3 ms·

>Of course they can. A failure is an unplanned shutdown A pedantically accurate retort, but ignores the real point. Shutting down these lines for "inspection"

>Of course they can. A failure is an unplanned shutdown A pedantically accurate retort, but ignores the real point. Shutting down these lines for "inspection" is not feasible. These lines are the backbone of a grid that millions of people and services rely on 24/7/365, and there is zero redundancy. They are responsible for delivering power to hospitals, traffic lights, schools, airports, grocery stores, homes, businesses, and the list goes on. Telling people "We need to turn off your power for a couple days every couple months for inspections" is going to create a lot of backlash, no matter how good the reason. Also, the lines in question aren't like closing a two lane road in a small neighborhood for a couple hours where a few annoyed people can take alternate routes. It's more like shutting down all the freeways in a major city for a day just so that the DOT can finally get some street sweeping done. Good luck not starting a riot. The problem is, these systems are old, too many people rely on them, and there is no redundancy. If we want to take a step towards fixing the problem, the best start is to create redundancy for power supply to consumers, imo. Preferably more localized power generation via wind/solar/etc with some localized power storage. Also, their profit margin for one year is not a fair argument towards them being at fault. Economics of public companies are about a lot more than "We made extra money, so we should have just spent it on making our product better". If shareholders don't make money in a company, they pull their investments. You pull enough investments in PG&E, that means they have to cut costs. Meaning, less money for inspections and improvements to the grid. Economics at scale is not a black-and-white, napkin math, solvable problem.

randomchars 6y ago
> Telling people "We need to turn off your power for a couple days every couple months for inspections" is going to create a lot of backlash, no matter how good the reason. Maybe not every couple of mounts, but they could probably get away with doing them more frequently than a century... Also, you can do visual inspection even without having to shut down power.
akira2501 6y ago
> Telling people "We need to turn off your power for a couple days every couple months for inspections" is going to create a lot of backlash, no matter how good the reason. They were happy to tell people "We need to turn off your power for a couple of days because of wind." Granted, in this particular case, they weren't talking about the 115kV line that ultimately caused the fire. To me, this just further highlights their "run it till it breaks" philosophy. This becomes a little more obvious when you read their plans for fixing this mess, and it involves a dual-circuit transmissions system. So, you can literally shut half of it down without completely stopping power. It's also not impossible to serve one neighborhood with two power lines, in fact it's quite common. > Also, the lines in question aren't like closing a two lane road in a small neighborhood It is a single 115kV line. That's exactly like what it is. For the rest of the state your analogy falls apart because there is a significant amount of redundancy and additional capacity that can be used to route power. For example, lookup "Path 46" and the "Pacific DC Intertie." Which is interesting in it's own right because it can be run in two different modes, one for nearly double the power capacity in certain conditions. > The problem is, these systems are old, too many people rely on them, and there is no redundancy. The California regulator has been asleep at the switch here, and they do share some culpability, but again.. it's not impossible to design around this constraint. You're going to pay twice as much for aluminum and nearly twice as much for everything else, but it's not impossible to solve. Just no one wanted to and no one was going to make them. > Also, their profit margin for one year is not a fair argument towards them being at fault. They are a state granted monopoly. I think it's entirely fair. > Economics at scale is not a black-and-white, napkin math, solvable problem. Sure, but you can start on the napkin and see if you're even in the ballpark. I think if you put even $100 million down on a napkin, you'd be surprised at what can fit in your ballpark.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 6y ago
The lines could have been inspected without shutting them down. No, stronger than that. The problems with these lines were noticed without shutting them down, at least by someone, but it didn't get acted on. We don't even know if replacing these parts would have required shutdowns, but it would have been easy to justify shutdowns for such visible problems.
m-ee 6y ago
How is shutting these lines down not feasible when PG&E regularly does it as part of their "public safety power shutdowns"
stefan_ 6y ago
This is PG&E in California we are talking about? The one that already has rolling blackouts? California is just a failed state - an embarrassment for an economy so large it rivals most countries.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  That's what happens when there's no viable opposition party.
  - joelkevinjones 6y ago
    The Republicans have a little more blame for the deregulation driven blackouts of 2000. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wilson Wilson was the driving force behind the 1996 legislation that deregulated the state's energy market, which was the first energy utilities deregulation in the U.S. and aggressively pushed by companies such as Enron.[28]

randomchars 6y ago

> Telling people "We need to turn off your power for a couple days every couple months for inspections" is going to create a lot of backlash, no matter how good the reason. Maybe not every couple of mounts, but they could probably get away with doing them more frequently than a century... Also, you can do visual inspection even without having to shut down power.

akira2501 6y ago

> Telling people "We need to turn off your power for a couple days every couple months for inspections" is going to create a lot of backlash, no matter how good the reason. They were happy to tell people "We need to turn off your power for a couple of days because of wind." Granted, in this particular case, they weren't talking about the 115kV line that ultimately caused the fire. To me, this just further highlights their "run it till it breaks" philosophy. This becomes a little more obvious when you read their plans for fixing this mess, and it involves a dual-circuit transmissions system. So, you can literally shut half of it down without completely stopping power. It's also not impossible to serve one neighborhood with two power lines, in fact it's quite common. > Also, the lines in question aren't like closing a two lane road in a small neighborhood It is a single 115kV line. That's exactly like what it is. For the rest of the state your analogy falls apart because there is a significant amount of redundancy and additional capacity that can be used to route power. For example, lookup "Path 46" and the "Pacific DC Intertie." Which is interesting in it's own right because it can be run in two different modes, one for nearly double the power capacity in certain conditions. > The problem is, these systems are old, too many people rely on them, and there is no redundancy. The California regulator has been asleep at the switch here, and they do share some culpability, but again.. it's not impossible to design around this constraint. You're going to pay twice as much for aluminum and nearly twice as much for everything else, but it's not impossible to solve. Just no one wanted to and no one was going to make them. > Also, their profit margin for one year is not a fair argument towards them being at fault. They are a state granted monopoly. I think it's entirely fair. > Economics at scale is not a black-and-white, napkin math, solvable problem. Sure, but you can start on the napkin and see if you're even in the ballpark. I think if you put even $100 million down on a napkin, you'd be surprised at what can fit in your ballpark.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Dylan16807 6y ago

The lines could have been inspected without shutting them down. No, stronger than that. The problems with these lines were noticed without shutting them down, at least by someone, but it didn't get acted on. We don't even know if replacing these parts would have required shutdowns, but it would have been easy to justify shutdowns for such visible problems.

m-ee 6y ago

How is shutting these lines down not feasible when PG&E regularly does it as part of their "public safety power shutdowns"

stefan_ 6y ago

This is PG&E in California we are talking about? The one that already has rolling blackouts? California is just a failed state - an embarrassment for an economy so large it rivals most countries.

andromeduck 6y ago
That's what happens when there's no viable opposition party.
- joelkevinjones 6y ago
  The Republicans have a little more blame for the deregulation driven blackouts of 2000. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wilson Wilson was the driving force behind the 1996 legislation that deregulated the state's energy market, which was the first energy utilities deregulation in the U.S. and aggressively pushed by companies such as Enron.[28]