Make a Power Move?

[KB]

Ski-pro doesn't live in SMUD district, which is probably why he hasn't posted. His town is in PGE district. As someone who gets my electricity from SMUD, I am grateful to have power while the town next to mine is dark.

 

[Another Reader]

Ski-pro doesn't live in SMUD district, which is probably why he hasn't posted. His town is in PGE district. As someone who gets my electricity from SMUD, I am grateful to have power while the town next to mine is dark.

IIRC, he used to work for SMUD.

 

[NW-Bound]

I looked, and Skipro lives in Placerville, a town east of Sacramento and closer to Lake Tahoe.

PG&E shows power outage there, mostly as a precautionary measure. However, it also shows a few powerlines being down, or in contact with trees. So, that strong wind does cause some damages that could have started a fire, if the lines were live.

I saw that PG&E map also showed a few spotty outages in Sacramento. Does PG&E provide line service to SMUD? Or do they share the same Web page for outage reporting?

 

[Another Reader]

I looked, and Skipro lives in Placerville, a town east of Sacramento and closer to Lake Tahoe.

PG&E shows power outage there, mostly as a precautionary measure. However, it also shows a few powerlines being down, or in contact with trees. So, that strong wind does cause some damages that could have started a fire, if the lines were live.

I saw that PG&E map also showed a few spotty outages in Sacramento. Does PG&E provide line service to SMUD? Or do they share the same Web page for outage reporting?

I think he lives south of Placerville in the foothills wine country. My recollection is he is retired from SMUD, lost his last house in a wildfire, and rebuilt. Pretty sure he documented the rebuilding process here. He's probably off enjoying his retirement by travelling. The timing is bad, because I would be really interested in his view of this mess.

 

[ERD50]

ERD50:

I asked in the California fires thread that seems to have disappeared about shutting down distribution lines and not transmission lines. Many or maybe most of the recent large fires seem to have been started by problems with transmission lines in remote areas. Are transmission lines in California kept energized because of the need to support the grid? How effective is shutting down distribution locally in preventing these major fires if the bigger problem is the transmission lines?

It's not something I've researched at this point. I don't really know if the shutdowns are at the transmission level or the distribution level. Is there a map somewhere that breaks this out?

-ERD50

 

[Another Reader]

It's not something I've researched at this point. I don't really know if the shutdowns are at the transmission level or the distribution level. Is there a map somewhere that breaks this out?

-ERD50

In the current Kincade Fire situation, all of the distribution lines in the surrounding area were shut down as part of the PSPS. Something broke on a transmission tower at The Geysers generating station. PG&E belatedly filed a report on the incident and confirmed the transmission lines were energized. A flash was recorded on a stationary video camera to the west, and fire a few minutes after that.

My understanding is that California is woefully short of transmission line capacity and at one time there were only two major transmission lines between Northern and Southern California. A third was to be built, but I don't know what happened to that proposal.

My guess is that limited transmission capacity forces the operators to keep these lines operating under almost all conditions. Not being able to shut down transmission lines may be responsible for some of these fires. Looking for confirmation or an alternate explanation from a knowledgeable authority.

 

[ERD50]

....
My understanding is that California is woefully short of transmission line capacity and at one time there were only two major transmission lines between Northern and Southern California. A third was to be built, but I don't know what happened to that proposal.

My guess is that limited transmission capacity forces the operators to keep these lines operating under almost all conditions. Not being able to shut down transmission lines may be responsible for some of these fires. Looking for confirmation or an alternate explanation from a knowledgeable authority.

Well, I found these, not sure how much we can derive from them, but it looks like the lower 3rd is somewhat isolated from the upper 2/3rds, with maybe a half-dozen transmission lines between them? But we don't know the capacity of each line, and population and power station location plays into it - and it looks like the lower 3rd does have their share of power stations.

https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/infrastructure/transmission_lines.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_California

Related to this conversation regarding problems with transmission lines, and the costs to upgrade, maintain and/or replace them - in the Renewable Energy threads, proponents keep talking about how more transmission lines can help even out wind and solar. This shows that is far from easy.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

In theory, things are simple. In practice, we cannot afford it.

Although my entire career has been mostly in aerospace, working with commercial jets and then military aircraft and rockets, as I got older I lost interest in all that stuff. I got more curious in down-to-earth problems such as how we can get fresh water, electricity, and food.

All those pie-in-the-sky projects about space do not mean much when you do not have electricity to surf the Web to read about grandiose plans that consume huge amounts of material and energy that we do not have, or when you do not have water to drink or bathe.

 

[ERD50]

It's also interesting to set your search engine date range to exclude recent updates, to get some perspective away from the present debates.

Here's just a few examples of the environmentalists fighting against PG&E fire mitigation efforts:

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article219315140.html

Some members of the Save the American River Association and the American River Parkway Coalition and others are fighting to stop PG&E from cutting down what they estimate could be 100 cottonwood and oak trees near a major electricity transmission line that runs through the parkway near Discovery Park.

Environmentalists push back against PG&E tree cutting in Santa Cruz Mountains | Press Banner News | ttownmedia.com

Mayra Tostado, PG&E Spokesperson, said the “base camp” is part of an “accelerated vegetation management program” to insure greater clearances between trees and power lines in response to “extreme fire danger” throughout Santa Cruz County. New safety standards, referred to as the Community Wildfire Safety Program, require “clearances of 12 feet or more between power lines and trees at the time of trim to ensure compliance year-round,” according to PG&E.

Several residents of the San Lorenzo Valley are pushing on the County board of supervisors to enforce local tree ordinances and require encroachment permits- arguing the environmental damage caused by cutting down trees is a bigger threat, particularly in the mountains, than wildfires.

This one was updated....

https://www.sierraclub.org/california/cnrcc/pge-clearcuts-power-lines

... Under their new program, PG&E wants to enlist property owner consent to voluntarily remove all vegetation to a distance of 15 feet from each side of the power lines in the affected zones, and extend the clearing down to one foot above the ground. ....

And fear of fire, absent other information, should not be used to sway property owners to go along with the program. Given PG&E’s past behavior, including failure to properly handle other maintenance programs, there is reason for caution.

Amy Murre is a volunteer for the Stop Clearcutting CA Campaign.

-ERD50

 

[ncbill]

State of California should pass legislation to supercede all local ordinances related to keeping vegetation away from power lines...

the power company here has essentially carte blanche to come onto your property to cut back whatever they deem to be a threat.

 

[NW-Bound]

A peruse on Youtube shows me that when distribution lines of a few kVs to tens of kVs touch a tree, plenty of interesting things happen. It does not have to be 100s of kVs, like on transmission lines.

You can have green, or you can have power. You want both? Then you must pay up to have underground lines.

 

[NW-Bound]

State of California should pass legislation to supercede all local ordinances related to keeping vegetation away from power lines...

the power company here has essentially carte blanche to come onto your property to cut back whatever they deem to be a threat.

And the property owner does not get a bill? Darn.

Here in my town with no overhead lines (it's all underground except for the main distribution lines), some homeowners like to have tall trees that can break and fall on neighbors' homes. They don't want to take responsibility for their trees. I hope they do not have children or pets.

 

[ncbill]

Yes, that can help, but most of the larger fires in California are actually burning in areas with mostly chaparral (shrub) vegetation, or even areas of mixed shrubs and dry grass - not forest. People want to build their homes in these areas because they are scenic, but many people don't realize how dangerous it can be to live there, especially when the vegetation dries out and the winds kick up. The experts will tell you that rising temperatures and longer spells of dry weather are the main culprits in the increased number and ferocity of wildfires in California (and throughout the US West).

IIRC that ecosystem is designed to grow then die & become tinder-dry, then burn, every single year...what did they think would happen to homes built in the midst of that?

 

[Gumby]

California is not unique in having a slightly schizophrenic citizenry. Here in Connecticut, we regularly have prolonged power outages after the occasional hurricane or tropical storm hits, because the trees knock down the power lines. The local utilities get dragged through the mud on the news and by the state government for not properly trimming the vegetation along the power lines. Then, when they go out to trim the vegetation, people fight like crazed badgers to prevent them from pruning or removing trees. My neighbors were highly upset with me when I let the power company cut a dying giant maple tree and trim back two others that are in front of my house and stand next to the power lines. I told them I was giving up my trees for the greater good, but that was not satisfactory for some of them.

 

[RobbieB]

Poor babies, one less tree to hug.

 

[ls99]

State of California should pass legislation to supercede all local ordinances related to keeping vegetation away from power lines...

the power company here has essentially carte blanche to come onto your property to cut back whatever they deem to be a threat.

In my neck of woods, SW PA, the power and phone companies both trim trees to 15 feet from their lines. Do it about 5 to 7 year intervals. IMHO it is pure stupid not trim back from the power lines. Oh yeah, no charge to customers. In fact can call them or do online request if a tree becomes unstable and gets close to power line. Do get fast ( within an hour) response if tree in question is close to "pole to pole" wires as opposed to pole to house.

At my camp it is no problem, several miles to power lines, camp runs on dsolar and wind, stored in 6 GC2 batteries.

 

[Another Reader]

State of California should pass legislation to supercede all local ordinances related to keeping vegetation away from power lines...

the power company here has essentially carte blanche to come onto your property to cut back whatever they deem to be a threat.

In most cases they have that right. They don't have the money to exercise that right.

 

[Another Reader]

IIRC that ecosystem is designed to grow then die & become tinder-dry, then burn, every single year...what did they think would happen to homes built in the midst of that?

Some of these places have burned periodically for decades or even centuries. The area that burned in the Tubbs fire in 2017 had a very similar fire back in the 1950's. Not much population back then. The canyons in the Santa Clarita area have had large fires many times, long before anyone ever heard of global warming. It's a combination of topography plus Santa Ana/Diablo winds.

 

[MichaelB]

California is not unique in having a slightly schizophrenic citizenry. Here in Connecticut, we regularly have prolonged power outages after the occasional hurricane or tropical storm hits, because the trees knock down the power lines. The local utilities get dragged through the mud on the news and by the state government for not properly trimming the vegetation along the power lines. Then, when they go out to trim the vegetation, people fight like crazed badgers to prevent them from pruning or removing trees. My neighbors were highly upset with me when I let the power company cut a dying giant maple tree and trim back two others that are in front of my house and stand next to the power lines. I told them I was giving up my trees for the greater good, but that was not satisfactory for some of them.

South Florida is another example. The residential electrical grid is above ground on wood poles. Hurricane Wilma took out over 11k poles, and most of South Florida was without power for 2 weeks. FPL (Florida Power) spent $$ hundreds of millions replacing wood with concrete poles, and when hurricane Irma hit, most of a South Florida found itself once again without power. There is no easy fix for an aging infrastructure that was designed and put in place decades ago.

 

[Another Reader]

And someone just sent me this...

https://www.ktvu.com/news/pge-confi...-ig8VM3JWGclZF6-eBNEhyn2YvImflBHVYyq11yAjdBYE

Looks like PG&E just can't catch a break...

 

[NW-Bound]

In most cases they have that right. They don't have the money to exercise that right.

There has to be some truth to what PG&E claimed. That is it would cost between $75 billion and $150 billion and require hiring 650,000 workers, just to trim trees.

And I just read again about the governor of CA asking Warren Buffett to buy out PG&E.

Does anyone think Buffett would fall for it? Would Berkshire Hathaway shareholders (I am one) like the idea ? No, I don't.

Warren has his own money that he set aside to donate to charity. Maybe he can donate that money for this cause.

 

[ziggy29]

And someone just sent me this...

https://www.ktvu.com/news/pge-confi...-ig8VM3JWGclZF6-eBNEhyn2YvImflBHVYyq11yAjdBYE

Looks like PG&E just can't catch a break...

Here's the thing. California isn't the only state in the Union with high winds. Something is happening there, or more probably, a combination of factors. It could be a combination of regulatory issues, environmental factors, and a company trying to maximize profits by "going cheap" on maintenance to the grid.

Most likely, any party looking to point fingers at their favorite political "whipping boy" can and should point fingers at their own.

 

[HI Bill]

Proper forest management would go a long ways towards solving the forest fire issue. Forests need to be logged to prevent fires.

Or, let them go back to natural, lightning-induced forest fires. By preventing forest fires, we cause the understory to build up, and then massive fires like the one in Yellowstone occur. The fire had so much fuel that is killed most of the trees, rather than letting them survive. The upside was a new, vibrant ecosystem...

Logging creates erosional problems, unlike natural fires. We've built homes in areas where strong winds routinely blow through, and dry conditions are persistent each summer. Essentially, we've allowed building in high-risk areas, and want the cheapest electricity possible.

 

[travelover]

....... Essentially, we've allowed building in high-risk areas, and want the cheapest electricity possible.

That seems to be the case whether we are talking fires, floods or hurricanes. Homeowners need to finance the risk of their chosen location. Seems harsh, but programs like Federal flood insurance, for example seem like a giveaway program for poor choices.

 

[HI Bill]

That seems to be the case whether we are talking fires, floods or hurricanes. Homeowners need to finance the risk of their chosen location. Seems harsh, but programs like Federal flood insurance, for example seem like a giveaway program for poor choices.

I think there's a place for Federal flood insurance...if you're above the 100-year flood plain. If you're below it, IMHO, you shouldn't be building there! I live above the tsunami inundation zone....those who choose to live on the coast are taking a risk (albiet, statistically, a small one).

There was a hurricane in Florida last year or the year before. Every house in the neighborhood, except one, was flattened. The one house left standing was built by an engineer, who designed it to withstand some of the strongest hurricanes...and it did. He paid more, but still had his house. In places like Guam and Okinawa, the buildings are concrete, and are designed to withstand typhoons! Maybe we should give owners a choice: High insurance premiums, or building houses that can withstand foreseeable natural disaster events?