This electrical transmission tower has a problem • Hacker News Board

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#261

Post by zhte415 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:28 AM UTC

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…

This is a failing of engineering reliable systems:

A part is tested to a point of failure, based on the quality parameters you specify. I'd put safety pretty high on a 115,000V line. Choose your sigma level based on your goals. I'd wager 97 years is out of the ballpark of "Yes, this might fail". And to save on cost, don't come back every year "OK, it's still OK." Replace it - it saves cost (and in this case, potentially lives).

So yes, I'd assign them blame. Be it an engineering part, an asphalt road, a power pylon.

There will be outliers, but this was an outlier of systematic negligence, with no (recorded) documentation prior to the year 2000.

Scheduled replacement saves costs in the long term, if bottom dollar is the aim.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#262

Post by awalton » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:35 AM UTC

resonantjacket5 wrote: post #217

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…

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…

> Yes, but the larger and more important issue is why are there so many explosives in the first place?

Ah, so the problem is negligence. And what negligence was there? PG&E not maintaining their towers as clearly documented (or rather, not documented as the thread shows), or even possibly the federal government not maintaining Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest lands? No - it's California's fault, spoken as if even a healthy forest wouldn't burst into flames if someone threw molten hot aluminum on a kindling pile.

But where could that idea possibly have come from? Perhaps the Federal govermnent, whose head has basically been parroting that exact line? What an astounding coincidence.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#263

Post by mannykannot » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:40 AM UTC

dcanelhas wrote: post #209

andi999 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lightning may coincide with rainfall, I've heard. If this is true one might presume less severe fires as a result.

It is a simple fact that lightning does start fires, especially in places like the American west, where lightning is not always accompanied with much, or any, rainfall at ground level. The severity of any fire is determined by how it develops in the hours and days that follow its ignition, long after the storm has moved on or dissipated.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#264

Post by awalton » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:45 AM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #245

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…

> PG&E does ultimately have some responsibility […] Don't stop there; remember they're regulated: > California’s public utilities commission prioritized rates, green power; wildfires exposed shortcomings * https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-caused-over-400-fires-in-2... * https://archive.is/czAB3 (paywall) > A state lawmaker on Wednesday demanded an extensive review of the California Public Utilities Commission to det…

So what you're saying is we need more regulations to cover these kinds of cases? Aren't you "regulations" people usually against regulations? Like, normally wouldn't I be arguing against someone screaming about how the free market can take care of these things and that the free market knows better than the government?

Or, once again, is it just an amazing coincidence that people have suddenly completely flipped their stance because it happened in California?

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#265

Post by phendrenad2 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:47 AM UTC

creato wrote: post #76

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.

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.

They should be fined the cost of the fire multiplied by the increased risk of fire that they caused. So (cost of camp fire) * ((chance of fire happening due to unmaintained c-hook) / ((chance of fire happening from unmaintained c-hook)+(chance of fire happening from all other sources)

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#266

Post by awalton » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:48 AM UTC

piker wrote: post #237

mrbabbage wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no defense for PG&E for the Camp Fire. This is an organization that is notorious for under-maintaining its assets. Its state of repair is so shoddy that it regularly turns off power for many days at a time ("public safety power shutoffs") to huge swathes of its service area. No other comparable utility does this - not San Diego Gas and Electric, not the Victoria Electricity Cooperative (Australian utility),…

None of this information is relevant to whether PG&E has a defense for the Camp Fire.

Overruled, statement goes to motive and habit.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#267

Post by kixiQu » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:48 AM UTC

setum wrote: post #219

Dylan16807 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you have to ask a government committee every time you go to washroom, you will notice a significant drop in your washroom visits.

if people die when I stop going to the washroom, I am willing to evaluate the idea that I may have some culpability in deciding to not do that

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#268

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:50 AM UTC

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…

..."excusable" cause (like a tree falling on a line...

No that would not be excusable for an American power company. Trees are trimmed and felled on a regular basis wherever they threaten power lines. Except, somehow, in California? That would be surprising.

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#269

Post by andromeduck » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:55 AM UTC

zhte415 wrote: post #261

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…

This is a failing of engineering reliable systems: A part is tested to a point of failure, based on the quality parameters you specify. I'd put safety pretty high on a 115,000V line. Choose your sigma level based on your goals. I'd wager 97 years is out of the ballpark of "Yes, this might fail". And to save on cost, don't come back every year "OK, it's still OK." Replace it - it saves cost (and in this case, potentia…

iF iT AiNt BrOkE dOnT fIx It

Re: This electrical transmission tower has a problem

#270

Post by zaarn » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:55 AM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #251

noselasd wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's usually not how laws works though. If you act irresponsibly, break laws, don't perform due dilligence and so on, you are also responsible and get blame for the consequences. If you act in good fait, follow all regulations, act responsible, the law might see it as an accident where you don't get blame.

With this logic, one would blame welders for the Beirut bombing, because they weren’t wearing side shields on their safety glasses.

Well, they clearly did not establish the fire load in the immediate area of the weld, as is common safety practise in the industry. You wouldn't want to weld near an active gas line either, you want to ensure it's not filled with gas.