4 ms·

I don't understand this comment. The grid is as reliable as it's ever been, but PG&E has been strongly incentivized to prevent wildfires. They're reacting to th

I don't understand this comment. The grid is as reliable as it's ever been, but PG&E has been strongly incentivized to prevent wildfires. They're reacting to that incentive by preemptively shutting down the grid. There's no way of seeing the future where they didn't do that and whole cities burned to the ground, but based on recent history it's very likely that that's the future we're avoiding.

quotemstr 7y ago
The reliability of the grid is a combination of the technical reliability of the grid and the social ability to reliably coordinate the resources needed to operate the grid. You need both systems to work in order for electricity to flow. As you point out, there's nothing wrong with the grid on a technical level. But the social element failed, so electricity stopped flowing. When the electricity stops, it doesn't really matter whether the power is off because of a technical or a human problem. The lights go off either way. The wind that shut grid blew at 10MPH. (Granted, it was forecast at up to 45MPH.) Did we not see winds of this strength during the 120 years* that we didn't shut down the grid over human coordination failures? If PG&E had to shut down the grid to avoid fire in light to moderate winds, it was because the people operating the grid were unable to coordinate the resources needed to operate safely under these conditions. What we've seen here is a breakdown of human systems that used to work reliably. We used to be able to operate an electricity grid reliably in moderately windy conditions. Now we can't. That should worry everyone. * Yes, I know about Enron. That we've had two grid failures in 20 years due to human-coordination breakdown is a huge red flag. Edit: phrasing, note that the winds were forecast to be stronger than what we ended up seeing
- mullingitover 7y ago
  Where are you getting this 10mph number? There's a wind advisory in effect with gusts peaking between 35-45mph this morning[1]. > NWS forecasts call for winds to be slightly weaker Thursday throughout the Sacramento Valley than they were Wednesday, but a wind advisory remains in effect through 6 p.m. as gusts between 40 and 55 mph remain possible. [1] https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article235955937.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article23595593...
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    I was reading https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/pge-cuts-power-to-millions-in-california-amid-hot-windy-weather.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/pge-cuts-power-to-millions-i..., particularly this bit: " Wara said a forecast Tuesday night showed winds in Mt. Tamalpais, a nearby mountain, were less than 10 mph (16 kph). “There is zero wind where I live,” Wara said. “PG&E is required to shut down based on observed conditions, not forecast conditions.”" The article goes on to mention forecasts of 35-45mph gusts. I'll edit my original post. My point stands: whether we're talking about 10mph winds or 45mph winds, we're talking about weather within the normal range of variation and conditions that electricity grids elsewhere handle admirably.
    - danans 7y ago
      > within the normal range of variation and conditions that electricity grids elsewhere handle admirably. California has very different conditions than most other places in the US. It gets no rain for 9 months a year followed by a wet winter which results in a lot of vegetation growth. And that pattern is getting more extreme. You can't compare that to a wetter place, or even to a much dryer place with little vegetation.
- danans 7y ago
  > Did we not see 10MPH winds during the 120 years* that we didn't shut down the grid over human coordination failures? How can you be so sure that many major fires in PGE territory over the last 120 years weren't caused by utility equipment? And why do you assume that conditions haven't changed over the last 120 years in a way that makes fires more likely or the damage to humans more extensive and expensive?
nullc 7y ago
Fun fact: Two days before to the camp fire PG&E sent notices to customers that they may turn off power due to a forecast of high winds and low humidity as indicated by a NWS red flag warning. PG&E decided not to do so. The weather came, as predicted, and contributed to the fire. Shutting down the power like it was announced would likely have prevented it. I'm not sure if public outcry was a factor in their decision to not follow through with the shutdown before, but you can bet that it isn't going to be a factor now. The current outages are being triggered by similar weather conditions, https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/fire_wx/fwdy1.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/fire_wx/fwdy1.html
- quotemstr 7y ago
  Sure. I accept that there's a hugely elevated risk of fire right now. Maybe turning off the grid was a prudent move. But the reason that fire risk is high right now is that for one reason or another, the grid hasn't been properly maintained, and that's not because we forgot how to build chainsaws. A society is a complex machine. There are thousands of interacting incentive structures, contractual obligations, and soft expectations that combine to allow us to accomplish more than we can do alone. For a long time, this machine operated smoothly enough to provide the power grid with the maintenance it needed to operate safely in 10MPH winds. The social machine broke down, so the maintenance stopped, and because the maintenance stopped, the grid became unsafe to operate. Why did the social machine break down? Why did nobody fix it? Why are we having so much trouble operating this machine smoothly when our ancestors were able to keep it going for over a century?
  - nullc 7y ago
    It's not clear to me that these outages are due to maintenance issues rather than due to an extremely conservative risk posture because it looks like PG&E will be held accountable for grid-started fires even where maintenance wasn't an issue. E.g. PG&E's current filing for bankruptcy protection was triggered by the Tubb's fire, which Cal Fire's investigation concluded wasn't even caused by PG&E. If anything the social machine that appears to be broken is how we're apportioning liability. Electrical grids, even well maintained ones, sometimes throw a bit of sparks or start small fires. No amount of tree trimming is going to prevent fires if strong winds blow dry flammable brush across high tension lines. You can find zillions of videos on the internet of power lines going down and sparking small fires... but in California if a line goes down in the wrong place and in the wrong weather it causes tens of billions of dollars in damages. It's not clear to me that its economically possible operate an electrical utility under the risk that the smallest spark could result in being responsible for billions in damages.

quotemstr 7y ago

The reliability of the grid is a combination of the technical reliability of the grid and the social ability to reliably coordinate the resources needed to operate the grid. You need both systems to work in order for electricity to flow. As you point out, there's nothing wrong with the grid on a technical level. But the social element failed, so electricity stopped flowing. When the electricity stops, it doesn't really matter whether the power is off because of a technical or a human problem. The lights go off either way. The wind that shut grid blew at 10MPH. (Granted, it was forecast at up to 45MPH.) Did we not see winds of this strength during the 120 years* that we didn't shut down the grid over human coordination failures? If PG&E had to shut down the grid to avoid fire in light to moderate winds, it was because the people operating the grid were unable to coordinate the resources needed to operate safely under these conditions. What we've seen here is a breakdown of human systems that used to work reliably. We used to be able to operate an electricity grid reliably in moderately windy conditions. Now we can't. That should worry everyone. * Yes, I know about Enron. That we've had two grid failures in 20 years due to human-coordination breakdown is a huge red flag. Edit: phrasing, note that the winds were forecast to be stronger than what we ended up seeing

mullingitover 7y ago
Where are you getting this 10mph number? There's a wind advisory in effect with gusts peaking between 35-45mph this morning[1]. > NWS forecasts call for winds to be slightly weaker Thursday throughout the Sacramento Valley than they were Wednesday, but a wind advisory remains in effect through 6 p.m. as gusts between 40 and 55 mph remain possible. [1] https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article235955937.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article23595593...
- quotemstr 7y ago
  I was reading https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/pge-cuts-power-to-millions-in-california-amid-hot-windy-weather.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/pge-cuts-power-to-millions-i..., particularly this bit: " Wara said a forecast Tuesday night showed winds in Mt. Tamalpais, a nearby mountain, were less than 10 mph (16 kph). “There is zero wind where I live,” Wara said. “PG&E is required to shut down based on observed conditions, not forecast conditions.”" The article goes on to mention forecasts of 35-45mph gusts. I'll edit my original post. My point stands: whether we're talking about 10mph winds or 45mph winds, we're talking about weather within the normal range of variation and conditions that electricity grids elsewhere handle admirably.
  - danans 7y ago
    > within the normal range of variation and conditions that electricity grids elsewhere handle admirably. California has very different conditions than most other places in the US. It gets no rain for 9 months a year followed by a wet winter which results in a lot of vegetation growth. And that pattern is getting more extreme. You can't compare that to a wetter place, or even to a much dryer place with little vegetation.
danans 7y ago
> Did we not see 10MPH winds during the 120 years* that we didn't shut down the grid over human coordination failures? How can you be so sure that many major fires in PGE territory over the last 120 years weren't caused by utility equipment? And why do you assume that conditions haven't changed over the last 120 years in a way that makes fires more likely or the damage to humans more extensive and expensive?

nullc 7y ago

Fun fact: Two days before to the camp fire PG&E sent notices to customers that they may turn off power due to a forecast of high winds and low humidity as indicated by a NWS red flag warning. PG&E decided not to do so. The weather came, as predicted, and contributed to the fire. Shutting down the power like it was announced would likely have prevented it. I'm not sure if public outcry was a factor in their decision to not follow through with the shutdown before, but you can bet that it isn't going to be a factor now. The current outages are being triggered by similar weather conditions, https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/fire_wx/fwdy1.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/fire_wx/fwdy1.html

quotemstr 7y ago
Sure. I accept that there's a hugely elevated risk of fire right now. Maybe turning off the grid was a prudent move. But the reason that fire risk is high right now is that for one reason or another, the grid hasn't been properly maintained, and that's not because we forgot how to build chainsaws. A society is a complex machine. There are thousands of interacting incentive structures, contractual obligations, and soft expectations that combine to allow us to accomplish more than we can do alone. For a long time, this machine operated smoothly enough to provide the power grid with the maintenance it needed to operate safely in 10MPH winds. The social machine broke down, so the maintenance stopped, and because the maintenance stopped, the grid became unsafe to operate. Why did the social machine break down? Why did nobody fix it? Why are we having so much trouble operating this machine smoothly when our ancestors were able to keep it going for over a century?
- nullc 7y ago
  It's not clear to me that these outages are due to maintenance issues rather than due to an extremely conservative risk posture because it looks like PG&E will be held accountable for grid-started fires even where maintenance wasn't an issue. E.g. PG&E's current filing for bankruptcy protection was triggered by the Tubb's fire, which Cal Fire's investigation concluded wasn't even caused by PG&E. If anything the social machine that appears to be broken is how we're apportioning liability. Electrical grids, even well maintained ones, sometimes throw a bit of sparks or start small fires. No amount of tree trimming is going to prevent fires if strong winds blow dry flammable brush across high tension lines. You can find zillions of videos on the internet of power lines going down and sparking small fires... but in California if a line goes down in the wrong place and in the wrong weather it causes tens of billions of dollars in damages. It's not clear to me that its economically possible operate an electrical utility under the risk that the smallest spark could result in being responsible for billions in damages.