Being an energy consultant the reason I throw out the gas example is that it is relatable to the Cali tragedies. In both cases Government bullies the utility (they have oversight, govt says what the revenues are and what costs can be recovered) so the utility must not talk back. The govt and media promote misinformation in both the NY and CA examples. The media follows the govt lead and the public is misinformed.
Is it practical to redo the hundreds of thousands of t and d miles in the CA wiring system? That would be prohibitively expensive and how much can we say the risk was alleviated?
The important point about the NE gas issue is that nat gas is the biggest reason by a mile our carbon footprint has declined in the USA. This is because we are replacing coal, a dirty fossil fuel with gas, a much cleaner and more efficient fossil fuel. A wide scale clean alternative to gas does not exist imo.
As we are reaching our capacity to transport gas here, what industry will start to do to handle growth is to use either electric heat (powered by gas plants and much less efficient) or dirty oil.
So fighting that gas pipeline increases carbon pollution. On a wide scale basis.
Edit, industry can also truck gas here. Besides being much more expensive we would have LNG on our highways in the trucks next to us, directly adding to pollution and risks for accidents instead of an underwater pipeline.
Post edited by Lerxst1992 on
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,288
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
Brian, this response isn't to you, but just a general comment about the discourse on this critical topic.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
You are so right, Ben- finding joy in life is essential for almost all of us. Yet for all of us but the most dedicated ascetic (something I admire but can't really say I practice), it generally involves activity that requires energy and consumption of resources. I think part of the problem is that in a world where these sources of enjoyment come so easily (at least for us in the first world), they also become obsolete in very short order. I'm a bit guilty of that with music, books, and film, always wanting more. I try to compensate for my desires that way by finding used items (easier to do with books than records!) and by sending some of those goods back into circulation through donating or re-selling. I'm guessing people who live in third world countries and who at least have their basic needs met have a whole different view of what brings them joy.
For me, I’m fortunate enough in my life to have more money than time, so I decided this year to carbon offset my transportation (flights and auto travel) as a start. While I don’t eat vegan, I only eat a meal a day typically, and don’t eat much beef. There’s more I can (and want to) do, but it’s just my beginning.
Every little bit we all do is a plus, Ben!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,288
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
Brian, this response isn't to you, but just a general comment about the discourse on this critical topic.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
You are so right, Ben- finding joy in life is essential for almost all of us. Yet for all of us but the most dedicated ascetic (something I admire but can't really say I practice), it generally involves activity that requires energy and consumption of resources. I think part of the problem is that in a world where these sources of enjoyment come so easily (at least for us in the first world), they also become obsolete in very short order. I'm a bit guilty of that with music, books, and film, always wanting more. I try to compensate for my desires that way by finding used items (easier to do with books than records!) and by sending some of those goods back into circulation through donating or re-selling. I'm guessing people who live in third world countries and who at least have their basic needs met have a whole different view of what brings them joy.
For me, I’m fortunate enough in my life to have more money than time, so I decided this year to carbon offset my transportation (flights and auto travel) as a start. While I don’t eat vegan, I only eat a meal a day typically, and don’t eat much beef. There’s more I can (and want to) do, but it’s just my beginning.
The conservation point was a technical point in the heating industry. I provided a relatable example, the nat gas system is like a hot air balloon. If too many people are pulling gas, the system collapses. The gas system needs to handle the coldest day of the year or more accurately the coldest day possible in the coldest winter we could get.
And I'm not sure if all of us live in ice cold winters. On the coldest days in the NE our furnaces are running 24 hours a day. The pipeline system needs to handle this capacity. If it cant, the system fails and we have failures, like a blackout. Except its below zero and there is no gas available for large sections of the system. And thousands are subject to zero degrees.
Given that furnaces need to run 24 hours a day in this example, there is nothing to conserve (other than turning off everyone's gas cooking or dryers). The most efficient furnaces or the least efficient, they are all drawing constant supply. If the utility promises more than is capable of delivering this is the risk. That's the problem with what cuomo is doing by using words that are not relevant to this problem, and the media displaying bias taking his side.
I think the gas pipelines environmentalists object to are petroleum, not natural gas, correct?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
Brian, this response isn't to you, but just a general comment about the discourse on this critical topic.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
You are so right, Ben- finding joy in life is essential for almost all of us. Yet for all of us but the most dedicated ascetic (something I admire but can't really say I practice), it generally involves activity that requires energy and consumption of resources. I think part of the problem is that in a world where these sources of enjoyment come so easily (at least for us in the first world), they also become obsolete in very short order. I'm a bit guilty of that with music, books, and film, always wanting more. I try to compensate for my desires that way by finding used items (easier to do with books than records!) and by sending some of those goods back into circulation through donating or re-selling. I'm guessing people who live in third world countries and who at least have their basic needs met have a whole different view of what brings them joy.
For me, I’m fortunate enough in my life to have more money than time, so I decided this year to carbon offset my transportation (flights and auto travel) as a start. While I don’t eat vegan, I only eat a meal a day typically, and don’t eat much beef. There’s more I can (and want to) do, but it’s just my beginning.
The conservation point was a technical point in the heating industry. I provided a relatable example, the nat gas system is like a hot air balloon. If too many people are pulling gas, the system collapses. The gas system needs to handle the coldest day of the year or more accurately the coldest day possible in the coldest winter we could get.
And I'm not sure if all of us live in ice cold winters. On the coldest days in the NE our furnaces are running 24 hours a day. The pipeline system needs to handle this capacity. If it cant, the system fails and we have failures, like a blackout. Except its below zero and there is no gas available for large sections of the system. And thousands are subject to zero degrees.
Given that furnaces need to run 24 hours a day in this example, there is nothing to conserve (other than turning off everyone's gas cooking or dryers). The most efficient furnaces or the least efficient, they are all drawing constant supply. If the utility promises more than is capable of delivering this is the risk. That's the problem with what cuomo is doing by using words that are not relevant to this problem, and the media displaying bias taking his side.
I think the gas pipelines environmentalists object to are petroleum, not natural gas, correct?
Nope. Here in Canada, some politicians have floated the idea of replacing natural gas. The problem, we get winter for about 10 months a year...lol. And my gas bill is 1/2 of my hydro bill. No way you can heat a home with hydro. Just too costly.
Another challenge rarely discussed with solar going off grid is frequency and load balancing. It is essential to keep electricity safe and is inherently provided just by being connected to the power grid
An interesting article. This looks like it will be a big challenge for major energy companies. But times are change and so must the suppliers of mass energy. I have no doubt they will figure it out- where there's a lot of money involved- and there is- there will be a way. The infrastructure is old and needs to be updated.
And I'm not sure having such massively large energy grids are a good idea. And then we have to figure in over-population. No way can the world- especially with third world countries developing- continue to support such huge numbers of humanity in the manner in which it has. Either population has to reduce drastically, or people need to learn to live more in a world made by hand manner. The change will come, one way or another.
Being in the industry I tend to focus more on short term and what is practical within 10-20 years. So I'm not sure what practical solutions exist for solving California's wildfire issue. Replacing the entire T & D system is prohibitively expensive and it doesnt eliminate the risk, it only reduces it. The reality is growth and extreme climate are significant factors as well and they aren't going away.
And we cant trust what our leaders or media tells us. I'll draw the comparison to NYs gas issue again. The state is now asking the utility to look into conservation instead of that pipeline.
That sounds great right? The media hears that and starts making big big waves. But knowing how gas works it just makes zero sense. It's like having a five year old deciding what should be done. Gas needs to be able to handle the coldest day of the year to operate. It's like a hot air balloon. If everyone is drawing supply and there's not enough system pressure the balloon collapses.
On the coldest day of the year everyone's furnace is running 24 hours a day no matter what. So conservation will accomplish nothing, except for trying to get people to switch from gas cooking to electric. How popular do you think that will be?
I am a bleeding heart, I want renewable energy, but I know from experience we are not nearly as close as some liberal leaders want us to believe (Wareen, AOC, Cuomo) have been saying of late especially in the heating industry. I'd say they're approaching a trumponian level of accuracy. This is the price we pay for not requiring our media and leaders to be knowledgeable, on both sides.
If conserving accomplishes nothing, it's the system that needs to change, not the cessation of conserving.
Brian, this response isn't to you, but just a general comment about the discourse on this critical topic.
I find it really upsetting how this problem is talked about. Vegans say "just stop eating meat, you apathetic jerks". Auto enthusiasts say "this is my source of pleasure, you apathetic jerks". Corporations say "we have the right to profit, you apathetic jerks". I could go on but these are the obvious ones, and they're all 100% valid. We can't keep asking people to jeopardize their sources of joy (the ultimate reason to live) and income (the means to pursue joy) - at least not without providing alternative sources to both when the effect is massive.
Not to get all Cory Booker on this, but I really think we need to have conversations on a different plain, and first evaluate who we are and how we empathize with each other before we talk about coordinating solutions to this problem that threatens our very existence. That level of understanding makes the next steps so much easier, and I really feel apathy is a non-starter to acceptance and setting a unified direction. I have absolutely no idea how to get there, but if we look at why we all acknowledge a dire situation and yet don't agree on the steps, it always points right back here for me.
You are so right, Ben- finding joy in life is essential for almost all of us. Yet for all of us but the most dedicated ascetic (something I admire but can't really say I practice), it generally involves activity that requires energy and consumption of resources. I think part of the problem is that in a world where these sources of enjoyment come so easily (at least for us in the first world), they also become obsolete in very short order. I'm a bit guilty of that with music, books, and film, always wanting more. I try to compensate for my desires that way by finding used items (easier to do with books than records!) and by sending some of those goods back into circulation through donating or re-selling. I'm guessing people who live in third world countries and who at least have their basic needs met have a whole different view of what brings them joy.
For me, I’m fortunate enough in my life to have more money than time, so I decided this year to carbon offset my transportation (flights and auto travel) as a start. While I don’t eat vegan, I only eat a meal a day typically, and don’t eat much beef. There’s more I can (and want to) do, but it’s just my beginning.
The conservation point was a technical point in the heating industry. I provided a relatable example, the nat gas system is like a hot air balloon. If too many people are pulling gas, the system collapses. The gas system needs to handle the coldest day of the year or more accurately the coldest day possible in the coldest winter we could get.
And I'm not sure if all of us live in ice cold winters. On the coldest days in the NE our furnaces are running 24 hours a day. The pipeline system needs to handle this capacity. If it cant, the system fails and we have failures, like a blackout. Except its below zero and there is no gas available for large sections of the system. And thousands are subject to zero degrees.
Given that furnaces need to run 24 hours a day in this example, there is nothing to conserve (other than turning off everyone's gas cooking or dryers). The most efficient furnaces or the least efficient, they are all drawing constant supply. If the utility promises more than is capable of delivering this is the risk. That's the problem with what cuomo is doing by using words that are not relevant to this problem, and the media displaying bias taking his side.
I think the gas pipelines environmentalists object to are petroleum, not natural gas, correct?
Yes that's mostly true, but they are out in force against this one. I think "pipeline" is becoming a trigger word for environmentalists. They're looking to save marine life from mercury. The mercury remains in the ocean whether or not the pipe is built, but gets stirred up during construction.
In the case with gas the options to a new pipe are dirtier oil, trucking LNG or perhaps barging in LNG. These options are all dirtier and more expensive than a gas pipeline. Plus there are minimal locations to store LNG here. Noone wants a facility like that near their town
Im posting a NY Post article below. Its scary when I agree with that conservative rag.
New York’s chief energy regulator, the Public Service Commission, is reluctantly admitting that the state faces a natural-gas shortage, though the commissioners disagree on what to do about it.
Even Commissioner Tracey Edwards, who devoted much of her time at last week’s meeting to complaining that utility National Grid had been “mean” in declaring a moratorium on natural-gas hookups in a major service area, admitted, “We have capacity issues.”
Commissioner John Howard was more frank: “We need more gas. That’s an undeniable fact.”
But only Commissioner Diane Burman seemed willing to admit the state has made things worse by “not making decisions we need to make.”
This will boost carbon emissions by forcing greater use of “dirtier” fuels: “We will have the need for switching interruptible customers off of gas onto oil, isn’t that right?” she asked PSC engineer John Sano, who was there to advise on technical issues and confirmed that staff is on it.
Burman then pointed out: “We’ve had a policy of limiting new natural gas and it seems to promote more polluting fuels. … Those who say ‘No New Pipelines’ should look at what the ramifications are.”
She continued: “It’s easy to hate the utility,” but the state and the PSC should be looking at “our role” in the shortage.
Meanwhile, apologists for the no-pipelines crowd are resorting to conspiracy theories. Assemblyman William Colton (D-B’klynBrooklyn), has declared that National Grid is faking the shortage so that it can stockpile fuel to sell to other states when the city goes to 100 percent renewable energy, a shift he seems to think this is imminent.
Similarly, the Stop the Williams Pipeline Coalition points to evidence showing that operator Transco has offered to move less gas than planned through the pipeline — if it can just get it built — as proof that it doesn’t really need more fuel at all.
If New York’s leaders keep indulging this lunacy and blocking new fuel supplies, the state may wind up reducing its carbon footprint by forcing its residents to move to where they won’t have to shiver in the dark.
Interesting article from NYCs left leaning paper. Guess it's just me now
Andrew Cuomo’s energy policies are counterproductive for the climate: Today, natural gas is a cleaner fuel than alternatives
By ANGELA M. O’CONNOR
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
AUG 27, 2019 | 3:17 PM
File - Andrew Cuomo’s energy policies are counterproductive for the climate: Today, natural gas is a cleaner fuel than alternatives (Scott Heins/Getty Images)
For 15 days from late 2017 into January of 2018, New England experienced a cold snap that drove temperatures to historic lows, leaving millions of people facing life or death conditions if they couldn’t keep their homes warm. In those two weeks, New England burned 2 million barrels of oil and increased the use of coal because cleaner fuel sources were not available. This fuel shortage became so dire, the entity responsible for overseeing New England’s power grid, the ISO-NE, estimated the region was only 48 hours from running out altogether.
I was the chief energy regulator in Massachusetts at the time, and there is a simple answer for how it got that bad: Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
ADVERTISEMENT
Cuomo has been rightly hailed as one of the policymakers in the United States who is taking climate change seriously, pushing for aggressive renewable energy development and strict emissions standards even as federal leaders turn their backs on acknowledging climate goals. With Al Gore by his side, last month Cuomo signed the most aggressive climate change legislation in the nation.
But those goals are decades away, and many have yet to be clearly defined. To date, his policies lack a workable transition to a carbon-free future. And when it comes to reducing carbon emissions today, many of Cuomo’s decisions — like blocking the development of natural gas infrastructure — ensure that millions of Americans have no choice but to use some of the dirtiest fossil fuel sources on the market.
New York’s energy policies don’t stop at the border. When Cuomo makes it a campaign pledge to block every natural gas project in New York, he’s making it impossible to get more supply to Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The result is that we burn dirtier fuel to stay warm in the winter. During that 2018 “Polar Vortex,” carbon dioxide emissions more than doubled — from below 100,000 short tons per day leading up to the cold snap to an average of over 220,000 short tons per day during its height.
UN climate scientists say we must have carbon reduction policies in place by the end of 2020 to protect the planet from the most devastating effects of climate change, so waiting until 2040 to reach Cuomo’s 100% renewable target is not an option. We need to take the dirtiest fuels off the market immediately by, for example, building efficient and resilient microgrids that run on natural gas.
Embracing those policies would be politically difficult for Cuomo, but he would only need to point to results. While renewable energy production has stayed flat in new York over the last 15 years, the state has reduced carbon emissions by more than 20% since 2005 levels largely due to natural gas replacing coal and oil. There are similar successes across New England.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,288
Despite having power shut off, it appears PG&E may be responsible for yet another big California fire. The Kincade Fire quickly spread overnight and is now 16,000 acres with only 5% containment.
"PG&E said it had shutdown power in the area a few hours prior around
3 p.m. for its Planned Safety Power Shutdown due to high fire danger
weather. However, while the power distribution lines were deenergized,
the high-voltage transmission line which malfunctioned was not
deenergized. PG&E said the wind speeds of concern for transmission
lines are higher than those for distribution."
What I find most irritating is that much the power grid in this state is over 40 years old and instead of spending money on upgrades they do this:
Despite having power shut off, it appears PG&E may be responsible for yet another big California fire. The Kincade Fire quickly spread overnight and is now 16,000 acres with only 5% containment.
"PG&E said it had shutdown power in the area a few hours prior around
3 p.m. for its Planned Safety Power Shutdown due to high fire danger
weather. However, while the power distribution lines were deenergized,
the high-voltage transmission line which malfunctioned was not
deenergized. PG&E said the wind speeds of concern for transmission
lines are higher than those for distribution."
What I find most irritating is that much the power grid in this state is over 40 years old and instead of spending money on upgrades they do this:
Despite having power shut off, it appears PG&E may be responsible for yet another big California fire. The Kincade Fire quickly spread overnight and is now 16,000 acres with only 5% containment.
"PG&E said it had shutdown power in the area a few hours prior around
3 p.m. for its Planned Safety Power Shutdown due to high fire danger
weather. However, while the power distribution lines were deenergized,
the high-voltage transmission line which malfunctioned was not
deenergized. PG&E said the wind speeds of concern for transmission
lines are higher than those for distribution."
What I find most irritating is that much the power grid in this state is over 40 years old and instead of spending money on upgrades they do this:
PG&E plans nearly $11 million in executive performance bonuses
Brilliant.
C'mon man that $11 million would pay for new T & D for about 5 miles.
Is California's fire risk five miles?
And another fact, utilities dont pay these costs, ratepayers do, only after the State approves it.
So pass a referendum to replace and pay for an entire T & D system
The right right 5 miles of upgrade might have saved the lives of the 68 people and the town of Paradise in last years Camp Fire. I don't see how on earth anyone can justify giving these executives any kind of bonus when that happens.
Look, with all due respect, I know you work in the power industry, but coming here and defending giving these execs bonuses and arguing against everything I post regarding the situation out here in the west- a far different picture from where you live- grows tiresome.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Sorry its tiresome but if you really want to talk about tiresome for decades politicians blame utilities for real world problems. That's tiresome.
I am no fan of executive bonuses but to pretend that is related to a massively expensive and complicated infrastructure project (some call t and d systems the largest machines on the planet) that requires state approval and ratepayers money is just not being realistic.
Meanwhile in NY yesterday Gov Cuomo blamed the gas pipeline capacity problem on the utility and threatened to shut them down
Considering the capacity limit issue has been known by the state for about 5 years and the state makes many alternative delivery methods illegal and the state must approve any alternative and the state then blames the utility for not finding alternatives.
So yeah, tiresome.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,288
Sorry its tiresome but if you really want to talk about tiresome for decades politicians blame utilities for real world problems. That's tiresome.
I am no fan of executive bonuses but to pretend that is related to a massively expensive and complicated infrastructure project (some call t and d systems the largest machines on the planet) that requires state approval and ratepayers money is just not being realistic.
Meanwhile in NY yesterday Gov Cuomo blamed the gas pipeline capacity problem on the utility and threatened to shut them down
Considering the capacity limit issue has been known by the state for about 5 years and the state makes many alternative delivery methods illegal and the state must approve any alternative and the state then blames the utility for not finding alternatives.
So yeah, tiresome.
Come on, man, I didn't come here to argue. The whole PG&E/ wildfire issue out here is one major clusterfuck. It's affecting small businesses- ours and those of our friends in our town and all across California as well as many larger business (see the PG&E power outage article posted on the other thread). I'm having to shut down my own little online business a couple days a week. It's hard enough keeping small businesses running without this bullshit. And honestly, I'm not fishing for sympathy for myself. No worries- I keep moving. Hack or pack, baby. But still, the whole rotten mess stinks.
And look, NY is hardly "the west". Maybe start a thread about east coast power companies?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Brian, sounds like you should consider getting a good generator - consider it an investment for the future. I understand that this is less than ideal, since it creates more pollution, but you're really not left with other options, unless you move (which is actually what I would really suggest... California is passed the tipping point. I think migration is the only real solution.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Why does PG&E exist? I'm not going to look up their corporate mission statement, but I'm guessing they would not need to produce electricity if not for customers. So, customers decided to live next to or on top of a hill with hundreds or thousands of acres of kindling and setup their businesses there. The customers, who chose to live next to a natural fire hazard, then want electricity.
I can't imagine the cost to PG&E to guarantee that every transformer and facility would be completely safe from creating a spark or causing a fire. If this is what is required, then the cost should be born by the residents who chose to live next to a fire hazard. So, you can either pay a lot more, or deal with rolling blackouts (which have a cost too).
Either way, PG&E is painted as the enemy when at the end of the day they are tasked with providing a service to people who built their home next to a fire hazard. I'm speaking somewhat out of turn as I don't know local politics and history of PG&E, but this is coming from someone in the Midwest who constantly hears about hurricanes on the East Coast and fires on the West Coast. I care that people are safe, but at the same time I have less and less empathy for property when you built your home below sea level or live next to a hill with dried out vegetation in a windy area.
Why does PG&E exist? I'm not going to look up their corporate mission statement, but I'm guessing they would not need to produce electricity if not for customers. So, customers decided to live next to or on top of a hill with hundreds or thousands of acres of kindling and setup their businesses there. The customers, who chose to live next to a natural fire hazard, then want electricity.
I can't imagine the cost to PG&E to guarantee that every transformer and facility would be completely safe from creating a spark or causing a fire. If this is what is required, then the cost should be born by the residents who chose to live next to a fire hazard. So, you can either pay a lot more, or deal with rolling blackouts (which have a cost too).
Either way, PG&E is painted as the enemy when at the end of the day they are tasked with providing a service to people who built their home next to a fire hazard. I'm speaking somewhat out of turn as I don't know local politics and history of PG&E, but this is coming from someone in the Midwest who constantly hears about hurricanes on the East Coast and fires on the West Coast. I care that people are safe, but at the same time I have less and less empathy for property when you built your home below sea level or live next to a hill with dried out vegetation in a windy area.
There are obviously bad feelings about PG&E... That's the company that the movie Erin Brockovich is about. They knowingly poisoned and killed people for years. They definitely are not in the public's good graces, for good reasons. They are known as a company that specifically ignores public safety in favour of profit.
That said, I do think that California is way overdeveloped, and is an environment that cannot support its population, and all this disaster is a result of everyone ignoring that fact.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Okay. Not a PG&E fan then, but still, don't build your house next to a fire hazard unless you want to deal with the inconvenience.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,288
California burns. Would not advise considering moving here. What a disaster. There where multiple fires around the bay area. Much of Sonoma County is being evacuated. It's bad.
Hope all's well folks.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Why does PG&E exist? I'm not going to look up their corporate mission statement, but I'm guessing they would not need to produce electricity if not for customers. So, customers decided to live next to or on top of a hill with hundreds or thousands of acres of kindling and setup their businesses there. The customers, who chose to live next to a natural fire hazard, then want electricity.
I can't imagine the cost to PG&E to guarantee that every transformer and facility would be completely safe from creating a spark or causing a fire. If this is what is required, then the cost should be born by the residents who chose to live next to a fire hazard. So, you can either pay a lot more, or deal with rolling blackouts (which have a cost too).
Either way, PG&E is painted as the enemy when at the end of the day they are tasked with providing a service to people who built their home next to a fire hazard. I'm speaking somewhat out of turn as I don't know local politics and history of PG&E, but this is coming from someone in the Midwest who constantly hears about hurricanes on the East Coast and fires on the West Coast. I care that people are safe, but at the same time I have less and less empathy for property when you built your home below sea level or live next to a hill with dried out vegetation in a windy area.
There are risks everywhere and its seems to be increasing. From tornadoes to earthquakes to floods to hurricanes to blizzards the entire US is covered in risk.
As someone at risk of hurricanes in the NY area, I'd like to point out you do not need to live at sea level to be at risk.
I live about 15 miles from the beautiful ocean and approximately 200 feet above sea level.
By me we have trees everywhere which are great for the environment but dangerous in a hurricane or Nor'Easter
During Sandy we had a 70 foot pine land on our house in the dark, with the wind sounding like a freight train. We have unfortunately taken down many trees over the years, but even if we were to take them all down there is still risk a neighbors tree could fall on our home
One of the benefits of this storm? Its the impetus for the waters/ vedder collaboration and the genesis of the Comfortably Numb cover IIRC.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,288
PG&E. Hmmm let's see, 40 to 45 year old infrastructure. What should we do? I know- let's give our exec's a BIG BONUS this year. Yeehawwww!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different.
Funny you mention this. I had a conversation with some people talking about how NY does zero maintenance upkeep on may things and I think it's stupid.
Someone brought up that it is just cheaper to let it run itself into disrepair and build new rather than maintain it. I disagree with this but it sounds like NY's theory on things.
We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different.
Funny you mention this. I had a conversation with some people talking about how NY does zero maintenance upkeep on may things and I think it's stupid.
Someone brought up that it is just cheaper to let it run itself into disrepair and build new rather than maintain it. I disagree with this but it sounds like NY's theory on things.
I wonder if that is PG&E's stance on things?
Actually NY recently invested big on two major new bridges and a large railroad expansion. Previously, they didn't spend on infrastructure
It's a problem throughout the USA. One of the political parties just doesnt want to spend. So we drive on pot holes roads, stuck in traffic, hoping bridges dont collapse.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,288
We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different.
Funny you mention this. I had a conversation with some people talking about how NY does zero maintenance upkeep on may things and I think it's stupid.
Someone brought up that it is just cheaper to let it run itself into disrepair and build new rather than maintain it. I disagree with this but it sounds like NY's theory on things.
I wonder if that is PG&E's stance on things?
Good question! I don't know what PG&E was thinking but here are my guesses:
Scenario one: "Keep the stock holders happy. It's all about money in the here and now."
Scenario two: some wealthy PG&E executives figured they could rake in a lot of money during the span of their careers knowing that the electrical grid would last the duration of their time of employment. They would then walk away fan dumb and happy and not give two shits about what happens later.
Or scenario three: the left hand didn't have a clue as to what the right hand was doing and visa versa.
We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different.
Who is "we"?
Our PG&E rates have gone up regularly and often for years and I would expect some of that money to pay for infrastructure upkeep.
Same with roads. We pay very high taxes on our gasoline here in California (more than most states- on Pennsylvania pays more), and that money is supposed to be used for road upkeep. The problem there- and I've seen this happen countless times- is that when road work is being done we typically see maybe one or two guys working while the others are standing around with their thumbs up their asses. My father one watched a maintenance crew of five workers take two full 8 hour days to remove one medium sized ash tree near the road at the next door neighbors house. It's ridiculous.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
So Aussie news says PG & E are switching off power to avoid lawsuits because of the Camp/Paradise fire in which they were held accountable because of faulty lines? No power they cant be at fault? is this true?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,288
So Aussie news says PG & E are switching off power to avoid lawsuits because of the Camp/Paradise fire in which they were held accountable because of faulty lines? No power they cant be at fault? is this true?
Yes and sort of. PG&E filed for bankruptcy, so at this point they can't be sued anyway. But there are troubling matters here. How does a company give its executives $1.1 million in "performance" bonuses in the same year they file bankruptcy? And why did they think they could just let the infrastructure age beyond it's safety limits and do nothing about that all these years? Greed and corruption are major ingredients here.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different.
Funny you mention this. I had a conversation with some people talking about how NY does zero maintenance upkeep on may things and I think it's stupid.
Someone brought up that it is just cheaper to let it run itself into disrepair and build new rather than maintain it. I disagree with this but it sounds like NY's theory on things.
I wonder if that is PG&E's stance on things?
Good question! I don't know what PG&E was thinking but here are my guesses:
Scenario one: "Keep the stock holders happy. It's all about money in the here and now."
Scenario two: some wealthy PG&E executives figured they could rake in a lot of money during the span of their careers knowing that the electrical grid would last the duration of their time of employment. They would then walk away fan dumb and happy and not give two shits about what happens later.
Or scenario three: the left hand didn't have a clue as to what the right hand was doing and visa versa.
We dont want to pay for infrastructure in America. Roads, Rails, Bridges. Utilities are no different.
Who is "we"?
Our PG&E rates have gone up regularly and often for years and I would expect some of that money to pay for infrastructure upkeep.
Same with roads. We pay very high taxes on our gasoline here in California (more than most states- on Pennsylvania pays more), and that money is supposed to be used for road upkeep. The problem there- and I've seen this happen countless times- is that when road work is being done we typically see maybe one or two guys working while the others are standing around with their thumbs up their asses. My father one watched a maintenance crew of five workers take two full 8 hour days to remove one medium sized ash tree near the road at the next door neighbors house. It's ridiculous.
Line work is extremely dangerous and slow. PG&E current budget for grid repair and replacement is $7B per year. Replacement estimates at a million $ a mile the grid could be redone in 40+ years. That does not even seem possible
We replace the grid and the dry and windy conditions are still dangerous for electricity transmission and distribution.
California utility investing has always been high risk. Without 10%+ returns there are no investors. Can the govt do a better job?
In NY we are behind CA in gas taxes, 7th highest in the country, and they cant keep up with the maintenance here. The roads are pot holed and unsafe. There's no reason to think other infrastructure upkeep is any different.
strangely enough the documentary Paradise just came up on netflix. Such a devastating fire. After watching that i decided to look up the black Saturday fires which is Australias most devastating bushfire in Victoria Feb 2009. If your interested in watching it. https://youtu.be/O9Uz8ltWOGU
Comments
Is it practical to redo the hundreds of thousands of t and d miles in the CA wiring system? That would be prohibitively expensive and how much can we say the risk was alleviated?
The important point about the NE gas issue is that nat gas is the biggest reason by a mile our carbon footprint has declined in the USA. This is because we are replacing coal, a dirty fossil fuel with gas, a much cleaner and more efficient fossil fuel. A wide scale clean alternative to gas does not exist imo.
As we are reaching our capacity to transport gas here, what industry will start to do to handle growth is to use either electric heat (powered by gas plants and much less efficient) or dirty oil.
So fighting that gas pipeline increases carbon pollution. On a wide scale basis.
Edit, industry can also truck gas here. Besides being much more expensive we would have LNG on our highways in the trucks next to us, directly adding to pollution and risks for accidents instead of an underwater pipeline.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Yes that's mostly true, but they are out in force against this one. I think "pipeline" is becoming a trigger word for environmentalists. They're looking to save marine life from mercury. The mercury remains in the ocean whether or not the pipe is built, but gets stirred up during construction.
In the case with gas the options to a new pipe are dirtier oil, trucking LNG or perhaps barging in LNG. These options are all dirtier and more expensive than a gas pipeline. Plus there are minimal locations to store LNG here. Noone wants a facility like that near their town
Im posting a NY Post article below. Its scary when I agree with that conservative rag.
New York’s man-made natural gas crisis
By Post Editorial Board
October 20, 2019 | 8:39pm
New York’s chief energy regulator, the Public Service Commission, is reluctantly admitting that the state faces a natural-gas shortage, though the commissioners disagree on what to do about it.
Even Commissioner Tracey Edwards, who devoted much of her time at last week’s meeting to complaining that utility National Grid had been “mean” in declaring a moratorium on natural-gas hookups in a major service area, admitted, “We have capacity issues.”
Commissioner John Howard was more frank: “We need more gas. That’s an undeniable fact.”
But only Commissioner Diane Burman seemed willing to admit the state has made things worse by “not making decisions we need to make.”
This will boost carbon emissions by forcing greater use of “dirtier” fuels: “We will have the need for switching interruptible customers off of gas onto oil, isn’t that right?” she asked PSC engineer John Sano, who was there to advise on technical issues and confirmed that staff is on it.
Burman then pointed out: “We’ve had a policy of limiting new natural gas and it seems to promote more polluting fuels. … Those who say ‘No New Pipelines’ should look at what the ramifications are.”
She continued: “It’s easy to hate the utility,” but the state and the PSC should be looking at “our role” in the shortage.
Meanwhile, apologists for the no-pipelines crowd are resorting to conspiracy theories. Assemblyman William Colton (D-B’klynBrooklyn), has declared that National Grid is faking the shortage so that it can stockpile fuel to sell to other states when the city goes to 100 percent renewable energy, a shift he seems to think this is imminent.
Similarly, the Stop the Williams Pipeline Coalition points to evidence showing that operator Transco has offered to move less gas than planned through the pipeline — if it can just get it built — as proof that it doesn’t really need more fuel at all.
If New York’s leaders keep indulging this lunacy and blocking new fuel supplies, the state may wind up reducing its carbon footprint by forcing its residents to move to where they won’t have to shiver in the dark.
Andrew Cuomo’s energy policies are counterproductive for the climate: Today, natural gas is a cleaner fuel than alternatives
For 15 days from late 2017 into January of 2018, New England experienced a cold snap that drove temperatures to historic lows, leaving millions of people facing life or death conditions if they couldn’t keep their homes warm. In those two weeks, New England burned 2 million barrels of oil and increased the use of coal because cleaner fuel sources were not available. This fuel shortage became so dire, the entity responsible for overseeing New England’s power grid, the ISO-NE, estimated the region was only 48 hours from running out altogether.
I was the chief energy regulator in Massachusetts at the time, and there is a simple answer for how it got that bad: Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Cuomo has been rightly hailed as one of the policymakers in the United States who is taking climate change seriously, pushing for aggressive renewable energy development and strict emissions standards even as federal leaders turn their backs on acknowledging climate goals. With Al Gore by his side, last month Cuomo signed the most aggressive climate change legislation in the nation.
But those goals are decades away, and many have yet to be clearly defined. To date, his policies lack a workable transition to a carbon-free future. And when it comes to reducing carbon emissions today, many of Cuomo’s decisions — like blocking the development of natural gas infrastructure — ensure that millions of Americans have no choice but to use some of the dirtiest fossil fuel sources on the market.
New York’s energy policies don’t stop at the border. When Cuomo makes it a campaign pledge to block every natural gas project in New York, he’s making it impossible to get more supply to Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The result is that we burn dirtier fuel to stay warm in the winter. During that 2018 “Polar Vortex,” carbon dioxide emissions more than doubled — from below 100,000 short tons per day leading up to the cold snap to an average of over 220,000 short tons per day during its height.
UN climate scientists say we must have carbon reduction policies in place by the end of 2020 to protect the planet from the most devastating effects of climate change, so waiting until 2040 to reach Cuomo’s 100% renewable target is not an option. We need to take the dirtiest fuels off the market immediately by, for example, building efficient and resilient microgrids that run on natural gas.
Embracing those policies would be politically difficult for Cuomo, but he would only need to point to results. While renewable energy production has stayed flat in new York over the last 15 years, the state has reduced carbon emissions by more than 20% since 2005 levels largely due to natural gas replacing coal and oil. There are similar successes across New England.
PG&E plans nearly $11 million in executive performance bonuses
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
C'mon man that $11 million would pay for new T & D for about 5 miles.
Is California's fire risk five miles?
And another fact, utilities dont pay these costs, ratepayers do, only after the State approves it.
So pass a referendum to replace and pay for an entire T & D system
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I am no fan of executive bonuses but to pretend that is related to a massively expensive and complicated infrastructure project (some call t and d systems the largest machines on the planet) that requires state approval and
ratepayers money is just not being realistic.
Meanwhile in NY yesterday Gov Cuomo blamed the gas pipeline capacity problem on the utility and threatened to shut them down
Considering the capacity limit issue has been known by the state for about 5 years and the state makes many alternative delivery methods illegal and the state must approve any alternative and the state then blames the utility for not finding alternatives.
So yeah, tiresome.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Why does PG&E exist? I'm not going to look up their corporate mission statement, but I'm guessing they would not need to produce electricity if not for customers. So, customers decided to live next to or on top of a hill with hundreds or thousands of acres of kindling and setup their businesses there. The customers, who chose to live next to a natural fire hazard, then want electricity.
I can't imagine the cost to PG&E to guarantee that every transformer and facility would be completely safe from creating a spark or causing a fire. If this is what is required, then the cost should be born by the residents who chose to live next to a fire hazard. So, you can either pay a lot more, or deal with rolling blackouts (which have a cost too).
Either way, PG&E is painted as the enemy when at the end of the day they are tasked with providing a service to people who built their home next to a fire hazard. I'm speaking somewhat out of turn as I don't know local politics and history of PG&E, but this is coming from someone in the Midwest who constantly hears about hurricanes on the East Coast and fires on the West Coast. I care that people are safe, but at the same time I have less and less empathy for property when you built your home below sea level or live next to a hill with dried out vegetation in a windy area.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
There are risks everywhere and its seems to be increasing. From tornadoes to earthquakes to floods to hurricanes to blizzards the entire US is covered in risk.
As someone at risk of hurricanes in the NY area, I'd like to point out you do not need to live at sea level to be at risk.
I live about 15 miles from the beautiful ocean and approximately 200 feet above sea level.
By me we have trees everywhere which are great for the environment but dangerous in a hurricane or Nor'Easter
During Sandy we had a 70 foot pine land on our house in the dark, with the wind sounding like a freight train. We have unfortunately taken down many trees over the years, but even if we were to take them all down there is still risk a neighbors tree could fall on our home
One of the benefits of this storm? Its the impetus for the waters/ vedder collaboration and the genesis of the Comfortably Numb cover IIRC.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Someone brought up that it is just cheaper to let it run itself into disrepair and build new rather than maintain it. I disagree with this but it sounds like NY's theory on things.
I wonder if that is PG&E's stance on things?
Actually NY recently invested big on two major new bridges and a large railroad expansion. Previously, they didn't spend on infrastructure
It's a problem throughout the USA. One of the political parties just doesnt want to spend. So we drive on pot holes roads, stuck in traffic, hoping bridges dont collapse.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Line work is extremely dangerous and slow. PG&E current budget for grid repair and replacement is $7B per year. Replacement estimates at a million $ a mile the grid could be redone in 40+ years. That does not even seem possible
We replace the grid and the dry and windy conditions are still dangerous for electricity transmission and distribution.
California utility investing has always been high risk. Without 10%+ returns there are no investors. Can the govt do a better job?
In NY we are behind CA in gas taxes, 7th highest in the country, and they cant keep up with the maintenance here. The roads are pot holed and unsafe. There's no reason to think other infrastructure upkeep is any different.
After watching that i decided to look up the black Saturday fires which is Australias most devastating bushfire in Victoria Feb 2009.
If your interested in watching it.