8 ms·

Not to say that what you’re saying isn’t a problem, but that’s what eminent domain is for.

by learc83 5y ago

adrianN 5y ago
Using that is a good way not to get reelected, so politicians are a bit reluctant.
- learc83 5y ago
  It happens very regularly. Roads and utility corridors are built and expanded every day. Eminent domain doesn't generally directly impact enough people to make a serious election issue, unless we are talking about either very local elections, or when the thing being built is something people feel strongly about like an oil pipeline.
  - lazide 5y ago
    By very regularly, you mean ‘regularly tarpitted for a long time anytime there are a decent number of people near the work’? Bridge widening work on 101 has been delayed for decades by this in the Bay Area, CalTrain electrification was delayed by over a decade, etc. etc. Most utility corridors are in the middle of nowhere and already established (and people stay away because of this), so reusing an existing corridor is relatively easy - unless it widens into someone’s yard. Then it’s a matter of how much money that person has. For connecting previously not connected areas with a new line, especially if it goes through somewhere folks are living? Be prepared for the actual work making whatever you are doing to be a tiny tiny percentage of the time and costs involved.
    - learc83 5y ago
      In most of the rest of the country we manage to build new roads and new transmission lines without the extreme issues you're describing. Over the last few years, I can think of hundreds of homes and businesses near me that were moved to widen existing roads or build new ones. A few people/businesses tried to fight it, they all lost quickly. You can't take the experience of a private citizen trying to clear some brush, bridge widening delays in one of the most regulation heavy states in the country, and oil pipeline opposition, and apply it to building HVDC between countries in Europe. Unlike your examples, HVDC lines have no real negative impact on anyone but the immediately impacted property owners. If you're building HVDC transmission lines between countries, you can also very likely reuse existing utility corridors for much of it, and build through lower density areas for most of the rest. The actual number of property owners directly impacted won't be high enough to make an impact on elections.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        You can't take the experience of a private citizen trying to clear some brush, bridge widening delays in one of the most regulation heavy states in the country, and oil pipeline opposition, and apply it to building HVDC between countries in Europe. Or some random place in Ohio for that matter. The regulatory hell that cities and states wealthy enough to afford it impose on themselves is not representative of the entire country.
        lazide 5y ago
        Take a look at the map of existing and planned HVDC links and tell me again how this doesn’t apply? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current] Europe is at least as regulation heavy as California.
        ben_w 5y ago
        I don’t think that map is either evidence in favour or against your position: HVDC has minimal impact, yes, but partly because you can bury the cables more easily, and buried cables are still more expensive. HVDC is (I think) the only thing that can be used for underwater connections, so it’s used where the price makes sense. If the question is regulation we should also see all proposed and recent AC lines in Europe. (Edited for clarity)
        lazide 5y ago
        It is dramatically more expensive running HVDC under water than above ground, as the cables need to be incredibly tough even compared to buried land cables. I ran across a price quote that seemed like 10x the cost per km installed. If you can do suspended overhead cables, even cheaper. HVDC has pros/cons around the inversion/rectification on either end. Yet essentially all planned or existing HVDC lines (at least ones notable enough for the map), are undersea cables. Why would that be? There are definitely undersea HVAC interconnects - https://www.nkt.com/products-solutions/high-voltage-cable-solutions/high-voltage-offshore-solutions/high-voltage-offshore-ac-cables https://www.nkt.com/products-solutions/high-voltage-cable-so... They seem non-notable enough I had a hard time finding a good combined list anywhere. I ran across plenty of references to HVAC being used for offshore wind turbines and the like too. And they were the default standard (and still are for shorter runs and where the grid frequency matches). There are AC solutions for lack of grid frequency matching and the like. I can’t find a list or easy map for major new on land grid connections - if you can find one, that would be great. Might be national security concerns or something?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lazide 5y ago
Of course, and probably 50% or more of those landowners are going to fight you tooth and nail in court in that proceeding. Some so you’ll pay them more to settle/go away, some because they just hate you on an ideological level or refuse to budge [https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1XG1R4 https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...] If you’re covering significant distances that people live in, you can expect to spend a decade or sometimes more in court before being able to build - if ever. Because of course there are the environmental reviews, the impact assessments, etc. and each of those will be hundreds to thousands of pages long, and you’ll likely have to fight over each page, also in court, with folks who don’t like that you’re going to dig up that random patch of flowers to install your power line or whatever. And that is assuming you’re lucky enough to not have any endangered species in the way, in which case you might literally not be able to build at all if it is in an area you have no choice to go through. So far no one is staking out patches of ocean floor, and generally even if they did, the topography is usually more forgiving there. So all you need is landing approval, which means one government and one compliant landowner on each side somewhere along each coast that is close enough to an existing grid that you can interconnect to it. Much more solvable. Still not easy or straightforward. In California it took me 4 years and $18k worth of professional help to get approval to do completely standard fuel reduction work on a completely uninteresting plot of land that was super overgrown with brush and dead trees - with no one objecting to it - in the middle of a historic wildfire crisis in California that actually expedited the process. I had to notify 10 something local native tribes (in case they maybe were somehow attached to the land, which they weren’t), had to do a detailed archeological survey, had to have a licensed biologist do a detailed walkthrough to look for endangered species (there were none). Meanwhile the 3 largest fires in the states recorded history burned nearby, and they wouldn’t let me clear brush and remove dead trees from a clear fire hazard area and it’s a miracle the place didn’t burn to the ground.
- learc83 5y ago
  There's only so much a landowner can. Roads and utility corridors are built and expanded every day. It's a fairly common occurrence. Oil pipelines are bit different because there are tons of people and organizations outside of those directly impacted who are willing to join the fight.

Not to say that what you’re saying isn’t a problem, but that’s what eminent domain is for.

adrianN 5y ago

Using that is a good way not to get reelected, so politicians are a bit reluctant.

learc83 5y ago
It happens very regularly. Roads and utility corridors are built and expanded every day. Eminent domain doesn't generally directly impact enough people to make a serious election issue, unless we are talking about either very local elections, or when the thing being built is something people feel strongly about like an oil pipeline.
- lazide 5y ago
  By very regularly, you mean ‘regularly tarpitted for a long time anytime there are a decent number of people near the work’? Bridge widening work on 101 has been delayed for decades by this in the Bay Area, CalTrain electrification was delayed by over a decade, etc. etc. Most utility corridors are in the middle of nowhere and already established (and people stay away because of this), so reusing an existing corridor is relatively easy - unless it widens into someone’s yard. Then it’s a matter of how much money that person has. For connecting previously not connected areas with a new line, especially if it goes through somewhere folks are living? Be prepared for the actual work making whatever you are doing to be a tiny tiny percentage of the time and costs involved.
  - learc83 5y ago
    In most of the rest of the country we manage to build new roads and new transmission lines without the extreme issues you're describing. Over the last few years, I can think of hundreds of homes and businesses near me that were moved to widen existing roads or build new ones. A few people/businesses tried to fight it, they all lost quickly. You can't take the experience of a private citizen trying to clear some brush, bridge widening delays in one of the most regulation heavy states in the country, and oil pipeline opposition, and apply it to building HVDC between countries in Europe. Unlike your examples, HVDC lines have no real negative impact on anyone but the immediately impacted property owners. If you're building HVDC transmission lines between countries, you can also very likely reuse existing utility corridors for much of it, and build through lower density areas for most of the rest. The actual number of property owners directly impacted won't be high enough to make an impact on elections.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      You can't take the experience of a private citizen trying to clear some brush, bridge widening delays in one of the most regulation heavy states in the country, and oil pipeline opposition, and apply it to building HVDC between countries in Europe. Or some random place in Ohio for that matter. The regulatory hell that cities and states wealthy enough to afford it impose on themselves is not representative of the entire country.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Take a look at the map of existing and planned HVDC links and tell me again how this doesn’t apply? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current] Europe is at least as regulation heavy as California.
        ben_w 5y ago
        I don’t think that map is either evidence in favour or against your position: HVDC has minimal impact, yes, but partly because you can bury the cables more easily, and buried cables are still more expensive. HVDC is (I think) the only thing that can be used for underwater connections, so it’s used where the price makes sense. If the question is regulation we should also see all proposed and recent AC lines in Europe. (Edited for clarity)
        lazide 5y ago
        It is dramatically more expensive running HVDC under water than above ground, as the cables need to be incredibly tough even compared to buried land cables. I ran across a price quote that seemed like 10x the cost per km installed. If you can do suspended overhead cables, even cheaper. HVDC has pros/cons around the inversion/rectification on either end. Yet essentially all planned or existing HVDC lines (at least ones notable enough for the map), are undersea cables. Why would that be? There are definitely undersea HVAC interconnects - https://www.nkt.com/products-solutions/high-voltage-cable-solutions/high-voltage-offshore-solutions/high-voltage-offshore-ac-cables https://www.nkt.com/products-solutions/high-voltage-cable-so... They seem non-notable enough I had a hard time finding a good combined list anywhere. I ran across plenty of references to HVAC being used for offshore wind turbines and the like too. And they were the default standard (and still are for shorter runs and where the grid frequency matches). There are AC solutions for lack of grid frequency matching and the like. I can’t find a list or easy map for major new on land grid connections - if you can find one, that would be great. Might be national security concerns or something?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lazide 5y ago

Of course, and probably 50% or more of those landowners are going to fight you tooth and nail in court in that proceeding. Some so you’ll pay them more to settle/go away, some because they just hate you on an ideological level or refuse to budge [https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1XG1R4 https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...] If you’re covering significant distances that people live in, you can expect to spend a decade or sometimes more in court before being able to build - if ever. Because of course there are the environmental reviews, the impact assessments, etc. and each of those will be hundreds to thousands of pages long, and you’ll likely have to fight over each page, also in court, with folks who don’t like that you’re going to dig up that random patch of flowers to install your power line or whatever. And that is assuming you’re lucky enough to not have any endangered species in the way, in which case you might literally not be able to build at all if it is in an area you have no choice to go through. So far no one is staking out patches of ocean floor, and generally even if they did, the topography is usually more forgiving there. So all you need is landing approval, which means one government and one compliant landowner on each side somewhere along each coast that is close enough to an existing grid that you can interconnect to it. Much more solvable. Still not easy or straightforward. In California it took me 4 years and $18k worth of professional help to get approval to do completely standard fuel reduction work on a completely uninteresting plot of land that was super overgrown with brush and dead trees - with no one objecting to it - in the middle of a historic wildfire crisis in California that actually expedited the process. I had to notify 10 something local native tribes (in case they maybe were somehow attached to the land, which they weren’t), had to do a detailed archeological survey, had to have a licensed biologist do a detailed walkthrough to look for endangered species (there were none). Meanwhile the 3 largest fires in the states recorded history burned nearby, and they wouldn’t let me clear brush and remove dead trees from a clear fire hazard area and it’s a miracle the place didn’t burn to the ground.

learc83 5y ago
There's only so much a landowner can. Roads and utility corridors are built and expanded every day. It's a fairly common occurrence. Oil pipelines are bit different because there are tons of people and organizations outside of those directly impacted who are willing to join the fight.