California Power Outages
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
The economic loss could be in the billion$. Oops.
Hey PGE - Are we gonna do this every year?
Hey PGE - Are we gonna do this every year?
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
You might have already mentioned PGE, Jeff … but numerous articles out there written about the decline of forestry work since the 80's/90's.
Why not just let another million mature trees burn down everything in it's path … then sue PGE again
Is that how conservation works ?
Problem is people choose positions over multi faceted solutions. Like what do you mean messing with the wrong people ?
Why not just let another million mature trees burn down everything in it's path … then sue PGE again
Is that how conservation works ?
Problem is people choose positions over multi faceted solutions. Like what do you mean messing with the wrong people ?
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
The economic loss could be in the billion$. Oops.
Hey PGE - Are we gonna do this every year?
Yes, it will happen every year there is serious fire danger which is ....well every year.
PG&E doesn't care about anything except mitigating their own potential loses and lawsuits.
The economic loss could be in the billion$. Oops.
Hey PGE - Are we gonna do this every year?
Yes, it will happen every year there is serious fire danger which is ....well every year.
PG&E doesn't care about anything except mitigating their own potential loses and lawsuits.
Originally Posted by paoester
I can't think of a solution to trees, in high winds, hitting power lines and causing fires, unless its all underground. I guess nobody wants to pay for that, so look for people to go through this almost every year.
I don't know California and their issues at all but do they no longer trim/remove trees that are encroaching on power lines? Common sense to me but then again, we are talking about California.
I can't think of a solution to trees, in high winds, hitting power lines and causing fires, unless its all underground. I guess nobody wants to pay for that, so look for people to go through this almost every year.
I don't know California and their issues at all but do they no longer trim/remove trees that are encroaching on power lines? Common sense to me but then again, we are talking about California.
Originally Posted by 4WD
Like what do you mean messing with the wrong people ?
The hills (Santa Cruz Mountains) just south and just west of my house are where the rich people live.
I am not allowed there...
That's where the blackouts are.
I would estimate the average wealth to be $20M to $200M.
And more...
Something has to change. People are suffering.
The only reason is money.
Just my 2 cents.
Like what do you mean messing with the wrong people ?
The hills (Santa Cruz Mountains) just south and just west of my house are where the rich people live.
I am not allowed there...
That's where the blackouts are.
I would estimate the average wealth to be $20M to $200M.
And more...
Something has to change. People are suffering.
The only reason is money.
Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Trimming goes on constantly. But not enough.
And the infrastructure is very old in many places.
There is a mix of old and new, but way to much old.
I am hoping that the last few years horrible fires, coupled with this year's blackouts, will effect change.
Right now this will be a yearly "solution".
The lost billions will speak loudly.
And the infrastructure is very old in many places.
There is a mix of old and new, but way to much old.
I am hoping that the last few years horrible fires, coupled with this year's blackouts, will effect change.
Right now this will be a yearly "solution".
The lost billions will speak loudly.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by irv
I don't know California and their issues at all but do they no longer trim/remove trees that are encroaching on power lines? Common sense to me but then again, we are talking about California.
Seriously? Of course they do.
Currently 4,500 employed as tree trimmers, over 1,200 km of lines cleared this year so far and about 1.4 million trees removed / trimmed annually. Links to my sources in our other thread about this. It's a huge state with >133,000 sq. km of forest.
I don't know California and their issues at all but do they no longer trim/remove trees that are encroaching on power lines? Common sense to me but then again, we are talking about California.
Seriously? Of course they do.
Currently 4,500 employed as tree trimmers, over 1,200 km of lines cleared this year so far and about 1.4 million trees removed / trimmed annually. Links to my sources in our other thread about this. It's a huge state with >133,000 sq. km of forest.
Originally Posted by E365
Originally Posted by irv
I don't know California and their issues at all but do they no longer trim/remove trees that are encroaching on power lines? Common sense to me but then again, we are talking about California.
Seriously? Of course they do.
Currently 4,500 employed as tree trimmers, over 1,200 km of lines cleared this year so far and about 1.4 million trees removed / trimmed annually. Links to my sources in our other thread about this. It's a huge state with >133,000 sq. km of forest.
Yes, seriously.
Based on what I know about California and their crazy environmental laws/rules and their au naturel attitude towards any type of forest management/alterations, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.
Wasn't that, in large part, the cause of the last huge fire you's had? Campfire? I know many jumped on the Global warming/climate change excuse/hoax but that had nothing to do with it despite what the alarmists try to claim.
The facts are clear: California's deadliest year of wildfires has been decades in the making, with overlapping environmental rules, both state and federal, making fuel load reductions in forests and coastal chaparral nearly impossible, while hostility towards commercial timber harvesting has allowed a massive build up in tree density and brush with a concurrent reduction of access roads and firebreaks.
Originally Posted by irv
I don't know California and their issues at all but do they no longer trim/remove trees that are encroaching on power lines? Common sense to me but then again, we are talking about California.
Seriously? Of course they do.
Currently 4,500 employed as tree trimmers, over 1,200 km of lines cleared this year so far and about 1.4 million trees removed / trimmed annually. Links to my sources in our other thread about this. It's a huge state with >133,000 sq. km of forest.
Yes, seriously.
Based on what I know about California and their crazy environmental laws/rules and their au naturel attitude towards any type of forest management/alterations, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.
Wasn't that, in large part, the cause of the last huge fire you's had? Campfire? I know many jumped on the Global warming/climate change excuse/hoax but that had nothing to do with it despite what the alarmists try to claim.
The facts are clear: California's deadliest year of wildfires has been decades in the making, with overlapping environmental rules, both state and federal, making fuel load reductions in forests and coastal chaparral nearly impossible, while hostility towards commercial timber harvesting has allowed a massive build up in tree density and brush with a concurrent reduction of access roads and firebreaks.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Yeah - read where Chevron's CEO lost power. Based on some of his recent speeches will not surprise me if they keep moving folks to Texas - and eventually ...
The real issue is that a segment of the population wants to live in rural, rustic areas of the state and but aren't willing to pay for the infrastructure to support their desired life. Calif has mountainous & hilly terrain and huge expanses of forests. It is expensive to build a robust power grid in that type of terrain. And since those areas are sparely populated, the per-capita cost is enormous. The residents of those areas want to enjoy Calif's scenery but aren't willing or able to pay all of the costs to safely live in it. The state has 80,000 miles of overhead power lines; thousands of miles would need to be buried. Is the relatively small population of rural residents willing to fork over tens of billions to do that? I doubt it. The urban areas aren't affected and don't want to subsidize their lifestyle choice.
And not all those rural areas are rich people -- Paradise, the city that burned down, was relatively poor. In fact, rural areas of the state are on average poorer than the urban areas. Wealthy residents will pay $10k for a standby generator, so this won't affect them in the future. The others will have to make a choice.
And not all those rural areas are rich people -- Paradise, the city that burned down, was relatively poor. In fact, rural areas of the state are on average poorer than the urban areas. Wealthy residents will pay $10k for a standby generator, so this won't affect them in the future. The others will have to make a choice.
Originally Posted by paoester
I can't think of a solution to trees, in high winds, hitting power lines and causing fires, unless its all underground. I guess nobody wants to pay for that, so look for people to go through this almost every year.
When I was in transmission (30 years in the power industry), the greens tried o mount a media campaign as to EM radiation, and tha fact that there were no trees, or even shubs growing under or even adjacent to transmaission lines...
Nope, crews of guys with chainsaws...kept the working clearances maintained.
It's an easy calculation...the line can swing horizontally to x meters from the gravity centreline...trees can fall over through their height and arc...therefore cut them down to the point that they CAN NOT interact...no fires, no shorts, no blackouts.
I can't think of a solution to trees, in high winds, hitting power lines and causing fires, unless its all underground. I guess nobody wants to pay for that, so look for people to go through this almost every year.
When I was in transmission (30 years in the power industry), the greens tried o mount a media campaign as to EM radiation, and tha fact that there were no trees, or even shubs growing under or even adjacent to transmaission lines...
Nope, crews of guys with chainsaws...kept the working clearances maintained.
It's an easy calculation...the line can swing horizontally to x meters from the gravity centreline...trees can fall over through their height and arc...therefore cut them down to the point that they CAN NOT interact...no fires, no shorts, no blackouts.
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by PandaBear
This has nothing to do with regulation or deregulation.
Prices swing between almost free to 60c/KWh, that's deregulation.
Well just have to disagree there. I started working in the electricity utility in 1969. I saw it unfold. Dirtburners were allowed to compete with utilities but did not have any power lines and distribution system to worry about. The results were predictable. Transmission maintenance and reliability went down big time. That is not even arguable. Ask anyone that was in the industry in the 80's (like me)
I was in the industry in the early 90's and can vouch for this. Deregulation made a public service/utility into a business, which made the utility companies start analyzing whether it was worth maintaining/upgrading something before it broke or gambling to see how long they could nurse something along and what would be the fallout when it finally did break. If it was cheaper to deal with the fallout, they let the bet ride and "saved costs", and dealt with the aftermath when when it happened.
And funny thing...I'm not seeing the savings in my utility bills that deregulation promised. Go figure...
Originally Posted by PandaBear
This has nothing to do with regulation or deregulation.
Prices swing between almost free to 60c/KWh, that's deregulation.
Well just have to disagree there. I started working in the electricity utility in 1969. I saw it unfold. Dirtburners were allowed to compete with utilities but did not have any power lines and distribution system to worry about. The results were predictable. Transmission maintenance and reliability went down big time. That is not even arguable. Ask anyone that was in the industry in the 80's (like me)
I was in the industry in the early 90's and can vouch for this. Deregulation made a public service/utility into a business, which made the utility companies start analyzing whether it was worth maintaining/upgrading something before it broke or gambling to see how long they could nurse something along and what would be the fallout when it finally did break. If it was cheaper to deal with the fallout, they let the bet ride and "saved costs", and dealt with the aftermath when when it happened.
And funny thing...I'm not seeing the savings in my utility bills that deregulation promised. Go figure...
I'm not getting any of this. Why doesn't California use this enormous tax "surplus" their liberal politicians are always bragging about, to improve their electrical grid?
Originally Posted by billt460
I'm not getting any of this. Why doesn't California use this enormous tax "surplus" their liberal politicians are always bragging about, to improve their electrical grid?
Shannow basically answered my question about how to solve it. It would still take a lot of work, but far less so than just going to all underground pipe carrying the wires, not done outside of neighborhoods around here.
Originally Posted by Shannow
...the line can swing horizontally to x meters from the gravity centreline...trees can fall over through their height and arc...therefore cut them down to the point that they CAN NOT interact...no fires, no shorts, no blackouts.
That would solve most of it. When I first thought of their high winds, I envisioned branches blowing into the power lines and shorting to ground, sparking etc. Certainly just cutting back a buffer area would cure 95% of the problem though.
I'm not getting any of this. Why doesn't California use this enormous tax "surplus" their liberal politicians are always bragging about, to improve their electrical grid?
Shannow basically answered my question about how to solve it. It would still take a lot of work, but far less so than just going to all underground pipe carrying the wires, not done outside of neighborhoods around here.
Originally Posted by Shannow
...the line can swing horizontally to x meters from the gravity centreline...trees can fall over through their height and arc...therefore cut them down to the point that they CAN NOT interact...no fires, no shorts, no blackouts.
That would solve most of it. When I first thought of their high winds, I envisioned branches blowing into the power lines and shorting to ground, sparking etc. Certainly just cutting back a buffer area would cure 95% of the problem though.
Originally Posted by irv
I know many jumped on the Global warming/climate change excuse/hoax but that had nothing to do with it despite what the alarmists try to claim.
Dream on.
[/thread]
I know many jumped on the Global warming/climate change excuse/hoax but that had nothing to do with it despite what the alarmists try to claim.
Dream on.
[/thread]
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by PandaBear
This has nothing to do with regulation or deregulation.
Prices swing between almost free to 60c/KWh, that's deregulation.
Well just have to disagree there. I started working in the electricity utility in 1969. I saw it unfold. Dirtburners were allowed to compete with utilities but did not have any power lines and distribution system to worry about. The results were predictable. Transmission maintenance and reliability went down big time. That is not even arguable. Ask anyone that was in the industry in the 80's (like me)
Science not permitted on this board.
Originally Posted by PandaBear
This has nothing to do with regulation or deregulation.
Prices swing between almost free to 60c/KWh, that's deregulation.
Well just have to disagree there. I started working in the electricity utility in 1969. I saw it unfold. Dirtburners were allowed to compete with utilities but did not have any power lines and distribution system to worry about. The results were predictable. Transmission maintenance and reliability went down big time. That is not even arguable. Ask anyone that was in the industry in the 80's (like me)
Science not permitted on this board.
Originally Posted by xfactor9
The real issue is that a segment of the population wants to live in rural, rustic areas of the state and but aren't willing to pay for the infrastructure to support their desired life. Calif has mountainous & hilly terrain and huge expanses of forests. It is expensive to build a robust power grid in that type of terrain. And since those areas are sparely populated, the per-capita cost is enormous. The residents of those areas want to enjoy Calif's scenery but aren't willing or able to pay all of the costs to safely live in it. The state has 80,000 miles of overhead power lines; thousands of miles would need to be buried. Is the relatively small population of rural residents willing to fork over tens of billions to do that? I doubt it. The urban areas aren't affected and don't want to subsidize their lifestyle choice.
And not all those rural areas are rich people -- Paradise, the city that burned down, was relatively poor. In fact, rural areas of the state are on average poorer than the urban areas. Wealthy residents will pay $10k for a standby generator, so this won't affect them in the future. The others will have to make a choice.
This is so true. People want to live in the middle of no where but have all the amenities like they are living in suburbia. If I was going to buy a house like that I would have solar panels along with battery storage and generators.
The real issue is that a segment of the population wants to live in rural, rustic areas of the state and but aren't willing to pay for the infrastructure to support their desired life. Calif has mountainous & hilly terrain and huge expanses of forests. It is expensive to build a robust power grid in that type of terrain. And since those areas are sparely populated, the per-capita cost is enormous. The residents of those areas want to enjoy Calif's scenery but aren't willing or able to pay all of the costs to safely live in it. The state has 80,000 miles of overhead power lines; thousands of miles would need to be buried. Is the relatively small population of rural residents willing to fork over tens of billions to do that? I doubt it. The urban areas aren't affected and don't want to subsidize their lifestyle choice.
And not all those rural areas are rich people -- Paradise, the city that burned down, was relatively poor. In fact, rural areas of the state are on average poorer than the urban areas. Wealthy residents will pay $10k for a standby generator, so this won't affect them in the future. The others will have to make a choice.
This is so true. People want to live in the middle of no where but have all the amenities like they are living in suburbia. If I was going to buy a house like that I would have solar panels along with battery storage and generators.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Nope, crews of guys with chainsaws...kept the working clearances maintained.
It's an easy calculation...the line can swing horizontally to x meters from the gravity centreline...trees can fall over through their height and arc...therefore cut them down to the point that they CAN NOT interact...no fires, no shorts, no blackouts.
How can that possibly work?????
Nope, crews of guys with chainsaws...kept the working clearances maintained.
It's an easy calculation...the line can swing horizontally to x meters from the gravity centreline...trees can fall over through their height and arc...therefore cut them down to the point that they CAN NOT interact...no fires, no shorts, no blackouts.
How can that possibly work?????
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
