Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 291 posts

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#71

Post by dredmorbius »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #54

Is there no technical solution here? They were fined 30 billion, surely that could pay for some sort of fancy lower-risk transmission mechanism?

Very roughly, transmission line costs range from $2,500 - $16,000/mi.

https://sites.utexas.edu/energyinstitute/files/2016/11/UTAus...

PG&E has 106,000 miles of total distribution:

https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/prof...

Which works out to less than $2 billion, so the $30 billion would account for at least an alternate (if not necessarily safer) system.

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#72

Post by Pinckney »

dredmorbius wrote: post #71
bobcostas55 wrote: post #54

Is there no technical solution here? They were fined 30 billion, surely that could pay for some sort of fancy lower-risk transmission mechanism?

Very roughly, transmission line costs range from $2,500 - $16,000/mi. https://sites.utexas.edu/energyinstitute/files/2016/11/UTAus... PG&E has 106,000 miles of total distribution: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/prof... Which works out to less than $2 billion, so the $30 billion would account for at least an alternate (if not necessarily safer) system.

The numbers you've quoted, from page 7, are per MW mile, not per mile.

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#73

Post by dredmorbius »

pascalxus wrote: post #16

The wildfire situation in CA was not helped by all those houses so darn close to each other.

Wildfire risk comes from 1) vast amounts of highly vulnerable and flammable vegetation and 2) blown embers.

The fire front isn't leaping house to house. It's being blown, often miles, by fierce, fire-driven and -generated, winds.

This is a demonstration of ember-driven ignition:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_Vh4cQdH26g

And the phenomenon in the Paradise / Camp Fire:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=gxt7L4x_NQo&t=350

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#74

Post by dredmorbius »

Pinckney wrote: post #72
dredmorbius wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very roughly, transmission line costs range from $2,500 - $16,000/mi. https://sites.utexas.edu/energyinstitute/files/2016/11/UTAus... PG&E has 106,000 miles of total distribution: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/prof... Which works out to less than $2 billion, so the $30 billion would account for at least an alternate (if not necessarily safer) system.

The numbers you've quoted, from page 7, are per MW mile, not per mile.

Thanks, that was a really quick check. And yeah, that would increase the costs markedly.

(My initial thought on posting was that $30 billion would not be enough, though the first read of actual per-mile costs, neglecting per MW-mile, seemed to suggest otherwise.)

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#75

Post by makomk »

joe_the_user wrote: post #20
pascalxus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the math changed because they were sued for something that should've been acceptable risk. So now it's unacceptable risk. What goes around, comes around.

They didn't wind-up liable because arcing electricity just happens to sometimes 'cause fire. They wound-up liable because they gutted their tree-trimming operations and paid the difference in dividends. That is something that definitely makes you liable regardless of whether the original thing is an acceptable risk. Now, it's hard to if this is indeed a "bail us out or we'll shut down at every strong breeze" statemen…

The Camp Fire, which is the one that looks likely to bankrupt them, probably wasn't even caused by inadequate tree trimming. Apparently one of their power lines had a weak, defective fixing which failed due to the same high winds that caused the fire to spread so rapidly and uncontrollably.

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#77

Post by thereisnospork »

dstroot wrote: post #11

It will be interesting watching how all this plays out. As others have noted the liability math has certainly changed. Enough to bankrupt one of the largest utility companies in the country. One the other hand this is also a political statement. They are clearly signaling to the politicians that they better shield them from further liability or expect more of this behavior. Shut the power down when the wind blows, af…

This may be a naive question, but why aren't they being bankrupted (or hurt financially) for cutting off the power voluntarily? Their nominal job is to provide power, not doing so for reasons that aren't acts of god should open them to liability and/or (severe) penalties for violation of contract.

If the appropriate legal framework doesn't currently exist I can't imagine a 'The lights stay on' bill would be all that unpopular politically.

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#78

Post by navigatesol »

dstroot wrote: post #11

It will be interesting watching how all this plays out. As others have noted the liability math has certainly changed. Enough to bankrupt one of the largest utility companies in the country. One the other hand this is also a political statement. They are clearly signaling to the politicians that they better shield them from further liability or expect more of this behavior. Shut the power down when the wind blows, af…

>The stock rose 3% Friday

After crashing 30%+ the day before. They are essentially bankrupt.

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#79

Post by sjg007 »

thereisnospork wrote: post #77
dstroot wrote: post #11

It will be interesting watching how all this plays out. As others have noted the liability math has certainly changed. Enough to bankrupt one of the largest utility companies in the country. One the other hand this is also a political statement. They are clearly signaling to the politicians that they better shield them from further liability or expect more of this behavior. Shut the power down when the wind blows, af…

This may be a naive question, but why aren't they being bankrupted (or hurt financially) for cutting off the power voluntarily? Their nominal job is to provide power, not doing so for reasons that aren't acts of god should open them to liability and/or (severe) penalties for violation of contract. If the appropriate legal framework doesn't currently exist I can't imagine a 'The lights stay on' bill would be all that…

No, the bankruptcy is due to the wildfires from last year.

Re: ‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

#80

Post by williamDafoe »

thereisnospork wrote: post #77
dstroot wrote: post #11

It will be interesting watching how all this plays out. As others have noted the liability math has certainly changed. Enough to bankrupt one of the largest utility companies in the country. One the other hand this is also a political statement. They are clearly signaling to the politicians that they better shield them from further liability or expect more of this behavior. Shut the power down when the wind blows, af…

This may be a naive question, but why aren't they being bankrupted (or hurt financially) for cutting off the power voluntarily? Their nominal job is to provide power, not doing so for reasons that aren't acts of god should open them to liability and/or (severe) penalties for violation of contract. If the appropriate legal framework doesn't currently exist I can't imagine a 'The lights stay on' bill would be all that…

Remember that CA impeached the governor Gray Davis in 2000 for power outages .. I bet that PG&e is thinking of doing the same thing today to Gavin Newsom!
Post reply on HN