Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if California's dams fail?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#41

Post by mistrial9 »

photonerd wrote: post #40
sacnoradhq wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The spillway reconstruction was expensive and time-consuming, but at least it didn't fail that time. The issue was a lack of investment in remediation repairs and improvements, and a lack of planning for extreme event flows. In the long term, California is unprepared and fucked in terms of dwindling water supply and damaging storms and forest fires from climate change. That's why I left.

California is probably the most prepared state in the US, by far, for the climate issues coming. The problem is it’s also the most currently affected. Mostly due to historic forestry mismanagement (which they’ve corrected but it takes time to make an impact) and the maliciously incompetent behavior of PG&E. Most of the East Coast is going to be a mess. Same with states near the Gulf. Texas can’t even function now in…

> forestry mismanagement (which they’ve corrected but it takes time to make an impact)

no, this is trivializing badly. A more accurate statement is work, and there are varying opinions. The progress might be that some selection of smart, concerned and able public members now know about this topic, and discuss it at all without falling into fundemental disagreements.

At this time, one estimate shows fifteen percent of a total of thirteen million+ homes, are in extreme fire danger in 2023. But wait, that means that eighty five percent of homes are not.. and California is geographically diverse. So there are lots of real places with homes where this dire language does not apply. You cannot plaster over the reality of that with a parenthetic one-liner, however.

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#42

Post by mistrial9 »

sacnoradhq wrote: post #18

Native peoples have an oral history that the Sacramento and Central valleys can turn into inland seas during periods of unusual rain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862

that event is literally the "punchline" of the researcher in the article

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#43

Post by belorn »

During energy discussions here on HN, a common topic is accident insurance. The general principle is that a power plant should have insurance that cover any and all forms of accidents, covering any costs that such accidents may have on people who live around (or in this case downstream) of the plant. Not much mentioning of this in the article so I assume the costs is paid either by the state or by the individual.

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#44

Post by crote »

belorn wrote: post #43

During energy discussions here on HN, a common topic is accident insurance. The general principle is that a power plant should have insurance that cover any and all forms of accidents, covering any costs that such accidents may have on people who live around (or in this case downstream) of the plant. Not much mentioning of this in the article so I assume the costs is paid either by the state or by the individual.

The issue is that for some accidents the liability is virtually limitless, so insuring it is impossible. Chernobyl is up to $850B already and it hasn't even been cleaned up yet! That's why governments often act as the "insurer of last resort": there is literally no other way to pay for it.

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#45

Post by crote »

grrdotcloud wrote: post #20

Funny thing no one talks about. Maybe theory. Probably not. The Sacramento river, if flooded by say the dam failure of Oroville, could reach Stockton. If that happens the city would be a foot or two underwater. Little does anyone know there are contingency plans to literally blow the levees along the river and flood the nearby (mostly) farming land.

Such contingency plans are quite common, are they not? The water has to go somewhere, so better redirect it to the place where it causes the least amount of damage.

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#47

Post by jgeada »

crote wrote: post #44
belorn wrote: post #43

During energy discussions here on HN, a common topic is accident insurance. The general principle is that a power plant should have insurance that cover any and all forms of accidents, covering any costs that such accidents may have on people who live around (or in this case downstream) of the plant. Not much mentioning of this in the article so I assume the costs is paid either by the state or by the individual.

The issue is that for some accidents the liability is virtually limitless, so insuring it is impossible. Chernobyl is up to $850B already and it hasn't even been cleaned up yet! That's why governments often act as the "insurer of last resort": there is literally no other way to pay for it.

Shouldn’t that imply that if your project can have such accidents then it shouldn’t be built?

Why are we allowing some entity to profit from the upside and lumber us all with the downside costs?

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#48

Post by s1artibartfast »

The question isn't if but when. If you look at California's geologic record, it has suffered massive flooding every several hundred years AKA Ark storms. The majority of the Central Valley turns into an inland sea in these situations and the locations of many current cities would be underwater.

USGS sediment research in the San Francisco Bay Area, Santa Barbara Basin, Sacramento Valley, and the Klamath Mountain region found that "megastorms" have occurred in the years: 212, 440, 603, 1029, c. 1300, 1418, 1605, 1750, 1810, and, most recently, 1861–62. Based on the intervals of these known occurrences, ranging from 51 to 426 years, for a historic recurrence of, on average, every 100-200 years

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#49

Post by cgb223 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #48

The question isn't if but when. If you look at California's geologic record, it has suffered massive flooding every several hundred years AKA Ark storms. The majority of the Central Valley turns into an inland sea in these situations and the locations of many current cities would be underwater. USGS sediment research in the San Francisco Bay Area, Santa Barbara Basin, Sacramento Valley, and the Klamath Mountain regio…

Waiting for the big flood is kind of like waiting for the big earthquake,

It’s either going to happen tomorrow or 200 years from now, and either way there’s nothing you can do about it except hope you die quickly

Re: What if California's dams fail?

#50

Post by Filligree »

jgeada wrote: post #47
crote wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that for some accidents the liability is virtually limitless, so insuring it is impossible. Chernobyl is up to $850B already and it hasn't even been cleaned up yet! That's why governments often act as the "insurer of last resort": there is literally no other way to pay for it.

Shouldn’t that imply that if your project can have such accidents then it shouldn’t be built? Why are we allowing some entity to profit from the upside and lumber us all with the downside costs?

No; the expected value can still be positive, even if the long tail is too long for any existing insurance company to handle it.

That’s why the state acts as an insurer instead. There’s an argument to be made that the profits should also be socialised, of course.

Post reply on HN