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

91–100 of 479 posts

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#91

Post by bavell »

burlesona wrote: post #73
pavlov wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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…

Your last paragraph is particularly insightful and I think it's something we all need to grok and come to terms with. Political landscape needs to shift to get past all the lip service and actually make real progress.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#92

Post by bb88 »

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…

> Maybe whoever setup the dominoes behind the first one shares the blame as well...

There was a famous story here a couple years ago here where a mountain biker lit some toilet paper on fire and caused half a hillside to go up in flames.

Negligence, sure. Stupidity, no doubt. But it's also dry here in the summer, and that hasn't changed year after year. So sure, I guess, let it be the weather's fault or global warming, why not.

It's easier, afterall, to place the blame on other people or forces than to change behaviors that would prevent disasters in the first place.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#93

Post by zaroth »

tonyhb wrote: post #74
zaroth wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

The average age of a PG&E tower is 68 years old.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#94

Post by randomchars »

kempbellt wrote: post #90
akira2501 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the lines cannot be shut down. Of course they can. A failure is an unplanned shutdown, and I doubt that leads to better outcomes than a planned shutdown. Also this thread demonstrates that PG&E replaced _other_ parts of the same tower. > I'm of the opinion that humans should not be living in areas that burn regularly. I'm of the opinion that climate change makes this a moving target, and this is simply one of t…

>Of course they can. A failure is an unplanned shutdown A pedantically accurate retort, but ignores the real point. Shutting down these lines for "inspection" is not feasible. These lines are the backbone of a grid that millions of people and services rely on 24/7/365, and there is zero redundancy. They are responsible for delivering power to hospitals, traffic lights, schools, airports, grocery stores, homes, busine…

> Telling people "We need to turn off your power for a couple days every couple months for inspections" is going to create a lot of backlash, no matter how good the reason.

Maybe not every couple of mounts, but they could probably get away with doing them more frequently than a century... Also, you can do visual inspection even without having to shut down power.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#95

Post by bhawks »

rcpt wrote: post #83
dragonwriter wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Communities should not be allowed to form, and should be actively wound down if they are within dangerous areas with seasonal problems. But when we abandon most of the West (earthquake, fire, drought), midwest (flooding, tornados, east and particularly gulf coast (hurricanes), there's a whole lot of economic output lost from working land (farming, mineral extraction, etc.) that won't be replaceable when you crowd t…

California mountain towns are not economically productive. I doubt they could even exist without the rest of the states taxes supporting their infrastructure.

Yes, this happened in an isolated mountain town. Let's set that aside for a moment.

PGE demonstrates neglectful behaviours towards all of its infrastructure. It has transmission lines everywhere and has the same general attitude to maintenance and safety. Ask the people of San Mateo how safe they feel with PGEs gas lines. There are serious long term problems inside PGE and it's doubtful they are going to change.

PGE presents a serious risk to Californians everywhere.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#96

Post by the_pwner224 »

liability wrote: post #10
WantonQuantum wrote: post #3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance "Normalization of deviance is a term used by the American sociologist Diane Vaughan to describe the process in which deviance from the right as in the correct or proper behavior becomes normalized in a corporate culture. Vaughan defines this as a process where a clearly unsafe practice comes to be considered normal if it does not immediately cause a catastrophe:…

Is this sort of process similar to what occurred in Europe during the decline of the Roman Empire when aqueducts and similar public infrastructure fell into disrepair? Did the people who witnessed that occurring notice the intergenerational trend, or did they think everything was business as normal? Is there any hope for reversing this decline in infrastructure if everybody close to the matter considers it normal?

The Overton Window is somewhat similar to this. Especially applicable to the erosion of privacy & software ownership over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#97

Post by zzapplezz »

xyzzyz wrote: post #69
akira2501 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the lines cannot be shut down. Of course they can. A failure is an unplanned shutdown, and I doubt that leads to better outcomes than a planned shutdown. Also this thread demonstrates that PG&E replaced _other_ parts of the same tower. > I'm of the opinion that humans should not be living in areas that burn regularly. I'm of the opinion that climate change makes this a moving target, and this is simply one of t…

If California doesn't like PG&E making $550M profit, and would like PG&E spend more on maintenance, it should set lower profit target, and allow PG&E spend more money on maintenance. PG&E operates based on decisions of California Public Utilities Commission, which decides, among other things, how much money PG&E is allowed to make, and how much it is allowed to spend on maintenance. Here's what it looks like: https:/…

> If California doesn't like PG&E making ... profit.. it should set lower profit target, and allow PG&E spend more money on maintenance

Who makes decisions at the CPUC? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is circular logic.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#98

Post by [deleted] »

43920 wrote: post #68
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, I should clarify. PG&E absolutely should have known about, and prevented, the specific situation that caused this fire, and the fact they didn't do so is a huge problem. However, the surrounding area is such a high fire risk that a fire almost certainly would have occurred even without this failure (which the thread mentions: https://twitter.com/TubeTimeUS/status/1306377626487894017 ), and so the specific caus…

[deleted]

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

xyzzyz wrote: post #69
akira2501 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the lines cannot be shut down. Of course they can. A failure is an unplanned shutdown, and I doubt that leads to better outcomes than a planned shutdown. Also this thread demonstrates that PG&E replaced _other_ parts of the same tower. > I'm of the opinion that humans should not be living in areas that burn regularly. I'm of the opinion that climate change makes this a moving target, and this is simply one of t…

If California doesn't like PG&E making $550M profit, and would like PG&E spend more on maintenance, it should set lower profit target, and allow PG&E spend more money on maintenance. PG&E operates based on decisions of California Public Utilities Commission, which decides, among other things, how much money PG&E is allowed to make, and how much it is allowed to spend on maintenance. Here's what it looks like: https:/…

> PG&E would love to spend more money on maintenance

Yeah, their series of felony convictions for violating the law regarding maintenance, and obstructing investigations into those failures, tells a very different story.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#100

Post by scollet »

nullc wrote: post #86
tuna-piano wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But many things can negligently cause sparks, including dozens of human and natural causes. My favourite: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mendocino-compl... Someone tried to stop an angry yellowjacket nest by driving a concrete stake into the hole in the ground and their hammer thew off sparks and started a 459,123 acre fire-- the largest recorded in state history at the time.

Problem solved, I guess.
Post reply on HN