Wildfire(s) Out West

Lerxst1992 · October 2019

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY

I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial

I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion

All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.

Thanks for clarifying.

PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.

And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.

Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.

And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?

And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.

Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.

brianlux · October 2019

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY

I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial

I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion

All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.

Thanks for clarifying.

PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.

And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.

Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.

And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?

And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.

Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.

I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?

Meltdown99 · October 2019

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY

I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial

I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion

All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.

Thanks for clarifying.

PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.

And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.

Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.

And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?

And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.

Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.

I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?

Yes, these companies put profits ahead of anything else. I do not get this environmentalist to stop infrastructure projects...we just had a big natural gas pipeline expansion and no one batted an eye...

brianlux · October 2019

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY

I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial

I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion

All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.

Thanks for clarifying.

PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.

And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.

Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.

And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?

And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.

Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.

I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?

Yes, these companies put profits ahead of anything else. I do not get this environmentalist to stop infrastructure projects...we just had a big natural gas pipeline expansion and no one batted an eye...

I'm guessing Lerxst was referring to environmental groups opposing oil pipelines like the keystone XL. I don't think of oil pipelines as infrastructure. The whole point of Keystone XL, for example, is about selling oil to other countries, not about keeping yours and mine running. But I suspect you already know that, true?

Lerxst1992 · October 2019

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY

I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial

I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion

All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.

Thanks for clarifying.

PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.

And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.

Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.

And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?

And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.

Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.

I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?

I do know Calif has hundreds of thousands of miles of T & D and replacing that is extremely expensive. And the biggest difference in our states is the how massively high the inherent risks are to any infrastructure that needs to cover the map like a t and d system needs to. Especially in places which such enormous high risk as beautiful California

It is true that PGE profit margin is higher than industry average. That's due to the challenges inherent to California. Are investors going to put their money in a high risk state for the standard 8%? Obviously the answer to that is no. It's been at 10% lately

Maybe the govt buying the system is the answer. But that's very expensive, and with govt owned utilities comes patronage and play to pay. They'd have to borrow just to buy the utility and then orrow again to invest billions to replace the system. And the margin for savings is only 10%.

Lerxst1992 · October 2019

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY

I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial

I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion

All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.

Thanks for clarifying.

PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.

And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.

Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.

And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?

And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.

Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.

I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?

Yes, these companies put profits ahead of anything else. I do not get this environmentalist to stop infrastructure projects...we just had a big natural gas pipeline expansion and no one batted an eye...

Utilities need to generate a return of 8% (industry ave) to attract capital. As I mentioned recently Calif needs a higher margin to attract capital. That's just a fact of life. The choice is having the public buy the utility which is a complex solution

And your inference of keystone type pipeline issues is our dilemma here in the NE USA. This is entirely different than the keystone issue. We do not have enough gas pipeline coming into the NE to handle peak cold weather. That's just another fact of life.

And before the environmentalists blast nat gas (pun intended), please consider that gas is by far the biggest reason the US has been able to modestly reduce greenhouse gases the last couple decades. And currently there are zero green or renewable alternatives for winter heating.

brianlux · October 2019

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hey @brianlux my comment about blaming environmentalists and the governor was about the gas issue here in NY

I was correlating our situation here to CA. In NY (I believe same is true for CA) individual line item expenses on an invoice by invoice level are subject to regulatory approval or denial

I was asking if the infrastructure was specifically approved for PGE and the costs are passed onto ratepayers, why would PGE not spend ratepayer money? It seems like a win win to me so something is not passing the smell test for me based on my industry experience. And yes that's a nat gas joke so I am trying our for the onion

All I can say is that from industry experience the media usually gets the story wrong and in our case Cuomo is misrepresenting facts (on the front page today) to make himself look good with voters. I can provide specific examples if you'd like.

Thanks for clarifying.

PG&E rates are already high here in California. If they raise rates even further to pass along repair cost to customers while continuing to appease stock holders, they will have a riot on their hands. PG&E and its stock holders are more concerned with profit than they are with providing clean, safe energy. That's what happens when you put something as basic as power in the hands of big business. Of course putting power in the hands of inefficient government is also a poor choice, so that leaves us screwed either way. I think the answer is going to be found in concepts like Democratic Socialism, not capitalism or inept government.

And isn't it a bit ridiculous that in the midst of all this, PG&E is giving their corporate heads $11 million in "performance-based" bonuses? I guess they mean to say they are rewarding these executives for looking out for their stock holders while fucking up on infrastructure so badly that it led to many deaths and loss of property. This is what you get in a capitalist society.

Utility costs are paid by ratepayers. Utilities dont charge an extra $10 billion to set aside for redoing the hundreds of thousands of miles of distribution lines. Redoing these lines need to be approved by the states and paid for with the rates. There is no other way to finance such a massive project.

And regarding rate increases, states typically keep the increases lower than inflation. So utilities are not even keeping up with basic inflation, but somehow are going to advance tens of billions of dollars and hope the state allows cost recovery?

And typically the media makes matters worse with misinformation. That $11 million in bonuses, although frustrating, would pay for a tiny fraction much less than 1% of the cost.

Regarding stockholders...typically if the utilities dont net an 8% return (industry standard) there would be no stockholders and as a result, no utility.

I think things must work differently in New York. It's pretty well know out here that PG&E has made huge profits off it customers, are mainly concerned for their stockholders, and are responsible for much loss and misery in this state. I think we are talking about two very different situations. I'm not sure why you seem to be making excuses for PG&E. How familiar with our situation out here are you? Where do you get your information?

I do know Calif has hundreds of thousands of miles of T & D and replacing that is extremely expensive. And the biggest difference in our states is the how massively high the inherent risks are to any infrastructure that needs to cover the map like a t and d system needs to. Especially in places which such enormous high risk as beautiful California

It is true that PGE profit margin is higher than industry average. That's due to the challenges inherent to California. Are investors going to put their money in a high risk state for the standard 8%? Obviously the answer to that is no. It's been at 10% lately

Maybe the govt buying the system is the answer. But that's very expensive, and with govt owned utilities comes patronage and play to pay. They'd have to borrow just to buy the utility and then orrow again to invest billions to replace the system. And the margin for savings is only 10%.

I don't know what the answer is in terms of public utilities. When privately owned by a capitalist corporation, something like the losses incurred in Paradise and Santa Rosa are big risk when investors are more important than the safety of communities. When government controls utilities, those utilities only function as effectively as the current government which, as is plainly clear, is not a good option today. I think the answer is to do what we are looking into (assuming the iffy proposition that we can afford it): go off grid.

Lerxst1992 · October 2019

@brianlux you are referring to solar and wind by going off grid?

Parts of California are perfect for solar with abundant sunshine. However even if Musk's batteries are perfected, solar can not help us for more than a few days of clouds. It takes 2 of his power walls ($13000) for a little over a day of power, assuming the need to run appliances. That's on top of the $25000 to install a solar system. One of the factors making solar financially attractive is the ability to sell back to the grid, so without it, alot of the solar leasing companies go away.

My google effort on solar panel fires:

"Although extremely rare, fires can originate from solar panels."

Now imagine whether there is an increased fire risk with 15 million of these units on every residence. Think of all the homes that are not well maintained. Do we really want panels and batteries everywhere? And can we generate enough solar for industry? So we convince millions to buy solar and then we need a grid anyway for commercial use?

Solar is a great alternative right now for those with money but I'm not sure it can replace the grid for the foreseeable future.

.

brianlux · October 2019

Lerxst1992 said:

@brianlux you are referring to solar and wind by going off grid?

Parts of California are perfect for solar with abundant sunshine. However even if Musk's batteries are perfected, solar can not help us for more than a few days of clouds. It takes 2 of his power walls ($13000) for a little over a day of power, assuming the need to run appliances. That's on top of the $25000 to install a solar system. One of the factors making solar financially attractive is the ability to sell back to the grid, so without it, alot of the solar leasing companies go away.

My google effort on solar panel fires:

"Although extremely rare, fires can originate from solar panels."

Now imagine whether there is an increased fire risk with 15 million of these units on every residence. Think of all the homes that are not well maintained. Do we really want panels and batteries everywhere? And can we generate enough solar for industry? So we convince millions to buy solar and then we need a grid anyway for commercial use?

Solar is a great alternative right now for those with money but I'm not sure it can replace the grid for the foreseeable future.

.

I believe you are correct- I don't see the grid going anywhere soon. We are on a well, have a septic tank, and use propane for the stovetop, so for us off-grid would just mean electricity. The big question for me is not so much cost up front as it is, will I live long enough and stay in this house long enough for us to at least break even? We would have to stay put for at least 10 to 15 years and I'm not convinced I want to do that. In the right location, I think it would be a great idea.

But no, this is not for everyone. I think solar energy will continue to grow, but not likely to the point of replacing the grid altogether.

I've never heard of a solar panel fire. But now that you mention it, I would look to make sure of safety issues that way. I'm guessing bad wiring in regular electrical conditions are far more common than solar panel fires.

Lerxst1992 · October 2019

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

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-grid/

brianlux · October 2019

Lerxst1992 said:

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

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-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.

Lerxst1992 · October 2019

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

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

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-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.

brianlux · October 2019

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

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

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-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.

rhanishane · October 2019

looks like storm brewing outside. ... nope just a huge bushfire😕

brianlux · October 2019

rhanishane said:

looks like storm brewing outside. ... nope just a huge bushfire😕

Emilio Esteves recently said (twice) in "The Public" movie Q&A, "The world is on fire-- both literally and figuratively." It so true. :-(

rhanishane · October 2019

brianlux said:

rhanishane said:

looks like storm brewing outside. ... nope just a huge bushfire😕

Emilio Esteves recently said (twice) in "The Public" movie Q&A, "The world is on fire-- both literally and figuratively." It so true. :-(

yep were on alert at the moment has now burnt 2,200 hectares of native bushland. They have 3 days to contain it before the hot windy weather hits. They sky was glowing red last night. Not much sleep had.

benjs · October 2019

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

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

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-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.

brianlux · October 2019

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

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

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-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.

benjs · October 2019

brianlux said:

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

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

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-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.

Lerxst1992 · October 2019

benjs said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

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

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/inertia-frequency-regulation-and-the-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.

Wildfire(s) Out West

Comments

Categories