7 ms·

1000 fires would actually be probably better than 10 because they help keep flammable material at bay and reduce the size of the fires.

taneq 6y ago
So your saying we should introduce chaos monkeys into power grids to improve robustness?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  No, GP is saying you need to start doing controlled fires on a regular basis, to reduce the accumulation of flammable material. Power grid is not related to that.
- extropy 6y ago
  Actually yes, since they have a huge incentive to Run to Failure. Chaos monkeys would provide a consistent source of failures to make them do their maintenance. Similar to red teams in security.
  - chaz6 6y ago
    That makes sense, but can we do it in winter when it is less likely to start a fire?
    - WJW 6y ago
      Isn't the point that starting fires regularly keeps any particular fire small due to lack of fuel (since it has been burned in previous fires)? Seems like doing it in winter would defeat the purpose.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        The committee to keep the chaos convenient and comfortable.
  - dfsegoat 6y ago
    While I appreciate the merits of chaos engineering, this comment lacks an understanding of the impact of these incidents, particularly in rural areas with a history of forest mismanagement. People die [like my neighbors here in Sonoma, CA] - it's not an EC2 instance that gets replaced. Further, one does not just 'restore' the power grid after an outage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_outage#Restoring_power_after_a_wide-area_outage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_outage#Restoring_power_a...
    - sitkack 6y ago
      You can do simulations, either run it in forward or reverse. Pick a random town, burn it down, run the flame front backwards and find the paths and lines that caused it. Then look at the probable failure rates of those lines. Run it forwards, pick and event and allow it to run its course. When designing simulation runs there are bunch of dimensions to consider * Fidelity or simulation resolution, spatial and temporal * Number of runs, it is a linear search, spatial search, random, gradient * If you are testing specific parameters, like will this bridge hold this static load, multiple simulation runs are done with the inputs varied slightly, input sensitivity analysis. [1] The simulations don't have to be entirely on the computer, they could also couple with them physical and human components. One could page k/n employees that might be on duty at the random time. Response times in real life could be inferred by response to the actual pages. But people were harmed, no actual failures occurred. If society approached civilization seriously, we would apply the full power of science AND engineering while we fail horribly at the application of engineering and suffer its excesses. Given other pro PG&E comments in this thread, and how so many factors were in play and this and that. It all boils down to money and acceptable risk and how to package that up in a way that PG&E gets a slap on the wrist. Well done! It very well could be that we as a society, decide we are ok with these risks, but that we need mediation. And it could be that we A) turn off at risk lines during likely conditions, as shown in simulation or via direct perception B) Have fire bomber planes in the sky during high likely occurrences. But money is cheaper. You gotta spend it to make it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_analysis
      - dfsegoat 6y ago
Dylan16807 6y ago
Only if they occur often enough. PG&E isn't setting fires often enough to do that, so the downsides of every random fire they set strongly outweigh the upsides. If we need more fires, we should use carefully planned ones.
- chipsa 6y ago
  PG&E isn't in the business of setting fires, and shouldn't be. It's CalFire's job to manage forest fires, including setting controlled burns.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
That's not down to an energy company though, that's down to forest management which is troubled by funding and politics.
andi999 6y ago
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.
- dcanelhas 6y ago
  Lightning may coincide with rainfall, I've heard. If this is true one might presume less severe fires as a result.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    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.
    - dcanelhas 6y ago
      That's not disputed. But starting a fire in completely dry conditions is worse than starting one that potentially coincides with rainfall, all other things being equal.
      - andi999 6y ago
        Falling from a height of 10.1m is also worse than falling from 10.0m all other things beeing equal
  - Rapzid 6y ago
    The LNU and SCU lightning complex fires have burned about 750,000 acres. The August complex(also started by lighting) has already burned 796,000 acres.
- gpapilion 6y ago
  Coastal California lightning is rarer as is thunderstorms. Eastern California they are more common, but no where near Midwest levels. The storm that can through last month started several of these fires with dry lightning or very little rain accompanying the lightning.
techie128 6y ago
This is a ridiculous argument. Why don't we forcefully tear down all of PG&E's infra every few years. They'll be forced to rebuild it with the latest safety standards... smh
- viraptor 6y ago
  It lacks context, but the idea itself is not ridiculous. That's pretty much how original Australians dealt with fuel buildup. Move and burn often. Given specific ecosystem, in a very literal sense, 1000 fires are better than 10 in the same area over the same time period.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
    I lived in Africa. The parks used to run controlled burns, every year or two, of the savanna grass. They tended to do this during the [very] wet season. But PG&E is still on the hook for taking better care of their infrastructure. It all comes down to dollars and [non]sense. Some actuary has determined that an occasional lawsuit and rotten press run is cheaper than maintaining the wires. Here in New York, many of the buried water mains that transfer water to the city from upstate are well over a century old. Many are made of cast iron, and even wood. There’s no plan to dig them up and replace them with more robust materials. They just wait for them to fail, then replace the small part that failed. They do give city water some real taste, though. It’s probably actually nutritious.
    - jsymolon 6y ago
      > water mains that transfer water to the city from upstate are well over a century old. ... They just wait for them to fail, then replace the small part that failed. At some point, all the older parts will get so old that it fails frequently and at a greater rate, that the fix cost will greatly exceed the budgeted amount. Being a quite cynical person, I would say that up to that point management will have collected fat bonuses, then cry poverty and push for ruinous rate increases. Along the same lines, CT just had an issue with a rate increase that doubled most bills. The point being spreading out the cost over years and limiting "downtime" is a lot better than 1 huge event that leaves customers without. (re: Detroit and bottled water) https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/eversource-and-ui-are-under-fire-with-recent-massive-rate-increases/520-222964e3-063b-4bc1-9ded-285aba930230 https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/eversource-and-ui-a...
patcon 6y ago
Support for 1,000 fires being better than 10: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/a-trailblazing-plan-to-fight-california-wildfires https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/a-trailblazing...

taneq 6y ago

So your saying we should introduce chaos monkeys into power grids to improve robustness?

TeMPOraL 6y ago
No, GP is saying you need to start doing controlled fires on a regular basis, to reduce the accumulation of flammable material. Power grid is not related to that.
extropy 6y ago
Actually yes, since they have a huge incentive to Run to Failure. Chaos monkeys would provide a consistent source of failures to make them do their maintenance. Similar to red teams in security.
- chaz6 6y ago
  That makes sense, but can we do it in winter when it is less likely to start a fire?
  - WJW 6y ago
    Isn't the point that starting fires regularly keeps any particular fire small due to lack of fuel (since it has been burned in previous fires)? Seems like doing it in winter would defeat the purpose.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      The committee to keep the chaos convenient and comfortable.
- dfsegoat 6y ago
  While I appreciate the merits of chaos engineering, this comment lacks an understanding of the impact of these incidents, particularly in rural areas with a history of forest mismanagement. People die [like my neighbors here in Sonoma, CA] - it's not an EC2 instance that gets replaced. Further, one does not just 'restore' the power grid after an outage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_outage#Restoring_power_after_a_wide-area_outage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_outage#Restoring_power_a...
  - sitkack 6y ago
    You can do simulations, either run it in forward or reverse. Pick a random town, burn it down, run the flame front backwards and find the paths and lines that caused it. Then look at the probable failure rates of those lines. Run it forwards, pick and event and allow it to run its course. When designing simulation runs there are bunch of dimensions to consider * Fidelity or simulation resolution, spatial and temporal * Number of runs, it is a linear search, spatial search, random, gradient * If you are testing specific parameters, like will this bridge hold this static load, multiple simulation runs are done with the inputs varied slightly, input sensitivity analysis. [1] The simulations don't have to be entirely on the computer, they could also couple with them physical and human components. One could page k/n employees that might be on duty at the random time. Response times in real life could be inferred by response to the actual pages. But people were harmed, no actual failures occurred. If society approached civilization seriously, we would apply the full power of science AND engineering while we fail horribly at the application of engineering and suffer its excesses. Given other pro PG&E comments in this thread, and how so many factors were in play and this and that. It all boils down to money and acceptable risk and how to package that up in a way that PG&E gets a slap on the wrist. Well done! It very well could be that we as a society, decide we are ok with these risks, but that we need mediation. And it could be that we A) turn off at risk lines during likely conditions, as shown in simulation or via direct perception B) Have fire bomber planes in the sky during high likely occurrences. But money is cheaper. You gotta spend it to make it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_analysis
    - dfsegoat 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago

Only if they occur often enough. PG&E isn't setting fires often enough to do that, so the downsides of every random fire they set strongly outweigh the upsides. If we need more fires, we should use carefully planned ones.

chipsa 6y ago
PG&E isn't in the business of setting fires, and shouldn't be. It's CalFire's job to manage forest fires, including setting controlled burns.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

That's not down to an energy company though, that's down to forest management which is troubled by funding and politics.

andi999 6y ago

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.

dcanelhas 6y ago
Lightning may coincide with rainfall, I've heard. If this is true one might presume less severe fires as a result.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  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.
  - dcanelhas 6y ago
    That's not disputed. But starting a fire in completely dry conditions is worse than starting one that potentially coincides with rainfall, all other things being equal.
    - andi999 6y ago
      Falling from a height of 10.1m is also worse than falling from 10.0m all other things beeing equal
- Rapzid 6y ago
  The LNU and SCU lightning complex fires have burned about 750,000 acres. The August complex(also started by lighting) has already burned 796,000 acres.
gpapilion 6y ago
Coastal California lightning is rarer as is thunderstorms. Eastern California they are more common, but no where near Midwest levels. The storm that can through last month started several of these fires with dry lightning or very little rain accompanying the lightning.

techie128 6y ago

This is a ridiculous argument. Why don't we forcefully tear down all of PG&E's infra every few years. They'll be forced to rebuild it with the latest safety standards... smh

viraptor 6y ago
It lacks context, but the idea itself is not ridiculous. That's pretty much how original Australians dealt with fuel buildup. Move and burn often. Given specific ecosystem, in a very literal sense, 1000 fires are better than 10 in the same area over the same time period.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  I lived in Africa. The parks used to run controlled burns, every year or two, of the savanna grass. They tended to do this during the [very] wet season. But PG&E is still on the hook for taking better care of their infrastructure. It all comes down to dollars and [non]sense. Some actuary has determined that an occasional lawsuit and rotten press run is cheaper than maintaining the wires. Here in New York, many of the buried water mains that transfer water to the city from upstate are well over a century old. Many are made of cast iron, and even wood. There’s no plan to dig them up and replace them with more robust materials. They just wait for them to fail, then replace the small part that failed. They do give city water some real taste, though. It’s probably actually nutritious.
  - jsymolon 6y ago
    > water mains that transfer water to the city from upstate are well over a century old. ... They just wait for them to fail, then replace the small part that failed. At some point, all the older parts will get so old that it fails frequently and at a greater rate, that the fix cost will greatly exceed the budgeted amount. Being a quite cynical person, I would say that up to that point management will have collected fat bonuses, then cry poverty and push for ruinous rate increases. Along the same lines, CT just had an issue with a rate increase that doubled most bills. The point being spreading out the cost over years and limiting "downtime" is a lot better than 1 huge event that leaves customers without. (re: Detroit and bottled water) https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/eversource-and-ui-are-under-fire-with-recent-massive-rate-increases/520-222964e3-063b-4bc1-9ded-285aba930230 https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/eversource-and-ui-a...

patcon 6y ago

Support for 1,000 fires being better than 10: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/a-trailblazing-plan-to-fight-california-wildfires https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/a-trailblazing...