This electrical transmission tower has a problem • Hacker News Board

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#321

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:04 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #320

mdavidn wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving too fast is not analogous to mismanaging a 115 kV conductor.

You're right - driving too fast is an active choice, while lack of maintenance is an accident.

> driving too fast is an active choice, while lack of maintenance is an accident.

Its quite possible for the former to be accidental and the latter deliberate, such as when you both deliberately reduce inspections and deliberately by policy eliminate the training for inspectors. And when you create a program with a name that indicates it is being used to follow up on safety problems to deceive regulators and just use it as a slush fund for capital improvements with no safety criteria. Which are just a few of the things the investigation that led to PG&E’s manslaughter convictions in the Camp Fire (not it's first felony convictions in deadly incidents!) revealed.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#322

Post by andrewl » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

There's a comment in the thread suggesting something I'd never thought of before, but which sounds like a great idea, although I'm not too good with economic thinking:

"Generation and transmission need to be separated. Generation can be a perfectly competitive market and is naturally suited to private business. Transmission is inherently a monopoly and should be publicly owned. Combining the two in one for-profit company is asking for trouble."

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#323

Post by DuskStar » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:07 PM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #135

DuskStar wrote: post #57

I've got a bit of a problem with articles like this one. I'll try and illustrate it with an analogy: Imagine some asshole puts an incendiary in an orphanage, and rigs it to go off when a nearby speed trap detects someone going more than 10mph over. Eventually, someone does, and the orphanage catches fire. Further, the group responsible for constructing and maintaining the orphanage hasn't looked at the place for 50 y…

That fires would happen for other reasons is completely inconsequential to me in this case. This tower was criminally neglected even in basic maintenance. Such a tower should not exist in any place, and if only the consequence would be long power outages without forwarning. Separately, everyone responsible for the failing tower to be able to light such a disastrous fire, should be prosecuted as well. PG&E certainly i…

And to me, the fact that the fires would happen for other reasons is the most important thing in the case. Blame should fall on the people with the power to prevent an accident from happening, and PG&E did not have that power. (They instead had the power to prevent the accident from happening in one specific way, but it still would have happened in another way)

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#324

Post by cullinap » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #318

cullinap wrote: post #317

Not sure if someone covered this already, but figured I would give my two cents since I worked in the industry. Usually the hardest part of electrical work is taking a circuit off-line long enough to fix an issue like this. The toughest projects were upgrading lines where customers are fed radially (one circuit). In more densely populated areas customers are fed by two or more lines, allowing the utility to schedule…

> First they need money and that requires them to secure funding from their regulatory body, which will determine if they can raise the cost of electricity for the customers. ... long pause ...

This gets complicated because if the utility wants to build a new line they have to acquire land and nobody is ever happy about that for good reason, and no one wants to pay more in the short term. Look at the keystone pipeline, as there are huge political/social implications for transport of raw energy across large tracts of land.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#325

Post by rayiner » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:11 PM UTC

biztos wrote: post #290

resonantjacket5 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the root of the problem is that there's too much forest that hasn't burned. Blaming PG&E is missing the actual problem. For instance the Beirut explosion was the fault from the welders causing the explosion. Yes, but the larger and more important issue is why are there so many explosives in the first place? California's mismanagement with it's forest is the same issue. These forests should be periodically burned t…

> California's mismanagement with its forest is the same issue. I agree that the forests should be managed differently, but if this being "California's mismanagement" is an actual thing as opposed to political disinformation, I'd love to see a couple links to back it up. Some quick googling suggests that it's mostly a Federal problem, which has very different implications especially right now. Am I wrong?

What do you mean by “political disinformation?” Some news outlets you don’t like published the story? How much “moral clarity” does the outlet need to have before you’ll consider the article?

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#326

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #309

bluGill wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

blame the feds, blame CA, blame the natural state of forests in CA... Any way too much blame is on PG&E.

What an odd sentiment...

Why?

There is such a thing as a multi domain fault.

He never said this wasn't PG&E's fault, just that out of 100% they don't bear all the fault.

I mean, California is in the middle of burning down from a lighting complex at this moment. Suing mother nature isn't going to do much good if you want to put the blame on her for that fire.

As long as people live in the Wildland Urban Interface, and we live in a climate that's getting hotter and drier year over year, and we don't have defense in depth around our homes, houses are going to continue to burn and people will die from it.

At the end of the day we cannot stop the fires, they are a natural part of the landscape. The question is can we reduce the impact on humans? Some we cannot, the smoke will still affect us negatively. Some we can, a hard parameter around our house with no flammable bushes, and eves that protect against cinder build up that set houses on fire will help.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#327

Post by herrkanin » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

andrewl wrote: post #322

There's a comment in the thread suggesting something I'd never thought of before, but which sounds like a great idea, although I'm not too good with economic thinking: "Generation and transmission need to be separated. Generation can be a perfectly competitive market and is naturally suited to private business. Transmission is inherently a monopoly and should be publicly owned. Combining the two in one for-profit com…

This is how it works in Sweden. I pay two separate bills each month, one for the amount of electricity I've used, and another for using the electrical infrastructure. We have a ton of options to choose from regarding who generates our electricity and seems to keep the competition healthy.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#328

Post by johannes1234321 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #296

biztos wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California's mismanagement with its forest is the same issue. I agree that the forests should be managed differently, but if this being "California's mismanagement" is an actual thing as opposed to political disinformation, I'd love to see a couple links to back it up. Some quick googling suggests that it's mostly a Federal problem, which has very different implications especially right now. Am I wrong?

blame the feds, blame CA, blame the natural state of forests in CA... Any way too much blame is on PG&E.

Crazily dysfunctional country.

The elements of that blew game I got are "climate change makes weather warmer and drier, which increases risk" question about that Mr. Trump said "California is terrible in clearing out the forests" to which it is being responded "we need funding and many forests are federal forests" always good to work on blaming for the past, not to work on a solution for the future ...

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#329

Post by bagacrap » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

andrewl wrote: post #322

There's a comment in the thread suggesting something I'd never thought of before, but which sounds like a great idea, although I'm not too good with economic thinking: "Generation and transmission need to be separated. Generation can be a perfectly competitive market and is naturally suited to private business. Transmission is inherently a monopoly and should be publicly owned. Combining the two in one for-profit com…

ok great, but would you trust a government entity with a limited budget not to make the same decisions?

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#330

Post by DuskStar » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #321

DuskStar wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - driving too fast is an active choice, while lack of maintenance is an accident.

> driving too fast is an active choice, while lack of maintenance is an accident. Its quite possible for the former to be accidental and the latter deliberate, such as when you both deliberately reduce inspections and deliberately by policy eliminate the training for inspectors. And when you create a program with a name that indicates it is being used to follow up on safety problems to deceive regulators and just use…

Sure, but I'd put money on the majority of people speeding doing so intentionally, and while determining whether lack of maintenance was an accident isn't trivial (and depends on the definition of 'intentional') even in the PG&E case here they did not specifically and knowingly leave a broken part on the line.