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

151–160 of 479 posts

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#151

Post by NoblePublius »

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…

CalFire’s budget is lower than it was in 1999 in inflation adjusted dollars. 8/10 CalFire workers are prison laborers. How convenient for the CA government to have cLiMatE chAnGe to blame.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#153

Post by nemonemo »

I think there might be one point that deserves more attention: the wind that is getting stronger over time. It is entirely possible that the C-hook was holding up relatively well until the wind reached certain threshold, and the wind could have gotten to go over the threshold more frequently lately. This could be another side effect of the climate change in addition to the increased vegetation mentioned in the thread.

I am curious if there is any research around the electrical component failure trends (probably from some nationally owned electrical companies). I would believe there is some correlation between tower failures and the peak wind strength/strong wind frequency, but if such correlation holds up meaningfully across different electrical companies in different areas, that could mean the wind might be more at fault than PG&E. PG&E was still criminally negligent, but as the thread said with a different angle (Camp Fire B), the fire might have been inevitable.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#154

Post by bhawks »

zaroth wrote: post #93
tonyhb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

PGEs own linemen were concerned about wear on these towers. They sent samples from the field to labs for metallurgical analysis. PGEs own scientists estimated that the components would wear out in 100 years.

PGE took this information and did nothing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiErOkaUMAA178t?format=png&name=...

This is not how you maintain critical infrastructure. This is embracing failure and simply not caring about the consequences.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#155

Post by tshaddox »

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…

> With proper engineering and maintenance, PG&E could probably reduce the frequency of fires significantly, but there's always going to be a non-zero risk of fire, both from power lines and other sources, and it seems basically inevitable that one of them would have started another fire at some point.

I don’t understand. You’re conceding that if PG&E were a competent and responsible company they could significantly reduce the rate of fires. The fact that some fires might still happen doesn’t mean that 10 fires aren’t better than 1,000 fires.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#156

Post by baddox »

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 mean, you have to be more careful when you’re in a more dangerous area. If you live on a remote farm you can hit golf balls from your back porch. If you live in a suburb, not so much. Is this unfair?

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#157

Post by senux »

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 operates based on decisions of California Public Utilities Commission...

As clarification, your statement makes it sound like CPUC makes unilateral decisions about what PG&E can or cannot do when, in fact, CPUC makes those decisions based on requests made by PG&E. While CPUC does have a certain level of decision making power, a lot of their decisions are made based on what PG&E says is the right/necessary thing to do.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#158

Post by pmalynin »

rayiner wrote: post #130
zzapplezz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Political appointees who have enormous incentives to keep electricity prices as low as possible.

And yet California has one of the highest electricity costs in the country. Things definitely don’t add up.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#159

Post by NavinF »

ethanwillis wrote: post #117
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…

The reason it "some sparks" caused such huge destruction is because PG&E was also not maintaining the brush underneath their towers. All they were doing was literally fanning the flames by flying over it with a helicopter.

> literally fanning the flames by flying over it with a helicopter.

That's a hilarious image, but I doubt that literally happened

Post reply on HN