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

This electrical transmission tower has a problem

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 479 posts

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#71

Post by scythe »

43920 wrote: post #60

This is definitely a failure on PG&E's part, but I'm still not sure how much sense it makes to assign them blame for this fire. The environment they're operating in is somewhat ridiculous - the forest is so dry and overgrown that pretty much any flame source will start a fire large enough to burn a huge area; this specific tower failure is basically just the thing that revealed a much larger issue. With proper engine…

It's instructive to consider the alternative. Many US towns expand in a dendritic pattern by branching cul-de-sacs off of interconnecting roads. By contrast pre-Westphalian cities were always built within convex hulls for defensive purposes. These shapes were imitated by early grid-planned US towns built by capitalist pioneers, but after the introduction of the automobile those towns were soon surrounded by irregular additions.

The convex hull is clearly superior in a fire-prone forest, because it permits the introduction of a fire-break. However, it requires us to, from a top-down perspective, decide that we will build a new entire town. We are reluctant to commit to building towns in forests, even though we are equally reluctant to ban people from living in forests.

In this situation we have the worst of both worlds: ad-hoc development is subsidized by the "surplus value lying around" when the government pays to build a road/powerlines/etc between two places, but it ultimately depletes that resource and creates new demands which must be fulfilled by the government.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#72

Post by dvduval »

nanodeath wrote: post #63
43920 wrote: post #60

This is definitely a failure on PG&E's part, but I'm still not sure how much sense it makes to assign them blame for this fire. The environment they're operating in is somewhat ridiculous - the forest is so dry and overgrown that pretty much any flame source will start a fire large enough to burn a huge area; this specific tower failure is basically just the thing that revealed a much larger issue. With proper engine…

Hm...it's unclear whether you read the stream. They had reason to believe that the C-hook would fail after 97-100 years, yet weren't even checking the C-hooks on towers that were 100 years old. That seems willfully negligent.

Right, and it also outlines how records were not kept up-to-date. I would be interested to know what has happened since then. What type of records are being kept now? it seems likely that with today's technology we can use something to keep an eye on these things without sending people in as often too. Perhaps we can use cameras or drones.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#73

Post by burlesona »

pavlov wrote: post #62
burlesona wrote: post #41

This is interesting but not really surprising. Most folks don't realize, because we don't stop and think about it, but the US has unbelievable amounts of infrastructure in this sort of condition. When things can last 40-100 years with little to no maintenance before catastrophic failure, there is _extraordinary_ incentive to defer maintenance until catastrophic failure occurs. For every mayor / governor / utility dir…

> “Most folks don't realize, because we don't stop and think about it, but the US has unbelievable amounts of infrastructure in this sort of condition.“ With respect, it’s obvious to anyone coming to USA from elsewhere in the world. Observing America is a strange mix of “wow, these people were so early, they really invented most of this stuff” and “wow, they really haven’t updated it since”. (The American banking sys…

That’s exactly right. I had a similar (but different) experience when I first stayed in Europe: I lived in a building that was built in the 1300’s and had changed very little since. I was astonished that anything that old could (a) still be around, (b) still be an ordinary use building. Surely the building should be a historical monument! But in fact most of the city was similarly old and there wasn’t really anything special about the building I lived in.

At the time it was hard for me to imagine anything being that old, as (growing up in the US Midwest), things built in the 1920s were the oldest I’d ever seen and were considered ancient. I look back now and realize they were only one lifetime old (at the time).

Culturally, Americans have this idea that their stuff is shiny, new, and “the best.” But this is actually out of date, and in fact as a country we are entering a new phase where for the first time the majority of infrastructure is old and wearing out, and the critical mass of old stuff that needs to be fixed is much larger than the amount of new stuff that needs to be built.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#74

Post by tonyhb »

zaroth wrote: post #46
throwaway189262 wrote: post #28

Interesting. I'm kinda sympathetic to PG&E on this though. These big lines don't have much under them, inspection is by helicopter, and the lines cannot be shut down. I would not be surprised if "fix it when it breaks" is a nationwide phenomenon for high tension lines. What makes it bad is how fire-prone California is. I'm of the opinion that humans should not be living in areas that burn regularly. And in PG&E's def…

The big change is not that somehow PG&E is going to inspect every hook on every tower. It’s not like they can just climb the tower and check it out, as you say they inspect with helicopters and cameras. Probably many of these towers don’t have a clear means to even access them with heavy equipment. Instead, the approach is they will simply shut off the power during these high risk days. Interesting that they actually…

Or, you could be responsible and say 'hey, we have no documentation for this power line and it's 90 years old. Our knowledge of materials science say this should have worn out. Let's be proactive and replace things'.

You don't need to physically inspect every item to be safe, here. You rely on precaution, standard shelf life, and operational procedures.

If that's difficult, so be it. That's the price people pay for choosing to live in the sticks. This should all be accounted for.

You think that hospitals inspect every item every 3 months? Hell no. A lot of things have lifecycles and it's just replaced because that's the tolerance, and it's safer in the long run. PG&E should be the same.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#75

Post by woliveirajr »

dvduval wrote: post #72
nanodeath wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm...it's unclear whether you read the stream. They had reason to believe that the C-hook would fail after 97-100 years, yet weren't even checking the C-hooks on towers that were 100 years old. That seems willfully negligent.

Right, and it also outlines how records were not kept up-to-date. I would be interested to know what has happened since then. What type of records are being kept now? it seems likely that with today's technology we can use something to keep an eye on these things without sending people in as often too. Perhaps we can use cameras or drones.

There is a project from my former professor (?) and electrical company: use drones + cameras with specific filters to capture variation of temperature, wear and debris in towers.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#76

Post by creato »

nanodeath wrote: post #63
43920 wrote: post #60

This is definitely a failure on PG&E's part, but I'm still not sure how much sense it makes to assign them blame for this fire. The environment they're operating in is somewhat ridiculous - the forest is so dry and overgrown that pretty much any flame source will start a fire large enough to burn a huge area; this specific tower failure is basically just the thing that revealed a much larger issue. With proper engine…

Hm...it's unclear whether you read the stream. They had reason to believe that the C-hook would fail after 97-100 years, yet weren't even checking the C-hooks on towers that were 100 years old. That seems willfully negligent.

Yes, PGE did cause a fire through negligence. That's a problem. However, what is the appropriate penalty for this?

In my opinion, it is the average cost of a fire, most of which are small and don't cause much damage.

That this particular fire blew up into a big disaster was the result of many factors, only a few of which were actually in PGE's control.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#77

Post by MPSimmons »

burlesona wrote: post #41

This is interesting but not really surprising. Most folks don't realize, because we don't stop and think about it, but the US has unbelievable amounts of infrastructure in this sort of condition. When things can last 40-100 years with little to no maintenance before catastrophic failure, there is _extraordinary_ incentive to defer maintenance until catastrophic failure occurs. For every mayor / governor / utility dir…

We have so much infrastructure that was built, and now we lack politicians who have any interest in communicating the need to maintain it.

Eisenhower started work on building the interstate system [1], but the components need to be maintained. Not just the surface roads and grades, but the bridges, engineered earth, and more. This costs money (and that money goes to the construction companies and workers who perform the work), but we have lost the national appetite for spending money on infrastructure, or really most things outside of the military, hence the relatively aimless goals of NASA (until Bridenstine, to whom I give a lot of credit for directing the aim of NASA, even if I might disagree slightly with his target).

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#78

Post by [deleted] »

rsync wrote: post #61
andi999 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this normalisation also applies to the other factors of this disaster. I dont think it is enough to focus on the immediate cause of the fire (it could have started through other causes, if the tower werent faulty), but how can people build so close to a forest which is mantained in a way which allows for such big fires?

This is a very good point. I love to malign PG&E, an organization that I despise, but these forests are loaded guns waiting to go off. If we had zero PG&E towers, they would still catch fire and explosively burn, given the levels of built up fuel. My source for this is very current and immediate: my volunteer fire department in Marin County just did a post-op debrief, last night, on the (relatively small, 5000 acre)…

[deleted]

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#79

Post by free_rms »

tuna-piano wrote: post #65
nanodeath wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm...it's unclear whether you read the stream. They had reason to believe that the C-hook would fail after 97-100 years, yet weren't even checking the C-hooks on towers that were 100 years old. That seems willfully negligent.

I think the point is that PG&E negligently caused sparks. But many things can negligently cause sparks, including dozens of human and natural causes. Even among power operators, sparks seem to not be too rare (for example, the tree that fell on the line). So while PG&E can be blamed for that specific fire that doesn't really address the root cause of "why can some sparks in one place cause such huge destruction and c…

Many things can crash cars but if you crash one you're liable.

If the wildfires in CA were a new thing this season, I wouldn't want to witch hunt this year's culprit. But it's been a huge hazard for years now -- negligent sparks can't be tolerated.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#80

Post by rcpt »

williadc wrote: post #64
throwaway189262 wrote: post #28

Interesting. I'm kinda sympathetic to PG&E on this though. These big lines don't have much under them, inspection is by helicopter, and the lines cannot be shut down. I would not be surprised if "fix it when it breaks" is a nationwide phenomenon for high tension lines. What makes it bad is how fire-prone California is. I'm of the opinion that humans should not be living in areas that burn regularly. And in PG&E's def…

> I'm of the opinion that humans should not be living in areas that burn regularly. Along similar lines of thinking, humans should not be living in areas that flood regularly, or that have earthquakes regularly, or that have hurricanes regularly, or that have tornadoes regularly, or that have insufficient water, or that have excessive heat or cold regularly, or that have high rates of animal-transmitted disease. This…

It actually leaves quite a lot of places to live.

Yes an asteroid could hit anywhere but the notion that suburban sprawl out into every corner of the wilderness is justified by that is ludicrous.

Post reply on HN