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

171–180 of 479 posts

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#171

Post by Dylan16807 »

legulere wrote: post #168
tshaddox wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

1000 fires would actually be probably better than 10 because they help keep flammable material at bay and reduce the size of the fires.

Only if they occur often enough.

PG&E isn't setting fires often enough to do that, so the downsides of every random fire they set strongly outweigh the upsides. If we need more fires, we should use carefully planned ones.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#172

Post by Cthulhu_ »

legulere wrote: post #168
tshaddox wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

1000 fires would actually be probably better than 10 because they help keep flammable material at bay and reduce the size of the fires.

That's not down to an energy company though, that's down to forest management which is troubled by funding and politics.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#173

Post by vladvasiliu »

csours wrote: post #120
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.

We're all thinking about C-hooks because that's what failed here. What if the foundation had failed? Or any one of a million other things. I'm not saying that PG&E are clear by any means, just that it's really easy to point fingers after an incident. Be very wary of hindsight bias. So very much of America's infrastructure is aging and used past planned capacity. How can you tell ahead of time which infrastructure wil…

> We're all thinking about C-hooks because that's what failed here. What if the foundation had failed? Or any one of a million other things. I'm not saying that PG&E are clear by any means, just that it's really easy to point fingers after an incident. Be very wary of hindsight bias.

I'm not sure that's the point. C-hooks are an example of a preventable accident. The problem isn't the c-hook itself but the policy / culture at PG&E and probably outside the company (as you point below) that allowed this to happen.

> So very much of America's infrastructure is aging and used past planned capacity. How can you tell ahead of time which infrastructure will bite you the worst?

Exactly. I see the twitter thread as an example of this broader issue. Of course, the solution is not to go around and check every single c-hook. The solution is to set up a plan (at the utility, state or federal level) so that this kind of avoidable accidents happen much less often.

I'm not saying that nothing like this would ever happen again, but even if such a plan could reduce such events by ten times, that would look like a success to me.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#174

Post by andi999 »

legulere wrote: post #168
tshaddox wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

1000 fires would actually be probably better than 10 because they help keep flammable material at bay and reduce the size of the fires.

Is there data from California about lightning as a fire cause? I read in Canada about 50% of all forest fires are started by lightning.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#175

Post by jmspring »

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…

Pge has a history of diverting maintenance to profits. That has been proven.

Communities and forests in CA do not keep up adequate maintenance, that is taken as fact.

The super dry conditions coupled with wind exacerbate any fires that pop up.

We’ve had fires due to pge, gun shots (detwieller), a flat on a trailer causing sparks over 5 miles. Yet, the fires would not have been as severe if conditions on the forest floor were not so dire.

Plumas National Forest is pretty clean compared to many - yet winds kicked up on the Bear fire and Berry Falls was torched and Oroville threatened.

Santa Cruz mountains, many homes saved either had defensible space or neighbors nearby with such that stayed up and helped out.

Not sure I have a point, just some facts.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#176

Post by imtringued »

jrockway wrote: post #15

I guess my takeaway from this is if you're a government building some sort of asset you're going to transfer to the private sector, overengineer it. Nobody is ever going to do maintenance, so your thing essentially has to last forever. Imagine that they made the hooks so they only lasted for 10 years -- we'd have 10 times as many billion-dollar fires. But some engineer in 1918 said "you know, let's make it a little b…

I feel like an easy solution to this could have been an additional safety wire. The safety wire will catch the insulator and thereby give maintenance crew a few days to arrive before the tower fails for good. There is also a general maintenance problem that could be solved by installing inspection cameras directly onto every tower. Those cameras may have to be replaced more frequently than the actual tower components but I'm sure they would not only save on inspection costs but also allow them to respond to falling infrastructure much faster.

Of course PG&E has a cultural problem, not a technical problem. So I doubt they would do this at all.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#177

Post by cskinner »

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:/…

IMO, this is the most important comment here (so far) in understanding the investment & maintenance decision making and constaints of PG&E.

From the linked CPUC Decision Making in the above comment, there are multiple examples where PG&E have advocated for increased spending for safety purposes, but organisations such as the Division of Ratepayer Advocates and The Utility Reform Network were pushing back. Ultimately, however, it is the CPUC that weighs the arguments of the different parties and determines allowable spending.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#178

Post by Dylan16807 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #150
laumars wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it people will argue that there should be fewer regulations to allow companies more freedom to operate but when those companies, unsurprisingly, put money ahead of safety, it’s then the government’s fault for not regulating those companies? At some point companies need to take responsibility and be held accountable for their (in)actions. I know this is an unpopular opinion for HN, given its venture funding roo…

I don’t think you understood my comment. PG&E is as regulated as you can possibly get without literally being part of government. When PG&E wants to spend $100M on maintenance, it has to ask government for permission, and CPUC needs to approve this expense. My point here is not to argue that with less regulation, PG&E would do better job when it comes to maintenance — I don’t know if it would. However, considering ho…

> When PG&E wants to spend $100M on maintenance, it has to ask government for permission, and CPUC needs to approve this expense.

...and did they ask? It's their job to ask. You can't blame the oversight organization's interference if it didn't interfere.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#179

Post by Dylan16807 »

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…

The lines could have been inspected without shutting them down.

No, stronger than that. The problems with these lines were noticed without shutting them down, at least by someone, but it didn't get acted on.

We don't even know if replacing these parts would have required shutdowns, but it would have been easy to justify shutdowns for such visible problems.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#180

Post by m-ee »

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…

How is shutting these lines down not feasible when PG&E regularly does it as part of their "public safety power shutdowns"
Post reply on HN