-powered generator, but most of us simply got by without the electricity until it was restored.
harrywr2: Peak power rates occur at about 3 PM – 6 PM in the US. In fact, the CAISO graph shows power consumption at 90% of peak from 1pm to 9pm, approximately, with the peak at 5. So your point is actually stronger than you made it.
3pm, just as power needs are going up, solar is going down.
So much for the mythology of solar as “peak” power.
“Matthew R Marler says: August 10, 2012 at 9:45 am
“Pipes in the cooling system had to be replaced due to wear; then the replacement pipes had to be replaced. You really would not want those pipes to fail during operation. Eventually the pipes will be fully repaired, and the plants will be up and running again.”
You are telling me there was no redundant system to keep the plant running during the replacement? I suppose if the pipes were in the “dirty” side of the loop they may have to shut down. Sounds like the excuse Enron gave to shut down a base load plant during 2000.
————————————————————————————
Heat exchangers in power plants are not redundant for the same reason your car doesn’t have a redundant engine. They are not safety critical, and they almost never fail, and they are expensive. Therefore the economics argues against redundant heat exchangers (or turbines, etc). This particular design was new and different and the manufacturer, Mitsubishi, is working with the owner of the power plant and the NRC to get it back online ASAP.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-restart-date-yet-for-songs-reactors.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FYiuo+%28Idaho+Samizdat%29